2017/01/10 City Council Resolution 2017-008RESOLUTION NO. 2017-008
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROHNERT PARK
CALIFORNIA APPROVING THE MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR
THE RESIDENCES AT FIVE CREEK PROJECT AND CITY PUBLIC SAFETY AND
PUBLIC WORKS FACILITIES (APN 143-040-124)
WHEREAS, MJW Investments, LLC, filed Planning Application No. PLDV2016-0001
proposing a General Plan Amendment, an amendment to the Stadium Area Master Plan (a Planned
Development), adoption of a Final Development Plan (including a related Conditional Use
Permit), a Development Agreement and Planning Application No. PLEN 2016-0003 for the
related certification of a Mitigated Negative Declaration ("MND") and Planning Application No.
PLSD2016-0001 proposing a Tentative Map for a proposed project, which includes the site of the
proposed City Public Safety/Public Works Facilities, on a 15.25 acre parcel located at 5900 Labath
Avenue (APN 143-040-124) (the "Project"), in accordance with the City of Rohnert Park
Municipal Code ("RPMC"); and
WHEREAS, the City of Rohnert Park proposes future construction of a Public Safety and
Public works facilities on 2.97 acres of the 15.25 acre parcel located at 5900 Labath Avenue (APN
143-040-124); and
WHEREAS, Planning Application No. PLEN16-0003 was processed in the time and
manner prescribed by State and local law; and
WHEREAS, an Initial Study was prepared and on the basis of that study, it was determined
that the Project, including the proposed City Public Safety/Public Works Facilities, would not have
a significant adverse effect on the environment with implementation of mitigation measures, and
a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) was prepared and circulated for public review for a 30
day period from November 8, 2016 to December 8, 2016; and
WHEREAS, Section 21000, et. Seq., of the Public Resources Code and Section 15000, et.
Seq., of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations (the "CEQA Guidelines"), which govern
the preparation, content and processing of Negative Declarations, have been fully implemented in
the preparation of the Mitigated Negative Declaration.
WHEREAS, pursuant to California State Laws and the City of Rohnert Park Municipal
Code (RPMC), a public hearing notice for the Project was mailed to all property owners within a
300 foot radius of the subject property and to all agencies and interested parties as required by
California State Planning Law, and a public hearing notice was published in the Community Voice
for a minimum of 10 days prior to the first public hearing; and
WHEREAS, on December 8, 2016 the Planning Commission reviewed Planning
Application No. PLEN16-0003 during a scheduled public meeting at which time interested persons
had an opportunity to testify regarding the proposed MND, closed the public hearing on the MND,
and continued Planning Commission deliberation on the MND to December 22, 2016 ; and
2017-008
WHEREAS, at the December 22, 2016 public meeting the Planning Commission of the
City of Rohnert Park reviewed and considered the information contained in the Initial Study and
Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Project, which is attached to this resolution as Exhibit l;
and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission voted 4-0 to recommend approval of the MND;
and
WHEREAS, on January 10, 2017, the City Council held a public hearing at which time
interested persons had an opportunity to testify either in support or opposition of the MND; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed and considered the information contained in
the Initial Study and MND; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Rohnert
Park makes the following findings, determinations, and recommendations with respect to the
MND:
Section 1. The above recitations are true and correct.
Section 2. Findings Regarding the Mitigated Negative Declaration. The City Council
of the City of Rohnert Park makes the following findings, determinations and recommendations
with respect to the Mitigated Negative Declaration for the proposed Project, which includes the
City Public Safety/Public Works Facilities:
The City Council has independently reviewed, analyzed and considered the
Mitigated Negative Declaration and all written documentation and public
comments prior to approval of the proposed Project; and
2. An Initial Study was prepared for the Project, and on the basis of substantial
evidence in the whole record, there is no substantial evidence that the Project will
have a significant effect on the environment, therefore a Mitigated Negative
Declaration has been prepared which reflects the lead agency's independent
judgment and analysis.
The Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared, publicized, circulated and
reviewed in compliance with the provisions of CEQA Guidelines; and
The Mitigated Negative Declaration constitutes an adequate, accurate, objective
and complete Mitigated Negative Declaration in compliance with all legal
standards; and
The documents and other materials, including without limitation, staff reports,
memoranda, maps, letters and minutes of all relevant meetings, which constitute
and administrative record of proceedings upon which the Commission's resolution
is based are located at the City of Rohnert Park, City Clerk, 130 Avram Ave.,
Rohnert Park, CA 94928. The custodian of records is the City Clerk.
2017-008
Section 3. Adoption of the Mitigated Negative Declaration. The City Council of the
City of Rohnert Park finds that approval of the Project would not result in any significant effects
on the environment with implementation of mitigation measures identified in the Mitigated
Negative Declaration and the City Council does hereby approve and adopt the Mitigated Negative
Declaration and Initial Study set forth in Exhibit 1 and direct the filing of a Notice of Determination
with the County Clerk; and
Section 4. The City Council of City of Rohnert Park hereby adopts the Mitigation,
Monitoring and Report Program, attached as Exhibit 2 to this resolution to provide mitigation
required under Section 15091 of the CEQA Guidelines for significant effects of the Project.
DULY AND REGULARLY ADOPTED on this 10th day of January, 2017.
CITY OF ROHNERT PARK
Jake M kenzie, Mayor
Caitlin Saldanha, Deputy City Clerk
Attachments: Exhibit 1 and Exhibit 2
AHANOTU: @ BELEORTE: T CALLINAN: STAFFORD: 40 MACKENZIE:
AYES: ( ) NOES: ( 0) ABSENT: ( 0) ABSTAIN: ( 0 )
2017-008
INITIAL STUDY
STADIUM AREA MASTER PLAN AMENDMENT
RESIDENCES AT FIVE CREEK AND
CITY PUBLIC SAFETY / PUBLIC WORKS FACILITIES
City of Rohnert Park
Development Services
130 Avram Avenue
Rohnert Park, CA 94928-2486
NOVEMBER 2016
Printed on 30% post-consumer recycled material.
Initial Study
Residences at Five Creek and Public Safety / Public Works Facilities
i November 2016
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section Page No.
1 INTRODUCTION..............................................................................................................1
1.1 Project Overview and Location .............................................................................. 1
1.2 California Environmental Quality Act Compliance ............................................... 1
1.3 Public Review Process ............................................................................................ 1
2 INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST ......................................................................................3
2.1 Aesthetics .............................................................................................................. 21
2.2 Agriculture and Forestry Resources...................................................................... 25
2.3 Air Quality ............................................................................................................ 27
2.4 Biological Resources ............................................................................................ 41
2.5 Cultural Resources ................................................................................................ 46
2.6 Geology and Soils ................................................................................................. 49
2.7 Greenhouse Gas Emissions ................................................................................... 53
2.8 Hazards and Hazardous Materials ........................................................................ 66
2.9 Hydrology and Water Quality ............................................................................... 71
2.10 Land Use and Planning ......................................................................................... 79
2.11 Mineral Resources ................................................................................................ 81
2.12 Noise ..................................................................................................................... 82
2.13 Population and Housing ........................................................................................ 91
2.14 Public Services ...................................................................................................... 92
2.15 Recreation ............................................................................................................. 95
2.16 Transportation and Traffic .................................................................................... 96
2.17 Utilities and Service Systems.............................................................................. 110
2.18 Mandatory Findings of Significance ................................................................... 115
3 REFERENCES AND PREPARERS ............................................................................117
3.1 References Cited ................................................................................................. 117
APPENDICES
A Residences at Five Creek Final Development Plan
B Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Calculations
C Traffic Impact Study
D Preliminary Jurisdictional Delineation
FIGURES
1 Regional Location Map........................................................................................................5
Initial Study
TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONTINUED)
Page No.
Residences at Five Creek and Public Safety / Public Works Facilities
ii November 2016
2 Aerial Photo Map .................................................................................................................6
3 Residences at Five Creek Conceptual Site Plan ..................................................................9
4 City Public Safety / Public Works Facilities Conceptual Site Plan ...................................11
5 SAMP Land Use Map ........................................................................................................16
TABLES
Table 2.3-1 Average Daily Construction Emissions......................................................................32
Table 2.3-2 Daily Operational Emissions ......................................................................................33
Table 2.3-3 Construction-Related Health Risk ..............................................................................36
Table 2.3-4 Cumulative Health Impacts ........................................................................................37
Table 2.7-1 Estimated Annual Unmitigated Operational Greenhouse Gas Emissions ..................57
Table 2.7-2 Estimated Annual Mitigated (Pre-Offsets) Operational Greenhouse Gas
Emissions ...........................................................................................................................58
Table 2.7-3 Project Consistency with Scoping Plan GHG Emission Reduction
Strategies ............................................................................................................................59
Table 2.12-1 Long-Term Measured Levels (dBA) ........................................................................83
Table 2.12- 2 Measured Traffic Sound Levels ..............................................................................84
Table 2.12-3: Distances to Receivers .............................................................................................86
Table 2.12-4 Vibration Velocities for Typical Construction Equipment ......................................87
Table 2.16-1 Intersection Level of Service Criteria .....................................................................100
Table 2.16-2 Existing Peak Hour Intersection Levels of Service ................................................102
Table 2.16-3 Baseline Peak Hour Intersection Levels of Service ...............................................102
Table 2.16-4 Trip Generation Summary ......................................................................................103
Table 2.16-5 Trip Generation Comparison ..................................................................................104
Table 2.16-6 Trip Distribution Assumptions for New Trips .......................................................105
Table 2.16-7 Existing and Existing Plus Project Peak Hour Intersection Levels of
Service..............................................................................................................................105
Table 2.16-8 Baseline and Baseline plus Project Peak Hour Intersection Levels of
Service..............................................................................................................................106
Initial Study
Residences at Five Creek and Public Safety / Public Works Facilities
iii November 2016
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Initial Study
Residences at Five Creek and Public Safety / Public Works Facilities
1 November 2016
1 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Project Overview and Location
The proposed amendment to the Stadium Area Master Plan (SAMP) Final Development Plan
includes changes associated with two proposed development projects within the Plan area: the
Residences at Five Creek and the City Public Safety / Public Works facilities (collectively
referred to as the “proposed project”).
The proposed project site is located in Rohnert Park, Sonoma County, California. The proposed
project would be located on one 15.30 acres parcel (Assessor Parcel Number (APN) 143-040-
124) within the SAMP area, bounded by Dowdell Avenue to the east, Labath Avenue to the
west, Carlson Avenue to the north, and Hinebaugh Creek to the south. The northern portion of
the site includes plans for the Residences at Five Creek, which proposes to include 135
multifamily residential units, 34,400 square feet (sf) of commercial space, a 132-room hotel, and
a 0.65-acre park. The southern portion of the site includes plans for a new City of Rohnert Park
Public Safety facility (fire station) and Public Works corporation yard.
1.2 California Environmental Quality Act Compliance
This Initial Study has been prepared per the requirements of the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA) of 1970 (Public Resources Code [PRC] Section 21000, et seq.), and the
CEQA Guidelines (California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Section 15000 et seq.).
1.3 Public Review Process
The Initial Study and the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration will be circulated for public
review for a period of 30 days, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15073(a). The City of
Rohnert Park will provide public notice at the beginning of the public review period.
Initial Study
Residences at Five Creek and Public Safety / Public Works Facilities
2 November 2016
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Initial Study
Residences at Five Creek and Public Safety / Public Works Facilities
3 November 2016
2 INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST
Project title:
The Residences at Five Creek and City Public Safety / Public Works Facilities
Lead agency name and address:
City of Rohnert Park
Development Services
130 Avram Avenue
Rohnert Park, CA 94928-2486
Contact person and phone number:
Jeffrey Beiswenger, Planning Manager
(707) 588-2253
Project location:
Labath Avenue/Martin Avenue, Rohnert Park, CA
APN: APN 143-040-124
Project sponsor’s name and address:
MW Investments LLC
1278 Glenneyre Street, Suite 439
Laguna Beach, CA 92651
City of Rohnert Park
130 Avram Ave
Rohnert Park, CA 94928-2486
General plan and zoning designations:
Project Parcel General Plan Designation Zoning
Existing Proposed Existing Proposed
Residences at Five
Creek Site
APN 143-040-124
(12.5 acres +/-)
Regional Commercial Regional
Commercial;
High Density
Residential; and
Parks/Recreation
Planned
Development
Planned
Development
City Public
Safety/Public Works
Facilities Site
APN 143-040-124
(3.0 acres +/-)
Public/Institutional Public/Institutional Planned
Development
Planned
Development
Initial Study
Residences at Five Creek and Public Safety / Public Works Facilities
4 November 2016
Description of project and environmental setting:
The proposed project would amend the Stadium Area Master Plan (SAMP) Final
Development Plan to include changes associated with two proposed development projects
within the Plan area: the Residences at Five Creek and the City Public Safety / Public
Works facilities (collectively referred to as the “proposed project”). Details related to the
proposed project components are provided below.
Project Location and Site Characteristics
As shown on Figure 1 Regional Location Map, the project site is located within the
City of Rohnert Park, Sonoma County, California. The project parcel is approximately
15.30 acres within the 32.80-acre SAMP area. The SAMP Final Development Plan,
adopted by the City of Rohnert Park in February 2008 and amended in 2013, provides
standards for development within the 32.80-acre SAMP area, which is located in the
northwest corner of the City.
The project parcel is composed of two related project sites. The Residences at Five Creek
site is approximately 12.60 acres total located west of Highway 101, bounded by Carlson
Avenue on the north, Labath Avenue on the west, the extension of Martin Avenue on the
south, and Dowdell Avenue on the east. The Residences at Five Creek site is mostly
vacant and undeveloped land, except for a small, paved parking lot and planter strip
located along a portion of the western site boundary (adjacent to Labath Avenue). The
City Public Safety and Public Works site is approximately 3.0 acres is size located
immediately south of the Residences at Five Creek site and north of Hinebaugh Creek, is
also comprised of vacant, undeveloped land. Figure 2 Aerial Photo Map provides aerial
imagery of the proposed project site. The entire project site is generally flat, sloping
slightly to the southwest. The proposed project includes a subdivision to create a
separate parcel for the City Public Safety and Public Works site.
Surrounding Land Uses and Setting:
The project site is located in the northwest portion of the City in an area predominately
characterized by existing commercial and industrial/business uses. The site is located
west of Highway 101, bounded by Carlson Avenue on the north, Labath Avenue on the
west, Hinebaugh Creek on the south, and Dowdell Avenue on the east. The site is located
adjacent to Costco, Ashley Furniture and KRCB Public Radio Station.
Date: 8/10/2016 - Last saved by: rstrobridge - Path: Z:\Projects\j981000\MAPDOC\DOCUMENT\ResidencesAtFiveCreek\Figure1_Regional.mxd?116
£¤101
Regional Map
City of Rohnert ParkThe Residences at Five Creek & City Public Safety Project
SOURCE: USGS 7.5-Minute Series Cotati Quadrangle
0 2,0001,000 Feetn Project Boundary
FIGURE 1
Marin County
Sonoma Count
y
Na
p
a
C
o
u
n
t
y
So
n
o
m
a
C
o
u
n
t
y
St.
Helena
Deer
Park
Petaluma
Occidental
Santa
Rosa
Rohnert
Park
South
Santa Rosa
South
Santa
Rosa
Forestville
Larkfield-
Wikiup
Windsor
£¤101
?12
?1
?116
Project Site
!^
Project Site
Project Site
City of Rohnert ParkThe Residences at Five Creek & City Public Safety Project
SOURCE: Bing Maps (2016)Date: 8/10/2016 - Last saved by: rstrobridge - Path: Z:\Projects\j981000\MAPDOC\DOCUMENT\ResidencesAtFiveCreek\Figure2_Aerial.mxd0 200100Feetn
Project Boundary
Site Development Boundary
FIGURE 2
Initial Study
Residences at Five Creek and Public Safety / Public Works Facilities
7 November 2016
Background Documents and Plans:
Stadium Area Master Plan Final Development Area Plan and EIR
In 2008, the City of Rohnert Park City Council adopted the SAMP Final Development
Plan that provided standards for development within the 29.8-acre SAMP area. Land uses
within the boundaries of the 2008 SAMP included: High Density Residential (12-24
units/acre), Commercial-Regional, and Parks/Recreation.
An Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was prepared for the SAMP (SCH#
2005042111). The EIR evaluated the programmatic impacts of Plan adoption and was
certified by the City Council in June 2008. Several mitigation measures included in the
adopted EIR are required to be implemented as projects develop within the Plan area.
Components of the EIR and applicable mitigation measures are discussed within this
Initial Study.
Amended in 2013 to include an additional 3.0-acre parcel for development of high
density residential units, the total development area within the SAMP currently stands at
32.8 acres. The 2013 amendment also included changes to allow for future development
of a new City of Rohnert Park Department of Public Safety facility on approximately 3.0-
acre parcel within the SAMP. The site designation for the Public Safety facility was
amended from Regional Commercial to Public/Institutional. Mitigated Negative
Declarations (MNDs) were prepared to evaluate the changes associated with the 2013
amendments and the amendments were approved by the City Council in November 2013.
One housing project, the Fiori Estates 244 apartment complex project has been completed
since approval of SAMP amendments in 2013. A second housing project, The Reserve 84
unit apartment complex is currently under construction and nearing completion. Both
apartment complexes are located north of Hinebaugh Creek, south of Business Park
Drive, west of Costco and east of Labath Avenue.
Project Characteristics
As previously mentioned, the proposed project would include amendments to the SAMP
to include changes associated with the Residences at Five Creek development and the
City Public Safety / Public Works development. The proposed project would also include
a General Plan Amendment to designate additional High Density Residential land in the
SAMP area (currently designated Commercial - Regional) to allow for the additional
residential development. The Residences at Five Creek development would include
multifamily residential units, commercial land uses, a hotel, and a neighborhood park.
The Public Safety facility, which would be constructed on the southern site, includes
Initial Study
Residences at Five Creek and Public Safety / Public Works Facilities
8 November 2016
plans for a future City of Rohnert Park Public Safety facility, as anticipated in the SAMP,
and relocation of the City’s Public Works offices and corporation yard. Additional details
related to these developments are provided in the subsequent paragraphs.
Residences at Five Creek: The Residences at Five Creek project applicant, MW
Investments LLC, is proposing a mixed use development consisting of a 132-room hotel,
34,300 square feet (sf) of retail and commercial uses, approximately 135 multi-family
residential units, and a 0.65-acre public park on the roughly 12.50-acre parcel. Figure 3
Residences at Five Creek Conceptual Site Plan shows the proposed layout for land
uses within the project site. As shown on the site plan, the hotel would be located in the
southwestern corner of the parcel, adjacent to Labath Avenue and the extension of Martin
Avenue extension. The retail and commercial uses would be located adjacent to Dowdell
Avenue and Martin Avenue. The multi-family residential apartment complex would be in
the northern half of the parcel, adjacent to Carlson Avenue and extending from Labath
Avenue to Dowdell Avenue. The park would be located parallel to Carlson Avenue in the
northeastern corner of the parcel. The following provides a summary of each of the
proposed land uses for the Residences at Five Creek project:
Hotel: A 132-room hotel would be constructed on approximately 2.5 acres of the
parcel. The building footprint is approximately 30,000 sf and the total building
area would be approximately 75,721 sf. The hotel is proposed to be 4 stories in
height. The maximum height limit in the Regional Commercial zone is 65 feet.
139 parking spaces would be provided to satisfy the City’s parking requirement of
102 spaces total.
Commercial: The commercial retail area would be developed on approximately
3.4 acres of the parcel. The total proposed building area is a one-story in height
and 34,300 sf. 125 parking spaces would be provided to satisfy the City’s parking
requirement of 106 spaces.
High Density Residential: The 135-unit multi-family development would be
located on approximately 6.1 acres of the parcel, for a density of 22.2 dwelling
units per acre. 55 of the units would be one-bedroom, 74 would be two-bedrooms,
and 6 would be three-bedrooms. Buildings are proposed to be three-stories. The
maximum height limit in the Residential – High Density zone is 45 feet. A 4,000
sf community building is proposed to be centrally located within the complex.
252 parking spaces are proposed to satisfy the City’s parking requirement of
251.8 spaces total.
Residences at Five Creek Site Plan
FIGURE 3
The Residences at Five Creek & City Public Safety Project
SOURCE: ktgy Architecture + Planning (2016)Z:\Projects\981000/MAPDOC\DOCUMENT\ResidencesAtFiveCreek\Figure3_SitePlan.aiCity of Rohnert Park
Initial Study
Residences at Five Creek and Public Safety / Public Works Facilities
10 November 2016
Park: The 0.65-acre park would be located in the northeast corner of the project
site, adjacent to Carlson Avenue and a portion of the proposed multifamily
residential units. Amenities proposed for the park include two bocce ball courts
and a pavilion barbeque area.
Access to the project site would be provided from Dowdell Avenue, Carlson Avenue,
Labath Avenue and a proposed extension of Martin Avenue that would span from
Dowdell Avenue to Labath Avenue. The project includes the completion of frontage
improvements on Carlson Avenue. The Project would not reconfigure any existing
roadways. Parallel parking would be provided on both sides of the Martin Avenue
extension. On-street parking would also be available on Labath Avenue and Carlson
Avenue.
The Residences at Five Creek site would be constructed in two phases, with the hotel,
residential apartments, and park developing first, followed by the commercial portion.
Construction for the first phase of the project would be expected to take 12 months, and
the second phase of construction would be completed approximately 6 months thereafter,
although construction phasing could be extended. Heavy construction equipment would
be required to form the drive aisles, parking lots, and building pads proposed throughout
the site. The project would require the over excavation and recompaction of the first two
feet of soil over the site, requiring approximately 40,800 cubic yards of earthwork.
Earthwork would be balanced on-site. Staging for construction equipment will occur on
the project site.
City Public Safety/ Public Works Facilities: The City is proposing to construct a new
Public Safety facility (fire station) and Public Works offices and corporation yard on the
approximately 3.0-acre site located immediately south of Martin Avenue and the site of
the proposed Residences at Five Creek development. The undeveloped site is zoned for
public facilities in the SAMP. Figure 4 City Public Safety / Public Works Facilities
Conceptual Site Plan shows the preliminary proposed site layout.
Public Safety Facility: This facility would include an approximately 7,500 sf
building comprised of approximately 3,000 sf for fire truck bays and
approximately 3,500 for a “residential” living area for staff. The facility would
also include approximately 3,000 sf of training area. The training area would
consist of stairs and other props for firefighter training drills.
The station would include three full fire truck bays designed to hold at least one
aerial apparatus and two pumper trucks along with other vehicles. A gasoline and
diesel fueling station for fire trucks and other vehicles would be shared with the
The Residences at Five Creek & City Public Safety Project
SOURCE: City of Rohnert Park Development Services (2016)
Public Safety/Public Works Facility Site Plan
FIGURE 4
City of Rohnert Park
Initial Study
Residences at Five Creek and Public Safety / Public Works Facilities
12 November 2016
Public Works corporation yard. The fire station would have up to four full- time
firefighters occupying it at all times. The “residential” part of the fire station
would function like a house on the inside and is where the staff would be
stationed. There would be up to four bathrooms, four bedrooms, a full kitchen, a
gym, a patio area, and a living room area.
The entire facility would have a backup generator onsite for power
outages, as well as a data center with the city’s backup servers.
Public Works Facilities: The proposed Public Works facilities would
accommodate 60 employees and include the following uses (note: all building
sizes/areas are approximate):
• Administration building (approximately 6,400 sf): The administrative
building would contain the Public Works administrative offices.
• Warehouse (approximately 8,060 sf): The warehouse would store parts for
public work’s various repairs/ maintenance work. The warehouse would
have roll up doors for commercial grade trucks to make deliveries on a
regular basis. There would also be some vehicle storage in the warehouse
while vehicles wait to be serviced by the maintenance shop.
• Maintenance shop/ wood shop/ metal shop (approximately 9,000 sf): The
maintenance shop services all of the City vehicles, and would have a
service pit for changing oil. Attached to it would be a wood and metal
shop, where welding and woodcutting would take place.
• Hazardous materials storage area (approximately 2,500 sf): There would
also a storage area designated to covered hazardous material storage, such
as paint, pesticide, and cleaner
• Equipment shed/ storage (approximately 2,500 sf): A storage shed for
lawn mowing equipment, tractors, etc. would also potentially be located
onsite.
• There corporation yard would also include covered and open parking for
up to 100 vehicles.
Water: The project would tie into the City water system to serve domestic and fire
protection demands. Existing water mains are located in the streets adjacent to the project
site. Labath Avenue contains an existing 8-inch water main, which currently has three 8-
inch lines stubbed into the project. A 12-inch water main was installed in Dowdell
Avenue with the construction of the Fiori Estates project to the north. The water main in
Dowdell Avenue connects to an existing 12-inch main in Martin Avenue. The main in
Martin Avenue ends just outside the project limits, at the existing edge of pavement at the
Initial Study
Residences at Five Creek and Public Safety / Public Works Facilities
13 November 2016
westerly end of Martin Avenue. A 12-inch water main was installed in Carlson Avenue
with the construction of The Reserve at Dowdell project to the northeast. The water main
in Carlson Avenue ties into the water main within Dowdell Avenue. As part of the
project, the 12-inch water main in Carlson Avenue would be extended to the existing 8-
inch water main in Labath Avenue, providing a looped water system around the project.
Recycled Water: The project would tie into the City recycled water system to serve
irrigation demands. There are existing recycled water mains in the public streets adjacent
to the project. Labath Avenue contains an existing 8-inch recycled water main, with a 4-
inch lateral stubbed into the project. Also, a 2-inch service line currently serves irrigation
needs for the existing parking lot in the northwest corner of the project. An 8-inch
recycled water main was installed within Dowdell Avenue with the construction of the
Fiori Estates project to the north.
New services would be required to serve irrigation demands for the hotel, retail,
residential dwelling units, and the public park.
Wastewater: To serve wastewater demands, the project would tie into the existing City
sanitary sewer system in the public streets adjacent to the site. Labath Avenue contains an
existing 6-inch sanitary sewer directing effluent in a northerly direction. Carlson Avenue
has an existing 6-inch sanitary sewer that connects into the system in Labath Avenue. An
8-inch sanitary sewer system was installed within Dowdell Avenue with the construction
of the Fiori Estates project to the north. This system ties into an existing 8-inch system
within Martin Avenue, which flows easterly to a trunk sewer within Redwood Drive.
Two, 6-inch sanitary sewer laterals were stubbed into the project property from the
Dowdell system as part of the Fiori Estates project, which considered future flows from
this project site as tributary to this system. There are also 6-inch sanitary sewer laterals
stubbed into the project from Labath Avenue.
Stormwater: The project would require the construction of a new system to drain on-
site runoff. This system would require a new 36” storm water outfall to Hinebaugh Creek,
just west of the existing Labath Avenue Bridge. The line would run south of the project
site then west across Labath Avenue just north of the Hinebaugh creek trail. New
manholes would be constructed in Labath Avenue and another constructed in the
Hinebaugh Creek trail approximately 20 feet west of Labath Avenue. The 36” storm
water line would then extend underground from the creek trail manhole to a concrete
collar. From the collar, the storm water line would slope underground at approximately a
0.5% grade to the outfall location, where it daylights into the creek. The invert of the
outfall is approximately 12” above the creek bottom.
Initial Study
Residences at Five Creek and Public Safety / Public Works Facilities
14 November 2016
Construction of the storm water outfall area would consist of keying in riprap underneath
and in front of the outfall location to dissipate high flows prior to entering the channel.
Directly above the riprap and below the outfall pipe, a gravel sand substrate would be
installed for low flow infiltration into the channel. Native backfill would be placed over
the pipe once the outfall is constructed to return the channel to its original configuration.
The small area of the creek slope that would be affected by the outfall and pipe
construction would have an erosion mat placed on the topsoil. Seed for grasses would be
established on top of the erosion mat, bringing the area disturbed during construction
back to its original state.
The new storm drain system would be designed to accept runoff from 15.25 acres of the
Residence at Five Creek site, the City Public Safety and Public Works site, and one
additional adjacent parcel, for a total tributary area of 17.08 acres. The storm drain
system would be designed to accommodate the 10-year storm event.
In addition to flood control, the City of Rohnert Park has adopted the City of Santa Rosa
and County of Sonoma Storm Water Low Impact Design Technical Design Manual to
address stormwater runoff quality and quantity from new development and
redevelopment projects. To meet the design goal, the project would include gravel
storage zones under vegetated areas within the site. CalGreen requirements would require
a certain percentage of the Residence at Five Creek high density residential apartment
complex to be paved with permeable materials, potentially allowing for additional runoff
storage under the parking lot. The total volume of storage required for the project would
be reduced based on the use of pollution prevention measures such as interceptor trees,
impervious area disconnection, and vegetated buffers.
Sustainability Features: The project would include the following energy, water
conservation, and solid waste diversion features to minimize greenhouse gas emissions
and to promote more sustainable practices:
• The project would comply with current Title 24, Part 6, of the California Code of
Regulations energy efficiency standards for electrical appliances and other devices
at the time of building construction. The project would use high-efficiency LED
lighting for outdoor areas.
• The project would comply with current Title 24, Part 6, of the California Code of
Regulations energy efficiency standards for natural gas appliances and other
devices at the time of building construction.
• The project would comply with CALGreen Tier 1 and result in reduced indoor and
outdoor water use by 20%.
Initial Study
Residences at Five Creek and Public Safety / Public Works Facilities
15 November 2016
• The project would be required to be constructed in compliance with state or local
green building standards in effect at the time of building construction.
• During both construction and operation of the project, the project would comply
with all state regulations related to solid waste generation, storage, and disposal,
including the California Integrated Waste Management Act, as amended. During
construction, all wastes would be recycled to the maximum extent possible.
Entitlements and required approvals:
The project would require the following approvals:
• General Plan Amendment;
• Amendment to Stadium Area Master Plan (Planned Development);
• Final Development Plan for the Residences at Five Creek;
• Development Agreement for the Residences at Five Creek;
• Tentative Map;
• Site Plan and Architectural Review;
• Conditional Use Permits;
• Section 404 Permit (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers) and Section 401 Water
Quality Certification (Regional Water Quality Control Board; and
• Section 1602 Streambed Alteration Agreement (California Department of Fish
and Wildlife)
General Plan Amendment
The project proposes to amend the City of Rohnert Park General Plan Diagram (General
Plan Figure 2.2-1) to change the land use designation of the Residences at Five Creek
parcel from Regional Commercial to Regional Commercial, High Density Residential,
and Parks/Recreation.
SAMP Final Development Plan Amendment
Currently, the SAMP land use designation for the 12.70-acre Residences at Five Creek
site is Regional Commercial. While this designation would allow for the hotel and
commercial development, it would not allow for the proposed multifamily residential
units or the park. To allow for the project as proposed, the SAMP would be amended to
include High Density Residential and Parks/Recreation designations within the
Residences at Five Creek site. As shown in Figure 5 SAMP Land Use Map, the project
proposes to retain the Regional Commercial designation on 5.9 acres in the southern
portion of the site. The project would add the High Density Residential land use
designation to approximately 6.03 acres in the northern portion of the site and add the
Hinebaugh Creek
Martin Ave
Redwood DrCarlson Ave
Labath AveDowdell AveCarlson Ct
Martin
A
v
e
SAMP Land Use
City of Rohnert ParkThe Residences at five Creek & City Public Safety Project
SOURCE: City of Rohnert Park (2011)Date: 9/22/2016 - Last saved by: rstrobridge - Path: Z:\Projects\j981000\MAPDOC\DOCUMENT\ResidencesAtFiveCreek\Figure5_SAMPLandUse.mxd0 300150Feet
FIGURE 5
Residences at Five Creek Site
Public Safety/Public Works Facility Site
Hinebaugh Creek
Martin Ave
Redwood DrCarlson Ave
Labath AveDowdell AveCarlson Ct
Martin
A
v
e
0 300150Feet
Stadium Area BoundaryParks/RecreationHigh Density ResidentialRegional CommercialPublic/InstitutionalIndustrial
Stadium Area BoundaryParks/RecreationHigh Density ResidentialRegional CommercialPublic/InstitutionalIndustrial
Existing Land Use Proposed Land Use
Initial Study
Residences at Five Creek and Public Safety / Public Works Facilities
17 November 2016
Parks/Recreation designation to the approximately 0.65 acres located in the northeastern
corner of the site.
In addition to the proposed SAMP land use map amendments, the project would also
require an amendment to the text of the SAMP to allow for an increased number of
residential units within the Plan area. Currently, the SAMP permits a maximum of 338
housing units. Combined, the existing Fiori Estates and Reserve apartment complexes
(both also within the SAMP) account for 328 of those 338 allowable units. The addition
of the proposed 135 multifamily units would result in 125 units over what is currently
allowed in the SAMP. Accordingly, the SAMP would be amended to allow for up to a
total of 463 residential units.
Additional minor text amendments to the SAMP document would also be required for
internal consistency and to update outdated information.
Residences at Five Creek Final Development Plan
In accordance with the City of Rohnert Park Zoning Code 17.06. Article VII, the purpose
of a “PD” Planned Development Zoning District is to set forth the standards for the
development of a Final Development Plan. The Residences at Five Creek Final
Development Plan would provide the specific development standards for the 12.70 acre
site. The proposed Development Plan is included as Appendix A.
Residences at Five Creek Development Agreement
The City and project proponent have prepared a Development Agreement, which
memorializes the manner in which the Project will be developed, constructed, completed
and used, as more fully set forth in this Initial Study as well as other project approvals.
The Development Agreement includes, among other things, requirements to ensure that
the developer begins constructing the hotel concurrently with residential development
and that the hotel receives a certificate of occupancy prior to the issuance of a certificate
of occupancy for any residential development. The Development Agreement also
requires the developer to implement a public services payment of $800 per residential
unit, adjusted by the Consumer Price Index, for the purpose of mitigating the costs of the
residential development on the City and pay a one-time affordable housing payment of
$50,000. The DA obligates the developer to deliver an improved 0.65 acre park to the
City. In addition, the agreement includes the requirement for the developer to purchase
Greenhouse Gas Emission Offset Credits to mitigate the impacts of the project on
greenhouse gases.
Tentative Map
Initial Study
Residences at Five Creek and Public Safety / Public Works Facilities
18 November 2016
The project includes a tentative map that would subdivide the proposed project parcel
into five parcels. Parcel 1 (park) would be 0.65 acres, Parcel 2 (residential) would be 6.0
acres (+/-), Parcel 3 (hotel) would be 2.5(+/-0 acres, Parcel 4 (retail) would be 3.4 acres
(+/-), and Parcel 5 (City facilities) would be 3.0 acres (+/-).
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project,
involving at least one impact that is a “Potentially Significant Impact,” as indicated by the
checklist on the following pages.
Aesthetics Agriculture and
Forestry Resources Air Quality
Biological Resources Cultural Resources Geology and Soils
Greenhouse Gas
Emissions Hazards and
Hazardous Materials Hydrology and
Water Quality
Land Use and Planning Mineral Resources Noise
Population and Housing Public Services Recreation
Transportation and Traffic Utilities and
Service Systems Mandatory Findings
of Significance
DETERMINATION: (To be completed by the Lead Agency)
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment,
and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment,
there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been
made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE
DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
Initial Study
Residences at Five Creek and Public Safety / Public Works Facilities
19 November 2016
I find that the proposed project MAY have a “potentially significant impact” or “potentially
significant unless mitigated” impact on the environment, but at least one effect (1) has been
adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and (2)
has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on
attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze
only the effects that remain to be addressed.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment,
because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to
applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including
revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further
is required.
Signature
Date
ENVIRONMENTAL BASELINE:
The 15.3 acres that comprise the Residences at Five Creek and City Public Safety/Public Works
Facilities site is vacant and undeveloped land, with the exception of a small, paved parking lot
and planter strip located along a portion of the western site boundary (adjacent to Labath
Avenue). The site is disturbed as previously it was location of a stadium and associated facilities.
All of the previous stadium features have been removed from the project site. The focus of this
environmental review is the evaluation between the current conditions of the project area which
are undeveloped and unused, and the increased density arising from the project as proposed as
described in the Project Characteristics above.
EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS:
A brief explanation is required for all answers except “No Impact” answers that are adequately
supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each
question. A “No Impact” answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources
show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g., the project
falls outside a fault rupture zone). A “No Impact” answer should be explained where it is based
on project-specific factors as well as general standards (e.g., the project will not expose sensitive
receptors to pollutants, based on a project-specific screening analysis).
Initial Study
Residences at Five Creek and Public Safety / Public Works Facilities
20 November 2016
All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well as on-site,
cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as
operational impacts.
Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the
checklist answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant
with mitigation, or less than significant. “Potentially Significant Impact” is appropriate if there is
substantial evidence that an effect may be significant. If there are one or more “Potentially
Significant Impact” entries when the determination is made, an Environmental Impact Report
(EIR) is required.
“Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated” applies where the
incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from “Potentially Significant Impact”
to a “Less Than Significant Impact.” The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and
briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures
from “Earlier Analyses,” as described in (5) below, may be cross-referenced).
Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA
process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section
15063(c)(3)(D). In this case, a brief discussion should identify the following:
a. Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review.
b. Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above
checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier
document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such
effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis.
c. Mitigation Measures. For effects that are “Less than Significant with
Mitigation Measures Incorporated,” describe the mitigation measures which
were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to
which they address site-specific conditions for the project.
Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources
for potential impacts (e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared
or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where
the statement is substantiated.
Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used or
individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion.
This is only a suggested form, and lead agencies are free to use different formats; however, lead
agencies should normally address the questions from this checklist that are relevant to a project’s
environmental effects in whatever format is selected.
Initial Study
Residences at Five Creek and Public Safety / Public Works Facilities
21 November 2016
The explanation of each issue should identify:
d. The significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question;
and
e. The mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than
significance.
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
I. AESTHETICS – Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?
b) Substantially damage scenic resources including,
but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and
historic buildings within a state scenic highway?
c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character
or quality of the site and its surroundings?
d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare
which would adversely affect day or nighttime
views in the area?
2.1 Aesthetics
a) Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?
For purposes of this analysis, a scenic vista is defined as an expansive view of highly
valued landscape feature (e.g. a mountain range, lake or coastline) observable from a
publicly accessible vantage point. In the project vicinity, publically accessible vantage
points are limited to public roads. The project site is located in an urban area that contains
a mixture of existing regional commercial, public/institutional, and industrial uses. The
project site is comprised of vacant, graded land which is void of scenic resources and
unique natural features. The site is not designated, nor is it adjacent to, a designated
scenic vista or a state scenic highway (City of Rohnert Park, 2015). As noted in the
SAMP EIR, the Sonoma County General Plan identifies U.S. 101 and Petaluma Hill
Road as designated scenic corridors (City of Rohnert Park, 2007). However, the SAMP
area, which includes the project site, is not visible from either of those corridors.
Accordingly, development of the project would result in no impacts to scenic vistas nor
result in damage to scenic resources.
b) Would the project substantially damage scenic resources including, but not limited to,
trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway?
Initial Study
Residences at Five Creek and Public Safety / Public Works Facilities
22 November 2016
Refer to answer provided in ‘a’ above.
c) Would the project substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the
site and its surroundings?
For the purposes of this analysis, a substantial degradation of the existing visual character
or quality would occur if the project would introduce a new visible element that would be
inconsistent with the overall quality, scale, and character of the surrounding development.
As stated above, the site is located within the SAMP, a developed, urban area that
contains a mixture of existing regional commercial, residential, public/institutional, and
industrial park uses. The proposed development site is comprised of vacant, graded land.
On the Residences at Five Creek parcel, the project would amend the land use from
Regional Commercial to a combination of Regional Commercial, High Density
Residential, and Parks/Recreation land uses. The SAMP currently allows for
development of each of those types of land uses within the 32.8-acre Plan area. The
proposed location for the City Public Safety and Public Works development is currently
designated Public/Institutional in the SAMP. Thus, the proposed use of the site would be
consistent with the planned use for the site in the SAMP.
The project site is presently undeveloped with sparse vegetation. Surrounding parcels
within the SAMP support residential, industrial, commercial, and public facility land
uses. The visual and urban design character of the project site will be influenced by both
the developed uses in the area that include business park, office and commercial uses in
addition to adjacent multi-family residential complexes. The existing conditions of the
site do not provide substantial scenic value because the site is an undeveloped, generally
flat parcel with little vegetation, trees or greenery surrounded by regional commercial,
public/institutional, and light industrial buildings and development. The project would
replace the undeveloped site with new buildings, enhanced landscaping and amenities
that would complement the existing development in the direct vicinity of the project site.
The proposed site plan would provide increased unity with its surroundings by adding
buildings that comply with City standards and reflect a similar architectural design.
Therefore, while development of the project site with high density residential,
commercial, a park, and public facilities would change the visual character of the site,
such changes will not result in significant impacts to visual character.
The project site is also located adjacent to the Hinebaugh Creek corridor, which supports
riparian vegetation and trees. The project would not include alterations within the
adjacent creek area, but it would construct a new offsite storm drain outfall at Hinebaugh
Creek, west of the existing Labath Avenue Bridge. As discussed in the Project
Description and in Section 2.4 Biological Resources, upon completion of construction of
Initial Study
Residences at Five Creek and Public Safety / Public Works Facilities
23 November 2016
the storm water outfall area, native backfill would be placed over the pipe to return the
channel to its original configuration. The small area of the creek slope that would be
affected by the outfall and pipe construction would have an erosion mat placed on the
topsoil. Seed for grasses would be established on top of the erosion mat, bringing the area
disturbed during construction back to its original state. Construction of the new storm
drain outfall would not be expected to result in significant changes to the visual character
within the creek corridor.
In addition, because the project site is within the SAMP area, mitigation measures
included in the SAMP EIR designed to reduce impacts to visual character, would be
required to be implemented. Specifically, Mitigation Measures AES-1 and AES-2
(included as Mitigation Measures 4-1a and 4-1b in the SAMP EIR), which require design
review pursuant to the City’s guidelines, would ensure that the project’s impacts to the
visual character of the area remain less than significant.
d) Would the project create a new source of substantial light or glare which would
adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?
Exterior lighting will be added to the proposed buildings on a parcel of land upon which
there is currently no lighting. The project would increase nighttime lighting from
vehicles, the interior streets, parking and buildings. However, due to the urbanized nature
of the surrounding area, a significant amount of ambient nighttime lighting currently
exists, which affects nighttime views in the area. Despite that the project would
introduce new sources of light in the area, all future development on the project site must
comply with the City of Rohnert Park’s lighting and glare standards (Municipal Code
Section 17.12.050). The development agreement requires compliance with this section of
the Municipal Code. Accordingly, impacts associated with lighting and glare would be
less than significant.
Mitigation Measures
Mitigation Measure AES-1 (SAMP EIR Mitigation Measure 4-1a from the SAMP EIR)
requires that the project design conform to standards included in the City’s General Plan
Urban Design Element, the Community Design Program, and the City’s Subdivision
Design Guidelines. Mitigation Measure AES-2 (SAMP EIR Mitigation Measure 4-1b)
would ensure that during site plan and architectural review, attention would be given to
the interface between different land use types within the SAMP and building transitions
are complimentary to adjacent uses. Implementation of these measures will ensure that
the project’s design would not change or be inconsistent with the visual character within
the SAMP area.
Initial Study
Residences at Five Creek and Public Safety / Public Works Facilities
24 November 2016
Mitigation Measure AES-1 (SAMP EIR Mitigation Measure 4-1a): The planning and design of
projects constructed within the Stadium Area Master Plan shall conform to the
Community Design Element of the Rohnert Park General Plan. Conformance
review would occur prior to construction within the Project area utilizing the
General Plan Urban Design Element, the Community Design Program, and the
City’s Subdivision Design Guidelines.
Mitigation Measure AES-2 (SAMP EIR Mitigation Measure 4-1b): During the site plan and
architectural review of proposed projects pursuant to Mitigation Measure AES-1
(SAMP Mitigation Measure 4-1a), attention will be given to the interface between
the industrial, institutional, commercial, and residential uses. The building and
spaces shall be arranged to provide transition between uses that are
complimentary to adjacent uses. The building materials, colors, linkage to
sidewalks, parking placement, landscape design, and plant materials will be
selected to provide a transition between uses to compliment the new and existing
uses.
Potentially Significant Impact
Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated
Less Than Significant Impact No Impact
II. AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES – In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant
environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model
(1997) prepared by the California Department of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on
agriculture and farmland. In determining whether impacts to forest resources, including timberland, are significant
environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to information compiled by the California Department of Forestry and Fire
Protection regarding the state’s inventory of forest land, including the Forest and Range Assessment Project and the Forest
Legacy Assessment project; and forest carbon measurement methodology provided in Forest Protocols adopted by the
California Air Resources Board. Would the project:
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or
Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as
shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the
Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of
the California Resources Agency, to non-
agricultural use?
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or
a Williamson Act contract?
c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning
of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources
Code section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by
Public Resources Code section 4526), or
timberland zoned Timberland Production (as
defined by Government Code section 51104(g))?
d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of
forest land to non-forest use?
Initial Study
Residences at Five Creek and Public Safety / Public Works Facilities
25 November 2016
Potentially
Significant Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation Incorporated
Less Than
Significant Impact No Impact
e) Involve other changes in the existing environment
which, due to their location or nature, could result
in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use
or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?
2.2 Agriculture and Forestry Resources
a) Would the project convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of
Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the
Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to
non-agricultural use?
The proposed project site is located in an urban area and surrounding parcels within the
SAMP support residential, industrial, commercial, and public facility land uses. The
project site has previously been disturbed and does not contain land that is designated as
prime agricultural soils by the Natural Resources Conservation Service. The site has not
been identified as prime farmland, unique farmland or farmland of statewide importance
by the California Department of Conservation. The site is not subject to a Williamson Act
contract site pursuant to Sections 51200–51207 of the California Government Code
(DOC, 2013).
In the SAMP, the Residences at Five Creek parcel is designated Regional Commercial
and City Public Safety and Public Works site is designated Public/Institutional. Both
parcels are zoned Planned Development (“PD”). The site is not planned for or used for
any agricultural or forestry purposes and the proposed project would not result in the
conversion of any agricultural or forest land, conflict with any agricultural use, or conflict
with a Williamson Act contract.
In addition, the plan area is designated as developed land and not designated as farmland
under the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Department of
Conservation or the City of Rohnert Park General Plan (General Plan) (City of Rohnert
Park, 2015 [originally adopted 2000]). No portion of the plan area could be considered
forest land as defined in PRC Section 12220(g). Timberland (as defined by PRC Section
4526) or timberland-zoned timberland production (as defined by Section 51104[g] of the
Government Code) is not present on-site, nor are any active or potential commercial
timber operations present in the area. Therefore, no impact associated with agriculture
and forestry resources would result from implementation of the proposed plan.
Initial Study
Residences at Five Creek and Public Safety / Public Works Facilities
26 November 2016
b) Would the project conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson
Act contract?
Refer to answer provided in ‘a’ above.
c) Would the project conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land
(as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by
Public Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as
defined by Government Code section 51104(g))?
Refer to answer provided in ‘a’ above.
d) Would the project result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-
forest use?
Refer to answer provided in ‘a’ above.
e) Would the project involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to
their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural
use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?
Refer to answer provided in ‘a’ above.
Potentially Significant Impact
Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated
Less Than Significant Impact No Impact
III. AIR QUALITY – Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air
pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project:
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the
applicable air quality plan?
b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute
substantially to an existing or projected air quality
violation?
c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of
any criteria pollutant for which the project region is
non-attainment under an applicable federal or state
ambient air quality standard (including releasing
emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for
ozone precursors)?
d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
concentrations?
e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial
number of people?
Initial Study
Residences at Five Creek and Public Safety / Public Works Facilities
27 November 2016
2.3 Air Quality
Introduction
The Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) adopted updated CEQA Air
Quality Guidelines, including new thresholds of significance in June 2010, and revised them in
May 2011. The CEQA Air Quality Guidelines advise lead agencies on how to evaluate potential
air quality impacts, including establishing quantitative and qualitative thresholds of significance.
The BAAQMD resolutions adopting and revising the significance thresholds in 2011 were set
aside by a judicial writ of mandate on March 5, 2012. In May of 2012, BAAQMD updated its
CEQA Air Quality Guidelines to continue to provide direction on recommended analysis
methodologies, but without recommended quantitative significance thresholds (BAAQMD
2012). On August 13, 2013, the First District Court of Appeal ordered the trial court to reverse
the judgment and upheld the BAAQMD’s CEQA thresholds. BAAQMD has not formally re-
instated the thresholds or otherwise responded to this Appellate Court reversal at this time.
The air quality impact analysis below uses the previously-adopted 2011 thresholds of the
BAAQMD to determine the potential impacts of the project. While the significance thresholds
adopted by BAAQMD in 2011 are not currently recommended by the BAAQMD, these
thresholds are based on substantial evidence identified in BAAQMD’s 2009 Justification Report
and are therefore used within this document. Project emissions have been compared to the
BAAQMD 2011 significance criteria, which include the following:
• Result in total construction emissions of reactive organic gases (ROG), nitrogen
oxides (NOx), or fine particulate matter (PM2.5) (exhaust) of 10 tons per year or greater
or 54 pounds per day or greater.
• Exceed a construction emission threshold for coarse particulate matter (PM10)
(exhaust) of 15 tons per year or greater, or 82 pounds per day or greater.
• For PM10 and PM2.5 as part of fugitive dust generated during construction, the
BAAQMD Guidelines specify compliance with Best Management Practices as the
threshold.
• Result in total operational emissions of ROG, NOx, or PM2.5 of 10 tons per year or
greater, or 54 pounds per day or greater.
• Exceed an operational emission threshold for PM10 of 15 tons per year or greater, or
82 pounds per day or greater.
Initial Study
Residences at Five Creek and Public Safety / Public Works Facilities
28 November 2016
• Result in carbon monoxide (CO) concentrations of 9.0 parts per million (ppm) (8-hour
average) and 20.0 ppm (1-hour average) as estimated by roadway vehicle volumes
exceeding 44,000 vehicles per hour at any intersection.
• For risks and hazards during construction and operations, the BAAQMD Guidelines
specify an increase in cancer risk exposure by 10 in one million, contribute hazard
indices by a ratio of 1.0, or increase local concentrations of PM2.5 by 0.3 micrograms
per cubic meter (µg/m3).
A project’s contribution to regional cumulative impacts for criteria pollutants are considered
significant if the project’s impact individually would be significant (i.e., if it exceeds the
BAAQMD’s quantitative thresholds).
With regard to localized cumulative impacts from PM2.5, a significant cumulative air quality
impact would occur if localized annual average concentrations of PM2.5 would exceed 0.8 µg/m3
at any receptor from project operations in addition to cumulative emissions sources within a
1,000-foot radius of the property line of the source or receptor. Sensitive receptors are groups of
individuals, including children, the elderly, the acutely ill, and the chronically ill, that may be
more susceptible to health risks due to chemical exposure. Sensitive-receptor population groups
are likely to be located at hospitals, medical clinics, schools, playgrounds, childcare centers,
residences, and retirement homes.
With regard to cumulative impacts from toxic air contaminants (TACs), a significant cumulative
air quality impact would be considered to occur if the probability of contracting cancer for the
maximally exposed individual (MEI) would exceed 100 in one million as a result of project
operations plus cumulative emissions sources within a 1,000-foot radius of the project site. A
significant cumulative TAC impact would also be considered to occur if a non-cancer chronic
Hazard Index (HI) of 10.0 would be exceeded at any receptor as a result of project operations
plus cumulative emissions sources within a 1,000-foot radius of the project site. Notably, a
project’s construction or operational impacts would be considered to result in a considerable
contribution to an identified cumulative health risk impact if the project’s construction or
operation activities would exceed the project-level health risk significance thresholds identified
above.
a) Would the project conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air
quality plan?
An area is designated as “in attainment” when it is in compliance with the federal and/or
state standards. These standards are set by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) or California Air Resources Board (CARB) for the maximum level of a given air
Initial Study
Residences at Five Creek and Public Safety / Public Works Facilities
29 November 2016
pollutant that can exist in the outdoor air without unacceptable effects on human health or
public welfare with a margin of safety. The project site is located within the San
Francisco Bay Area Air Basin, which is designated non-attainment for the federal 8-hour
ozone (O3) and 24-hour PM2.5 standards. The area is in attainment or unclassified for all
other federal standards. The area is designated non-attainment for state standards for 1-
hour and 8-hour O3, 24-hour PM10, annual PM10, and annual PM2.5 (CARB 2016; EPA
2016).
The BAAQMD adopted the Bay Area 2010 Clean Air Plan (BAAQMD 2010), in
cooperation with the Metropolitan Commission and the Association of Bay Area
Governments, which sets forth a plan to reach compliance with the state’s 1-hour air
quality O3 standard. The 2010 Clean Air Plan is an update to the BAAQMD 2005 Ozone
Strategy to comply with State air quality planning requirements. The 2010 Clean Air Plan
is a comprehensive strategy to reduce air pollution from stationary and mobile sources.
The plan outlines strategies to reduce O3 precursors as well as particulate matter (PM),
TACs, and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions to meet their goal of reducing air pollution
to attain air quality standards and protect public health. Currently, the BAAQMD, the
Metropolitan Commission, and Association of Bay Area Governments are working on the
2016 Clean Air Plan/Regional Climate Protection Strategy, which is an update to the
current 2010 Clean Air Plan.
The BAAQMD Guidelines identify a three-step methodology for determining a project’s
consistency with the current Clean Air Plan. If the responses to these three questions can
be concluded in the affirmative and those conclusions are supported by substantial
evidence, then the BAAQMD considers the project to be consistent with air quality plans
prepared for the Bay Area.
The first question to be assessed in this methodology is “does the project support the
goals of the Air Quality Plan” (currently the 2010 Clean Air Plan)? The BAAQMD-
recommended measure for determining project support for these goals is consistency with
BAAQMD thresholds of significance. If a project would not result in significant and
unavoidable air quality impacts, after the application of all feasible mitigation measures,
the project would be consistent with the goals of the 2010 Clean Air Plan. Under
BAAQMD methodology, for consistency with the 2010 Clean Air Plan, a project must
demonstrate that the population or VMT assumptions contained in the Clean Air Plan
would not be exceeding and that the project implements transportation control measures
(TCMs) as applicable. As indicated in the following discussion with regard to air quality
impact criterion “b”, the project would result in less than significant construction
emissions with implementation of Mitigation Measure AIR-1, and would not result in
long-term adverse air quality impacts. Therefore, the project would be considered to
Initial Study
Residences at Five Creek and Public Safety / Public Works Facilities
30 November 2016
support the primary goals of the 2010 Clean Air Plan and, therefore, consistent with the
current Clean Air Plan.
The second question to be assessed in this consistency methodology is “does the project
include applicable control measures from the Clean Air Plan?” The 2010 Clean Air Plan
contains 55 control measures aimed at reducing air pollution in the Bay Area. Projects
that incorporate all feasible air quality plan control measures are considered consistent
with the Clean Air Plan. The project includes amendments to the General Plan and
SAMP. The SAMP area includes 328 multifamily residential units in addition to the
proposed plans for an additional 135 multifamily residential units, 34,400 sf of
commercial space, a 132-room hotel, a 0.65-acre park, and a future City of Rohnert Park
Public Safety and Public Works facilities. The control strategies of the 2010 Clean Air
Plan include measures in the traditional categories of stationary source measures, mobile
source measures, and transportation control measures. The 2010 Clean Air Plan identifies
two new subcategories of control measures, including land use and local impact measures
and energy and climate measures. Stationary source measures are not specifically
applicable to the proposed project and therefore are not evaluated as part of this analysis.
a) Transportation and Mobile Source Control Measures: The transportation
control measures are designed to reduce emissions from motor vehicles by
reducing vehicle trips and vehicle miles traveled in addition to vehicle idling
and traffic congestion. Measures proposed to be included in the project
include providing residents and employees transit availability information,
including carpool and/or car sharing parking space, electric vehicle parking
and provision of bicycle parking. The proposed project would not conflict
with the identified transportation and mobile source control measures of the
2010 Clean Air Plan.
b) Land Use and Local Impact Measures: The 2010 Clean Air Plan includes
Land Use and Local Impacts Measures (LUMs) to achieve the following:
promote mixed-use, compact development to reduce motor vehicle travel
and emissions; and ensure that planned growth is focused in a way that
protects people from exposure to air pollution from stationary and mobile
sources of emissions. The LUMs identified by the BAAQMD are not
specifically applicable to the proposed project as they relate to actions the
BAAQMD will take to reduce impacts from goods movement and health
risks in affected communities. Therefore, the project would not conflict with
any of the LUMs of the 2010 Clean Air Plan.
Initial Study
Residences at Five Creek and Public Safety / Public Works Facilities
31 November 2016
c) Energy Measures: The 2010 Clean Air Plan also includes Energy and
Climate Control Measures (ECM), which are designed to reduce ambient
concentrations of criteria pollutants and reduce emissions of CO2.
Implementation of these measures is intended to promote energy
conservation and efficiency in buildings throughout the community,
promote renewable forms of energy production, reduce the “urban heat
island” effect by increasing reflectivity of roofs and parking lots, and
promote the planting of (low-VOC-emitting) trees to reduce biogenic
emissions, lower air temperatures, provide shade, and absorb air pollutants.
The proposed project would incorporate energy efficiency and green
building measures (CAL Green Tier 1 standards) in compliance with state
and/or local standards and would not conflict with any of the ECM
measures.
The third question to be assessed in this consistency methodology is “does the project
disrupt or hinder implementation of any control measures from the Clean Air Plan?”
Examples of how a project may cause the disruption or delay of control measures include
a project that precludes an extension of a transit line or bike path, or proposes excessive
parking beyond parking requirements. The proposed project would not create any barriers
or impediments to planned or future improvements to transit or bicycle facilities is the
area and therefore, would not hinder implementation of Clean Air Plan control measures.
In summary, the responses to all three of the questions with regard to Clean Air Plan
indicate project consistency and the proposed project, in accordance with the conclusions
of the SAMP EIR, would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the 2010 Clean
Air Plan. This is a less than significant impact.
b) Would the project violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an
existing or projected air quality violation?
The California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod) Version 2013.2.2 was used to
estimate emissions from construction of the project, as well as operational emissions of
the project plus the residential development included in the SAMP currently under
construction to the north of the proposed project. CalEEMod is a statewide computer
model developed in cooperation with air districts throughout the state to quantify criteria
air pollutant and GHG emissions associated with the construction and operational
activities from a variety of land use projects, such as residential, commercial, and
industrial facilities. CalEEMod input parameters were based on information provided by
the project applicant and/or default model assumptions.
Initial Study
Residences at Five Creek and Public Safety / Public Works Facilities
32 November 2016
Construction. Construction emissions were estimated for the Residences at Five Creek
mixed-use project (i.e., 135 multifamily residential units, 34,400 sf of commercial space,
a 132-room hotel, a 0.65-acre park) and the City Public Safety and Public Works
facilities. Standard construction methods would be employed for building construction.
Sources of emissions would include: off-road construction equipment exhaust, on-road
vehicles exhaust and entrained road dust (i.e., haul trucks, material delivery trucks, and
worker vehicles), fugitive dust associated with site preparation and grading activities, and
paving and architectural coating activities. Construction of the mixed-use portion of the
project is anticipated to occur over approximately 29 months, from April 2017 through
September 2019. Construction of the City of Rohnert Park Public Safety and Public
Works development would overlap from April 2018 through April 2019. Construction
would involve demolition of an existing parking lot, clearing and grubbing, and total
grading of approximately 15-acres of the mixed-use and City sites. The proposed
earthwork would balance on site and would not require import or export of soil. Detailed
assumptions associated with project construction are included in Appendix B.
Average daily emissions were computed by dividing the total construction emissions by
the number of active construction days, which were then compared to the BAAQMD
construction thresholds of significance. Table 2.3-1 shows average daily construction
emissions of O3 precursors (ROG and NOx), PM10 exhaust, and PM2.5 exhaust during
project construction associated with construction of the mixed-use and City facility
developments.
Table 2.3-1
Average Daily Construction Emissions
Year
ROG NOx PM10 Exhaust PM2.5 Exhaust
pounds per day
2017-2019 Construction 12.7 42.7 2.3 2.2
BAAQMD Construction Thresholds 54 54 82 54
Exceed Threshold? No No No No
Source: Appendix B Note: Total overall construction emissions were estimated with CalEEMod for the mixed-use site and City site, summed together, and divided
by 631 active work days to estimate the average daily emissions included in this table.
ROG = reactive organic gases; NOx = oxides of nitrogen; PM10 = coarse particulate matter; PM2.5 = fine particulate matter
As shown in Table 2.3-1, construction of the proposed project would not exceed
BAAQMD significance thresholds. Criteria air pollutant emissions during construction
would be less than significant. In addition, by including the proposed project site in the
SAMP, development of the project site and adjacent parcel would be required to
implement Mitigation Measure AIR-1 (SAMP EIR Mitigation Measure 5-2a). This would
Initial Study
Residences at Five Creek and Public Safety / Public Works Facilities
33 November 2016
ensure that the proposed project would meet the BAAQMD requirements for
implementation of Basic Construction Emission Control Measures and construction
emissions would be reduced to a less than significant level.
Operations. Operation of the project would generate criteria pollutant (including ROG,
NOx, PM10, and PM2.5) emissions from mobile sources (vehicular traffic), area sources
(consumer products, architectural coatings, landscaping equipment), and energy sources
(natural gas appliances, space and water heating). To evaluate the amendments to the
SAMP, the proposed Residences at Five Creek and the Public Safety/Public Works
Facilities project along with the existing multifamily residential development currently
under construction to the north were included in the operational emission estimation. The
following land use development was assumed in the operational emissions modeling: 463
multi-family residential units (135 units associated with the Residences at Five Creek
site), 132-room hotel, 0.65 acres of park, 34,300 sf of commercial space, fire station,
corporation yard, 507 parking lot spaces totaling 4.56 acres and 1.7 acres of additional
parking and paved surface areas.1
CalEEMod was used to estimate daily emissions from the operational sources. The
CalEEMod default trip rates for the land uses to be developed were adjusted to match the
Traffic Impact Study for the project (W-Trans 2016). Table 2.3-2 summarizes the daily
mobile, energy, and area emissions of criteria pollutants that would be generated by
development of the land uses and compares the emissions to BAAQMD operational
thresholds.
Table 2.3-2
Daily Operational Emissions
Source
ROG NOx PM10 PM2.5
pounds per day
Area 23.8 0.4 0.7 0.7
Energy 0.2 1.9 0.2 0.2
Mobile 21.9 42.2 29.9 8.3
Total 45.9 44.6 30.7 9.2
BAAQMD Operational
Thresholds
54 54 82 54
Exceed Threshold? No No No No
Source: Appendix B Note: The values shown are the maximum summer or winter daily emissions results from CalEEMod.
1 CalEEMod does not include land use categories that are specific to each of the proposed land uses, including
public facilities and fire stations. As such, surrogate land uses were identified in CalEEMod to represent each of
the land uses for the purposes of emissions modeling. Appendix B provides a breakdown of the land use
assumptions.
Initial Study
Residences at Five Creek and Public Safety / Public Works Facilities
34 November 2016
ROG = reactive organic gases; NOx = oxides of nitrogen; PM10 = coarse particulate matter; PM2.5 = fine particulate matter
As indicated in Table 2.3-2, operational emissions of ROG, NOx, PM10, and PM2.5 from
the project plus the residential uses to the north would not exceed the BAAQMD
significance thresholds during operations, and thus, the would have a less than
significant impact in relation to regional operational emissions.
In regards to localized CO concentrations, according to the BAAQMD 2011 thresholds, a
project would result in a less than significant impact if the following screening criteria are
met:
1. 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 congestion management agency
plans.
2. The project traffic would not increase traffic volumes at affected intersections to
more than 44,000 vehicles per hour.
3. 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).
The amendment to the SAMP necessary for the proposed project would generate minimal
new traffic trips and would comply with the BAAQMD screening criteria. Accordingly,
project-related traffic would not exceed CO standards and therefore, no further analysis
was conducted for CO impacts. This CO emissions impact would be considered less than
significant on a project-level and cumulative basis.
c) Would the project result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria
pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or
state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed
quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)?
Past, present, and future development projects may contribute to the region’s adverse air
quality impacts on a cumulative basis. Per BAAQMD’s CEQA Guidelines, by its nature
air pollution is largely a cumulative impact; no single project is sufficient in size to, by
itself, result in nonattainment of ambient air quality standards. 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
Initial Study
Residences at Five Creek and Public Safety / Public Works Facilities
35 November 2016
the identified significance thresholds, its emissions would be considered cumulatively
considerable, resulting in significant adverse air quality impacts to the region’s existing
air quality conditions. Therefore, if the proposed project’s emissions are below the
BAAQMD thresholds or screening criteria, then the proposed project’s cumulative
impact can be considered to be less than significant.
As described in criterion “b” above, criteria pollutant emissions generated by short-term
construction and long-term operations of the project would not exceed the BAAQMD
significance thresholds. Thus, the project would have a less than significant cumulative
impact in relation to regional emissions. In addition, project-related traffic would not
exceed the BAAQMD CO screening criteria and would result in a less than significant
cumulative impact in relation to localized CO.
d) Would the project expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations?
The BAAQMD has adopted project and cumulative thresholds for three risk-related air
quality indicators for sensitive receptors: cancer risks, noncancer health effects, and
increases in ambient air concentrations of PM2.5. These impacts are addressed on a
localized rather than regional basis and are specific to the sensitive receptors identified
for the project. As explained in the introduction, sensitive receptors are groups of
individuals, including children, the elderly, the acutely ill, and the chronically ill, that
may be more susceptible to health risks due to chemical exposure and sensitive-receptor
population groups are likely to be located at hospitals, medical clinics, schools,
playgrounds, childcare centers, residences, and retirement homes.
Construction Impact. Project construction activities would produce diesel particulate
matter (DPM) and PM2.5 emissions due to equipment such as loaders, backhoes, and haul
truck trips. These emissions could result in elevated concentrations of DPM and PM2.5 at
nearby receptors, which could lead to an increase in the risk of cancer or other health
impacts. Consequently, a health risk assessment was performed to determine the extent of
increased cancer risks and hazard indices at the maximally exposed receptors. The
dispersion of DPM was modeled using the American Meteorological
Society/Environmental Protection Agency Regulatory Model (AERMOD) dispersion
model and the resultant health risk modeled using the CARB Hot Spots Analysis and
Reporting Program Version 2 (HARP2), along with meteorological data provided by the
BAAQMD for the project area. The risk to nearby sensitive receptors assumes exposure
would occur 8 hours per day, five days per week, to account for the active construction
duration. HARP2 performs the health impact calculations based on the Office of
Environmental Health Hazards Assessment’s (OEHHA’s) 2015 Air Toxics Hot Spots
Program Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments (OEHHA 2015),
Initial Study
Residences at Five Creek and Public Safety / Public Works Facilities
36 November 2016
which include updated age sensitivity factors and daily breathing rates recommended by
OEHHA. The approach recommended in the 2015 Air Toxics Hot Spots Program
Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments provides updated
calculation procedures that factor in the increased susceptibility of infants and children to
carcinogens as compared to adults.
The maximally exposed receptor would be the nearest residence currently under
construction approximately 180-feet to the northeast of the project, located across
Dowdell Avenue. Potential health risk at the MEI resulting from construction activities
are shown in Table 2.3-3 below.
Table 2.3-3
Construction-Related Health Risk
Residential MEI
Cancer Risk (persons
per million) Chronic Impact
PM2.5 Concentration
(µg/m3)
Unmitigated Project Construction 25.6 0.01 0.07
BAAQMD Significance Criteria 10 1 0.3
Exceed Threshold? Yes No No
Mitigated Project Constructiona 5.6 0.003 0.02
BAAQMD Significance Criteria 10 1 0.3
Exceed Threshold? No No No
Source: Appendix B Note: DPM exposure at receptors modeled with AERMOD, which were then input into HARP2 to generate health risk estimates.
MEI = Maximally Exposed Individual
a Mitigation includes incorporation of Level 3 Verified Diesel Emissions Control (VDEC) in equipment with engines greater than 50 horsepower.
As shown in Table 2.3-3, the incremental cancer risk at the MEI of 26 in one million
(assuming exposure starts in 3rd trimester) from project construction would exceed the
BAAQMD threshold of 10 in a million without mitigation. With incorporation of
mitigation, the project would result in incremental cancer risk of 6 in one million. The
unmitigated and mitigated chronic HI would be 0.01 and 0.003 at the MEI, respectively,
which would be below the BAAQMD threshold of 1. Finally, the maximum annual PM2.5
unmitigated and mitigated concentrations would be 0.07 µg/m3 and 0.02 µg/m3 for the
MEI, respectively, which is below the BAAQMD threshold of 0.3 µg/m3. Project health
risk impacts would thus be less than significant after mitigation.
Implementation of Mitigation Measures AIR-1 and AIR-2 would ensure that project-
generated fugitive dust and exhaust (criteria pollutant and TACs) during construction
would be reduced to a less than significant level.
Initial Study
Residences at Five Creek and Public Safety / Public Works Facilities
37 November 2016
Operational Impact. In regards to long-term operational sources of TACs, there would
be a diesel and gasoline fueling station for City vehicles at the Public Safety and Public
Works site. Although the fuel station would be a source of TACs, a permit would be
required from the BAAQMD in order to ensure potential health risk impacts at sensitive
receptors in the vicinity would be less than significant. The City of Rohnert Park Public
Safety and Public Works facility will also need an emergency generator permitted by the
BAAQMD to ensure that air pollutant emissions are minimized and that any potential
health risk would be less than significant.
Cumulative Health Risk. Cumulative health risk assessment is included in order to
evaluate land use compatibility for the future sensitive residential receptors located at the
project. TACs produced at distant locations do not readily combine to create
concentrations at any single location that would cause health risks. The BAAQMD
method for determining health risk requires the review of health risk from permitted
sources, railroads, and major streets in the vicinity of a project site (i.e., within 1,000 feet
of the proposed new sensitive receptors on the project site), then adding the project
operational impacts to determine whether the cumulative health risk thresholds are
exceeded. The primary sources of existing TACs in the project vicinity are several gas
stations. BAAQMD has developed a geo-referenced database of permitted emissions
sources throughout San Francisco Bay Area for estimating health risks to new sensitive
receptors from existing permitted sources. Unlike for a project level assessment, for the
cumulative assessment the risks from all sources within 1,000 feet of project sensitive
receptors are summed and compared to a cumulative significance threshold.
Notably, no onsite stationary sources of TACs are assumed and project-generated diesel
traffic would be negligible. A summary of the cumulative health impacts is found in
Table 2.3-4. The cumulative MEI is assumed to be at the project site and exposed to
maximum risk from all sources, which would be a conservative assessment.
Table 2.3-4
Cumulative Health Impacts
Facility
Distance from
Project (feet)
Cancer Risk (persons
per million)
Chronic
Impact
PM2.5
Concentration
(µg/m3)
CA Highway Patrol – Gas Station (6100
Labath Avenue)
435 1.0a 0.005a --
Costco Gasoline 530 26.4a 0.09a --
Kacees World of Water – Gas Station
(320 Rohnert Park Expressway)
780 1.0a 0.005a --
Total 28.4 0.1 0.0
BAAQMD Cumulative Significance Criteria 100 10 0.8
Initial Study
Residences at Five Creek and Public Safety / Public Works Facilities
38 November 2016
Exceed Threshold? No No No
Source: Appendix B
a Cancer Risk and Chronic Hazard values for the source generator was adjusted using the BAAQMD Gas Station Distance Multiplier.
As shown in Table 2.3-4, the cumulative cancer risk from all sources within 1,000 feet of
proposed sensitive receptors would be approximately 28 in one million, which would be
below the BAAQMD cumulative threshold of 100 in one million and would be less than
significant. The cumulative hazard index from all such sources would be approximately
0.1, which would be below the significance threshold of 10 and would be less than
significant. The cumulative PM2.5 concentration would be approximately 0.0 µg/m3,
which would be below the significance threshold of 0.8 µg/m3 and hence is considered
less than significant.
e) Would the project create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people?
BAAQMD has identified typical sources of odor in the CEQA Air Quality Guidelines, a
few examples of which include manufacturing plants, rendering plants, coffee roasters,
wastewater treatment plants, sanitary landfills, and solid waste transfer stations. While
sources that generate objectionable odors must comply with air quality regulations, the
public’s sensitivity to locally produced odors often exceeds regulatory thresholds. The
project would not include uses that have been identified by BAAQMD as potential
sources of objectionable odors.
Notably, the City wastewater pump station is located on a parcel northeast of the project
site. As discussed in the SAMP EIR, pump stations such as this one are not generally
large sources of odors (City of Rohnert Park 2007). Since preparation of the SAMP EIR,
there has been no increase in odors, nor any anticipated increases, from current or future
wastewater treatment or light industrial uses. Recent discussions with City pump station
staff indicate that a slight odor can occasionally be detected, depending on wind
conditions, within the pump station property and immediate vicinity. The staff also
indicated that the odor can occasionally be detected outside the pump station fenced area
and to the east, rarely to the west (City of Rohnert Park 2013). In the event odor
complaints are received by the BAAQMD from sources including the existing pump
station or possible future permitted industrial uses, the agency will investigate and require
odor abatement, if necessary under the provisions of BAAQMD Regulation 7, Odorous
Substances. Overall, potential odor impacts would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures
Mitigation Measure AIR-1 (SAMP EIR Mitigation Measure 5-2a): Each project sponsor is
responsible for ensuring that the contractor reduces particulate, reactive organic
Initial Study
Residences at Five Creek and Public Safety / Public Works Facilities
39 November 2016
gas (ROG), oxides of nitrogen (NOx), and carbon monoxide (CO) emissions by
complying with the air pollution control strategies developed by the BAAQMD.
Each project sponsor and contractor shall develop emission control strategies that
implement the following control measures based on BAAQMD guidelines:
Dust Control Measures:
For all construction sites:
• Cover all trucks hauling construction and demolition debris from the site.
• Water on a continuous as-needed basis all earth surfaces during clearing,
grading, earthmoving, and other site preparation activities.
• Use watering to control dust generation during demolition of structures or
break-up of pavement.
• Pave, apply water three times daily, or apply (non-toxic) soil stabilizers on all
unpaved parking areas and staging areas.
• Sweep daily (with water sweepers) all paved areas and staging areas.
• Provide daily clean-up of mud and dirt carried onto paved streets from the
site.
• Renovation, demolition activities, removal or disturbance of any materials that
contain asbestos, lead paint or other hazardous pollutants will be conducted in
accordance with BAAQMD rules and regulations.
• Properly maintain all construction equipment.
For construction sites near sensitive receptors (or if residential development
occurs prior to commencement of commercial development):
• Install wheel washers for all existing trucks, or wash off the tires or tracks of
trucks and equipment leaving the site.
• Suspend dust-producing activities during periods when instantaneous gusts
exceed 25 miles per hour when dust control measures are unable to avoid
visible dust plumes.
Initial Study
Residences at Five Creek and Public Safety / Public Works Facilities
40 November 2016
• Limit the area subject to excavation, grading and other construction or
demolition activity at any one time.
For sites greater than four acres:
• Apply soil stabilizers to previously graded portions of the site inactive for
more than ten days or cover or seed these areas.
• Water or cover stockpiles of debris, soil, sand, or other materials that can be
blown by the wind.
• Limit traffic speeds on unpaved roads to 15 miles per hour.
• Replant vegetation in disturbed areas as soon as possible.
Construction Exhaust Mitigation Measures
The potential air quality impacts from toxic air contaminant emissions from
construction equipment and operations will be reduced with compliance with
BAAQMD air pollution control strategies. Construction firms shall be required to
post signs of possible health risk during construction. The developer is
responsible for compliance with the BAAQMD rule regarding cutback and
emulsified asphalt paving materials. In addition, the construction contractors will
implement a plan to use newer construction equipment that meets the NOx
emissions standard of 6.9 grams per brake-horsepower hour for work constructed
within 200 feet of residences.
Mitigation Measure AIR-2: The project applicant shall ensure that construction contract
specifications include a requirement that all off-road diesel-powered construction
equipment used for project development with engines greater than 50 horsepower
be equipped with a Level 3 Verified Diesel Emissions Control (VDEC).
Potentially
Significant Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation Incorporated
Less Than
Significant Impact No Impact
IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES – Would the project:
a) 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 Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
Initial Study
Residences at Five Creek and Public Safety / Public Works Facilities
41 November 2016
Potentially
Significant Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation Incorporated
Less Than
Significant Impact No Impact
b) 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 Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on 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, filling, hydrological interruption, or other
means?
d) 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?
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances
protecting biological resources, such as a tree
preservation policy or ordinance?
f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat
Conservation Plan, Natural Community
Conservation Plan, or other approved local,
regional, or state habitat conservation plan?
2.4 Biological Resources
a) 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 Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
As discussed in the SAMP EIR, biological studies completed in the project area did not
locate special status plant species, but the area was classified as having suitable habitat
for several special status animal species. The EIR determined that grasslands in the
project vicinity would be suitable as foraging habitat by birds, including special status
species. Although no special status species were observed to be nesting within the SAMP
area, future development within the project site would be required to implement
preconstruction Mitigation Measure BIO-1 (included in the SAMP EIR as Mitigation
Measure 6-4a) to ensure potential impacts to nesting birds remain less than significant.
Initial Study
Residences at Five Creek and Public Safety / Public Works Facilities
42 November 2016
The project area is also located within the potential range of the Sonoma County
California tiger salamander (CTS) and the northwestern pond turtle (City of Rohnert
Park, 2007). According to the SAMP EIR, the northwestern pond turtle, a California
species of special concern, would be unlikely to occur in the project area due to existing
roadways (including gutters and curbs) and surrounding development. The CTS is a
federally endangered and California species of special concern. No CTS or special status
plant species were found in any of the wetlands surveyed in 2001-2002 and 2005. In
addition, the U.S. Department Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) issued a letter,
included as Appendix B to the SAMP EIR, determining that development in the SAMP
area, including the project site, would be unlikely to affect CTS. The SAMP EIR further
concluded that neither surveys nor mitigation would be required for the CTS in the
SAMP area, including the project site (City of Rohnert Park, 2007). Subsequent
correspondence with the USFWS (2015) has confirmed that “the letter for this project
was a determination of not likely to result in take of listed species and since ground
disturbance has already occurred on the site, no additional effects to listed species are
expected from the further development of the site”.
Implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-1, as discussed above, would ensure that
future development at the project site would have a less than significant impact on
species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species.
b) 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 Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
As noted in the SAMP EIR, there are no riparian areas located within the SAMP area
(City of Rohnert Park, 2007). The Hinebaugh Creek Flood Channel is located
immediately south of the City Public Safety / Public Works site, but the proposed project
does not include alterations within the adjacent creek area.
A Wetland Delineation conducted by North Fork Associates for the SAMP area,
including the proposed project site, found no occurrence of vernal pools or other natural
wetlands (NFA, 2003). Approximately .43-acres of disturbed, low-quality seasonal
wetland areas were found to occur within the SAMP along the south and east side of the
Residences at Five Creek parcel. However, those wetlands were not found to support any
federally listed threatened or endangered plants. To mitigate for the impact associated
with development within the SAMP and the loss of .43 acres of wetlands, the City
purchased 0.5 acres of wetland mitigation (City of Rohnert Park, 2007). Accordingly,
impacts to wetlands on the project site have previously been mitigated.
Initial Study
Residences at Five Creek and Public Safety / Public Works Facilities
43 November 2016
For stormwater drainage, the project would include construction of a new offsite storm
drain outfall into Hinebaugh Creek. Impacts to the bed, bank, or channel of streams
adjacent to the outfall, including associated riparian habitat, would require a Streambed
Alteration Agreement (Section 1602) from the California Department of Fish and
Wildlife (CDFW). Mitigation Measure BIO-3 requires the project to obtain a Streambed
Alteration Agreement and comply with CDFW’s specific measures to minimize or avoid
impacts to any riparian areas affected.
A preliminary wetland assessment of the proposed new storm drain outfall at Hinebaugh
Creek was conducted by Dudek in October 2016 (refer to Appendix D). Approximately
0.0026 acres of wetland areas were found to occur in the proposed outfall area.
Direct removal, filling, or hydrological interruption of a federally or state-protected
wetlands as defined in the Clean Water Act and/or the Porter-Cologne Water Quality
Control Act would be considered a significant impact. To ensure impacts to wetlands are
reduced to a less than significant level, the proposed project would implement Mitigation
Measure BIO-2. Mitigation Measure BIO-2 requires that the project obtain required
permits and fulfill compensatory mitigation requirements for wetland impacts.
Implementation of Mitigation Measures BIO-2 and BIO-3 would ensure that potential
impacts to riparian areas would be reduced to a less than significant level.
c) Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on 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, filling, hydrological interruption, or
other means?
Refer to answer provided in ‘b’ above.
d) 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?
The project site is located adjacent to Hinebaugh Creek but no development activities
would occur within the creek corridor. In addition, because the project site and the
surrounding areas are composed of urban development the project footprint does not
function as an important corridor between larger open space wildlife areas. Therefore, the
impact on wildlife corridors would be less than significant.
e) Would the project conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological
resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance?
Initial Study
Residences at Five Creek and Public Safety / Public Works Facilities
44 November 2016
The project site is located within the area covered by the Santa Rosa Plain Conservation
Strategy (USFWS, 2005). The purpose of the Conservation Strategy is to create a long-
term conservation program to assist in the recovery of CTS and four listed plant species.
The project site is identified in the Conservation Strategy as “Area Within 1.3 Miles of
Known CTS Breeding Area.” As identified in the Conservation Strategy, impact to CTS
is not likely on some lands within 1.3 miles from breeding sites that are surrounded by
significant barriers or are otherwise unsuitable CTS habitat. As discussed in criterion ‘a’
above, no CTS have been identified on the project site and the USFWS has issued a letter
stating that development in the SAMP area, including the project site, would be unlikely
to affect CTS (City of Rohnert Park, 2007). Therefore, future development at the
proposed project site would result in no impact to CTS nor result in conflicts with the
Conservation Strategy.
The site is not included in any other local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan, and
there are no protected trees (i.e., oaks and other native trees of significant size) located on
the project site. No impacts to other local policies, ordinances or plans would be
expected to occur from implementation of the project.
f) 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?
Refer to the answer in ‘e’ above.
Mitigation Measures
Mitigation Measure BIO-1 (SAMP Mitigation Measure 6-4a): Pre-construction surveys will
be conducted for nesting raptors and bat roosts within 500 feet of construction
activities a minimum of 48 and 24 hours before project construction activities.
Nest searches will be conducted in December/January (if not earlier) before site
construction begins and the vegetation within the construction area will be
removed and/or mowed between August 31 and February 1 to minimize the
potential for birds to nest within the construction areas. If nests are found with no
eggs or young, the nest will be moved by a qualified biologist. If nesting birds
with eggs or young are found during the surveys, one or more of the following
measures may be implemented:
• An exclusion zone will be established around nests with eggs or young; the
need for and size of the exclusion zone is based on factors such as species
sensitivity, topography, and proximity to roads and buildings.
Initial Study
Residences at Five Creek and Public Safety / Public Works Facilities
45 November 2016
• Construction activities in the area will be postponed until young are fledged
• The Biological Monitor will monitor the birds on the nest and stop
construction if it appears that the birds will abandon the nest or young
• In consultation with the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW),
the nests could be relocated to a nearby area or to an approved wildlife
rehabilitation center.
To minimize the potential for birds to nest in the construction area, nest searches
can be conducted and tree removal and other vegetation removal can be done
between October 1 and February 1. This shall be noted on improvement plans,
grading plans and building plans.
Mitigation Measure BIO-2: For any impacts to waters of the U.S., a Section 404 permit from
the Corps and a Section 401 water quality certification from the Regional Water
Quality Control Board shall be obtained and compensatory mitigation shall be
provided for all impacts at a minimum 1 to 1 ratio according to the Corps
Standard Operating Procedure for Determination of Mitigation Ratios. As part of
the wetlands permitting process, the Corps must conduct a Section 7 consultation
with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for any potential impacts to listed species.
The terms and conditions of USFWS’s Biological Opinion (or Programmatic
Biological Opinion) shall be implemented as part of the project.
Mitigation Measure BIO-3: For any impacts to the bed, bank, or channel of Hinebaugh Creek,
subject to regulation under Section 1602 of the Fish and Game Code, the project
applicant must apply for and obtain a Streambed Alteration Agreement from the
CDFW. The area regulated by CDFW is the stream zone, which is defined as the
area from top-of-bank to top-of-bank or the outside edge of the riparian canopy,
whichever is widest. A Streambed Alteration Agreement from CDFW will be
required prior to activities that will affect these features. A permit application can
be submitted concurrently with the CEQA compliance process. All mitigation
measures for impacts to waters of the state and riparian areas must be
implemented in accordance with the terms and conditions of the Streambed
Alteration Agreement.
Initial Study
Residences at Five Creek and Public Safety / Public Works Facilities
46 November 2016
Potentially
Significant Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation Incorporated
Less Than
Significant Impact No Impact
V. CULTURAL RESOURCES – Would the project:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of a historical resource as defined
in §15064.5?
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of an archaeological resource
pursuant to §15064.5?
c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique
paleontological resource or site or unique geologic
feature?
d) Disturb any human remains, including those
interred outside of formal cemeteries?
2.5 Cultural Resources
a) Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical
resource as defined in §15064.5?
Historical resource is a term with a defined statutory meaning. (See Public Resources
Code § 21084.1 and CEQA Guidelines §§ 15064.5(a), (b)). The term embraces any
resource listed or determined to be eligible for listing in the NRHP, as well as some
California State Landmarks and Points of Historical Interest. In addition, historical
resources are evaluated against the CRHR criteria prior to making a finding as to the
project’s impacts on historical resources.
Generally, resources must be at least 50 years old to be considered for the listing in the
California Register. There are no structures or built-features on the project site and as
such, there are no historical resources to be impacted. The impact on historic resources
would be less than significant.
A cultural resources survey for the SAMP area, including the project site, was conducted
between October 2004 and February 2005 (City of Rohnert Park, 2007). No
archeological materials were encountered as a result of the surface reconnaissance within
the SAMP area. The survey indicated that prior disturbance in the project area has greatly
altered the terrain, and any archeological resources that may have once existed in the area
of the prior activities have most likely been destroyed (City of Rohnert Park, 2007). No
further research was recommended for buildings encountered during the survey.
Initial Study
Residences at Five Creek and Public Safety / Public Works Facilities
47 November 2016
There are no known historic, archaeological, or paleontological resources or human
remains onsite. It is unlikely that previously unknown cultural resources would be
encountered during future site grading and construction. However, to ensure that impacts
to cultural resources remain less than significant, should any such resources be
encountered during project grading and construction, the project would be required to
implement Mitigation Measures CUL-1, CUL-2, and CUL-3. These mitigation measures
were identified as SAMP EIR Mitigation Measures 7.1a, 7.1b, and 7.3a, and were also
included in the City of Rohnert Park General Plan EIR. With implementation of the
aforementioned mitigation measures, impacts to cultural resources would be less than
significant.
b) Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an
archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5?
Refer to the answer provided in ‘a’ above.
c) Would the project directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or
site or unique geologic feature?
Refer to the answer provided in ‘a’ above.
d) Would the project disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of
formal cemeteries?
Refer to the answer provided in ‘a’ above.
Mitigation Measures
Mitigation Measure CUL-1 (SAMP EIR Mitigation Measure 7.1a): If at any time during earth
disturbing activities a concentration of artifacts or a cultural deposit is
encountered, work shall cease in the immediate area and a qualified archeologist
shall be contacted by the construction manager to evaluate the find and make
further recommendations. Construction crews should be alerted to cultural
resources which could consist of, but not be limited to, artifacts of stone, bone,
wood, shell, or other materials; features, including hearths, structural remains, or
dumps; areas of discolored soil indicating the location of fire pits, post molds, or
living area surfaces.
Mitigation Measure CUL-2 (SAMP EIR Mitigation Measure 7.1b): If human remains are
encountered anywhere on the project site, all work shall stop in the immediate
vicinity of the discovered remains. Both the County Coroner and a qualified
Initial Study
Residences at Five Creek and Public Safety / Public Works Facilities
48 November 2016
archeologist shall be notified by the construction manager immediately so that an
evaluation can be performed. If the remains are deemed to be Native American
and prehistoric, the Native American Heritage Commission shall be contacted by
the Coroner so that a “Most Likely Descendant” can be designated and
recommendations for treatment solicited pursuant to CEQA Section 15064.5(e).
Mitigation Measure CUL-3 (SAMP EIR Mitigation Measure 7.3a): Per state law, in the event
that paleontological resources or unique geologic features are encountered during
construction, all earthwork within a 50 meter radius of the find will be stopped,
the City of Rohnert Park notified, and a paleontologist retained to examine the
find and make appropriate recommendations.
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than Significant with Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS – Would the project:
a) Expose people or structures to potential
substantial adverse effects, including the risk of
loss, injury, or death involving:
i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as
delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo
Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the
State Geologist for the area or based on other
substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer
to Division of Mines and Geology Special
Publication 42.
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking?
iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including
liquefaction?
iv) Landslides?
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss
of topsoil?
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is
unstable, or that would become unstable as a
result of the project, and potentially result in on- or
off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence,
liquefaction or collapse?
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table
18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994),
creating substantial risks to life or property?
e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the
use of septic tanks or alternative waste water
disposal systems where sewers are not available
for the disposal of waste water?
Initial Study
Residences at Five Creek and Public Safety / Public Works Facilities
49 November 2016
2.6 Geology and Soils
a) Would the project expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects,
including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:
i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-
Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area
or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of
Mines and Geology Special Publication 42.
The closest known active fault traces are those of the Rodgers Creek fault, approximately
3 miles northeast of the SAMP area and the San Andreas Fault, approximately 15 miles
southwest (City of Rohnert Park, 2007).
As stated in the SAMP EIR, because the project area is about 3 miles from known traces
of any potentially active fault and from known traces the nearest zoned active fault (the
Rodgers Creek fault), fault-line surface rupture would not be a hazard within the project
area (City of Rohnert Park, 2007). Impacts related to fault rupture potential would be
less than significant.
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking?
As discussed in the SAMP EIR, the City of Rohnert Park will be subjected to at least one
major earthquake during the useful economic life of the structures located in the SAMP
area (City of Rohnert Park, 2007). Resulting vibration from a 7.1 magnitude earthquake
on the Rodgers fault, which is located approximately 3 miles from the project area, could
cause damage to buildings, roads and infrastructure, and could cause ground failures such
as liquefaction or settlement in alluvium and poorly compacted soils (City of Rohnert
Park, 2007). This would be considered a significant impact. However, as discussed in
the SAMP EIR, the project would be required to implement Mitigation Measure GEO-1
(SAMP EIR Mitigation Measure 8-2a), which requires compliance with state building
code seismic requirements. This would ensure impacts related to ground shaking remain
less than significant.
iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction?
According to the SAMP EIR, liquefaction risk in the project area is considered to be low
(City of Rohnert Park, 2007). Accordingly, impacts associated with liquefaction would be
less than significant.
iv) Landslides?
Initial Study
Residences at Five Creek and Public Safety / Public Works Facilities
50 November 2016
No landslide deposits have been mapped within the SAMP area or in the immediate
vicinity (City of Rohnert Park, 2007). The California Geological Survey slope stability
map of southern Sonoma County categorizes the project area as being of the greatest
relative stability because there are no slopes steeper than 1 percent (City of Rohnert Park,
2007). Therefore, impacts associated with landslides would be less than significant.
b) Would the project result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil?
The existence of expansive soils within the SAMP area makes it necessary to ensure the
soils used for foundation support are sound (City of Rohnert Park, 2007). An acceptable
degree of soil stability can be achieved by the required incorporation of soil treatment
programs (e.g. grouting, compaction, drainage control, lime treatment) in the excavation
and construction plans to address site-specific soil conditions. The site-specific analysis
is necessary for foundation support design in areas where unsuitable conditions are
suspected. To ensure that the future development at the project site is not adversely
affected by unstable soil conditions, the project would be required to implement
Mitigation Measure GEO-2 (SAMP EIR Mitigation Measure 8-3a). Implementation of
Mitigation Measure GEO-2, which requires preparation of a site-specific soil analysis,
would ensure that impacts related to expansive soils would remain less than significant.
c) Would the project be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would
become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site
landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?
Refer to the answer provided in ‘b’ above.
d) Would the project be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the
Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property?
Refer to the answer provided in ‘b’ above.
e) Would the project have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks
or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the
disposal of waste water?
No septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems are proposed and the project
would have no impact related to these types of wastewater disposal.
Initial Study
Residences at Five Creek and Public Safety / Public Works Facilities
51 November 2016
Mitigation Measures
Mitigation Measure GEO-1 (SAMP EIR Mitigation Measure 8-2a): To reduce the primary and
secondary risks associated with seismically induced ground shaking at the site, it
is necessary to take the location and type of subsurface materials into
consideration when designing foundations and structures in the Master Plan area.
In the City of Rohnert Park, residential, commercial and institutional buildings,
bridges, pedestrian overcrossings, and all associated infrastructure are required to
reduce the exposure to potentially damaging seismic vibrations through seismic-
resistant design, in conformance with Chapter 16, Structural Design
Requirements, Division IV, Earthquake Design, of the California Building Code.
Because the Master Plan area is in the “near-source” area (within 3.1 miles of a
known active fault) of the Rodgers Creek fault, Section 1629, Criteria Selection,
of the Building Code requires special seismic design factors to be applied to the
project including:
• The use of California Building Code Seismic Zone 4 Standards as the
minimum seismic-resistant design for all proposed facilities;
• Additional seismic-resistant earthwork and construction design criteria, based
on future site-specific development projects;
• Recommendations of a California Certified Engineering Geologist in
cooperation with the project’s California-registered geotechnical and
structural engineers;
• An engineering analysis that demonstrates satisfactory performance of
alluvium or fill where either forms part or all of the support, especially where
the possible occurrence of liquefiable soils exist; and
• An analysis of soil expansion potential and appropriate remediation
(compaction, removal/replacement, etc.) prior to using any expansive soils for
foundation support.
Mitigation Measure GEO-2 (SAMP EIR Mitigation Measure 8-3a): As part of the construction
permitting process, the City requires completed reports of soil conditions at the
specific construction sites to identify potentially unstable soil conditions. The
evaluation must be conducted by registered soil professionals, and measures to
eliminate inappropriate soils conditions must be applied, depending on the soil
conditions. The design of foundation support must conform to the analysis and
implementation criteria described in the City’s Building Code, Chapters 16, 18,
Initial Study
Residences at Five Creek and Public Safety / Public Works Facilities
52 November 2016
and A33. Adherence to the City’s codes and policies ensures the maximum
practicable protection available for users of buildings and infrastructure and their
associated trenches, slopes, and foundations.
Site-specific soil suitability analysis and stabilization procedures, and design
criteria for foundations, as recommended by a California registered soil engineer
during the design phase for each site where existence of unsuitable soil conditions
is known or suspected, shall include, but not be limited to, the following
specifications:
a. During the design phase for each site where the existence of unsuitable
soil conditions is known or suspected, the developer’s registered soil
engineering consultant shall provide documentation to the City that:
1. Site-specific soil suitability analyses has been conducted in the
area of the proposed foundation to establish the design criteria for
appropriate foundation type and support, and
2. The recommended criteria have been incorporated in the design of
the foundation.
b. During grading for the site, the registered soils professional shall be on the
site:
1. To observe areas of potential soil unsuitability,
2. To supervise the implementation of soil remediation programs, and
3. To verify final soil conditions prior to setting the foundations.
c. The registered soils engineering consultant shall prepare an “as built”
map, to be filed with the City, showing details of the site soils, the location
of foundations, sub-drains and clean-outs, the results of suitability
analyses and compaction tests.
Initial Study
Residences at Five Creek and Public Safety / Public Works Facilities
53 November 2016
Potentially
Significant Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation Incorporated
Less Than
Significant Impact No Impact
VII. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS – Would the project:
a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either
directly or indirectly, that may have a significant
impact on the environment?
b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or
regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the
emissions of greenhouse gases?
2.7 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Introduction
Climate change refers to any significant change in measures of climate, such as temperature,
precipitation, or wind, lasting for an extended period (decades or longer). Gases that trap heat in
the atmosphere are often called greenhouse gases (GHGs). The greenhouse effect traps heat in
the troposphere through a threefold process: (1) short-wave radiation emitted by the Sun is
absorbed by the Earth; (2) the Earth emits a portion of this energy in the form of long-wave
radiation; and (3) GHGs in the upper atmosphere absorb this long-wave radiation and emit this
long-wave radiation into space and back toward the Earth. This trapping of the long-wave
(thermal) radiation emitted back toward the Earth is the underlying process of the greenhouse
effect.
Principal GHGs include CO2, methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), O3, and water vapor (H2O).
Some GHGs, such as CO2, CH4, and N2O, occur naturally and are emitted to the atmosphere
through natural processes and human activities. Of these gases, CO2 and CH4 are emitted in the
greatest quantities from human activities. Emissions of CO2 are largely byproducts of fossil-fuel
combustion, whereas CH4 results mostly from off-gassing associated with agricultural practices
and landfills. Man made GHGs, which have a much greater heat-absorption potential than CO2,
include fluorinated gases, such as hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), sulfur
hexafluoride (SF6), and nitrogen trifluoride (NF3), which are associated with certain industrial
products and processes (CAT 2006).
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) developed the Global Warming
Potential (GWP) concept to compare the ability of each GHG to trap heat in the atmosphere
relative to another gas. The GWP of a GHG is defined as the ratio of the time-integrated
radiative forcing from the instantaneous release of 1 kilogram of a trace substance relative to that
of 1 kilogram of a reference gas (IPCC 2014). The reference gas used is CO2; therefore, GWP-
weighted emissions are measured in metric tons of CO2 equivalent (MT CO2E).
Initial Study
Residences at Five Creek and Public Safety / Public Works Facilities
54 November 2016
CalEEMod assumes that the GWP for CH4 is 21 (which means that emissions of 1 MT of CH4
are equivalent to emissions of 21 MT of CO2), and the GWP for N2O is 310, based on the IPCC
Second Assessment Report. The IPCC has released subsequent Assessment Reports with updated
GWPs, and statewide documents are beginning to transition to the use of the GWPs in the IPCC
Fourth Assessment Report. Nonetheless, the use of the different GWPs would not substantially
change the overall project-generated GHG emissions, which are primarily CO2. As such, for the
purposes of this analysis, it is appropriate to use the hardwired GWP values in CalEEMod from
the IPCC Second Assessment Report.
With regard to impacts from GHGs, both BAAQMD and the California Air Pollution Control
Officers Association (CAPCOA) consider GHG impacts to be exclusively cumulative impacts
(BAAQMD 2012; CAPCOA 2008); therefore, assessment of significance is based on a
determination of whether the GHG emissions from a project represent a cumulatively
considerable contribution to the global atmosphere. This analysis uses both a quantitative and a
qualitative approach. The quantitative approach is used to address the first significance criterion:
Would the project generate GHG emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a
significant impact on the environment? This analysis considers that, because the quantifiable
thresholds developed by BAAQMD in its 2009 Justification Report were formulated based on
AB 32 and California Climate Change Scoping Plan reduction targets for which its set of
strategies were developed to reduce GHG emissions statewide, a project cannot exceed a
numeric BAAQMD threshold without also conflicting with an applicable plan, policy, or
regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of GHGs (the state Climate Change
Scoping Plan). Therefore, if a project exceeds a numeric threshold and results in a significant
cumulative impact, it would also result in a significant cumulative impact with respect to plan,
policy, or regulation consistency, even though the project may incorporate measures and have
features that would reduce its contribution to cumulative GHG emissions.
Separate thresholds of significance are established for operational emissions from stationary
sources (such as generators, furnaces, and boilers) and non-stationary sources (such as on-road
vehicles). As no threshold has been established for construction-related emissions, the
operational emissions thresholds apply. The threshold for stationary sources is 10,000 metric
tons of CO2E per year (i.e., emissions above this level may be considered significant). For non-
stationary sources, three separate thresholds have been established:
• Compliance with a Qualified Greenhouse Gas Reduction Strategy (i.e., if a project is
found to be out of compliance with a Qualified Greenhouse Gas Reduction Strategy, its
GHG emissions may be considered significant); or
• 1,100 metric tons of CO2E per year (i.e., emissions above this level may be considered
significant); or
Initial Study
Residences at Five Creek and Public Safety / Public Works Facilities
55 November 2016
• 4.6 metric tons of CO2E per service population per year (i.e., emissions above this level
may be considered significant). (Service population is the sum of residents plus employees
expected for a development project.)
BAAQMD considers GHG impacts to be exclusively cumulative and, as such, assessment of
significant in this Initial Study is based on a determination of whether the GHG emissions from
the Project represent cumulatively considerable contribution to the global atmosphere. The
quantitative threshold of 4.6 metric tons of CO2E per service population per year proposed by
BAAQMD in its 2009 Justification Report is applied to this analysis. If the project construction
or operational GHG emissions would exceed this threshold then, consistent with BAAQMD
Guidelines, it would be considered to have a cumulatively considerable contribution of GHG
emissions and a cumulatively significant impact on climate change.
a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a
significant impact on the environment?
CalEEMod was used to estimate GHG emissions from construction of the project, as well
as operational emissions of the project plus the residential development included in the
SAMP currently under construction to the north of the proposed project.
Construction. Construction of the proposed project would result in GHG emissions,
which are primarily associated with use of off-road construction equipment, on-road
hauling and vendor (material delivery) trucks, and worker vehicles. Since the BAAQMD
has not established construction-phase GHG thresholds, construction GHG emissions
were amortized assuming a 30-year development life after completion of construction
and added to operational emissions to compare to the BAAQMD operational GHG
threshold. Amortized GHG emissions associated with project construction would result in
annualized generation of approximately 72 MT CO2E.
A detailed depiction of the construction schedule—including information regarding
phasing, equipment utilized during each phase, haul trucks, vendor trucks, and worker
vehicles—is included in Appendix B.
Operations. Long-term operational emissions would occur over the life of the project.
CalEEMod was used to estimate GHG emissions from motor vehicle trips, grid electricity
usage, solid waste, and other sources (including area sources, natural gas combustion, and
water/wastewater conveyance). In addition to the proposed construction of the
Residences at Five Creek and the Public Safety/Public Works Facilities, the project
includes amendments to the General Plan and SAMP. To evaluate the GHG effects from
Initial Study
Residences at Five Creek and Public Safety / Public Works Facilities
56 November 2016
the entire SAMP area, the 328 multifamily residential units in the northern part of the
SAMP area were also included in the operational emission estimation.
CalEEMod default mobile source data, including temperature, trip characteristics,
variable start information, emission factors, and trip distances, were conservatively used
for the model inputs. Project-related traffic was assumed to be comprised of a mixture of
vehicles in accordance with the model defaults for traffic. The CalEEMod default trip
rate was adjusted to match the Traffic Impact Study for the project (W-Trans 2016). It is
assumed that the project site would be occupied and in operation in the year 2019.
CalEEMod was also used to estimate emissions from the project’s area sources, which
includes operation of gasoline-powered landscape maintenance equipment, which
produce minimal GHG emissions.
The estimation of operational energy emissions was based on CalEEMod land use
defaults and total area (i.e., square footage) of the proposed project. Annual natural gas
(non-hearth) and electricity emissions were estimated in CalEEMod using the emissions
factors for PG&E as a conservative estimate (since the Sonoma Clean Power is not
included in CalEEMod and GHG intensity factors are not known) and adjusted to account
for 25% Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) by 2016. The most recent amendments to
Title 24, Part 6, referred to as the 2016 standards, will become effective on January 1,
2017. In general, residences built to the 2016 standards are anticipated to use about 28%
less energy for lighting, heating, cooling, ventilation, and water heating than those built
to the 2013 standards, and nonresidential buildings built to the 2016 standards will use an
estimated 5% less energy than those built to the 2013 standards (CEC 2015). The
previous amendments were referred to as the 2013 standards and are currently effective.
Residential buildings constructed in accordance with the 2013 standards will use 23.3%
less electricity and 3.8% less natural gas than the 2008 standards. Non-residential
buildings constructed in accordance with the 2013 standards will use 21.8% less
electricity and 16.8% less natural gas than the 2008 standards (CEC 2013). Based on the
anticipated development schedule, the project was assumed to meet the 2016 California
Building Energy Efficiency Standards (Title 24, Part 6, of the California Code of
Regulations). The default CalEEMod energy use factors incorporate compliance with the
2008 Title 24 standards. These were adjusted to account for the 2016 Title 24 standards.
Supply, conveyance, treatment, and distribution of water for the project require the use of
electricity, which would result in associated indirect GHG emissions. Similarly,
wastewater generated by the proposed project requires the use of electricity for
conveyance and treatment, along with GHG emissions generated during wastewater
treatment. Water consumption estimates for both indoor and outdoor water use and
Initial Study
Residences at Five Creek and Public Safety / Public Works Facilities
57 November 2016
associated electricity consumption from water use and wastewater generation were
estimated using CalEEMod default values.
The proposed project would generate solid waste and would therefore result in CO2E
emissions associated with landfill off-gassing. The project was assumed to comply with
the 75% diversion rate consistent with AB 341 (Chesbro, Chapter 476, Statutes of 2011)
(25% increase from the solid waste diversion requirements of AB 939, Integrated Waste
Management Act), which was accounted for in the “Mitigation” options of CalEEMod
and are thus part of the mitigated scenario.
The estimated operational unmitigated GHG emissions from area sources, energy usage,
motor vehicles, solid waste generation, water supply, and wastewater treatment are
shown in Table 2.7-1.
Table 2.7-1
Estimated Annual Unmitigated Operational Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Emission Source CO2E (MT/yr)
Area 21.3
Energy 1,213.0
Mobile 4,824.9
Solid Waste 163.8
Water Supply and Wastewater 133.3
Total 6,356.2
Amortized Construction Emissions 71.5
Operation + Amortized Construction Total 6,427.7
Total GHGs per Service Population per Year 5.7
BAAQMD GHG Threshold 4.6
Significant (Yes or No)? Yes
Source: Appendix B
Notes: Total values may not sum due to rounding. GHG emissions are based on CalEEMod, assuming
construction of the project, as well as operational emissions of the project plus the residential development included
in the SAMP currently under construction to the north of the proposed project. Although they wouldn’t be considered
mitigation, compliance with the 2016 Title 24 standards and solid waste diversion rates consistent with AB 341 were
included in the mitigated scenario. The total service population (residents plus employees) was estimated to be
1,132 persons.
CO2E = carbon dioxide-equivalent; MT/year = metric tons per year
As shown in Table 2.7-1, unmitigated operational GHG emissions would exceed the
BAAQMD efficiency metric threshold. Thus, mitigation measures would be required.
The estimated operational GHG emissions with implementation of Mitigation Measure
GHG-1 are shown in Table 2.7-2.
Initial Study
Residences at Five Creek and Public Safety / Public Works Facilities
58 November 2016
Table 2.7-2
Estimated Annual Mitigated (Pre-Offsets) Operational Greenhouse Gas
Emissions
Emission Source CO2E (MT/yr)
Area 21.3
Energy 1,166.6
Mobile 4,372.2
Solid Waste 40.9
Water Supply and Wastewater 84.8
Total 5,685.8
Amortized Construction Emissions 71.5
Operation + Amortized Construction Total 5,757.3
Total GHGs per Service Population per Year 5.1
BAAQMD GHG Threshold 4.6
Significant (Yes or No)? Yes
Source: Appendix B Note: Total values may not sum due to rounding. GHG emissions are based on CalEEMod, assuming construction
of the project, as well as operational emissions of the project plus the residential development included in the SAMP
currently under construction to the north of the proposed project. Values include implementation of Mitigation
Measure GHG-1, including compliance with the 2016 Title 24 standards and solid waste diversion rates consistent
with AB 341, compliance with CALGreen Tier 1, high efficiency outdoor lighting, increased diversity, and improving
the pedestrian network. The total service population (residents plus employees) was estimated to be 1,132 persons.
CO2E = carbon dioxide-equivalent; MT/year = metric tons per year
Table 2.7-2 indicates that the GHG emissions associated with the project would still
exceed the BAAQMD efficiency metric of 4.6 MT CO2E per service population per year
after implementation of Mitigation Measure GHG-1. With a total service population of
1,132 persons (residents plus employees), the annual GHG emissions that the project plus
northern residential uses would need to be below would be approximately 5,207.2 MT
CO2E per year.2 As shown in Table 2.7-2, the operational GHG emissions would exceed
this level by 550.1 MT CO2E per year and would be significant. However, with the
additional purchase of carbon credits through implementation of Mitigation Measure
GHG-2, the project plus northern residential uses would offset excess GHG emissions
and would not generate GHG emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a
significant impact on the environment and this would represent a cumulatively less-
than-significant GHG impact.
2 Based on 4.6 MT CO2E/year/service population * 1,132 service population = 5,207.2 MT CO2E per year.
Initial Study
Residences at Five Creek and Public Safety / Public Works Facilities
59 November 2016
b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of
reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?
GHG emissions and climate change effects were not evaluated in the SAMP EIR. The
City of Rohnert Park has a GHG reduction plan that focuses on municipal operations,
which would only apply to the City of Rohnert Park Public Safety and Public Works
facility component of the project. The City is working with other jurisdictions to
implement the Sonoma County Community Climate Action Plan to serve all of Sonoma
County; however, this plan has not yet been adopted.
The Scoping Plan, approved by CARB on December 12, 2008, provides a framework
for actions to reduce California’s GHG emissions and meet the objectives of AB 32.
The Plan requires CARB and other state agencies to adopt regulations and other
initiatives to reduce GHGs. As such, the Scoping Plan is not directly applicable to
specific projects. Relatedly, in the Final Statement of Reasons for the Amendments to
the CEQA Guidelines, the CNRA observed that “[t]he [Scoping Plan] may not be
appropriate for use in determining the significance of individual projects because it is
conceptual at this stage and relies on the future development of regulations to
implement the strategies identified in the Scoping Plan” (CNRA 2009). Under the
Scoping Plan, however, there are several state regulatory measures aimed at the
identification and reduction of GHG emissions. CARB and other state agencies have
adopted many of the measures identified in the Scoping Plan. Most of these measures
focus on area source emissions (e.g., energy usage, high-GWP GHGs in consumer
products) and changes to the vehicle fleet (i.e., hybrid, electric, and more fuel-efficient
vehicles) and associated fuels (e.g., LCFS), among others.
The Scoping Plan recommends strategies for implementation at the statewide level to
meet the goals of AB 32 and establishes an overall framework for the measures that will
be adopted to reduce California’s GHG emissions.
Table 2.7-3 highlights measures that have been, or will be, developed under the Scoping
Plan and the project’s consistency with Scoping Plan measures. To the extent that these
regulations are applicable to the project, its inhabitants, or uses, the project would comply
will all regulations adopted in furtherance of the Scoping Plan to the extent required by
law.
Table 2.7-3
Project Consistency with Scoping Plan GHG Emission Reduction Strategies
Scoping Plan Measure Measure Number Project Consistency
Initial Study
Residences at Five Creek and Public Safety / Public Works Facilities
60 November 2016
Table 2.7-3
Project Consistency with Scoping Plan GHG Emission Reduction Strategies
Scoping Plan Measure
Measure
Number Project Consistency
Transportation Sector
Advanced Clean Cars T-1 The project’s residents and employees would purchase vehicles
in compliance with CARB vehicle standards that are in effect at
the time of vehicle purchase.
Low Carbon Fuel Standard T-2 Motor vehicles driven by the project’s residents and employees
would use compliant fuels.
Regional Transportation-Related
GHG Targets
T-3 The project includes design features intended to encourage non-
vehicular mobility including participation in Transportation
Demand Management (TDM) program, compliance with the
bicycle master plan and provision of bicycle parking, inclusion of
traffic calming measures, and provision of electric vehicle spaces
to supplement ongoing statewide efforts to increase fuel efficiency
standards, promote electric and hybrid vehicles, and promote
vehicular fuels from renewable resources.
Vehicle Efficiency Measures
1. Tire Pressure
2. Fuel Efficiency Tire Program
3. Low-Friction Oil
4. Solar-Reflective Automotive Paint and
Window Glazing
T-4 Motor vehicles driven by the project’s residents and employees
would maintain proper tire pressure when their vehicles are
serviced. The project’s residents and employees would replace
tires in compliance with CARB vehicle standards that are in effect
at the time of vehicle purchase. Motor vehicles driven by the
project’s residents and employees would use low-friction oils when
their vehicles are serviced. The project’s residents and employees
would purchase vehicles in compliance with CARB vehicle
standards that are in effect at the time of vehicle purchase.
Ship Electrification at Ports (Shore Power) T-5 Not applicable.
Goods Movement Efficiency Measures
1. Port Drayage Trucks
2. Transport Refrigeration Units Cold
Storage Prohibition
3. Cargo Handling Equipment, Anti-Idling,
Hybrid, Electrification
4. Goods Movement Systemwide Efficiency
Improvements
5. Commercial Harbor Craft Maintenance
and Design Efficiency
6. Clean Ships
7. Vessel Speed Reduction
T-6 Not applicable.
Heavy-Duty Vehicle GHG Emission
Reduction
1. Tractor-Trailer GHG Regulation
2. Heavy-Duty Greenhouse Gas Standards
for New Vehicle and Engines (Phase I)
T-7 Not applicable.
Medium- and Heavy-Duty Vehicle
Hybridization Voucher Incentive Project
T-8 Not applicable.
High-Speed Rail T-9 Not applicable.
Electricity and Natural Gas Sector
Initial Study
Residences at Five Creek and Public Safety / Public Works Facilities
61 November 2016
Table 2.7-3
Project Consistency with Scoping Plan GHG Emission Reduction Strategies
Scoping Plan Measure
Measure
Number Project Consistency
Energy Efficiency Measures (Electricity) E-1 The project would comply with current Title 24, Part 6, of the
California Code of Regulations energy efficiency standards for
electrical appliances and other devices at the time of building
construction. The project would use high-efficiency LED lighting
for outdoor areas.
Energy Efficiency (Natural Gas) CR-1 The project would comply with current Title 24, Part 6, of the
California Code of Regulations energy efficiency standards for
natural gas appliances and other devices at the time of building
construction.
Solar Water Heating (California Solar Initiative
Thermal Program)
CR-2 Determined by the project applicant to not be feasible. See
discussion regarding Measure E-4.
Combined Heat and Power E-2 Not applicable.
Renewable Portfolios Standard (33% by 2020) E-3 The electricity used by the project would benefit from reduced
GHG emissions resulting from increased use of renewable energy
sources.
SB 1 Million Solar Roofs
(California Solar Initiative, New Solar Home
Partnership, Public Utility Programs) and
Earlier Solar Programs
E-4 Based on information provided by the project applicant, on-site
generation of renewable energy using solar panels is not feasible
given the minimal commercial rooftop space available to provide
the electricity needed to make rooftop solar economically feasible,
as well as the shared rooftops but individual electricity meters of
the multifamily residential uses.
Water Sector
Water Use Efficiency W-1 The project would comply with CALGreen Tier 1 and result in
reduced indoor and outdoor water use by 20%.
Water Recycling W-2 Recycled water is available to the site.
Water System Energy Efficiency W-3 This is applicable for the transmission and treatment of water, but
it is not applicable for the project.
Reuse Urban Runoff W-4 Not applicable
Renewable Energy Production W-5 Applicable for wastewater treatment systems. Not applicable for the
project.
Green Buildings
1. State Green Building Initiative: Leading
the Way with State Buildings (Greening
New and Existing State Buildings)
GB-1 The project would be required to be constructed in compliance
with state or local green building standards in effect at the time of
building construction.
2. Green Building Standards Code
(Greening New Public Schools,
Residential and Commercial Buildings)
GB-1 The project’s buildings would meet green building standards that
are in effect at the time of design and construction.
3. Beyond Code: Voluntary Programs at the
Local Level (Greening New Public
Schools, Residential and Commercial
Buildings)
GB-1 The project would be required to be constructed in compliance
with local green building standards in effect at the time of building
construction.
4. Greening Existing Buildings (Greening
Existing Homes and Commercial
Buildings)
GB-1 This is applicable for existing buildings only. It is not applicable for
the project except as future standards may become applicable to
existing buildings.
Initial Study
Residences at Five Creek and Public Safety / Public Works Facilities
62 November 2016
Table 2.7-3
Project Consistency with Scoping Plan GHG Emission Reduction Strategies
Scoping Plan Measure
Measure
Number Project Consistency
Industry Sector
Energy Efficiency and Co-Benefits
Audits for Large Industrial Sources
I-1 Not applicable.
Oil and Gas Extraction GHG Emission
Reduction
I-2 Not applicable.
GHG Emissions Reduction from Natural Gas
Transmission and Distribution
I-3 Not applicable.
Refinery Flare Recovery Process
Improvements
I-4 Not applicable.
Work with the local air districts to evaluate
amendments to their existing leak detection
and repair rules for industrial facilities to
include methane leaks
I-5 This is not applicable based on anticipated industrial uses.
Recycling and Waste Management Sector
Landfill Methane Control Measure RW-1 Not applicable.
Increasing the Efficiency of Landfill Methane
Capture
RW-2 Not applicable.
Mandatory Commercial Recycling RW-3 During both construction and operation of the project, the
project would comply with all state regulations related to solid
waste generation, storage, and disposal, including the
California Integrated Waste Management Act, as amended.
During construction, all wastes would be recycled to the
maximum extent possible.
Increase Production and Markets for Compost
and Other Organics
RW-3 Not applicable.
Anaerobic/Aerobic Digestion RW-3 Not applicable.
Extended Producer Responsibility RW-3 Not applicable (applicable to product designer and producers).
Environmentally Preferable Purchasing RW-3 Not applicable (applicable to product designer and producers).
Forests Sector
Sustainable Forest Target F-1 Not applicable.
High GWP Gases Sector
Motor Vehicle Air Conditioning Systems:
Reduction of Refrigerant Emissions from Non-
Professional Servicing
H-1 The project’s residents and employees would be prohibited from
performing air conditioning repairs and would be required to use
professional servicing.
SF6 Limits in Non-Utility and Non-
Semiconductor Applications
H-2 Not applicable.
Reduction of Perfluorocarbons in
Semiconductor Manufacturing
H-3 Not applicable.
Limit High GWP Use in Consumer Products H-4 The project’s residents and employees would use consumer
products that would comply with the regulations that are in effect
at the time of manufacture.
Initial Study
Residences at Five Creek and Public Safety / Public Works Facilities
63 November 2016
Table 2.7-3
Project Consistency with Scoping Plan GHG Emission Reduction Strategies
Scoping Plan Measure
Measure
Number Project Consistency
Air Conditioning Refrigerant Leak Test During
Vehicle Smog Check
H-5 Motor vehicles driven by the project’s residents and employees
would comply with the leak test requirements during smog
checks.
Stationary Equipment Refrigerant
Management Program – Refrigerant
Tracking/Reporting/Repair Program
H-6 Not applicable.
Stationary Equipment Refrigerant
Management Program – Specifications for
Commercial and Industrial Refrigeration
H-6 Not applicable.
SF6 Leak Reduction Gas Insulated Switchgear H-6 Not applicable.
Agriculture Sector
Methane Capture at Large Dairies A-1 Not applicable.
Source: CARB 2008. Notes: CARB = California Air Resources Board; CCR = California Code of Regulations; GHG = greenhouse gas; GWP = global warming
potential; SB = Senate Bill; SF6 = sulfur hexafluoride
Based on the analysis in Table 2.7-3, the project would be consistent with the applicable
strategies and measures in the Scoping Plan.
In regards to consistency with SB 32 (goal of reducing GHG emissions to 40% below
1990 levels by 2030) and EO S-3-05 (goal of reducing GHG emissions to 80% below
1990 levels by 2050), there are no established protocols or thresholds of significance for
that future year analysis. . However, the Project is consistent with AB 32 goals by virtue
of the City’s reliance on the BAAQMD’s AB 32 derived per-capita efficiency metric of
4.6 MT CO2E per service population per year (see paragraph (a) above). Since the
Project’s GHG emissions fall below this BAAQMD thresholds derived from AB 32
attachment goals with the implementation of Mitigation Measures GHG-1 and GHG-2,
the Project would not conflict with AB 32 and its associated planning efforts.
Furthermore, CARB forecasts that compliance with the current Scoping Plan puts the
state on a trajectory of meeting these long-term GHG goals, although the specific path to
compliance is unknown (CARB 2014). As discussed previously, the project would result
in less than significant GHG emissions after implementation of Mitigation Measures
GHG-1 and GHG-2 and would not conflict with the state’s trajectory toward future GHG
reductions. In addition, since the specific path to compliance for the state in regards to the
long-term goals will likely require development of technology or other changes that are
not currently known or available, specific additional mitigation measures for the project
would be speculative and cannot be identified at this time. With respect to future GHG
Initial Study
Residences at Five Creek and Public Safety / Public Works Facilities
64 November 2016
targets under SB 32 and EO S-3-05, CARB has also made clear its legal interpretation
that it has the requisite authority to adopt whatever regulations are necessary, beyond the
AB 32 horizon year of 2020, to meet the reduction targets in 2030 and in 2050; this legal
interpretation by an expert agency provides evidence that future regulations will be
adopted to continue the state on its trajectory toward meeting these future GHG targets.
Based on the preceding considerations, the project would not conflict with an applicable
plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of GHGs,
and no additional mitigation is required.
Mitigation Measures
Mitigation Measure GHG-1: The project applicant shall incorporate the following GHG
reduction measures into the project design:
• Compliance with the applicable Title 24 energy efficiency standards at the
time of development. At a minimum, compliance with the 2016 Title 24
standards
• Compliance with state and/or local green building standards. At a minimum,
implementation of CALGreen Tier 1 standards
• Install high efficiency LED lights in outdoor areas
• Participation in a TDM Program
• Improve the pedestrian network and implement traffic calming measures
throughout the project
• Ensure solid waste diversion consistent with AB 341
• Include shade canopy over parking lots, where appropriate and feasible
• Provide residents and employees information regarding transit availability
• Provide carpool and/or car sharing parking spaces
• Provide electric vehicle parking
• Comply with the City bicycle master plan and provide adequate bicycle
parking
Initial Study
Residences at Five Creek and Public Safety / Public Works Facilities
65 November 2016
Mitigation Measure GHG-2: Prior to the issuance of the occupancy permit, the project
applicant shall purchase and retire voluntary carbon offsets on the Climate Action
Reserve (CAR), CAPCOA Greenhouse Gas Reduction Exchange (GHG Rx), or
other verified carbon registry, in order to reduce the project’s emissions to below
the BAAQMD threshold of significance of 4.6 MT CO2E per service population
per year. The BAAQMD requires the lead agency to ensure that offsite measures
for reducing GHG emissions are feasible, measurable, and verifiable. The project
proponent shall provide BAAQMD a certificate of purchase, verification opinion
statement, and proof of offset retirement by the verification body from which the
carbon offsets were purchased. If overall land use development changes from what
has been assessed in this document, the project applicant shall be required to show
consistency with the analysis conclusions herein, which may include the purchase
of additional carbon offsets, if required.
Potentially Significant
Impact
Less Than Significant with Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than Significant
Impact No Impact
VIII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS – Would the project:
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through the routine transport, use, or
disposal of hazardous materials?
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through reasonably foreseeable upset
and accident conditions involving the release of
hazardous materials into the environment?
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or
acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste
within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed
school?
d) Be located on a site that is included on a list of
hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to
Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a
result, would it create a significant hazard to the
public or the environment?
e) 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
for people residing or working in the project area?
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip,
would the project result in a safety hazard for
people residing or working in the project area?
g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere
with an adopted emergency response plan or
emergency evacuation plan?
Initial Study
Residences at Five Creek and Public Safety / Public Works Facilities
66 November 2016
Potentially
Significant Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation Incorporated
Less Than
Significant Impact No Impact
h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of
loss, injury or death involving wildland fires,
including where wildlands are adjacent to
urbanized areas or where residences are
intermixed with wildlands?
2.8 Hazards and Hazardous Materials
a) Would the project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through
the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials?
The proposed project would allow for future development of mixed uses on the
Residences at Five Creek parcel and public facilities on the City Public Safety / Public
Works parcel. Future construction at the proposed project site could expose construction
workers, the public, or the environment to hazardous materials through reasonably
foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials
into the environment. The hazardous materials anticipated to be used are hydrocarbons
and their derivatives (i.e. gasoline, oils, lubricants, solvents) required
to operate the construction equipment. These materials would generally be used in
excavation equipment, generators, and other construction equipment and would be
contained within vessels engineered for safe storage. Only small quantities of potentially
toxic substances (e.g., petroleum and other chemicals used to operate and maintain
construction equipment) would be used at the project site and transported to and from the
site during construction. Accidental releases of small quantities of these substances could
contaminate soils and degrade the quality of surface water and groundwater, resulting in a
significant public safety hazard.
It is anticipated that hazardous materials used during long-term operation of the
Residences at Five Creek project would include building maintenance and cleaning
chemicals, as well as other landscaping chemicals. These materials are commonly used
across all types of land uses, and the proposed project is not expected to present any
significant risks associated with their use. Any transport of these materials would be
required to comply with various federal and state laws regarding hazardous materials
transportation. The City Public Safety and Public Works site would include a gasoline
and diesel fueling station for fire trucks and other vehicles at the Public Works
corporation yard, along with chemicals associated with a vehicle maintenance facility.
Initial Study
Residences at Five Creek and Public Safety / Public Works Facilities
67 November 2016
The City Public Safety and Public Works development would also include a hazardous
materials storage area for materials such as paints, used oil, batteries, pesticides, and
cleaners.
Because the project site is located within the SAMP, the developer and City would be
required to implement Mitigation Measure HAZ-1 (SAMP EIR Mitigation Measures 9-
1a, 9-1b, and 9-1c). This would ensure that potential exposure to hazardous contaminants
during construction and during long term operation would be reduced through standard
control measures and preparation of the appropriate safety plans. Implementation and
compliance with the City’s plans, requirements, and Mitigation Measure HAZ-1 would
reduce any potential impacts to less than significant.
b) Would the project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through
reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of
hazardous materials into the environment?
Refer to the answer provided in ‘a’ above.
c) 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?
The Bergin University of Canine Studies is located at 5860 Labath Avenue, immediately
north of Carlson Avenue and the project site. However, the project would not create
hazardous emissions or hazardous waste and would not handle hazardous materials or
substances. The project would have no impact related to exposure of the project site to
hazards and hazardous materials.
d) 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, would it
create a significant hazard to the public or the environment?
A search of federal, state, and local databases regarding hazardous material releases and
site cleanup lists was conducted for preparation of the SAMP EIR (City of Rohnert Park,
2007). The SAMP area was not identified in any of the records, is not included on the
Department of Toxic Substance Control’s site cleanup list, and is not expected to be
affected by any offsite spill incidents. The project would have no impact related to the
site being included on or affected by other sites that are included on a hazardous material
release site.
Initial Study
Residences at Five Creek and Public Safety / Public Works Facilities
68 November 2016
e) 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 for people residing or working in the project area?
The project would have no impact related to airport safety.
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety
hazard for people residing or working in the project area?
Refer to the answer provided in ‘e’ above.
g) Would the project impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted
emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
The project would not interfere with any adopted emergency or evacuation plans. The
project includes development of a public safety facility. Upon completion of the public
safety facility, response times in the project area would be reduced. Therefore, the
project would have no impact related to implementation of emergency plans.
h) Would the project expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or
death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized
areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands?
The City of Rohnert Park General Plan states that the potential for wildland fires varies
within the City (City of Rohnert Park, 2000). The project area is developed with small
areas of vacant land. The project site is surrounded by commercial and industrial
development and future development of the site is not expected to expose workers or the
public to wildland fire. Because the project site is located within the SAMP, the
developer would be required to implement Mitigation Measures HAZ-2a and HAZ-2b
(SAMP EIR Mitigation Measure 9-6a and 9-6b). Implementation of these mitigation
measures would ensure that risks associated with wildland fires remain less than
significant.
Mitigation Measures
Mitigation Measure HAZ-1 (SAMP EIR Mitigation Measures 9-1a through 9-1c):
a. The city shall require that contractors transport, store, and handle hazardous materials
required for construction in a manner consistent with relevant regulations and
guidelines, including those recommended and enforced by the City of Rohnert Park
Department of Public Safety (DPS).
Initial Study
Residences at Five Creek and Public Safety / Public Works Facilities
69 November 2016
b. In the event of a spill of hazardous materials in an amount reportable to the DPS (as
established by DPS guidelines), the contractor shall immediately control the source of
the leak and contain the spill. If required by the DPS or other regulatory agencies,
contaminated soils will be excavated and disposed of offsite at a facility approved to
accept such soils.
c. The City shall require development under the Master Plan to include plans to prevent
the pollution of surface water and groundwater and to promote the health and safety
of workers and other people in the project vicinity. These programs shall include an
operations and maintenance plan, a site-specific safety plan, and a fire prevention
plan, in addition to the Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) required to
prevent impacts associated with contaminated storm water. The programs are
required by law and shall require approval by several responsible agencies. Required
approvals are: the SWPPP shall be approved by the RWQCB; the site-specific safety
plan and the operations and maintenance plan shall be approved by the Rohnert Park
DPS.
The City shall require the applicant to develop and implement a hazardous materials
management plan that addresses public health and safety issues by providing safety
measures, including release prevention measures; employee training, notification, and
evacuation procedures; and adequate emergency response protocols and cleanup
procedures.
The City shall require project applicants and their designated contractors to comply
with Cal-OSHA, as well as federal standards, for the storage and handling of fuels,
flammable materials, and common construction-related hazardous materials and for
fire prevention.
Mitigation Measure HAZ-2 (SAMP EIR Mitigation Measures 9-6a and 96-b):
a. Prior to construction, if dry vegetation or other fire fuels exist on or near staging
areas, or any other area on which equipment will be operated, contractors shall clear
the immediate area of fire fuel. To maintain a firebreak and minimize the availability
of fire fuels, the City shall require contractors to maintain areas subject to
construction activities clear of combustible natural materials to the extent feasible.
To avoid conflicts with policies to preserve riparian habitat, areas to be cleared shall
be identified with the assistance of a qualified biologist.
b. The City shall require contractors to equip construction equipment that normally
includes a spark arrester with an arrester in good working order.
Initial Study
Residences at Five Creek and Public Safety / Public Works Facilities
70 November 2016
Potentially
Significant Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation Incorporated
Less Than
Significant Impact No Impact
IX. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY – Would the project:
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste
discharge requirements?
b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or
interfere substantially with groundwater recharge
such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer
volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table
level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing
nearby wells would drop to a level which would not
support existing land uses or planned uses for
which permits have been granted)?
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of
the site or area, including through the alteration of
the course of a stream or river, in a manner which
would result in substantial erosion or siltation on-
or off-site?
d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the
site or area, including through the alteration of the
course of a stream or river, or substantially increase
the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner
which would result in flooding on- or off-site?
e) 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?
f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality?
g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area
as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or
Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard
delineation map?
h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures
which would impede or redirect flood flows?
i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of
loss, injury or death involving flooding, including
flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam?
j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow?
Initial Study
Residences at Five Creek and Public Safety / Public Works Facilities
71 November 2016
2.9 Hydrology and Water Quality
a) Would the project violate any water quality standards or waste discharge
requirements?
As noted in the SAMP EIR, the largest concentration of impervious surface in the
northwest area of Rohnert Park occurs in the existing commercial/industrial areas to the
west, south, and east of the SAMP. The northern portion of the SAMP area, including
the project site, contains large areas of vacant or undeveloped land. As previously
discussed, the project would allow for future development of a mix of land uses including
commercial, residential, a park, and public facilities.
Development at the project site would include earth-disturbing activities, grading, and
trenching that could expose disturbed areas and stockpiled soils to winter rainfall and
stormwater runoff. Areas of exposed or stockpiled soils could be subject to sheet erosion
during short periods of peak stormwater runoff, allowing temporary discharges of
sediment to Hinebaugh Creek, which empties into Laguna de Santa Rosa. If not managed
properly, water used for dust suppression during construction could also enter drainage
systems or creeks and ultimately into Laguna de Santa Rosa. Accidental spills of
construction-related contaminants (e.g., fuels, oils, paints, solvents, cleaners, and
concrete) could also occur during construction, resulting in releases to nearby surface
water, and thereby degrading water quality. Implementation of Mitigation Measures
HYDRO-1 (SAMP EIR Mitigation Measure 10-3a), which requires compliance with state
and local regulatory permit requirements regarding the non-point pollution source control
of stormwater runoff through the application of Best Management Practices, would
reduce construction-related impacts on water quality to a less than significant level.
The proposed project could result in changes to drainage patterns and water quality
associated with the altered use of the site. Stormwater that drains from the site would
potentially carry different or possibly higher concentrations of pollutants into receiving
waters. Water used for irrigation of landscaped areas may encounter pesticides,
herbicides, and fertilizer. Water that encounters these chemicals but is not absorbed by
plants and soil could enter the storm drain system and be conveyed to receiving waters.
The potential discharges of contaminated urban runoff from paved and landscaped areas
with implementation of the proposed project could contribute to adverse effects on
aquatic organisms in receiving waters.
Initial Study
Residences at Five Creek and Public Safety / Public Works Facilities
72 November 2016
As discussed in the Project Description, the proposed project would require construction
of a new storm drain system and outfall at Hinebaugh Creek. These improvements would
be construction in compliance with the City’s Storm Drain Design Standards. Water
quality and stormwater runoff is regulated under a National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) municipal separate storm sewer system (MS4) stormwater
permit with the North Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB).
As of 2014, the Storm Drain Design Standards reference the City of Santa Rosa and
Sonoma County 2011 LID Manual, as required by the City’s MS4 permit. The manual
provides technical guidance for project designs that require the implementation of
permanent LID features and stormwater BMPs. The design goal stated in the LID Manual
requires that 100 percent of the design storm event (85th percentile, 24 hour) runoff
generated from the developed site be treated on-site, and that any increase in runoff
volume caused by development or redevelopment for the design storm be infiltrated
and/or reused on-site. To meet the design goal, the project would include gravel storage
zones under vegetated areas within the site. CalGreen requirements would require a
certain percentage of the Residence at Five Creek apartment complex to be paved with
permeable materials, potentially allowing for additional runoff storage under the parking
lot. The total volume of storage required for the project would be reduced based on the
use of pollution prevention measures such as interceptor trees, impervious area
disconnection, and vegetated buffers.
Design and construction of drainage systems per the Sonoma County Water Agency
(SCWA) Flood Control Design Criteria would ensure that storm drainage systems are
adequately sized. Implementation of post-construction BMPs would reduce pollutants in
stormwater runoff. With implementation of Mitigation Measures HYDRO-1(SAMP EIR
Mitigation Measure 10-3a) , which include post-construction BMPs, as well as adherence
to the City, state and local regulatory requirements, potential water quality and runoff
impacts from development at the project site would be reduced to a less than significant
level.
b) Would the project substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially
with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or
a lowering of the local groundwater table level (i.e., the production rate of pre-existing
nearby wells would drop to a level that would not support existing land uses or planned
uses for which permits have been granted)?
Initial Study
Residences at Five Creek and Public Safety / Public Works Facilities
73 November 2016
The future construction of impervious surfaces on the project site would reduce
infiltration to the water table. However, as discussed in the SAMP EIR, the project area is
not considered a major or important recharge zone in the City (City of Rohnert Park,
2007).
Most of the city’s potable water supply wells draw from the Intermediate aquifer, with a
few drawing from the Deep and Lower aquifers. These aquifers receive almost no
recharge from the Shallow aquifer in the SAMP area because the intervening clay and
sandy clay deposits that underlay the SAMP area prevent substantial downward
percolation. The delay of recharge to the Shallow aquifer in the SAMP area would have a
less than significant effect on the amount of groundwater available to the City in the other
aquifers throughout the groundwater basin. There would be a less than significant
impact regarding groundwater supply or recharge.
c) 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, in a manner which
would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site?
Future development at the project site would require vegetation removal, grading,
trenching, and soil movement for the placement of new structures on-site, which would
alter drainage courses and runoff patterns from existing conditions. Development of the
project would also result in construction of a new storm drain system with an outfall to
Hinebaugh Creek. Alterations to existing drainage patterns or flow velocities could result
in a short-term increase in erosion or siltation that may have substantial adverse effects
on water quality.
Once completed, the project could result in altered drainage patterns that could increase
the potential for erosion, siltation, and associated adverse water quality effects on- or off-
site. As previously discussed, the City requires all new development projects to design
and construct storm drainage systems in accordance with the City of Rohnert Park Storm
Drain Design Standards, which includes the City of Santa Rosa and Sonoma County’s
Manual and associated LID requirements. Adherence to the City’s SWMP would provide
for compliance with the City’s MS4 NPDES stormwater permit requirements through the
implementation of site-specific stormwater capture and treatment BMPs, as well as
maintenance and inspection requirements for those BMPs. Implementation of Mitigation
Measure HYDRO-1 (SAMP EIR Mitigation Measure 10-3a), which requires compliance
with state and local regulatory permit requirements regarding the non-point pollution
source control of stormwater runoff through the application of Best Management
Practices, would ensure that sedimentation impacts are reduced to a less than significant
level.
Initial Study
Residences at Five Creek and Public Safety / Public Works Facilities
74 November 2016
d) 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 substantially
increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in
flooding on- or off-site?
Refer to the answer provided in ‘c’ above.
e) Would the project 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?
The project site is primarily undeveloped, vacant land. Future development of the site
would involve covering the site with impervious surfaces such as driveways, parking lots,
and buildings. The surfaces would be graded to direct drainage away from structures. The
impervious surfaces would reduce surface water infiltration and increase the rate and
volume of surface runoff leaving the site.
The existing topography is relatively fat, gently sloping westerly toward Labath Avenue.
This project was included as a tributary to the storm drain system within Labath Avenue,
where the site currently drains. An existing 30-inch and 36-inch storm drains collect
runoff and convey flows westerly down Martin and Carlson Avenues, respectively. These
storm drains ultimately converge and outlet into Hinebaugh Creek.
As part of the Costco project, a new outfall to Hinebaugh Creek was constructed. The
design of this storm drain system did not include the project site, thus, this system is at
full capacity. As previously discussed, the proposed project would require the
construction of a new system to drain on-site runoff. This system would require a new
outfall to Hinebaugh Creek, just west of the existing Labath Avenue Bridge. The new
storm drain system would be designed to accept 15.25 acres from the Residence at Five
Creek parcel, the City Public Safety and Public Works parcel, and an additional adjacent
parcel, for a total tributary area of 17.08 acres.
The tributary area is less than one square mile, and would be classified as a minor
waterway. The storm drain system would be designed to accommodate the 10-year storm
event and would require a 36-inch minimum diameter storm drain per the attached
Channel Report.
Construction of new storm drain systems would be required to comply with the
Stormwater Phase II regulations administered by the North Coast Regional Water Quality
Control Board through permits to the City. With the stormwater detention measures in
place and operative, there would be no increase in the runoff rate that leaves the site over
Initial Study
Residences at Five Creek and Public Safety / Public Works Facilities
75 November 2016
the existing site level. Accordingly, impacts related to surface runoff or flooding would
be less than significant.
f) Would the project otherwise substantially degrade water quality?
Increased runoff from the construction of impermeable surfaces on the project site could
lower the quality of stormwater runoff and infiltrating groundwater. The major
contributor of contaminants to runoff and infiltrating groundwater is the land surface over
which the water passes.
In developed areas, driveways, parking lots, sidewalks, streets and gutters are connected
directly to storm drains that collect and guide stormwater runoff. Between rainstorms,
materials accumulate on these surfaces from debris dropped or scattered by individuals,
street sweepings, debris and other particulate matter washed into roadways from adjacent
areas, wastes and dirt from construction and renovation or demolition, fecal droppings
from animals, remnants of household refuse dropped during collection or scattered by
animals or wind, oil and various residues contributed by automobiles, and fallout of air-
borne particles.
During rainfall, stormwater may take several paths when it reaches the ground surface.
As water fills surface depressions, it seeps into the ground where the ground is
permeable. Where the rate of rain reaching the ground exceeds the rate of infiltration, a
film of water builds up on the ground surface. Once this film is of sufficient depth (about
0.1 inch), the water collecting on the ground surface begins to flow. The initial flow of
each storm often contains the highest concentrations of pollutants, but this is not always
the case because the phenomenon is dependent on the duration of the preceding dry
weather period, rainfall patterns, rainfall intensity, the chemistry of individual pollutants,
and other site-specific conditions.
If uncontrolled, the accumulation of urban pollutants could have a detrimental cumulative
effect because overland flow from paved surfaces and landscaped areas carries many of
the above-listed contaminants, thereby contributing to the deterioration of the quality of
stormwater runoff and infiltrating groundwater. The eventual result would be the
deterioration of water quality in downstream receiving waters. Reaches of drainage-ways
downstream from the project site would carry stormwater runoff to Hinebaugh Creek and
Laguna de Santa Rosa and, eventually, to the Russian River, which would be subject to
water quality deterioration.
The previous discussions of erosion and sedimentation control and storm-drainage system
design provide documentation of the requirements to reduce turbidity and capacity
Initial Study
Residences at Five Creek and Public Safety / Public Works Facilities
76 November 2016
effects. The City’s General Plan Policy HS-5 encourages the use of environmentally
sensitive drainage improvements to ensure the protection of surface water quality and
stream integrity. There would be a less than significant impact regarding pollution from
surface water runoff.
g) Would the project place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a
federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard
delineation map?
Section 7.2, Drainage, Erosion, Stormwater, and Flooding of the city’s General Plan and
Community Panel Number 060375 0860 B of FEMA’s Flood Insurance Rate Maps for
Sonoma County both place the SAMP and the project site outside the 500-year zone and
the 100-year flood hazard area. There are no dams or levees in the vicinity of the project
site. The project would not expose people or structures to significant loss related to
flooding. The project site is physically removed from any large body of water and is not
subject to inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow. The project would have no impact
related to flooding or other water-related hazards.
h) Would the project place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which would
impede or redirect flood flows?
Refer to the answer provided in ‘g’ above.
i) Would the project expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury
or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee
or dam?
Refer to the answer provided in ‘g’ above.
j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow?
Refer to the answer provided in ‘g’ above.
Mitigation Measures
Mitigation Measure HYDRO-1: (SAMP EIR Mitigation Measure 10-3a ) Because the SAMP
Project would involve grading of an area that is greater than one acre, it would be
subject to the conditions of the General Construction Activity NPDES permit
from the Regional Water Quality Control Board. This permit requires the
preparation of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). The SWPPP is
required to identify the sources of sediment and other pollutants on site, and to
Initial Study
Residences at Five Creek and Public Safety / Public Works Facilities
77 November 2016
ensure the reduction of sediment and other pollutants in stormwater discharged
from the Site. A monitoring program is required to aid the implementation of, and
assure compliance with, the SWPPP.
The permit requirements of the RWQCB must be satisfied prior to project
construction. As part of the SWPPP, an Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan
must be prepared for the Stadium Area Master Plan Site prior to grading. An
erosion control professional, or landscape architect or civil engineer specializing
in erosion control must design the Erosion and Sediment Transport Control Plan.
The erosion and sediment transport control plan shall be submitted, reviewed,
implemented and inspected as part of the approval process for the grading plans
for each Project.
The Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) recommends the control plan
be designed using concepts similar to those formulated by ABAG, as appropriate,
based on the specific erosion and sediment transport control needs of each area in
which grading, excavation, and construction is to occur. A few of the most critical
techniques to be considered include, but are not limited to, the following types of
erosion control methods:
• Confine grading and activities related to grading (demolition, construction,
preparation and use of equipment and material storage areas, staging areas,
and preparation of access roads) to the dry season, whenever possible. The dry
season is generally deemed to be from April to September of each year.
• If grading or activities related to grading need to be scheduled for the wet
season, ensure that structural erosion and sediment transport control measures
are ready for implementation prior to the onset of the first major storm of the
season.
• Locate staging areas outside major streams and drainage ways.
• Keep the lengths and gradients of constructed slopes (cut or fill) as low as
possible.
• Discharge grading and construction runoff into small drainages at frequent
intervals to avoid buildup of large potentially erosive flows.
• Prevent runoff from flowing over unprotected slopes.
Initial Study
Residences at Five Creek and Public Safety / Public Works Facilities
78 November 2016
• Keep disturbed areas (areas of grading and related activities) to the minimum
necessary for demolition or construction.
• Keep runoff away from disturbed areas during grading and related activities.
• Stabilize disturbed areas as quickly as possible, either by vegetative or
mechanical methods.
• Direct runoff over vegetated areas prior to discharge into public storm
drainage systems, whenever possible.
• Trap sediment before it leaves the Site with techniques such as check dams,
sediment ponds, or siltation fences.
• Make the contractor responsible for the removal and disposal in offsite
retention ponds of all sedimentation that is generated by grading and related
activities of the Project.
• Use landscaping and grading methods that lower the potential for down-
stream sedimentation. Modified drainage patterns, longer flow paths,
encouraging infiltration into the ground, and slower stormwater conveyance
velocities are examples of effective methods.
• Control landscaping activities carefully with regard to the application of
fertilizers, herbicides, pesticides or other hazardous substances.
• Provide proper instruction to all landscaping personnel on the construction
team.
During the installation of the erosion and sediment transport control structures, an
erosion control professional shall be on the Site to supervise the implementation
of the designs, and the maintenance of the facilities throughout the grading and
construction period.
The erosion control professional shall prepare an "as built" erosion and sediment
control facility map, to be filed with the City, showing details of the structural
elements of the plan and providing an operating and maintenance schedule
throughout the operational period of the Project.
These erosion and sediment transport control structures need to be in place prior
to the onset of seasonal rains. If portions of these phases extend into the wet
season, sediment can be prevented from leaving the construction sites through the
Initial Study
Residences at Five Creek and Public Safety / Public Works Facilities
79 November 2016
use of silt fences, straw bales, perimeter ditches, water bars, temporary culverts
and swales, sediment traps, minimal grading concepts, and/or similar techniques
appropriate for the Site. If grading or construction is to occur during the wet
season, the Project will require an erosion and sediment transport control plan,
designed by an erosion control professional, landscape architect, or civil engineer
specializing in erosion control, that shall meet the objectives for the grading and
construction period of construction projects proposed for the Stadium Master
Plan.
A Best Management Practices (BMP) program, as required by the RWQCB,
describes stormwater management practices (structural and operational measures)
to control the quantity and quality of stormwater runoff, and aid in erosion
control. Following construction, the permit requires the implementation of long-
term measures to manage runoff throughout the operational period of the Project.
BMPs to prevent onsite or off-site erosion would be required in the stormwater
management
Potentially Significant Impact
Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated
Less Than Significant Impact No Impact
X. LAND USE AND PLANNING – Would the project:
a) Physically divide an established community?
b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy,
or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the
project (including, but not limited to the general
plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or
zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of
avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation
plan or natural community conservation plan?
2.10 Land Use and Planning
a) Would the project physically divide an established community?
Existing business and commercial development and other vacant land surround the
proposed project site. Land uses proposed by the project would match the land uses of the
surrounding SAMP area and would not physically divide an established community. The
project would have no impact related to the physical division of an established
community.
Initial Study
Residences at Five Creek and Public Safety / Public Works Facilities
80 November 2016
b) Would the project conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of
an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general
plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the
purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?
The Residence at Five Creek parcel is designated Regional Commercial in the City’s
General Plan. The project would amend the site’s designation to a combination of
Regional Commercial, High Density Residential, and Parks/Recreation. The Public
Safety / Public Works site is designated Public Institutional. Both parcels are zoned P-D
“Planned Development.” With approval of the proposed amendments, the project would
be consistent with the City’s General Plan and Zoning Map, the SAMP, and other City
plans and policies, and impacts would remain less than significant.
Planning principles encourage consideration of separating industrial and residential uses
to reduce the potential for use conflicts from noise, odors, traffic, and visual character. As
discussed in other section of this Initial Study, noise, air quality and traffic impacts are
mitigated by existing goals, policies, regulation, and mitigation measures, including
SAMP EIR mitigation measures, which would also be applicable to future development
at the project site, as identified throughout this Initial Study.
c) Would the project conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural
community conservation plan?
The project site is located within the area covered by the Santa Rosa Plain Conservation
Strategy (USFWS, 2005). The purpose of the Conservation Strategy is to create a long-
term conservation program to assist in the recovery of CTS and four listed plant species.
The project site is identified in the Conservation Strategy as “Area Within 1.3 Miles of
Known CTS Breeding Area.” As identified in the Conservation Strategy, impact to CTS
is not likely on some lands within 1.3 miles from breeding sites that are surrounded by
significant barriers or are otherwise unsuitable CTS habitat. As discussed above, in
Section IV Biological Resources, no CTS have been identified on the project site and the
USFWS has issued a letter to the project proponents stating that development in the
SAMP area, including the project site, would be unlikely to affect CTS (City of Rohnert
Park, 2007). Therefore, future development at the proposed project site would result in
no impact to CTS nor result in conflicts with the Conservation Strategy.
Initial Study
Residences at Five Creek and Public Safety / Public Works Facilities
81 November 2016
Potentially
Significant Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation Incorporated
Less Than
Significant Impact No Impact
XI. MINERAL RESOURCES – Would the project:
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral
resource that would be of value to the region and
the residents of the state?
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally-
important mineral resource recovery site
delineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or
other land use plan?
2.11 Mineral Resources
a) Would the project result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that
would be of value to the region and the residents of the state?
There are no known mineral resources on the subject property and the site is not
delineated on the General Plan as a mineral resource recovery site (City of Rohnert Park,
2007). Accordingly, the project would have no impacts related to the loss of availability
of mineral resources.
b) Would the project result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral
resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land
use plan?
Refer to answer provided in ‘a’ above.
Potentially
Significant Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation Incorporated
Less Than
Significant Impact No Impact
XII. NOISE – Would the project result in:
a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise
levels in excess of standards established in the
local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable
standards of other agencies?
b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive
groundborne vibration or groundborne noise
levels?
c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise
levels in the project vicinity above levels existing
without the project?
Initial Study
Residences at Five Creek and Public Safety / Public Works Facilities
82 November 2016
Potentially
Significant Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation Incorporated
Less Than
Significant Impact No Impact
d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in
ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above
levels existing without the project?
e) 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 expose people residing
or working in the project area to excessive noise
levels?
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private
airstrip, would the project expose people residing
or working in the project area to excessive noise
levels?
2.12 Noise
Background
Noise is simply defined as unwanted sound. Ambient environmental sound levels can be
characterized by several different metrics. The Energy Equivalent Continuous Level (Leq) is a
single number descriptor of the average noise level over a specified period of time. Leq is the
most common noise metric used in regulations. Other descriptors of noise incorporate a
weighting system that accounts for human’s susceptibility to noise irritations at night.
Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) is a measure of cumulative noise exposure over a
24-hour period, with a 5 dB penalty added to evening hours (7:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m.) and a
10 dB penalty added to night hours (10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.). Since CNEL is a 24-hour average
noise level, an area could have sporadic high noise levels above a limit and the CNEL may show
a dramatically lower level since it could include long periods of much lower levels. The day-
night average sound (DNL) is the twenty-four-hour equivalent sound level that includes the same
10 dB(A) “penalty” added to nighttime noise levels, but does not penalize the evening time like
the CNEL.
Another set of useful noise metrics are the statistical levels. Long-term noise measurement
systems often log measurement data every hour. Statistical levels are indicated with the Ln
abbreviation, where ‘n’ is a percent, usually 1%, 5%, 10%, 50%, or 90%. Ln is defined as the
sound pressure level exceeded for n percent of the time.
In general, a change in sound level of three (3) is just noticeable by most people, while a change of
5 dB is clearly noticeable. A change of 10 dB is perceived as a doubling (or halving) of sound
Initial Study
Residences at Five Creek and Public Safety / Public Works Facilities
83 November 2016
level. When measuring sound the distance from the source is an important factor. Noise levels
usually decay at a rate of 6 dB(A) each time the distance from a point source is doubled. For
example, particular construction activity generated equivalent continuous sound levels (Leq) of
88 dBA at 50 feet, the Leq would be 82 dBA at 100 feet, 76 dBA at 200 feet, 70 dBA at 400 feet,
and so on.
Generally, federal and state agencies regulate mobile noise sources by establishing and enforcing
noise standards on vehicle manufacturers. Local agencies generally regulate stationary noise
sources and construction activities to protect neighboring land uses and the general public’s
health and welfare. Residences are considered a noise-sensitive land use.
Noise levels are generally considered low when they are below 45 dBA, moderate in the 45 to
60 dBA range, and high above 60 dBA. Noise levels greater than 85 dBA can cause temporary or
permanent hearing loss if exposure is sustained (EPA, 1971).
Existing Setting
The proposed project site is located in the City of Rohnert Park. The project site is bounded by
Labath Avenue to the west, Dowdell Avenue to the east, and Carlson Avenue to the north. The
Santa Rosa De Laguna Trail is immediately south of the site. A Costco, Ashley Furniture
Homestore, and associated parking lots exist east of the site. Commercial developments exist
across Labath Avenue, Carlson Avenue, and The Santa Rosa Trail. The nearest residences are
located north of the site approximately 220 feet away. A TV station across Carlson Avenue is an
especially sensitive noise receptor. Appropriate consideration should be made for the TV
station’s operations.
During the site visit, an existing parking lot at the corner of Carlson Avenue and Labath Avenue
included a heavy truck idling. Costco and Ashley Furniture store activities were noted during the
site visit to contribute to the ambient noise levels measured on the site. Traffic along Dowdell
Road and parking lot noises from existing commercial establishments are the primary noise
sources to the east.
A noise survey was conducted for this Initial Study to quantify existing ambient noise levels in the
area using equipment meeting the requirements in the noise ordinance. The long-term (24-hour)
measurements were completed using calibrated SoftDB Model Piccolo integrating sound level
meters. For the long-term measurement locations, the sound level meter was positioned at
approximately 5 feet above the ground when possible. Table 2.12-1 summarizes the results from the
long-term measurements.
Table 2.12-1 Long-Term Measured Levels (dBA)
Initial Study
Residences at Five Creek and Public Safety / Public Works Facilities
84 November 2016
Measurement Location Observed Noise Source(s) 7p.m. to
7 a.m. Leq
Full
Day Leq
CNEL
/ DNL L5 L10
Near center of the site Traffic, Birds, Trucks in Parking Lot 50 50 57 54 52
Southern Site Boundary Next to Trail Traffic, Birds 52 51 58 55 53
North Site Boundary Next to Carlson
Avenue
Traffic, Birds, Dog Barking, Aircraft,
Construction 49 53 56 57 53
The short term traffic measurements were completed with a Rion NL-62 sound level meter. The
sound level meter was positioned at a height of five feet above the ground on a tripod during
measurements of local traffic noise. Table 2.12-2 shows the measured average noise level and
concurrent traffic volume.
Table 2.12- 2 Measured Traffic Sound Levels
Site Description Date/Time Leq1 Cars MT2 LT3 M4
Labath
Avenue
3 feet from the edge of the
pavement of Labath Avenue
7/18/2016
2:29 to 2:39 p.m.
66.7 dBA 66 3 1 0
Carlson
Avenue
3 feet from the edge of the
pavement of Carlson Avenue
7/18/2016
2:53 p.m. to 3:03 p.m.
54.2 dBA 7 0 0 0
Dowdell
Avenue
3 feet from the edge of the
pavement of Carlson Avenue
7/18/2016
3:07 p.m. to 3:17 p.m.
59.7 dBA 7 0 0 0
Notes: 1 Equivalent Continuous Sound Level (Time-Average Sound Level)
2 Medium Trucks
3 Large Truck
4 Motorcycle
5 Traffic for Highway 101 only counted in one direction General Notes: Temperature 74 °F, partly cloudy, 9 miles per hour east wind
Thresholds of Significance
Residences adjacent to project site are within the City of Rohnert Park, and therefore noise levels
at these residential properties are governed by the City of Rohnert Park Noise Element and Noise
Ordinance. Chapter 17.12 of the Rohnert Park Code of Ordinances offers performance standards.
It states:
A. No uses or activities shall create noise levels which exceed the following
standards:
Initial Study
Residences at Five Creek and Public Safety / Public Works Facilities
85 November 2016
Table 5: City of Rohnert Park Maximum Noise Levels (dBA) [1]
Zoning District Measured at Property Line or District Boundary Measured at any Boundary of a Residential District Between 7PM and 7AM measured at any boundary of a residential zone [4]
Residential 60 [2] N.A. 50 or ambient noise level
Commercial 70 60 50 or ambient noise level
Industrial (4) 70 [3] 60 50 or ambient noise level
Mixed Use 65 [2] 60 50 or ambient noise level
Public/Institutional 65 60 50 or ambient noise level
Open Space 65 60 50 or ambient noise level
1 Levels not to be exceeded more than 5 minutes in any hour
2 The maximum interior noise level for residential uses shall be forty-five dBA with all openings closed.
3 For commercial and industrial properties, the measurement shall be at the property line of the use or activity.
4 Restricted hours may be modified through conditions of an approved conditional, administrative, or temporary use permit.
B. The noise standards above shall be modified as follows to account for the effects of
time and duration on noise levels:
1) Noise that is produced for no more than a cumulative period of five minutes
in any hour may exceed the above standards by five dBA except between the
hours of 7:00 PM and 7:00 AM.
2) Noise that is produced for no more than a cumulative period of one minute
in any hour may exceed the above standards by ten dBA except between the
hours of 7:00 PM and 7:00 AM.
3) Mechanical and electrical equipment shall provide adequate shielding and
baffling so that noise levels from such equipment will not exceed the above
noise levels when measured at the property line.
C. Noise shall be measured with a sound level meter that meets the standards of the
American National Standards Institute. Noise levels shall be measured in decibels
(dBA) on a sound level meter using the A-weighted filter network. Calibrations
checks of the instrument shall be made at the time any noise measurement is made.
Excluded from these standards are occasional sounds generated by the movement
of public safety vehicles and railroad equipment.
Initial Study
Residences at Five Creek and Public Safety / Public Works Facilities
86 November 2016
D. New development within existing of project sixty-five dBA noise corridors shown in
the general plan shall undergo a technical acoustical analysis by a professional
acoustical engineer, which shall serve as the basis for designing mitigation
measures.
For a noise level not to be exceeded for more than five minutes in any hour, a statistical level can
be used from the measured data. Five minutes in an hour corresponds to a L8.3. The equipment
used reports L5 and L10 data.
The measurement results show that the existing vicinity encompassing the project site is within
the Noise Ordinance performance standards.
The Rohnert Park Noise Element contains a table summarizing normally acceptable exterior
DNLs based on each land use category identified in the land use compatibility table guidelines
which the state of California has published. Table 2.12-3 lists the nearby noise sensitive
receptors, distances to the project site, and Normally Acceptable DNL values based on the
California land use compatibility table.
Table 2.12-3: Distances to Receivers
Receptor Description Distance to Proposed Site Normally Acceptable DNL (dBA)
Residential – Multi Family 220 feet 65
Church 80 feet 70
Office Buildings, Business Commercial
and Professional 35 feet 70
The most stringent limit is the residential and motel areas with a normally acceptable DNL of 60
dBA. The other nearby receptors have a normally acceptable limit of 70 dBA.
Thresholds for noise increases are not explicitly stated in the Rohnert Park Noise Element. The
document states “perceptible noise increases (3 dB(A) or more) resulting from traffic under the
General Plan buildout.” (Rohnert Park General Plan Noise Element Revised 12/13)
Since 3 dB(A) is generally taken as a threshold for perceptible difference in noise levels, and it is
mentioned in the Noise Element, we interpret a 3 dB(A) increase as a minimum threshold of
significance for project-related noise sources.
a) Would the project result in exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in
excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or
applicable standards of other agencies?
Initial Study
Residences at Five Creek and Public Safety / Public Works Facilities
87 November 2016
The project is expected to generate an average of 3,809 trips per day. With average daily
traffic counts already greater than 10,000 on area roadways, this project would add less
than 40 percent to the traffic numbers. Existing traffic noise modeling based on the traffic
data available in the noise element shows DNL/CNEL values in the project vicinity to be
approximately 48 dBA. Applying expected traffic increases due to the project would
increase the noise levels on site by less than 1 dBA, which represents a less than
significant impact.
b) Would the project result in exposure of persons to or generation of excessive
groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels?
The proposed project would not include equipment or activities capable of producing
substantial groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels. The only ground
vibration potential would be associated with short-term construction of the proposed
project.
During land clearing and construction activities for the proposed project ground-borne
vibration would be produced by the heavy duty construction equipment. The most
important equipment relative to generation of vibration, and the vibration levels produced
by such equipment, is illustrated in Table 2.12-4. This information was compiled by the
Federal Transit Authority for use in assessing construction vibration impacts from major
transportation projects, and represents the most comprehensive data set for construction-
related vibration levels.
Table 2.12-4 Vibration Velocities for Typical Construction Equipment
Equipment PPV at 25 Feet
(Inches Per Second)
Large Bulldozer 0.089
Loaded Trucks 0.076
Drill Rig / Auger 0.089
Jackhammer 0.035
Small Bulldozer 0.003
Source: Federal Transit Authority, Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual, May 2006
As shown in Table 2.12-4, use of heavy equipment (e.g., a large bulldozer) generates
vibration levels of 0.089 inches per second PPV at a distance of 25 feet.
The nearest residential area is greater than 200 feet from the project site. Vibration levels
at these receptors would be less than the vibrations building damage threshold of 0.5
inches per second. Short-term construction related vibration impacts would therefore be
Initial Study
Residences at Five Creek and Public Safety / Public Works Facilities
88 November 2016
less than significant. The TV station north of the site may include vibration sensitive
equipment. While no heavy equipment that is known to cause excessive ground vibration
would be used during construction, it is still important to take extra precautions to
prevent construction efforts from negatively impacting TV station operations. The
standard noise control measures included in Mitigation Measure NOI-1 should be
implemented to help protect the TV station. With implementation of Mitigation Measure
NOI-1, this impact would be less than significant.
c) Would the project result in a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in
the project vicinity above levels existing without the project?
The project is expected to generate an average of 3,809 trips per day. With average daily
traffic counts already greater than 10,000 on area roadways, this project would add less
than 40 percent to the traffic numbers. Existing traffic noise modeling based on the traffic
data available in the noise element shows DNL/CNEL values in vicinity of the
multifamily residential location to the north to be approximately 47 dBA. Applying
expected traffic increases due to the project would increase the noise levels on existing
nearby residences by less than 1 dBA.
Area noise levels would not be expected to increase significantly due to HVAC or
mechanical equipment servicing the project. However, the City’s Noise Ordinance
specifically states that mechanical and electrical equipment shall have adequate shielding
and baffling to meet the noise standards. Therefore, to ensure noise associated with
mechanical noise remains less than significant, the project shall implement Mitigation
Measure NOI-2, which requires that mechanical equipment reviewed by professional
acoustical for compliance with noise standards. With implementation of Mitigation
Measure NOI-2, this impact would be less than significant.
d) Would the project result in a substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient
noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project?
Short-term noise would be associated with heavy equipment used for the grading and
construction of the project. Daytime construction noise levels at the closest residences to
the proposed project could at times cause minor annoyance, but the City of Rohnert Park
does not have construction noise level limits for construction activity occurring within the
period between 8:00 AM and 6:00 PM daily. Therefore, this would be considered a less
than significant impact provided that the standard noise control measures included in
Mitigation Measure NOI-1 are implemented.
Initial Study
Residences at Five Creek and Public Safety / Public Works Facilities
89 November 2016
e) Would the project be 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 expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?
The proposed project is not located near a public airport or public use airport. Petaluma
Municipal Airport is the closes airport and located approximately over 10 miles away
from the proposed project location. There would be no impact associated with airport
noise.
f) Would the project be within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose
people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?
The proposed project is not located near a private airstrip. Graywood Ranch Airport in
Santa Rosa is the closest private airstrip and located over 10 miles away from the
proposed project location. Accordingly, there would be no impact related to airstrip
noise exposure.
Mitigation Measures
Mitigation Measure NOI-1 Noise-generating activities at the construction site or in areas
adjacent to the construction site associated with the Project in any way would be
restricted to the hours of 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. (Ord. 152 § 3.1, 1971).
• Use available noise suppression devices and properly maintain and muffle loud
construction equipment.
• Avoid the unnecessary idling of equipment and stage construction equipment as
far as reasonable from residences and radio station north of the site (preferably
more than 200 feet from residences).
• Notify adjacent uses of the construction schedule.
• Designate a “noise disturbance coordinator” who would be responsible for
responding to any local complaints about construction noise. The disturbance
coordinator would determine the cause of the noise complaints (e.g., starting too
early, bad muffler, etc.) and would require that reasonable measures warranted to
correct the problem be implemented. Conspicuously post a telephone number for
the disturbance coordinator at the construction site and include it in the notice sent
to neighbors regarding the construction schedule.
• All noise-producing project equipment and vehicles using internal combustion
engines shall be equipped with mufflers, air-inlet silencers where appropriate, and
any other shrouds, shields, or other noise-reducing features in good operating
Initial Study
Residences at Five Creek and Public Safety / Public Works Facilities
90 November 2016
condition that meet or exceed original factory specification. Mobile or fixed
“package” equipment (e.g., arc-welders, air compressors) shall be equipped with
shrouds and noise control features that are readily available for that type of
equipment.
• All mobile or fixed noise-producing equipment used on the project that are
regulated for noise output by a local, state, or federal agency shall comply with
such regulation while in the course of project activity.
• Construction site and access road speed limits shall be established and enforced
during the construction period.
• The use of noise-producing signals, including horns, whistles, alarms, and bells,
shall be for safety warning purposes only.
• Construction hours, allowable workdays, and the phone number of the job
superintendent shall be clearly posted at all construction entrances to allow
surrounding property owners to contact the job superintendent if necessary.
Mechanical Noise is specifically listed in the noise ordinance. The following measure
is required to mitigate mechanical noise impacts.
Mitigation Measure NOI-2: Prior to final approval, the mechanical equipment should be
reviewed by professional acoustical engineer to ensure the equipment does not
produce levels exceeding the noise standards.
Potentially Significant Impact
Less Than
Significant with Mitigation Incorporated
Less Than Significant Impact No Impact
XIII. POPULATION AND HOUSING – Would the project:
a) Induce substantial 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)?
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing,
necessitating the construction of replacement
housing elsewhere?
c) Displace substantial numbers of people,
necessitating the construction of replacement
housing elsewhere?
Initial Study
Residences at Five Creek and Public Safety / Public Works Facilities
91 November 2016
2.13 Population and Housing
a) Would the project induce substantial 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)?
The project would involve a General Plan amendment and SAMP Final Development
Plan amendment to allow for future development of additional high-density residential
units within the SAMP. Currently, the SAMP allows for a maximum of 338 housing
units. Combined, the existing Fiori Estates and Reserve apartment complexes, both also
within the SAMP, account for 328 of those 338 allowable units. The addition of the
proposed 135 multifamily units would result in 125 units over what is currently allowed
in the SAMP. Accordingly, the proposed SAMP amendment would allow for up to a
total of 463 residential units.
The proposed project would generate an increase in population growth by including new
residential units. The SAMP EIR, using 2.62 estimated persons per household (the
average projected household size in Rohnert Park), calculated that the SAMP, at buildout,
would add approximately 886 residents to the City. The EIR determined that the
increased population associated with the SAMP would add approximately 12 percent of
the new population between 2006 population and General Plan forecast at buildout.
Because the proposed project would add an additional 125 units to the SAMP area, there
would be an increase in the total number of residents projected at SAMP buildout. As
done in the EIR, assuming 2.62 estimated persons per household, the proposed project
would add an additional 328 residents to the SAMP, bringing the total residential
population increase associated with buildout of the SAMP to 1,214.
As stated in the EIR, because growth within the City urban boundary was anticipated in
the City’s General Plan, there are plans and programs to address the potential impacts
from population growth. Implementation of the applicable General Plan policies and
Growth Management Program would reduce population growth impacts to a less than
significant level.
b) Would the project displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the
construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
The site does not currently support any housing or residential uses. No housing or
residents would be displaced by the proposed project and the project would have no
impact on housing or require construction of new housing.
Initial Study
Residences at Five Creek and Public Safety / Public Works Facilities
92 November 2016
c) Would the project displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the
construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
Refer to answer provided in ‘b’ above.
Potentially
Significant Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation Incorporated
Less Than
Significant Impact No Impact
XIV. PUBLIC SERVICES
a) 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 public services:
Fire protection?
Police protection?
Schools?
Parks?
Other public facilities?
2.14 Public Services
a) 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 public services:
Fire and police protection?
The City of Rohnert Park Department of Public Safety provides police and fire protection
services within the City. The increase in population resulting from development of the
project site within the SAMP would result in an increase in the demand for City fire and
police protection services. As discussed in the SAMP EIR, the City’s acceptable response
time for emergency calls is four minutes (City of Rohnert Park, 2007). The SAMP EIR
found that the response time to calls in the west side of U.S. 101 is often over four
minutes and concluded that additional development associated with buildout of the
SAMP would be expected to increase the potential number of calls, and therefore
increase response times. Mitigation included in the SAMP EIR (Mitigation Measure 14-
1a) required construction of a new Department of Public Safety Station in the northwest
area of the City. The proposed project would construct a new Public Safety facility at the
designated site within the SAMP, as required by EIR Mitigation Measure 14-1a.
Initial Study
Residences at Five Creek and Public Safety / Public Works Facilities
93 November 2016
Construction of the station in the SAMP area would be consistent with the SAMP EIR
and would ensure that a four-minute response time would be maintained for all areas of
the City. Physical environmental impacts related to construction of the proposed project,
including the proposed Public Safety facility, are discussed throughout this Initial Study.
Implementation of mitigation measures identified throughout this Initial Study would
mitigate all potentially significant impacts to less than significant levels.
Schools?
Future development of residences at the site would generate students that would attend
area schools. The project site is located within the Cotati-Rohnert Park Unified School
District (CRPUSD). Estimates included in the SAMP EIR indicate an average student
yield of 0.4 elementary school students, 0.1 middle school students, and 0.2 high school
students per household, including single and multiple family dwellings. The SAMP EIR
calculated that the 338 dwelling units initially included in the Plan would be expected to
generate 135 new elementary school students, 34 new middle school students, and 68
new high school students (City of Rohnert Park, 2007).
With the addition of the Residences at Five Creek project and 135 multifamily residential
units within the SAMP, the total residential units within the SAMP would increase to
473. Applying the 2016 CRPUSD student generation rates of .1597 elementary school
students, 0.0497 middle school students, and .0987 high school students, the expected
number of students residing in the SAMP at buildout would be as follows: 76 new
elementary school students, 24 new middle school students, and 47 new high school
students. These totals are significantly lower than as was projected at the time of
preparation of the SAMP EIR.
Currently, the CRPUSD has a current enrollment of 5,855 students and projected
enrollment of 6,039 students within the next five years. The existing CRPUSD schools
have capacity for up to 8,227 students (CRPUSD, 2016). Accordingly, the students
generated by buildout of the SAMP would be accommodated by the existing schools
within the CRPUSD.
Under current state legislation, the City cannot deny administrative or quasi-judicial
approvals for a development based on the development’s adverse impact on school
facilities. Pursuant to this legislation, the sole mitigation for such impacts arising from
administrative or quasi-judicial development approvals is fees imposed by the affected
school district(s). Mitigation Measure PUB-1 (SAMP EIR Mitigation Measure 14-2a),
which requires school impact fees to be paid by developers consistent with fee schedules
in place at the time development occurs. Fulfillment of the mitigation fee requirement is
Initial Study
Residences at Five Creek and Public Safety / Public Works Facilities
94 November 2016
considered full mitigation and would ensure that impacts of student enrollments affecting
schools would remain less than significant.
Parks and other public facilities?
The SAMP EIR found that development within the SAMP area would not result in a
demand for parks and other public facilities to exceed the accepted service standards of
the City. However, the proposed project would include a greater residential population
than anticipated in the SAMP EIR. To satisfy the increased demand associated with an
increased residential population, the project proposes to construct a 0.65-acre
neighborhood park adjacent to the proposed multifamily residences, at the corner of
Carlson Avenue and Dowdell Avenue. The project also includes facilities including a
pool and community building. The proposed park and recreational facilities would serve
residents at the project site and would ensure that impacts to area parks would be less
than significant. No impacts to other public facilities would be expected with
development of the proposed project.
Mitigation Measures
Mitigation Measure PUB-1 (SAMP EIR Mitigation Measure 14-2a, slightly modified): Prior to
the issuance of building permits, the City shall require proof of payment of the
statutory development fee or the mitigation fee imposed by the Cotati-Rohnert
Park school district that serves the SAMP area, as authorized by state law
(California Government Code 65995). In accordance with Section 65996 of the
State Government Code, the project sponsor shall be required to pay the current
school mitigation fees at the time that building permits are issued.
Potentially
Significant Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation Incorporated
Less Than
Significant Impact No Impact
XV. RECREATION
a) 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?
b) Does the project include recreational facilities or
require the construction or expansion of
recreational facilities which might have an adverse
physical effect on the environment?
Initial Study
Residences at Five Creek and Public Safety / Public Works Facilities
95 November 2016
2.15 Recreation
a) 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?
Currently, the SAMP allows for a maximum of 338 housing units. The addition of the
proposed 135 multifamily units would result in 125 units over what is currently allowed
in the SAMP. Accordingly, the proposed SAMP amendment would allow for up to a total
of 463 residential units. As was done in the EIR, assuming 2.62 estimated persons per
household, the proposed project would add an additional 328 residents to the SAMP. To
meet the recreational needs associated with the increased residential population, the
proposed project would construct a 0.65-acre neighborhood park adjacent to the proposed
multifamily residences, at the corner of Carlson Avenue and Dowdell Avenue. The
project also proposes to construct additional facilities at the Residences at Five Creek
site, including a pool and community building. Impacts associated with demand on
existing and planned recreational facilities would be less than significant.
b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or
expansion of recreational facilities, which might have an adverse physical effect on
the environment?
As discussed in criterion ‘a’ above, the proposed project includes one 0.65-acre
neighborhood park adjacent to the proposed Residence at Five Creek multifamily
residences and recreational facilities including a pool and community building. Physical
environmental impacts related to construction of the proposed project, including the park
and recreational amenities, are discussed throughout this Initial Study. Implementation of
mitigation measures identified in this Initial Study would mitigate all potentially
significant impacts to less than significant levels.
Initial Study
Residences at Five Creek and Public Safety / Public Works Facilities
96 November 2016
Potentially
Significant Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation Incorporated
Less Than
Significant Impact No Impact
XVI. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC – Would the project:
a) Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or
policy establishing measures of effectiveness for
the performance of the circulation system, taking
into account all modes of transportation including
mass transit and non-motorized travel and relevant
components of the circulation system, including but
not limited to intersections, streets, highways and
freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass
transit?
b) Conflict with an applicable congestion
management program, including, but not limited to
level of service standards and travel demand
measures, or other standards established by the
county congestion management agency for
designated roads or highways?
c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including
either an increase in traffic levels or a change in
location that results in substantial safety risks?
d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design
feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous
intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm
equipment)?
e) Result in inadequate emergency access?
f) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs
regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian
facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance
or safety of such facilities?
2.16 Transportation and Traffic
W-Trans prepared a Traffic Impact Study to analyze the potential traffic impacts that would be
associated with the SAMP amendments associated with development of the proposed Residences
at Five Creek and City Public Safety and Public Works facility to be located at 5870 Labath
Avenue and 405 Martin Avenue in the City of Rohnert Park. The traffic study was completed in
accordance with the criteria established by the City of Rohnert Park, and is consistent with
standard traffic engineering techniques. This report, which was used to complete the assessment
below, is included in Appendix C of this Initial Study.
Transportation Setting – Operational Analysis
The project study area consists of the following intersections:
Initial Study
Residences at Five Creek and Public Safety / Public Works Facilities
97 November 2016
1. Redwood Drive/Business Park Drive
2. Labath Avenue/Martin Avenue
3. Dowdell Avenue/Martin Avenue
4. Redwood Drive/Martin Avenue
5. Labath Avenue/Rohnert Park Expressway
6. Redwood Drive/Rohnert Park Expressway
Operating conditions during the a.m. and p.m. peak periods were evaluated to determine highest
potential impacts for the proposed project as well as the highest volumes on the local
transportation network. The morning peak hour occurs between 7:00 and 9:00 a.m. and reflects
conditions during the home to work or school commute, while the p.m. peak hour occurs
between 4:00 and 6:00 p.m. and typically reflects the highest level of congestion during the
homeward bound commute.
Study Intersections
Redwood Drive/Business Park Drive is a signalized “tee” intersection with protected left-turn
phasing on the northbound approach. The eastbound approach includes a right-turn overlap
signal phase. A marked crosswalk is provided across the west leg of the intersection.
Labath Avenue/Martin Avenue is an unsignalized “tee” intersection with stop controls on the
terminating eastbound approach.
Dowdell Avenue/Martin Avenue currently serves as a through street for vehicles traveling from
westbound Martin Avenue to northbound Dowdell Avenue. The proposed project would extend
Martin Avenue to Labath Avenue, which would add a new western leg, resulting in a four-
legged, all-way stop-controlled intersection at Dowdell Avenue/Martin Avenue.
Redwood Drive/Martin Avenue is a four-legged signalized intersection with protected left-turn
phasing on the northbound and southbound Redwood Drive approaches. The eastbound Martin
Avenue approach includes a right-turn overlap signal phase. Marked crosswalks and pedestrian
phasing are provided at each leg of the intersection.
Labath Avenue/Rohnert Park Expressway is a signalized, four-legged intersection, with
protected left-turn phasing on all approaches, and right-turn overlap signal phases on the
eastbound and westbound approaches. Crosswalks with pedestrian phasing are present on all legs
of the intersection.
Redwood Drive/Rohnert Park Expressway is a four-legged signalized intersection with
protected left-turn phasing on all approaches. The northbound and eastbound approaches include
right-turn overlap signal phases. Marked crosswalks and pedestrian phasing are provided at each
leg.
Initial Study
Residences at Five Creek and Public Safety / Public Works Facilities
98 November 2016
The locations of the study intersections and the existing lane configurations and controls are
shown Figure 1 of the Traffic Impact Study (included as Appendix C of this Initial Study).
Alternative Modes
Pedestrian Facilities
Pedestrian facilities include sidewalks, crosswalks, pedestrian signal phases, curb ramps, curb
extensions, and various streetscape amenities such as lighting, benches, etc. In general, a network
of sidewalks, crosswalks, pedestrian signals, and curb ramps provide access for pedestrians in the
vicinity of the proposed project site; however, sidewalk gaps, obstacles, and barriers can be
found along some or all of the roadways connecting to the project site. Existing gaps and
obstacles along the connecting roadways impact convenient and continuous access for
pedestrians and present safety concerns in those locations where appropriate pedestrian
infrastructure would address potential conflict points.
Continuous sidewalk coverage is provided on the west side of Labath Avenue, across from the
project site. On the east side of Labath Avenue there are no sidewalks, apart from a small section
spanning 360 feet adjacent to a parking lot on the northwest corner of the project site.
Additionally, a pedestrian crosswalk exists on the south leg of the intersection of Dowdell
Avenue/Carlson Avenue. Though there is one crosswalk, the intersections of Dowdell
Avenue/Carlson Avenue, Labath Avenue/Carlson Avenue, and Labath Avenue/Martin Avenue
have curb ramps at each leg. Street lighting is provided on Dowdell Avenue to the east of the
project site, on Labath Avenue to the west, and on Carlson Avenue, which runs along the
northern edge of the project site.
Bicycle Facilities
The Highway Design Manual, California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), 2012,
classifies bikeways into three categories:
• Class I Multi-Use Path – a completely separated right-of-way for the exclusive
use of bicycles and pedestrians with cross flows of motorized traffic minimized.
• Class II Bike Lane – a striped and signed lane for one-way bike travel on a street
or highway.
• Class III Bike Route – signing only for shared use with motor vehicles within the
same travel lane on a street or highway.
Initial Study
Residences at Five Creek and Public Safety / Public Works Facilities
99 November 2016
Guidance for Class IV Bikeways is provided in Design Information Bulletin Number 89: Class
IV Bikeway Guidance (Separated Bikeways/Cycle Tracks), Caltrans, 2015.
• Class IV Separated Bikeway/Cycle Track – a bikeway for the exclusive use of
bicycles that requires physical separation such as grade differences, flexible posts,
inflexible physical barriers, or on-street parking between the bikeway and through
vehicular traffic.
In the project area, Class II bike lanes exist on Dowdell Avenue, as well as along Redwood
Drive and Rohnert Park Expressway. The Hinebaugh Creek path runs along the southern
boundary of the site, connecting Redwood Drive to Rohnert Park Expressway. There are no other
bicycle facilities present within the study area. However, a Class II bike lane is planned for
Labath Avenue, which borders the western edge of the project site.
Transit Facilities
Sonoma County Transit (SCT) provides regional transit service between Rohnert Park and
surrounding Sonoma County communities. SCT Route 44 provides service to the project area
and has four stops on Labath Avenue. One northbound and one southbound stop are located on
Labath Avenue near the Hinebaugh Creek trailhead, southwest of the project site, and across
form North Bay Industries, which is northwest of the project site.
Route 44 operates Monday through Friday with approximately one-hour headways between 5:30
a.m. and 10:30 p.m. Weekend service for Route 44 does not operate within the project area.
Two to three bicycles can be carried on most SCT buses. Bike rack space is on a first come, first
served basis. Additional bicycles are allowed on SCT buses at the discretion of the driver.
Dial-a-ride, also known as paratransit, or door-to-door service, is available for those who are
unable to independently use the transit system due to a physical or mental disability. SCT
Paratransit is designed to serve the needs of individuals with disabilities within Rohnert Park and
Sonoma County.
Capacity Analysis
Intersection Level of Service Methodologies
Level of Service (LOS) is used to rank traffic operation on various types of facilities based on
traffic volumes and roadway capacity using a series of letter designations ranging from A to F.
Generally, Level of Service A represents free flow conditions and Level of Service F represents
Initial Study
Residences at Five Creek and Public Safety / Public Works Facilities
100 November 2016
forced flow or breakdown conditions. A unit of measure that indicates a level of delay generally
accompanies the LOS designation.
The study intersections were analyzed using methodologies published in the Highway Capacity
Manual (HCM), Transportation Research Board, 2010. This source contains methodologies for
various types of intersection control, all of which are related to a measurement of delay in
average number of seconds per vehicle.
The Levels of Service for the intersections with side street stop controls, or those which are
unsignalized and have one or two approaches stop-controlled, were analyzed using the “Two-
Way Stop-Controlled” intersection capacity method from the HCM. This methodology
determines a level of service for each minor turning movement by estimating the level of average
delay in seconds per vehicle. Results are presented for individual movements together with the
weighted overall average delay for the intersection.
Dowdell Avenue/Martin Avenue was analyzed using the “All-Way Stop-Controlled” Intersection
methodology from the HCM for all plus Project scenarios. This methodology evaluates delay for
each approach based on turning movements, opposing and conflicting traffic volumes, and the
number of lanes. Average vehicle delay is computed for the intersection as a whole, and is then
related to a Level of Service.
The study intersections that are currently controlled by a traffic signal were evaluated using the
signalized methodology from the HCM. This methodology is based on factors including traffic
volumes, green time for each movement, phasing, whether or not the signals are coordinated,
truck traffic, and pedestrian activity. Average stopped delay per vehicle in seconds is used as the
basis for evaluation in this LOS methodology.
The ranges of delay associated with the various levels of service are indicated in Table 2.16-1.
Table 2.16-1 Intersection Level of Service Criteria
LOS Two-Way Stop-Controlled Signalized
A Delay of 0 to 10 seconds. Gaps in traffic are readily
available for drivers exiting the minor street.
Delay of 0 to 10 seconds. Most vehicles arrive
during the green phase, so do not stop at all.
B Delay of 10 to 15 seconds. Gaps in traffic are
somewhat less readily available than with LOS A, but
no queuing occurs on the minor street.
Delay of 10 to 20 seconds. More vehicles stop than
with LOS A, but many drivers still do not have to
stop.
C Delay of 15 to 25 seconds. Acceptable gaps in traffic
are less frequent, and drivers may approach while
another vehicle is already waiting to exit the side
street.
Delay of 20 to 35 seconds. The number of vehicles
stopping is significant, although many still pass
through without stopping.
D Delay of 25 to 35 seconds. There are fewer acceptable
gaps in traffic, and drivers may enter a queue of one or
Delay of 35 to 55 seconds. The influence of
congestion is noticeable, and most vehicles have to
Initial Study
Residences at Five Creek and Public Safety / Public Works Facilities
101 November 2016
two vehicles on the side street. stop.
E Delay of 35 to 50 seconds. Few acceptable gaps in
traffic are available, and longer queues may form on
the side street.
Delay of 55 to 80 seconds. Most, if not all, vehicles
must stop and drivers consider the delay excessive.
F Delay of more than 50 seconds. Drivers may wait for
long periods before there is an acceptable gap in
traffic for exiting the side streets, creating long queues.
Delay of more than 80 seconds. Vehicles may wait
through more than one cycle to clear the
intersection.
Source: W-Trans (2016) citing Highway Capacity Manual, Transportation Research Board, 2000
Traffic Operation Standards
The applied thresholds of significance for intersection impacts are based on those included in
Policy TR-1 of the Rohnert Park 2020 General Plan, which stipulates that LOS C is the
minimum acceptable standard. Policy TR-1 also indicates that intersections operating at LOS D
or lower at the time a development application is submitted are allowable, so long as the
development results in no further LOS reduction, and provided that no feasible improvements
exist to improve the LOS.
Existing Conditions
The Existing Conditions scenario provides an evaluation of current operation based on existing
traffic volumes during the a.m. and p.m. peak periods. This condition does not include project-
generated traffic volumes. Volume data was collected in June 2016 (W-Trans, 2016).
Intersection Levels of Service
Under existing conditions, all study intersections are operating in accordance with minimum
acceptable standards as set forth in LOS C except Redwood Drive/Rohnert Park Expressway,
which operates at LOS D during the p.m. peak hour. A summary of the existing intersection level
of service calculations is contained in Table 2.16-2. The Traffic Impact Study (included in
Appendix C of this Initial Study) provides the existing traffic volumes in Figure 2 and provides
copies of the Level of Service calculations in Appendix A.
Initial Study
Residences at Five Creek and Public Safety / Public Works Facilities
102 November 2016
Table 2.16-2 Existing Peak Hour Intersection Levels of Service
Study Intersection
Approach
AM Peak PM Peak
Delay LOS Delay LOS
1. Redwood Dr/Business Park Dr 6.0 A 6.4 A
2. Labath Ave/Martin Ave 2.9 A 2.7 A
Eastbound (Martin Ave) approach
3. Dowdell Ave/Martin Ave
9.3
N/A
A
N/A
10.4
N/A
B
N/A
4. Redwood Dr/Martin Ave 8.4 A 13.0 B
5. Labath Ave/Rohnert Park Exp 18.9 B 24.6 C
6. Redwood Dr/Rohnert Park Exp 32.9 C 45.9 D
Notes: Delay is measured in average seconds per vehicle; LOS = Level of Service; Results for minor approaches to two-way stop-controlled
intersections are indicated in italics; Bold text = deficient operation.
Source: W-Trans, 2016
Baseline Conditions
Baseline operating conditions were developed to include trips from the approved project, “The
Reserve,” north of the project site, which includes plans for 84 apartment units, added to the
existing volumes. Under these conditions, all study intersections are expected to operate
acceptably, except Redwood Drive/Rohnert Park Expressway, which would continue to operate
unacceptably at LOS D during the p.m. peak hour. These results are summarized in Table 2.16-3
below. Baseline volumes are shown in Figure 3 of the Traffic Impact Study (included in
Appendix C to this Initial Study).
Table 2.16-3 Baseline Peak Hour Intersection Levels of Service
Study Intersection
Approach
AM Peak PM Peak
Delay LOS Delay LOS
1. Redwood Dr/Business Park Dr 6.1 A 6.5 A
2. Labath Ave/Martin Ave 2.9 A 2.7 A
Eastbound (Martin Ave) approach 9.3 A 10.4 B
3. Dowdell Ave/Martin Ave N/A N/A N/A N/A
4. Redwood Dr/Martin Ave 8.6 A 13.5 B
5. Labath Ave/Rohnert Park Exp 19.0 B 24.7 C
6. Redwood Dr/Rohnert Park Exp 33.4 C 46.2 D
Notes: Delay is measured in average seconds per vehicle; LOS = Level of Service; Results for minor approaches to two-way stop-controlled
intersections are indicated in italics; Bold text = deficient operation.
Source: W-Trans, 2016
Initial Study
Residences at Five Creek and Public Safety / Public Works Facilities
103 November 2016
a) Would the project conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy establishing
measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system, taking into
account all modes of transportation including mass transit and non-motorized travel
and relevant components of the circulation system, including but not limited to
intersections, streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and
mass transit?
Trip Generation
The anticipated trip generation for the proposed project was estimated using standard
rates published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) in Trip Generation
Manual, 9th Edition, 2012 for “Apartment” (ITE LU 220), “Hotel” (ITE LU 132), and a
combination of “Specialty Retail” (ITE LU 826) and “Shopping Center” (ITE LU 820)
land uses. The hotel was assumed to be at 100 percent occupancy to reflect worst-case
conditions. “City Park” rates from the San Diego Association of Governments
(SANDAG) 2003 Land Development Code Trip Generation Manual were used to
determine park trips. For the Public Safety and Public Works uses, which are anticipated
to include a fire station and public works maintenance-related uses, the “General Light
Industrial” (ITE LU 181) land use rates were determined to best match the type of
activities that would occur at this site.
The expected trip generation potential for the proposed project is indicated in Table 2.16-
4. The project is expected to generate an average of 3,809 trips per day, including 220
trips during the a.m. peak hour and 297 during the p.m. peak hour.
Table 2.16-4 Trip Generation Summary
Land Use Units Daily AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Rate Trips Rate Trips In Out Rate Trips In Out
Residences at Five Creek Site
Apartments 135 du 6.65 898 0.51 69 14 55 0.62 84 54 30
Hotel 132 occ. Room 8.92 1,177 0.67 88 51 37 0.70 92 45 47
Retail 34.3 ksf 44.32 1,520 0.96 33 20 13 2.71 93 41 52
Park 0.65 ac 50.0 33 6.50 4 2 2 4.50 3 2 1
Total 3,628 194 87 107 272 142 130
Public Safety/Public Works Site
Institutional 60 emp 3.02 181 0.44 26 22 4 0.41 25 5 20
Total Trips 3,089 220 109 111 297 147 150
Note: du = dwelling unit; ksf = 1,000 square feet; occ rm = occupied room; ac = acres; emp = employees
Source: W-Trans, 2016
Stadium Area Master Plan Trip Generation Assumptions
Initial Study
Residences at Five Creek and Public Safety / Public Works Facilities
104 November 2016
The SAMP area consists of the proposed project site as well as the existing Fiori Estates
apartment project to the north of the project site, which includes 244 apartments, and the
approved 84-unit apartment complex, The Reserve, northeast of the project site. The
development assumptions in the SAMP were compared to the actual and planned
buildout of the SAMP planning area. The SAMP assumed the stadium area site to be
comprised of a 175,000 square foot shopping center and 312 apartment units. With these
assumptions applied, the total projected generation included 10,108 daily trips with 339
trips during the a.m. peak hour and 936 trips during the p.m. peak hour. A summary of
the SAMP trip generation is provided in Table 15-9 of the SAMP EIR. The total buildout
of the SAMP accounting for the currently-proposed project results in 5,991 total daily
trips, with 387 trips in the a.m. peak hour and 500 trips during the p.m. peak hour.
Therefore, the actual buildout of the site results in fewer trips than projected in the
SAMP, except during the a.m. peak hour when it is projected to generate 48 more trips.
However, since a.m. peak hour intersection operations are expected to be better than p.m.
peak hour operations under all scenarios, the nominally-higher difference in a.m. trips is
not expected to cause any impacts beyond those identified in the more critical p.m. peak
hour analysis. Table 2.16-5 summarizes the net difference in trips for the original SAMP
versus that associated with the SAMP area after adjusting for the proposed project.
Table 2.16-5 Trip Generation Comparison
Land Use Daily AM Peak
Hour
PM Peak
Hour
Stadium Area Master Plan 10,108 339 936
Total Buildout of proposed project 5,991 387 500
Net Difference -4,117 48 -463
Source: W-Trans, 2016
Since future conditions were evaluated in the SAMP EIR with higher trip generation
projections for overall trips and PM peak trips, the “future conditions” analysis provided
in the SAMP EIR can reasonably be expected to reflect conditions with the project as
currently proposed and no further analysis is required.
Trip Distribution
The pattern used to allocate new project trips to the street network was based on
distributions used in the SAMP and previous traffic studies conducted for projects in the
area. The applied distribution assumptions and resulting trips are shown in Table 2.16-6.
Initial Study
Residences at Five Creek and Public Safety / Public Works Facilities
105 November 2016
Table 2.16-6 Trip Distribution Assumptions for New Trips
Route Percent Daily Trips AM Trips PM Trips
Redwood Dr north of Business Park Dr 32% 1,219 70 95
Labath Ave north of Martin Ave 6% 229 13 18
Martin Ave west of Labath Ave 2% 76 8 6
Rohnert Park Exp west of Labath Ave 6% 229 13 18
Labath Ave south of Rohnert Park Exp 4% 152 9 12
Redwood Dr south of Rohnert Park Exp 15% 571 33 45
Rohnert Park Exp east of Redwood Dr 35% 1,333 77 104
TOTAL 100% 3,809 223 297
Source: W-Trans, 2016
Intersection Operation
Existing plus Project Conditions
Upon the addition of project-related traffic to the existing volumes, the study
intersections are expected to operate in accordance with minimum acceptable standards
as set forth in LOS C except Redwood Drive/Rohnert Park Expressway, which is
expected to continue operating at LOS D during the p.m. peak hour. Project traffic
volumes are shown in Figure 4 of the Traffic Impact Study (Appendix C to this Initial
Study), and the resulting levels of service are summarized in Table 2.16-7 below.
Table 2.16-7 Existing and Existing Plus Project Peak Hour Intersection Levels of Service
Study Intersection
Approach
Existing Conditions Existing Plus Project
AM Peak PM Peak AM Peak PM Peak
Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS
1. Redwood Dr/Business Park Dr 6.0 A 6.4 A 6.3 A 6.7 A
2. Labath Ave/Martin Ave 2.9 A 2.7 A 3.0 A 3.0 A
Eastbound (Martin Ave) approach
Westbound (Martin Ave) approach
9.3
N/A
A
N/A
10.4
N/A
B
N/A
9.7
12.9
A
B
11.0
13.9
B
B
3. Dowdell Ave/Martin Ave* N/A N/A N/A N/A 8.1 A 8.6 A
4. Redwood Dr/Martin Ave 8.4 A 13.0 B 9.0 A 15.0 B
5. Labath Ave/Rohnert Park Exp 18.9 B 24.6 C 19.3 B 25.3 C
6. Redwood Dr/Rohnert Park Exp 32.9 C 45.9 D 33.9 C 46.8 D
Notes: Delay is measured in average seconds per vehicle; LOS = Level of Service; Results for minor approaches to two-way stop-controlled
intersections are indicated in italics; Bold text = deficient operation; *plus project scenario assumes all-way stop controls (see Site Access
section for details on intersection configuration)
Source: W-Trans, 2016
As shown in Table 2.16-7 above, the study intersections are expected to continue
operating in accordance with minimum acceptable standards as set forth in LOS C upon
the addition of project-generated traffic, except for the intersection of Redwood
Initial Study
Residences at Five Creek and Public Safety / Public Works Facilities
106 November 2016
Drive/Rohnert Park Expressway, which would continue operating at LOS D during the
p.m. peak hour. Since project-generated trips do not cause further reductions in levels of
service at this intersection, impacts would be less than significant.
Baseline plus Project Conditions
With project-related traffic added to Baseline volumes, all study intersections are
expected to operate in accordance with minimum acceptable standards as set forth in
LOS C, except Redwood Drive/Rohnert Park Expressway, which would continue to
operate at LOS D during the p.m. peak hour. These results are summarized in Table 2.16-
8 below.
Table 2.16-8 Baseline and Baseline plus Project Peak Hour Intersection Levels of Service
Study Intersection
Approach
Baseline Conditions Baseline Plus Project
AM Peak PM Peak AM Peak PM Peak
Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS
1. Redwood Dr/Business Park Dr 6.0 A 6.5 A 6.4 A 6.8 A
2. Labath Ave/Martin Ave 2.9 A 2.7 A 3.0 A 3.0 A
Eastbound (Martin Ave) approach
Westbound (Martin Ave) approach
9.3
N/A
A
N/A
10.4
N/A
B
N/A
9.8
13.2
A
B
11.0
14.0
B
B
3. Dowdell Ave/Martin Ave* N/A N/A N/A N/A 8.2 A 8.8 A
4. Redwood Dr/Martin Ave 8.6 A 13.5 B 9.1 A 15.3 B
5. Labath Ave/Rohnert Park Exp 19.0 B 24.7 C 19.3 B 25.4 C
6. Redwood Dr/Rohnert Park Exp 33.4 C 46.2 D 34.2 C 46.9 D
Notes: Delay is measured in average seconds per vehicle; LOS = Level of Service; Results for minor approaches to two-way stop-controlled
intersections are indicated in italics; Bold text = deficient operation; *plus project scenario assumes all-way stop controls (see Site Access
section for details on intersection configuration)
Source: W-Trans, 2016
As shown in Table 2.16-8 above, the study intersections are expected to operate in
accordance with minimum acceptable standards as set forth in LOS C with the addition of
project-generated trips, except Redwood Drive/Rohnert Park Expressway, which would
continue operating at LOS D during the p.m. peak hour. Since the LOS at Redwood
Drive/Rohnert Park Expressway is not being further reduced by the proposed project, the
impacts are considered to be less than significant (W-Trans, 2016).
Pedestrian Facilities
Given the proximity of adjacent shopping centers, residential neighborhoods, and
recreational facilities near the project, project residents, patrons, and employees would
want to walk, bicycle, and/or use transit to reach the site. The Traffic Impact Study
Initial Study
Residences at Five Creek and Public Safety / Public Works Facilities
107 November 2016
prepared for the proposed project found pedestrian facilities serving the project site to be
adequate (W-Trans, 2016).
Transit
The Traffic Impact Study concluded that existing transit routes are adequate to
accommodate project-generated transit trips. Existing stops are within acceptable walking
distance of the site (W-Trans, 2016).
Bicycle Facilities
Existing bicycle facilities, including Class II bike lanes on Dowell Avenue and the
Hinebaugh Creek trail, as well as the proposed Class II lane on Labath Avenue, would
provide bicycle access to the project site. Chapter 17.16.140 of Rohnert Park’s Municipal
Code stipulates the number of bicycle parking spaces required for new development. For
multifamily residential, one bicycle per four dwelling units is required and one bicycle
space for every 15 off-street vehicle parking spaces is required for commercial uses.
Based on these standards, the proposed project would need to provide 34 bicycle parking
spaces for the residential units. The hotel is planned to include 139 vehicle parking
spaces, which results in a bicycle parking requirement of nine spaces. The proposed retail
plans to provide 125 vehicle parking spaces, which equates to eight required bicycle
spaces. Mitigation Measure TRA-1, which would require the project to include 34 onsite
bicycle spaces, would ensure that the project complies with the City zoning code and this
impact remains less than significant.
b) Would the project conflict with an applicable congestion management program,
including, but not limited to level of service standards and travel demand measures, or
other standards established by the county congestion management agency for
designated roads or highways?
No applicable congestion management plan exists. Therefore, the proposed plan would
not conflict with an applicable congestion management program for designated roads or
highways. Therefore, this impact would be less than significant.
c) Would the project result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase
in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks?
The proposed project would not result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either
an increase in air traffic levels or a change in location that would result in substantial
safety risks during construction or operation. The closest airports are the Sonoma County
Airport and Petaluma Municipal Airport, both more than 10 miles from the project area.
Initial Study
Residences at Five Creek and Public Safety / Public Works Facilities
108 November 2016
There would be no safety risks associated with proximity to airports; therefore, no
impact would occur.
d) Would the project substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp
curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
The site would be accessed by new driveways along Dowdell Avenue, Carlson Avenue,
Labath Avenue, and the project-constructed extension of Martin Avenue from Dowdell
Avenue to Labath Avenue. All access points would be located on straight segments
and/or at public intersections where clear lines of sight exist.
Martin Avenue/Dowdell Avenue Intersection
The intersection of Martin Avenue/Dowdell Avenue is currently configured such that
movements between the north (Dowdell Avenue) and east (Martin Avenue) legs are
uncontrolled, with the southern “leg” serving as a driveway to Ashley Furniture. The
proposed project would extend Martin Avenue, creating a new west intersection leg. As a
result, a new traffic control scheme would be required to assign right-of-way. The SAMP
document, amended November 26, 2013, states that “the intersection of Martin and
Dowdell Avenues is assumed to be a landscaped intersection also known as a modern
roundabout. The final circulation plan will be reviewed upon application for a specific
development” (p. 10).
Based on the Traffic Impact Study completed for the project, the intersection would be
expected to operate acceptably at LOS B or better with either a roundabout or all-way
stop controls, even under a tested hypothetical scenario in which “baseline plus project”
traffic volumes increase by an additional 50 percent in the future. The Traffic Impact
Study concluded that installation of a roundabout (or signals) would not be needed to
maintain acceptable LOS; however, compared to all-way stop controls, a roundabout
would provide smoother traffic flow, result in lower emissions, and better accommodate
the dominant traffic flows between the north and east intersection legs (W-Trans, 2016).
Mitigation Measure TRA-2, which would require the project to install either a roundabout
or all-way stop-controls at the intersection of Martin Avenue/Dowdell Avenue, would
ensure potential intersection impacts remain less than significant.
Martin Avenue
The existing segment of Martin Avenue between Redwood Drive and Dowdell Avenue
includes two lanes in each direction east of the Costco driveway, and one lane in each
direction with a center turn lane to the west. The two westbound Martin Avenue lanes
Initial Study
Residences at Five Creek and Public Safety / Public Works Facilities
109 November 2016
merge to a single lane just beyond the Costco driveway. Once Martin Avenue is extended
west beyond the Martin Avenue/Dowdell Avenue intersection, the Traffic Impact Study
prepared for the project recommends that the westbound Martin Avenue merge be
eliminated, and the outer through lane extended to become a right-turn lane at the
Dowdell Avenue intersection (assuming that all-way stop-controls are implemented at
Martin Avenue/Dowdell Avenue). The report further concluded that sufficient curb-to-
curb width exists on Redwood Drive to achieve this configuration (W-Trans, 2016).
Mitigation Measure TRA-3 would require that Martin Avenue restriped to include dual
westbound lanes between the Costco driveway and Dowdell Avenue, with the outer
through lanes becoming a right-turn lane at the Dowdell Avenue intersection.
Implementation of Mitigation Measure TRA-3 would ensure impacts on this segment of
Martin Avenue remain less than significant.
e) Would the project result in inadequate emergency access?
As discussed in the SAMP EIR, emergency access to the SAMP could take place via
several interconnected routes including Business Park Drive, Martin Avenue, and Labath
Avenue. All internal streets would be developed to the City’s public street standards and
would accommodate emergency vehicle circulation. The project proposes to construct a
new Public Safety facility, as required in the SAMP EIR. As discussed above, in Section
XIII Public Services, impacts resulting from response times to the project would be
reduced to less than significant with construction and operation of this station.
f) Would the project conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public
transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety
of such facilities?
Refer to the answer provided in ‘a’ above.
Mitigation Measures
Mitigation Measure TRA-1: The project shall provide a minimum of 34 onsite bicycle spaces
for the residential units, 9 spaces for the hotel, and 8 spaces for the retail space.
Mitigation Measure TRA-2: As recommended in the Traffic Impact Study (W-Trans, 2016),
the project shall project to install either a roundabout or all-way stop-controls at
the intersection of Martin Avenue/Dowdell Avenue
Mitigation Measure TRA-3: Martin Avenue shall be restriped to include dual westbound lanes
between the Costco driveway and Dowdell Avenue, with the outer through lane
becoming a right-turn lane at the Dowdell Avenue intersection.
Initial Study
Residences at Five Creek and Public Safety / Public Works Facilities
110 November 2016
Potentially
Significant Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation Incorporated
Less Than
Significant Impact No Impact
XVII. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS – Would the project:
a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the
applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board?
b) Require or result in the construction of new water
or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of
existing facilities, the construction of which could
cause significant environmental effects?
c) Require or result in the construction of new storm
water drainage facilities or expansion of existing
facilities, the construction of which could cause
significant environmental effects?
d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the
project from existing entitlements and resources, or
are new or expanded entitlements needed?
e) 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?
f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted
capacity to accommodate the project’s solid waste
disposal needs?
g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and
regulations related to solid waste?
2.17 Utilities and Service Systems
a) Would the project exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable
Regional Water Quality Control Board?
As discussed in Section IX Hydrology and Water Quality, wastewater treatment and
disposal are provided by the Santa Rosa Subregional Water Reclamation System, which
also serves the cities of Santa Rosa, Sebastopol, and Cotati. Wastewater from the
Subregional System is treated at the Laguna Water Reclamation Plant, located about two
miles northwest of Rohnert Park. The City owns capacity rights to 3.43 million gallons
per day (MGD) at the Laguna Water Reclamation Plant and has an agreement with the
City of Santa Rosa to use up to 4.46 MGD of capacity rights. Under the Subregional
System’s approved Incremental Recycled Water Program, the City can acquire up to 5.15
MGD of capacity (City of Santa Rosa, 2008). The City’s current capacity needs are
approximately 3.0 MGD, meaning that up to 2.15 MGD of capacity is available to serve
new development.
Initial Study
Residences at Five Creek and Public Safety / Public Works Facilities
111 November 2016
As discussed in the proposed Residences at Five Creek Final Development Plan (KTGY
Group, Inc., 2016), the Residences at Five Creek project site, once in operation, would
generate approximately 0.15 MGD. The proposed Public Safety and Public Works site,
once in operation, would generate approximately 0.08 MGD. Because the capacity
required to serve the proposed project would be accommodated by the City’s existing
approved wastewater capacity and would not result in the need for any new off-site
wastewater system expansions, this impact would be less than significant.
b) Would the project require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater
treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could
cause significant environmental effects?
The existing water supply facilities are expected to be sufficient to provide an adequate
supply of water to meet the current and future demand of the Plan area, which includes
the proposed project site. The SAMP EIR concluded that there would be no requirement
for additional treatment facilities resulting from buildout of the SAMP, including the
project site (City of Rohnert Park, 2007). In addition, the proposed project alone would
not require SCWA to increase its existing water entitlements; as discussed in criterion ‘d’
below, SCWA has an adequate supply to meet the demands associated with the SAMP
area. Therefore, the water supply and related facility impacts would be less than
significant.
Wastewater treatment and disposal is provided by the Santa Rosa Subregional Water
Reclamation System. Wastewater from the Subregional System is treated at the Laguna
Water Reclamation Plant, located about two miles northwest of Rohnert Park. As
discussed in criterion ‘a’ above, the capacity required to serve the SAMP, including the
project site, could be accommodated by the City’s existing approved wastewater capacity
and would not result in the need for any new off-site wastewater system expansions.
Accordingly, wastewater facility impacts would be less than significant.
c) Would the project require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage
facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause
significant environmental effects?
The Project site is primarily undeveloped, consisting predominately of vacant land. There
is a small paved parking lot in the northwestern corner of the site. The existing
topography is relatively flat, gently sloping westerly toward Labath Avenue. This project
was included as a tributary to the storm drain system within Labath Avenue, where the
site currently drains. An existing 30-inch and 36-inch storm drains collect runoff and
Initial Study
Residences at Five Creek and Public Safety / Public Works Facilities
112 November 2016
convey flows westerly down Martin and Carlson Avenues, respectively. These storm
drains ultimately converge and outlet into Hinebaugh Creek.
As part of the Costco development, a new outfall to Hinebaugh Creek was constructed.
The design of this storm drain system did not include the project site or the adjacent
Codding parcel site as tributary, thus, this system is at full capacity. The project would,
therefore, require the construction of a new system to drain on-site runoff. This system
would require a new outfall to Hinebaugh Creek, just west of the existing Labath Avenue
Bridge. Construction of the storm water outfall area would consist of keying in riprap
underneath and in front of the outfall location to dissipate high flows prior to entering the
channel. Directly above the riprap and below the outfall pipe, a gravel sand substrate
would be installed for low flow infiltration into the channel. Native backfill would be
placed over the pipe once the outfall is constructed to return the channel to its original
configuration. The small area of the creek slope that was affected by the outfall and pipe
construction would have an erosion mat placed on the topsoil. Seed for grasses would be
established on top of the erosion mat, bringing the area disturbed during construction
back to its original state.
The new storm drain system would be designed to accept 15.25 acres from the Project,
the City’s parcel and the Codding parcel for a total tributary area of 17.08 acres. The
tributary area is less than one square mile, and would be classified as a minor waterway.
The storm drain system would be designed to accommodate the 10-year storm event and
would require a 36-inch minimum diameter storm drain.
The City’s General Plan Policy HS-5 requires project developers to design and construct
storm drains that conform to the Sonoma County Water Agency Flood Control Design
Criteria, and encourages the use of environmentally sensitive drainage improvements,
including flow reduction and flood bypass systems, to ensure the protection of surface
water quality and stream integrity. Construction of new storm drain systems would be
required to comply with the Stormwater Phase II regulations administered by the North
Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board through permits to the City. Therefore, the
project would have a less than significant impact related to construction of new
stormwater drainage facilities.
d) Would the project have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from
existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed?
The City has three water sources: Sonoma County Water Agency (SCWA) supply, local
groundwater, and recycled water. The City manages these supplies using a “conjunctive
use” strategy, drawing on SCWA and recycled-water supplies first and using its local
Initial Study
Residences at Five Creek and Public Safety / Public Works Facilities
113 November 2016
groundwater to manage peak demands. The total supply available to the City through
these three sources is 11,427 AFY, including 10,077 AFY of potable water and 1,350
AFY of recycled water (City of Rohnert Park, 2016).
Under its contract with SCWA, the City has access to as much as 7,500 AFY, although a
number of conditions can limit the SCWA supply. Because of these limitations, the City
uses 6,372 AFY as its reliable supply from SCWA under all hydrologic conditions. Over
the past 10 years, the City has used between 2,500 and 5,000 AFY of SCWA supply,
which is significantly less than its maximum allocation (City of Rohnert Park, 2016).
The City’s local groundwater supply is from the Santa Rosa Plain Subbasin of the Santa
Rosa Valley Groundwater Basin. The City manages its groundwater supply in accordance
with its 2004 Water Policy Resolution, which limits groundwater pumping to 2,577 AFY.
The City’s 2004 City-wide Water Supply Assessment provides the technical support for
this maximum pumping rate. The City participates actively in the implementation of the
Santa Rosa Plain Watershed Groundwater Management Plan and is currently working
with other water suppliers in the basin to implement the requirements of the Groundwater
Sustainability Act of 2014. Modeling and monitoring data collected by the City and
others indicate that groundwater levels are generally rising around the City’s well field,
an indication of stable supply. Over the past 10 years the City has used between 350 and
1,600 AFY of groundwater, significantly less than its policy limitation on groundwater
use (City of Rohnert Park, 2016).
As previously discussed, the City’s tertiary-treated recycled-water supply is produced by
the Santa Rosa Subregional Water Reclamation System. The City and the Subregional
System have recently entered into a producer/distributor agreement that provides the City
with access to 1,350 AFY of recycled water. The City uses recycled water primarily for
irrigation purposes; demand for recycled water has varied between 800 and 1,100 AFY
over the past 10 years (City of Rohnert Park, 2016).
The City recently completed its 2015 Urban Water Management Plan Water Demand and
Water Conservation Measures Update. This analysis, which is based on Association of
Bay Area Governments (ABAG) population and job projections, projects the City’s
potable water demands through 2040. This demand is expected to range between 5,600
and 6,100 AFY, depending on the level of water conservation undertaken by the City.
This projected demand is significantly less than the City’s available water supplies. This
analysis also indicates that the City has the potential to secure approximately 500 AFY
(the difference between 5,600 and 6,100 AFY) by undertaking more aggressive water
conservation activities (City of Rohnert Park, 2016).
Initial Study
Residences at Five Creek and Public Safety / Public Works Facilities
114 November 2016
As concluded in the SAMP EIR, the existing water supply sources are expected to be
sufficient to provide an adequate supply of water to meet the SAMP area’s current and
future demands (City of Rohnert Park, 2007). Buildout of the Plan area, which includes
the project site, would not require SCWA to increase its existing water entitlements; as
discussed above, SCWA has an adequate supply to meet the demands associated with the
proposed project. Impacts associated the water supply for the project would be less than
significant.
e) 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?
Refer to the answer provided in ‘b’ above.
f) Would the project be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to
accommodate the project’s solid waste disposal needs?
The North Bay Corporation provides solid waste disposal and composting of organic
materials in the City. The SAMP EIR concluded that the County of Sonoma would be
capable of providing the solid waste disposal services necessary to serve the entire SAMP
area, including during construction. In addition, the SAMP EIR indicates that the Central
Disposal Site Landfill in Sonoma County, planned operate through the year 2050, has
adequate capacity to accommodate the SAMP needs (City of Rohnert Park, 2007).
Although the project would include more residential units than initially planned for in the
SAMP, the project would also result in a reduced amount of commercial and retail uses.
Accordingly, the project would not be expected to result in impacts outside of those
analyzed in the SAMP EIR and impacts associated with solid waste disposal would be
less than significant impact.
g) Would the project comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related
to solid waste?
Assembly Bill (AB) 939 requires the City to develop and implement a solid waste
management program. PRC Section 41780(a)(2) also requires cities and counties to divert
50 percent of the solid waste produced within their respective jurisdictions through
source reduction, recycling, and/or composting activities. Since 2007, Senate Bill 1016
has required cities to report to the California Integrated Waste Management Board (now
known as CalRecycle) the amount of garbage disposed in the landfill per person per day.
According to CalRecycle’s jurisdiction/disposal rate detail for SCWMA for the 2011
reporting year (CalRecycle, 2013), SCWMA’s residential disposal target is 7.1 pounds
Initial Study
Residences at Five Creek and Public Safety / Public Works Facilities
115 November 2016
per person per day. Rohnert Park’s annual residential disposal rate of 3.6 pounds per
person per day met this target in 2014. The employee disposal target (18.3 pounds per
employee per day) was also met, with an actual employee disposal rate of 10.2 pounds
per employee per day. Waste reduction and disposal framework developed by the City
and SCWMA would guide any future development in the Plan area. The project would
not contain features that would generate waste flows at rates that would exceed typical
disposal rates for the City; therefore, this impact would be less than significant.
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than Significant with Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
XVIII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the
quality of the environment, substantially reduce the
habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or
wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining
levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal
community, reduce the number or restrict the
range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or
eliminate important examples of the major periods
of California history or prehistory?
b) Does the project have impacts that are individually
limited, but cumulatively considerable?
(“Cumulatively considerable” means that the
incremental effects of a project are considerable
when viewed in connection with the effects of past
projects, the effects of other current projects, and
the effects of probable future projects)?
c) Does the project have environmental effects which
will cause substantial adverse effects on human
beings, either directly or indirectly?
2.18 Mandatory Findings of Significance
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment,
substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife
population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or
animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered
plant or animal, or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California
history or prehistory?
Initial Study
Residences at Five Creek and Public Safety / Public Works Facilities
116 November 2016
To ensure that the project does not degrade the quality of the environment, substantially
reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop
below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, or reduce
the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal, this Initial Study
has identified applicable mitigation. Implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-1, which
would comply with the federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act and require a nesting bird
survey prior the start of any construction, would ensure impacts to special status and
migratory birds would be less than significant. Mitigation Measure BIO-2 would ensure
that impacts to water of the US are reduced to a less than significant level as a result of
the construction new storm drain outfall in Hinebaugh Creek.
Though there have been no important historic or prehistoric resources identified on the
project site, implementation of Mitigation Measures CUL-1, CUL-2, and CUL-3 would
ensure that the project has a less than significant impact on cultural resources.
b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively
considerable? (“Cumulatively considerable” means that the incremental effects of a
project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the
effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)?
The analysis provided throughout this Initial Study demonstrates that the project’s
contribution to cumulative impacts would be reduced to less than significant levels
through mitigation. As such, a finding of “less than significant impact with mitigation,”
is appropriate for mandatory findings of significance.
c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse
effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly?
The analysis provided throughout this Initial Study identifies project impacts that may be
potentially significant and identifies mitigation measures that would reduce each impact
to a less than significant level. As such, a finding of “less than significant impact with
mitigation,” is appropriate for mandatory findings of significance.
Initial Study
Residences at Five Creek and Public Safety / Public Works Facilities
117 November 2016
3 REFERENCES AND PREPARERS
3.1 References Cited
14 CCR 15000–15387 and Appendices A through L. Guidelines for Implementation of the
California Environmental Quality Act, as amended.
BAAQMD (Bay Area Air Quality Management District). 2009. Revised Draft Options and
Justification Report California Environmental Quality Act Thresholds of Significance,
October 2009. Available at: http://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/files/planning-and-
research/ceqa/revised-draft-ceqa-thresholds-justification-report-oct-2009.pdf?la=en.
BAAQMD. 2010. Bay Area 2010 Clean Air Plan, adopted September 15, 2010. Available at:
http://www.baaqmd.gov/plans-and-climate/air-quality-plans/current-plans.
BAAQMD. 2011. California Environmental Quality Act Air Quality Guidelines. Updated May
2011.
http://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/Files/Planning%20and%20Research/CEQA/BAAQMD%
20CEQA%20Guidelines_May%202011_5_3_11.ashx
BAAQMD. 2012, California Environmental Quality Act Air Quality Guidelines. Updated May
2012. Available at:
http://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/Files/Planning%20and%20Research/CEQA/BAAQMD%
20CEQA%20Guidelines_Final_May%202012.ashx?la=en.
California Public Resources Code, Section 21000–21177. California Environmental Quality Act,
as amended.
CalRecycle (California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery). 2013. Jurisdiction
Diversion/Disposal Rate Detail for Sonoma County Waste Management Agency,
Reporting Year 2011. Available:
http://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/LGCentral/Reports/DiversionProgram/JurisdictionDiversio
nDetail.aspx?JurisdictionID=503&Year=2011. Accessed August 6, 2016.
CAPCOA (California Air Pollution Control Officers Association). 2008. CEQA & Climate
Change: Evaluating and Addressing Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Projects Subject to
the California Environmental Quality Act. January 2008.
CARB (California Air Resources Board). 2008. Climate Change Proposed Scoping Plan: A
Framework for Change. December 12, 2008.
http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/scopingplan/document/psp.pdf.Accessed August 2016.
Initial Study
Residences at Five Creek and Public Safety / Public Works Facilities
118 November 2016
CARB. 2014. First Update to the Climate Change Scoping Plan Building on the Framework
Pursuant to AB 32 – The California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006. May 2014.
http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/scopingplan/2013_update/first_update_
climate_change_scoping_plan.pdf. Accessed August 2016.
CARB. 2016. “Area Designation Maps/State and National.” Last updated May 5, 2016.
http://www.arb.ca.gov/desig/adm/adm.htm.
CAT (California Climate Action Team). 2006. Climate Action Team Report to the Governor
Schwarzenegger and the Legislature. Sacramento, California. March 2006.
http://www.climatechange.ca.gov/climate_action_team/reports/2006report/2006-04-
03_FINAL_CAT_REPORT.PDF.
CEC (California Energy Commission). 2013. Impact Analysis – California’s 2013 Building
Energy Efficiency Standards. July 2013.
CEC. 2015. “2016 Building Efficiency Standards Adoption Hearing Presentation.” June 2015.
Accessed August 2016.
http://www.energy.ca.gov/title24/2016standards/rulemaking/documents/2015-06-
10_hearing/2015-06-10_Adoption_Hearing_Presentation.pdf#page=8.
City of Rohnert Park. 2005 (March 14). City of Rohnert Park Revised Phase II NDPES Storm
Water Management Plan. Submitted to North Coast Regional Water Quality Control
Board, Santa Rosa, CA. Available:
http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/stormwater/swmp/rohnertpark_swmp.p
df. Accessed August 6, 2016.
City of Rohnert Park. 2007. Stadium Area Master Plan Final Environmental Impact Report.
October.
City of Rohnert Park. 2008. Stadium Area Master Plan Final Development Plan. February.
City of Rohnert Park. 2015 (May) (originally adopted 2000). City of Rohnert Park General Plan.
Our Place . . . Rohnert Park 2020, A Plan for the Future. Adopted in July 2000; seventh
edition printed May 2015. Rohnert Park, CA. Prepared by Dyett & Bhatia Urban and
Regional Planners.
City of Rohnert Park. 2016 (February). Central Rohnert Park Priority Development Plan Final
Environmental Impact Report. Certified March 22, 2016 . Prepared by AECOM.
Initial Study
Residences at Five Creek and Public Safety / Public Works Facilities
119 November 2016
City of San Pablo. 2012. City of San Pablo Climate Action Plan. Available at:
http://sanpabloca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/2438
City of Santa Rosa. 2008 (November 18). Proposed Fifth Amendment to the Subregional
Agreement for Operation of the Laguna Treatment Plant and Water Reclamation System.
Agenda Item #10.5 for Council Meeting of 11/18/2008. Available: http://ci.santa-
rosa.ca.us/doclib/agendas_packets_minutes/Documents/20081118_CC_Item10.5.pdf.
Accessed August 6, 2016.
CNRA (California Natural Resources Agency). 2009. Final Statement of Reasons for Regulatory
Action: Amendments to the State CEQA Guidelines Addressing Analysis and Mitigation of
Greenhouse Gas Emissions Pursuant to SB 97. December 2009.
CRPUSD (Cotati-Rohnert Park Unified School District). 2016 (March). Level 1 – Developer Fee
Justification Study for Cotati-Rohnert Park Unified School District. Prepared by
SchoolWorks, Inc. Available at
http://www.crpusd.org/cms/lib6/CA01001831/Centricity/Domain/24/Cotati-
Rohnert%20Park%20Dev%20Fee%20Study%20March%202016.pdf. Accessed
September 24, 2016.
EPA. 2016. “EPA Region 9 Air Quality Maps and Geographic Information.” Last updated April
27, 2016. http://www.epa.gov/region9/air/maps/.
IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change). 1995. IPCC Second Assessment Synthesis
of Scientific-Technical Information Relevant to Interpreting Article 2 of the U.N.
Framework Convention on Climate Change.
IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change). 2007. IPCC Fourth Assessment Synthesis
of Scientific-Technical Information Relevant to Interpreting Article 2 of the U.N.
Framework Convention on Climate Change.
IPCC. 2014. Climate Change 2014 Synthesis Report: A Report of the Intergovernmental Panel
on Climate Change. Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Fifth Assessment
Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
http://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/syr/. Accessed August 2016.
NFA (North Fork Associates). 2003. Wetland Delineation for the 32-acre Stadium Area Master
Plan. September.
OEHHA (Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment). 2015. Air Toxics Hot Spot
Program – Risk Assessment Guidelines – Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health
Initial Study
Residences at Five Creek and Public Safety / Public Works Facilities
120 November 2016
Risk Assessments. February 2015. Available at:
http://oehha.ca.gov/media/downloads/crnr/2015guidancemanual.pdf.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2005. Santa Rosa Plain Conservation Strategy. December 1.
W-Trans. 2016. Traffic Impact Study for the Residences at Five Creek. October 11.
APPENDIX A
Residences at Five Creek Final Development Plan
APPENDIX B
Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Calculations
APPENDIX C
Traffic Impact Study
APPENDIX D
Preliminary Jurisdictional Delineation
City of Rohnert Park Residence at Five Creek and City Public Safety / Public Works Facilities Project Mitigation Monitoring & Reporting Program Residences at Five Creek & City Public Safety / Public Works Facilities Mitigation Monitoring & Reporting Program 1 November 2016 Mitigation measures are proposed or recommended for the following sections: 2.1 Aesthetics 2.3 Air Quality 2.4 Biological Resources 2.5 Cultural Resources 2.6 Geology and Soils 2.7 Greenhouse Gas Emissions 2.8 Hazards and Hazardous Materials 2.9 Hydrology and Water Quality 2.12 Noise 2.13 Public Services 2.16 Transportation and Traffic Mitigation Measure Implementation Responsibility Monitoring Responsibility Timing Performance Evaluation Criteria 2.1 AESTHETICS Mitigation Measure AES-1 (SAMP EIR Mitigation Measure 4-1a): The planning and design of projects constructed within the Stadium Area Master Plan shall conform to the Community Design Element of the Rohnert Park General Plan. Conformance review would occur prior to construction within the Project area utilizing the General Plan Urban Design Element, the Community Design Program, and the City’s Subdivision Design Guidelines. City of Rohnert Park City of Rohnert Park Applied with Site Plan and Architectural Review approval and completed prior to issuance of the building permit Conformance with Community Design Element of the Rohnert Park General Plan Mitigation Measure AES-2 (SAMP EIR Mitigation Measure 4-1b): During the design review of proposed projects pursuant to Mitigation Measure AES-1 (SAMP Mitigation Measure 4-1a), attention will be given to the interface between the industrial, institutional, commercial, and residential uses. The building and spaces shall be arranged to provide transition between uses that are complimentary to adjacent uses. The building materials, colors, linkage to sidewalks, parking placement, landscape design, and plant materials will be selected to provide a transition between uses to compliment the new and existing uses. City of Rohnert Park City of Rohnert Park Applied with Site Plan and Architectural Review approval and completed prior to issuance of the building permit Compliance with Site Plan and Architectural Review approval 2.3 AIR QUALITY Mitigation Measure AIR-1 (SAMP EIR Mitigation Measure 5-2a): Each project sponsor is responsible for ensuring that the contractor reduces particulate, Applicant or Applicant’s Contractor City of Rohnert Park Prior to issuance of grading/ building Inclusion of applicable Basic Construction Control Measures
City of Rohnert Park Residence at Five Creek and City Public Safety / Public Works Facilities Project Mitigation Monitoring & Reporting Program Residences at Five Creek & City Public Safety / Public Works Facilities Mitigation Monitoring & Reporting Program 2 November 2016 Mitigation Measure Implementation Responsibility Monitoring Responsibility Timing Performance Evaluation Criteria reactive organic gas (ROG), NOx, and carbon monoxide (CO) emissions by complying with the air pollution control strategies developed by the BAAQMD. Each project sponsor and contractor shall develop emission control strategies that implement the following control measures based on BAAQMD guidelines: Dust Control Measures: For all construction sites: Cover all trucks hauling construction and demolition debris from the site. Water on a continuous as-needed basis all earth surfaces during clearing, grading, earthmoving, and other site preparation activities. Use watering to control dust generation during demolition of structures or break-up of pavement. Pave, apply water three times daily, or apply (non-toxic) soil stabilizers on all unpaved parking areas and staging areas. Sweep daily (with water sweepers) all paved areas and staging areas. Provide daily clean-up of mud and dirt carried onto paved streets from the site. Renovation, demolition activities, removal or disturbance of any materials that contain asbestos, lead paint or other hazardous pollutants will be conducted in accordance with BAAQMD rules and regulations. Properly maintain all construction equipment. For construction sites near sensitive receptors (or if residential development occurs prior to commencement of commercial development): permits and during construction during construction, as a condition of all building or grading permits for the project.
City of Rohnert Park Residence at Five Creek and City Public Safety / Public Works Facilities Project Mitigation Monitoring & Reporting Program Residences at Five Creek & City Public Safety / Public Works Facilities Mitigation Monitoring & Reporting Program 3 November 2016 Mitigation Measure Implementation Responsibility Monitoring Responsibility Timing Performance Evaluation Criteria Install wheel washers for all existing trucks, or wash off the tires or tracks of trucks and equipment leaving the site. Suspend dust-producing activities during periods when instantaneous gusts exceed 25 mph when dust control measures are unable to avoid visible dust plumes. Limit the area subject to excavation, grading and other construction or demolition activity at any one time. For sites greater than four acres: Apply soil stabilizers to previously graded portions of the site inactive for more than ten days or cover or seed these areas. Water or cover stockpiles of debris, soil, sand, or other materials that can be blown by the wind. Limit traffic speeds on unpaved roads to 15 mph. Replant vegetation in disturbed areas as soon as possible. Construction Exhaust Mitigation Measures The potential air quality impacts from toxic air contaminant emissions from construction equipment and operations will be reduced with compliance with BAAQMD air pollution control strategies. Construction firms shall be required to post signs of possible health risk during construction. The developer is responsible for compliance with the BAAQMD rule regarding cutback and emulsified asphalt paving materials. In addition, the construction contractors will implement a plan to use newer construction equipment, manufactured during or after 1996, that meets the NOx emissions standard of 6.9
City of Rohnert Park Residence at Five Creek and City Public Safety / Public Works Facilities Project Mitigation Monitoring & Reporting Program Residences at Five Creek & City Public Safety / Public Works Facilities Mitigation Monitoring & Reporting Program 4 November 2016 Mitigation Measure Implementation Responsibility Monitoring Responsibility Timing Performance Evaluation Criteria grams per brake-horsepower hour for work constructed within 200 feet of residences. Mitigation Measure AIR-2: The project applicant shall ensure that construction contract specifications include a requirement that all off-road diesel-powered construction equipment used for project development with engines greater than 50 horsepower be equipped with a Level 3 Verified Diesel Emissions Control (VDEC). Applicant or Applicant’s Contractor City of Rohnert Park Prior to and ongoing during construction Ensure that all off-road diesel-powered construction equipment with engines greater than 50 horsepower be equipped with Level 3 VDEC. 2.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Mitigation Measure BIO-1 (SAMP Mitigation Measure 6-4a): Pre-construction surveys will be conducted for nesting raptors and bat roosts within 500 feet of construction activities a minimum of 48 and 24 hours before project construction activities. Nest searches will be conducted in December/January (if not earlier) before site construction begins and the vegetation within the construction area will be removed and/or mowed between August 31 and February 1 to minimize the potential for birds to nest within the construction areas. If nests are found with no eggs or young, the nest will be moved by a qualified biologist. If nesting birds with eggs or young are found during the surveys, one or more of the following measures may be implemented: An exclusion zone will be established around nests with eggs or young; the need for and size of the exclusion zone is based on factors such as species sensitivity, topography, and proximity to roads and buildings. Construction activities in the area will be postponed until young are fledged The Biological Monitor will monitor the birds on the nest and stop construction if it appears that the birds will abandon the nest or young Applicant or Applicant’s Contractor City of Rohnert Park Prior to construction activities and noted on improvement plans, grading plans and building plans Submittal of preconstruction nesting bird survey results or confirmation from a qualified project biologist during the breeding season (February 1st-August 31st) that no migratory birds are within or adjacent to the construction area or if active nests are found, implement protective actions, including confirmation from the project biologist that the nesting cycle has been completed, as a condition of grading and building permits for the project.
City of Rohnert Park Residence at Five Creek and City Public Safety / Public Works Facilities Project Mitigation Monitoring & Reporting Program Residences at Five Creek & City Public Safety / Public Works Facilities Mitigation Monitoring & Reporting Program 5 November 2016 Mitigation Measure Implementation Responsibility Monitoring Responsibility Timing Performance Evaluation Criteria In consultation with the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW), the nests could be relocated to a nearby area or to an approved wildlife rehabilitation center To minimize the potential for birds to nest in the construction area, nest searches can be conducted and tree removal and other vegetation removal can be done between October 1 and February 1. This shall be noted on improvement plans, grading plans and building plans. Mitigation Measure BIO-2: For any impacts to waters of the U.S., a Section 404 permit from the Corps and a Section 401 water quality certification from the Regional Water Quality Control Board shall be obtained and compensatory mitigation shall be provided for all impacts at a minimum 1 to 1 ratio according to the Corps Standard Operating Procedure for Determination of Mitigation Ratios. As part of the wetlands permitting process, the Corps must conduct a Section 7 consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for any potential impacts to listed species. The terms and conditions of USFWS’s Biological Opinion (or Programmatic Biological Opinion) shall be implemented as part of the project. Applicant or Applicant’s Contractor City of Rohnert Park Prior to activities in jurisdictional areas Appropriate permits obtained for any impacts to Waters of the U.S. Mitigation Measure BIO-3: For any impacts to the bed, bank, or channel of Hinebaugh Creek, subject to regulation under Section 1602 of the Fish and Game Code, the project applicant must apply for and obtain a Streambed Alteration Agreement from the CDFW. The area regulated by CDFW is the stream zone, which is defined as the area from top-of-bank to top-of-bank or the outside edge of the riparian canopy, whichever is widest. A Streambed Alteration Agreement from CDFW will be required prior to activities that will affect these features. A permit Applicant or Applicant’s Contractor City of Rohnert Park Prior to construction activities involving the bed, bank, or channel of Hinebaugh Creek Approved Streambed Alteration Agreement for impacts within regulated habitats
City of Rohnert Park Residence at Five Creek and City Public Safety / Public Works Facilities Project Mitigation Monitoring & Reporting Program Residences at Five Creek & City Public Safety / Public Works Facilities Mitigation Monitoring & Reporting Program 6 November 2016 Mitigation Measure Implementation Responsibility Monitoring Responsibility Timing Performance Evaluation Criteria application can be submitted concurrently with the CEQA compliance process. All mitigation measures for impacts to waters of the state and riparian areas must be implemented in accordance with the terms and conditions of the Streambed Alteration Agreement. 2.5 CULTURAL RESOURCES Mitigation Measure CUL-1 (SAMP EIR Mitigation Measure 7-1a): If at any time during earth disturbing activities a concentration of artifacts or a cultural deposit is encountered, work shall cease in the immediate area and a qualified archeologist shall be contacted by the construction manager to evaluate the find and make further recommendations. Construction crews should be alert for cultural resources which could consist of, but not be limited to, artifacts of stone, bone, wood, shell, or other materials; features, including hearths, structural remains, or dumps; areas of discolored soil indicating the location of fire pits, post molds, or living area surfaces. City of Rohnert Park and Applicant or Applicant’s Contractor City of Rohnert Park Ongoing during earth disturbing activities Compliance with federal, State, and local regulations regarding inadvertent discovery and treatment of cultural resources Mitigation Measure CUL-2 (SAMP EIR Mitigation Measure 7.1b): If human remains are encountered anywhere on the project site, all work shall stop in the immediate vicinity of the discovered remains. Both the County Coroner and a qualified archeologist shall be notified by the construction manager immediately so that an evaluation can be performed. If the remains are deemed to be Native American and prehistoric, the Native American Heritage Commission shall be contacted by the Coroner so that a “Most Likely Descendant” can be designated and recommendations for treatment solicited pursuant to CEQA Section 15064.5(e). City of Rohnert Park and Applicant or Applicant’s Contractor City of Rohnert Park Ongoing during earth disturbing activities Compliance with federal, State, and local regulations regarding inadvertent discovery and treatment of human remains
City of Rohnert Park Residence at Five Creek and City Public Safety / Public Works Facilities Project Mitigation Monitoring & Reporting Program Residences at Five Creek & City Public Safety / Public Works Facilities Mitigation Monitoring & Reporting Program 7 November 2016 Mitigation Measure Implementation Responsibility Monitoring Responsibility Timing Performance Evaluation Criteria Mitigation Measure CUL-3 (SAMP EIR Mitigation Measure 7.3a): Per state law, in the event that paleontological resources or unique geologic features are encountered during construction, all earthwork within a 50 meter radius of the find will be stopped, the City of Rohnert Park notified, and a paleontologist retained to examine the find and make appropriate recommendations. City of Rohnert Park and Applicant or Applicant’s Contractor City of Rohnert Park Ongoing during earth disturbing activities Compliance with federal, State, and local regulations regarding inadvertent discovery and treatment of paleontological resources or unique geologic features resources 2.6 GEOLOGY AND SOILS Mitigation Measure GEO-1 (SAMP EIR Mitigation Measure 8-2a): To reduce the primary and secondary risks associated with seismically induced groundshaking at the site, it is necessary to take the location and type of subsurface materials into consideration when designing foundations and structures in the Master Plan area. In the City of Rohnert Park, residential, commercial and institutional buildings, bridges, pedestrian overcrossings, and all associated infrastructure are required to reduce the exposure to potentially damaging seismic vibrations through seismic-resistant design, in conformance with Chapter 16, Structural Design Requirements, Division IV, Earthquake Design, of the California Building Code. Because the Master Plan area is in the “near-source” area (within 3.1 miles of a known active fault) of the Rodgers Creek fault, Section 1629, Criteria Selection, of the Building Code requires special seismic design factors to be applied to the project including: The use of California Building Code Seismic Zone 4 Standards as the minimum seismic-resistant design for all proposed facilities; Applicant or Applicant’s Contractor City of Rohnert Park Prior to issuance of grading/ building permits and during construction Compliance with specific Building Code requirements and standards for seismic design
City of Rohnert Park Residence at Five Creek and City Public Safety / Public Works Facilities Project Mitigation Monitoring & Reporting Program Residences at Five Creek & City Public Safety / Public Works Facilities Mitigation Monitoring & Reporting Program 8 November 2016 Mitigation Measure Implementation Responsibility Monitoring Responsibility Timing Performance Evaluation Criteria Additional seismic-resistant earthwork and construction design criteria, based on future site-specific development projects; Recommendations of a California Certified Engineering Geologist in cooperation with the project’s California-registered geotechnical and structural engineers; An engineering analysis that demonstrates satisfactory performance of alluvium or fill where either forms part or all of the support, especially where the possible occurrence of liquefiable soils exist; and An analysis of soil expansion potential and appropriate remediation (compaction, removal/replacement, etc.) prior to using any expansive soils for foundation support. Mitigation Measure GEO-2 (SAMP EIR Mitigation Measure 8-3a): As part of the construction permitting process, the City requires completed reports of soil conditions at the specific construction sites to identify potentially unstable soil conditions. The evaluation must be conducted by registered soil professionals, and measures to eliminate inappropriate soils conditions must be applied, depending on the soil conditions. The design of foundation support must conform to the analysis and implementation criteria described in the City’s Building Code, Chapters 16, 18, and A33. Adherence to the City’s codes and policies ensures the maximum practicable protection available for users of buildings and infrastructure and their associated trenches, slopes, and foundations. Site-specific soil suitability analysis and stabilization procedures, and design criteria for foundations, as recommended by a California registered soil engineer Applicant or Applicant’s Contractor City of Rohnert Park Prior to issuance of grading/ building permits and during construction Preparation of site-specific soil conditions and suitability analysis, compliance with soil engineer recommendations
City of Rohnert Park Residence at Five Creek and City Public Safety / Public Works Facilities Project Mitigation Monitoring & Reporting Program Residences at Five Creek & City Public Safety / Public Works Facilities Mitigation Monitoring & Reporting Program 9 November 2016 Mitigation Measure Implementation Responsibility Monitoring Responsibility Timing Performance Evaluation Criteria during the design phase for each site where existence of unsuitable soil conditions is known or suspected, shall include, but not be limited to, the following specifications: a) During the design phase for each site where the existence of unsuitable soil conditions is known or suspected, the developer’s registered soil engineering consultant shall provide documentation to the City that: 1. Site-specific soil suitability analyses has been conducted in the area of the proposed foundation to establish the design criteria for appropriate foundation type and support, and 2. The recommended criteria have been incorporated in the design of the foundation. b) During grading for the site, the registered soils professional shall be on the site: 1. To observe areas of potential soil unsuitability, 2. To supervise the implementation of soil remediation programs, and 3. To verify final soil conditions prior to setting the foundations. c) The registered soils engineering consultant shall prepare an “as built” map, to be filed with the City, showing details of the site soils, the location of foundations, sub-drains and clean-outs, the results of suitability analyses and compaction tests. 2.7 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS Mitigation Measure GHG-1: The project applicant shall incorporate the following GHG reduction measures into the project design: Applicant or Applicant’s Contractor City of Rohnert Park Prior to issuance of grading/ building permits and during construction Incorporation of specific GHG reduction measures
City of Rohnert Park Residence at Five Creek and City Public Safety / Public Works Facilities Project Mitigation Monitoring & Reporting Program Residences at Five Creek & City Public Safety / Public Works Facilities Mitigation Monitoring & Reporting Program 10 November 2016 Mitigation Measure Implementation Responsibility Monitoring Responsibility Timing Performance Evaluation Criteria Compliance with the applicable Title 24 energy efficiency standards at the time of development. At a minimum, compliance with the 2016 Title 24 standards Compliance with state and/or local green building standards. At a minimum, implementation of CALGreen Tier 1 standards Install high efficiency LED lights in outdoor areas Participation in a TDM Program Improve the pedestrian network and implement traffic calming measures throughout the project Ensure solid waste diversion consistent with AB 341 Include shade canopy over parking lots, where appropriate and feasible Provide residents and employees information regarding transit availability Provide carpool and/or car sharing parking spaces Provide electric vehicle parking Comply with the City bicycle master plan and provide adequate bicycle parking Mitigation Measure GHG-2: Prior to the issuance of the occupancy permit, the project applicant shall purchase and retire voluntary carbon offsets on the Climate Action Reserve (CAR), CAPCOA Greenhouse Gas Reduction Exchange (GHG Rx), or other verified carbon registry, in order to reduce the project’s emissions to below the BAAQMD threshold of significance of 4.6 MT CO2E per service population per year. The BAAQMD requires the lead agency to ensure that offsite measures for reducing GHG emissions are feasible, measurable, and verifiable. Applicant City of Rohnert Park Prior to issuance of occupancy permit Purchase and retire voluntary carbon offsets from verified carbon registry
City of Rohnert Park Residence at Five Creek and City Public Safety / Public Works Facilities Project Mitigation Monitoring & Reporting Program Residences at Five Creek & City Public Safety / Public Works Facilities Mitigation Monitoring & Reporting Program 11 November 2016 Mitigation Measure Implementation Responsibility Monitoring Responsibility Timing Performance Evaluation Criteria The project proponent shall provide BAAQMD a certificate of purchase, verification opinion statement, and proof of offset retirement by the verification body from which the carbon offsets were purchased. If overall land use development changes from what has been assessed in this document, the project applicant shall be required to show consistency with the analysis conclusions herein, which may include the purchase of additional carbon offsets, if required. 2.8 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS Mitigation Measure HAZ-1 (SAMP EIR Mitigation Measures 9-1a through 9-1c): a) The city shall require that contractors transport, store, and handle hazardous materials required for construction in a manner consistent with relevant regulations and guidelines, including those recommended and enforced by the City of Rohnert Park Department of Public Safety (DPS). b) In the event of a spill of hazardous materials in an amount reportable to the DPS (as established by DPS guidelines), the contractor shall immediately control the source of the leak and contain the spill. If required by the DPS or other regulatory agencies, contaminated soils will be excavated and disposed of offsite at a facility approved to accept such soils. c) The City shall require development under the Master Plan to include plans to prevent the pollution of surface water and groundwater and to promote the health and safety of workers and other people in the project vicinity. These programs shall include an operations and maintenance plan, a site-specific safety plan, and a fire prevention Applicant or Applicant’s Contractor City of Rohnert Park Ongoing requirement/ applied at the time a building permit application is submitted and completed with the issuance of the certificate of occupancy and with submittal of appropriate plans. Measures implemented during construction and approval of appropriate hazardous materials management plan prior to occupancy permit
City of Rohnert Park Residence at Five Creek and City Public Safety / Public Works Facilities Project Mitigation Monitoring & Reporting Program Residences at Five Creek & City Public Safety / Public Works Facilities Mitigation Monitoring & Reporting Program 12 November 2016 Mitigation Measure Implementation Responsibility Monitoring Responsibility Timing Performance Evaluation Criteria plan, in addition to the Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) required to prevent impacts associated with contaminated storm water. The programs are required by law and shall require approval by several responsible agencies. Required approvals are: the SWPPP shall be approved by the RWQCB; the site-specific safety plan and the operations and maintenance plan shall be approved by the Rohnert Park DPS. The City shall require the applicant to develop and implement a hazardous materials management plan that addresses public health and safety issues by providing safety measures, including release prevention measures; employee training, notification, and evacuation procedures; and adequate emergency response protocols and cleanup procedures. The City shall require project applicants and their designated contractors to comply with Cal-OSHA, as well as federal standards, for the storage and handling of fuels, flammable materials, and common construction-related hazardous materials and for fire prevention. Mitigation Measure HAZ-2 (SAMP EIR Mitigation Measures 9-6a and 9-6b): a) Prior to construction, if dry vegetation or other fire fuels exist on or near staging areas, or any other area on which equipment will be operated, contractors shall clear the immediate area of fire fuel. To maintain a firebreak and minimize the availability of fire City of Rohnert Park City of Rohnert Park Ongoing during construction Measures implemented during construction
City of Rohnert Park Residence at Five Creek and City Public Safety / Public Works Facilities Project Mitigation Monitoring & Reporting Program Residences at Five Creek & City Public Safety / Public Works Facilities Mitigation Monitoring & Reporting Program 13 November 2016 Mitigation Measure Implementation Responsibility Monitoring Responsibility Timing Performance Evaluation Criteria fuels, the City shall require contractors to maintain areas subject to construction activities clear of combustible natural materials to the extent feasible. To avoid conflicts with policies to preserve riparian habitat, areas to be cleared shall be identified with the assistance of a qualified biologist. b) The City shall require contractors to equip construction equipment that normally includes a spark arrester with an arrester in good working order. 2.9 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY Mitigation Measure HYDRO-1 (SAMP EIR Mitigation Measure 10-3a): Because the SAMP Project would involve grading of an area that is greater than one acre, it would be subject to the conditions of the General Construction Activity NPDES permit from the Regional Water Quality Control Board. This permit requires the preparation of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). The SWPPP is required to identify the sources of sediment and other pollutants on site, and to ensure the reduction of sediment and other pollutants in stormwater discharged from the Site. A monitoring program is required to aid the implementation of, and assure compliance with, the SWPPP. The permit requirements of the RWQCB must be satisfied prior to project construction. As part of the SWPPP, an Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan must be prepared for the Stadium Area Master Plan Site prior to grading. An erosion control professional, or landscape architect or civil engineer specializing in erosion control must design the Erosion and Sediment Transport Control Plan. The erosion and sediment transport control plan shall be submitted, reviewed, Applicant or Applicant’s Contractor City of Rohnert Park Applied at the time a grading permit or building permit application is submitted and completed with the issuance of the certificate of occupancy. Implement regulatory permit requirements, including SWPPP and Erosion and Sediment Control Plan
City of Rohnert Park Residence at Five Creek and City Public Safety / Public Works Facilities Project Mitigation Monitoring & Reporting Program Residences at Five Creek & City Public Safety / Public Works Facilities Mitigation Monitoring & Reporting Program 14 November 2016 Mitigation Measure Implementation Responsibility Monitoring Responsibility Timing Performance Evaluation Criteria implemented and inspected as part of the approval process for the grading plans for each Project. The Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) recommends the control plan be designed using concepts similar to those formulated by ABAG, as appropriate, based on the specific erosion and sediment transport control needs of each area in which grading, excavation, and construction is to occur. A few of the most critical techniques to be considered include, but are not limited to, the following types of erosion control methods: Confine grading and activities related to grading (demolition, construction, preparation and use of equipment and material storage areas, staging areas, and preparation of access roads) to the dry season, whenever possible. The dry season is generally deemed to be from April to September of each year. If grading or activities related to grading need to be scheduled for the wet season, ensure that structural erosion and sediment transport control measures are ready for implementation prior to the onset of the first major storm of the season. Locate staging areas outside major streams and drainage ways. Keep the lengths and gradients of constructed slopes (cut or fill) as low as possible. Discharge grading and construction runoff into small drainages at frequent intervals to avoid buildup of large potentially erosive flows. Prevent runoff from flowing over unprotected slopes.
City of Rohnert Park Residence at Five Creek and City Public Safety / Public Works Facilities Project Mitigation Monitoring & Reporting Program Residences at Five Creek & City Public Safety / Public Works Facilities Mitigation Monitoring & Reporting Program 15 November 2016 Mitigation Measure Implementation Responsibility Monitoring Responsibility Timing Performance Evaluation Criteria Keep disturbed areas (areas of grading and related activities) to the minimum necessary for demolition or construction. Keep runoff away from disturbed areas during grading and related activities. Stabilize disturbed areas as quickly as possible, either by vegetative or mechanical methods. Direct runoff over vegetated areas prior to discharge into public storm drainage systems, whenever possible. Trap sediment before it leaves the Site with techniques such as check dams, sediment ponds, or siltation fences. Make the contractor responsible for the removal and disposal in offsite retention ponds of all sedimentation that is generated by grading and related activities of the Project. Use landscaping and grading methods that lower the potential for down-stream sedimentation. Modified drainage patterns, longer flow paths, encouraging infiltration into the ground, and slower stormwater conveyance velocities are examples of effective methods. Control landscaping activities carefully with regard to the application of fertilizers, herbicides, pesticides or other hazardous substances. Provide proper instruction to all landscaping personnel on the construction team. During the installation of the erosion and sediment transport control structures, an
City of Rohnert Park Residence at Five Creek and City Public Safety / Public Works Facilities Project Mitigation Monitoring & Reporting Program Residences at Five Creek & City Public Safety / Public Works Facilities Mitigation Monitoring & Reporting Program 16 November 2016 Mitigation Measure Implementation Responsibility Monitoring Responsibility Timing Performance Evaluation Criteria erosion control professional shall be on the Site to supervise the implementation of the designs, and the maintenance of the facilities throughout the grading and construction period. The erosion control professional shall prepare an "as built" erosion and sediment control facility map, to be filed with the City, showing details of the structural elements of the plan and providing an operating and maintenance schedule throughout the operational period of the Project. These erosion and sediment transport control structures need to be in place prior to the onset of seasonal rains. If portions of these phases extend into the wet season, sediment can be prevented from leaving the construction sites through the use of silt fences, straw bales, perimeter ditches, water bars, temporary culverts and swales, sediment traps, minimal grading concepts, and/or similar techniques appropriate for the Site. If grading or construction is to occur during the wet season, the Project will require an erosion and sediment transport control plan, designed by an erosion control professional, landscape architect, or civil engineer specializing in erosion control, that shall meet the objectives for the grading and construction period of construction projects proposed for the Stadium Master Plan. A Best Management Practices (BMP) program, as required by the RWQCB,
City of Rohnert Park Residence at Five Creek and City Public Safety / Public Works Facilities Project Mitigation Monitoring & Reporting Program Residences at Five Creek & City Public Safety / Public Works Facilities Mitigation Monitoring & Reporting Program 17 November 2016 Mitigation Measure Implementation Responsibility Monitoring Responsibility Timing Performance Evaluation Criteria describes stormwater management practices (structural and operational measures) to control the quantity and quality of stormwater runoff, and aid in erosion control. Following construction, the permit requires the implementation of long-term measures to manage runoff throughout the operational period of the Project. BMPs to prevent onsite or off-site erosion would be required in the stormwater management program. A combination of structural and/or non-structural BMPs would ensure that the disruption of existing drainage patterns caused by implementation of the Project would not create channel modification downstream from the Project site. The permit requires monitoring a monitoring and reporting program to ensure adequate long-term operation and maintenance of the BMPs. Practices include on-site detention and treatment, preventative maintenance, inspection, security measures, and employee training. If construction is scheduled to occur throughout the year or is unlikely to be restricted to the dry months of the year, the BMPs must be implemented to ensure that sediment is confined to the construction area and not transported off-site. Erosion control also is required by the city, county, and the RWQCB through general plan policies and regulatory permits. 2.12 NOISE Mitigation Measure NOI-1: Noise-generating activities at the construction site or in areas adjacent to the Applicant or Applicant’s Contractor City of Rohnert Park Approved measures to be included in building Compliance with specific construction
City of Rohnert Park Residence at Five Creek and City Public Safety / Public Works Facilities Project Mitigation Monitoring & Reporting Program Residences at Five Creek & City Public Safety / Public Works Facilities Mitigation Monitoring & Reporting Program 18 November 2016 Mitigation Measure Implementation Responsibility Monitoring Responsibility Timing Performance Evaluation Criteria construction site associated with the Project in any way would be restricted to the hours of 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. (Ord. 152 § 3.1, 1971). • Use available noise suppression devices and properly maintain and muffle loud construction equipment. • Avoid the unnecessary idling of equipment and stage construction equipment as far as reasonable from residences and radio station north of the site (preferably more than 200 feet from residences). • Notify adjacent uses of the construction schedule. • Designate a “noise disturbance coordinator” who would be responsible for responding to any local complaints about construction noise. The disturbance coordinator would determine the cause of the noise complaints (e.g., starting too early, bad muffler, etc.) and would require that reasonable measures warranted to correct the problem be implemented. Conspicuously post a telephone number for the disturbance coordinator at the construction site and include it in the notice sent to neighbors regarding the construction schedule. • All noise-producing project equipment and vehicles using internal combustion engines shall be equipped with mufflers, air-inlet silencers where appropriate, and any other shrouds, shields, or other noise-reducing features in good operating condition that meet or exceed original factory specification. Mobile or fixed “package” equipment (e.g., arc-welders, air compressors) shall be equipped with shrouds and noise control permits and ongoing during construction noise reduction measures
City of Rohnert Park Residence at Five Creek and City Public Safety / Public Works Facilities Project Mitigation Monitoring & Reporting Program Residences at Five Creek & City Public Safety / Public Works Facilities Mitigation Monitoring & Reporting Program 19 November 2016 Mitigation Measure Implementation Responsibility Monitoring Responsibility Timing Performance Evaluation Criteria features that are readily available for that type of equipment. • All mobile or fixed noise-producing equipment used on the project that are regulated for noise output by a local, state, or federal agency shall comply with such regulation while in the course of project activity. • Construction site and access road speed limits shall be established and enforced during the construction period. • The use of noise-producing signals, including horns, whistles, alarms, and bells, shall be for safety warning purposes only. • Construction hours, allowable workdays, and the phone number of the job superintendent shall be clearly posted at all construction entrances to allow surrounding property owners to contact the job superintendent if necessary. • Mechanical Noise is specifically listed in the noise ordinance. The following measure is required to mitigate mechanical noise impacts. Mitigation Measure NOI-2: Prior to final approval, the mechanical equipment should be reviewed by professional acoustical engineer to ensure the equipment does not produce levels exceeding the noise standards. Applicant or Applicant’s Contractor City of Rohnert Park At building permit, prior to construction Acoustical engineer confirmation of acceptable mechanical equipment noise 2.14 PUBLIC SERVICES Mitigation Measure PUB-1 (SAMP EIR Mitigation Measure 14-2a, slightly modified): Prior to the issuance of building permits, the City shall require proof of payment of the statutory development fee or the mitigation fee imposed by the school district that serves the SAMP area, as authorized by state law Applicant or Applicant’s Contractor City of Rohnert Park Prior to issuance of building permits Payment of statutory development fee or mitigation fee to school district
City of Rohnert Park Residence at Five Creek and City Public Safety / Public Works Facilities Project Mitigation Monitoring & Reporting Program Residences at Five Creek & City Public Safety / Public Works Facilities Mitigation Monitoring & Reporting Program 20 November 2016 Mitigation Measure Implementation Responsibility Monitoring Responsibility Timing Performance Evaluation Criteria (California Government Code 65995). In accordance with Section 65996 of the State Government Code, the project sponsor shall be required to pay the current school mitigation fees at the time that building permits are issued. 2.16 TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC Mitigation Measure TRA-1: The project shall provide a minimum of 34 onsite bicycle spaces for the residential units, 9 spaces for the hotel, and 8 spaces for the retail space. Project Applicant City of Rohnert Park Approval with improvement plans and implemented during construction Inclusion of required bicycle spaces Mitigation Measure TRA-2: As recommended in the Traffic Impact Study (W-Trans, 2016), the project shall install either a roundabout or all-way stop-controls at the intersection of Martin Avenue/Dowdell Avenue Project Applicant or Applicant’s Contractor City of Rohnert Park Approval with improvement plans and implemented during construction Construction of required traffic improvements Mitigation Measure TRA-3: Martin Avenue shall be restriped to include dual westbound lanes between the Costco driveway and Dowdell Avenue, with the outer through lane becoming a right-turn lane at the Dowdell Avenue intersection. Project Applicant or Applicant’s Contractor City of Rohnert park Approval with improvement plans and implemented during construction Construction of required traffic improvements