The URL can be used to link to this page

2018/04/12 Planning Commission Resolution (5)PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2018-26 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROHNERT PARK CALIFORNIA RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE AND ADOPT THE MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT AND REZONING FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF DOWDELL AVENUE AND BUSINESS PARK DRIVE (APN: 143-040-135) TO CHANGE THE LAND USE DESIGNATION FROM INDUSTRIAL TO HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL WHEREAS, the applicant, Chris Scerri of Advanced Building Solutions, Inc., has filed Planning Application No. PLGP2016-0001 with the permission of the property owner, Sonoma Media Investments, requesting a General Plan Amendment ("GPA") and rezoning to allow for the construction of an apartment complex on the southeast corner of Dowdell Avenue and Business Park Drive, assessor parcel number 143-040-135 ("Subject Parcel"); and WHEREAS, the applicant has requested a change in the General Plan land use designation of the Subject Parcel from a current designation of "Industrial" to "High Density Residential"; and WHEREAS, the applicant has requested a change in the zoning map classification of the Subject Parcel from Industrial (I -L) to High Density Residential (R -H); and WHEREAS, Planning Application No. PLGP2016-0001 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 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 March 9, 2018 to April 9, 2018 (Exhibit A); and WHEREAS, pursuant to California State Laws and the City of Rohnert Park Municipal Code (RPMC), a public hearing notice 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 Communit.�Voice for a minimum of 10 days prior to the first public hearing; and WHEREAS, on April 12, 2018, the Planning Commission reviewed Planning Application No. PLGP2016-0001 during a scheduled public meeting at which time interested persons had an opportunity to testify either in support or opposition to the proposed project; and WHEREAS, at the April 12, 2018, Planning Commission meeting, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all persons desiring to be heard, the Planning Commission considered all facts relating to Planning Application No. PLGP2016-0001; and WHEREAS, the members of the Planning Commission, using their independent judgment, reviewed the proposed project and all evidence in the record related to such requests, including the staff report, public testimony, and all evidence presented both orally and in writing; and WHEREAS, at the April 12, 2018 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 proposal, which is attached to this resolution as Exhibit A; 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. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of the City of Rohnert Park hereby makes the following findings, determinations and recommendations with respect to the Mitigated Negative Declaration for the proposed project: Section 1. The Planning Commission hereby finds as follows: 1. The Planning Commission 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. 3. The Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared, publicized, circulated and reviewed in compliance with the provisions of CEQA Guidelines; and 4. The Mitigated Negative Declaration constitutes an adequate, accurate, objective and complete Mitigated Negative Declaration in compliance with all legal standards; and 5. 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. Section 2. The Planning Commission of the City of Rohnert Park finds that approval of the proposed GPA and Rezone would not result in any significant effects on the environment with implementation of mitigation measures identified in the Mitigated Negative Declaration and the Planning Commission does hereby recommend that the City Council approve and adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Initial Study set forth in Exhibit A. Section 3. The Planning Commission of the City of Rohnert Park finds that Exhibit A of this resolution sets forth the mitigation measures required under Section 15091 of the CEQA Guidelines for significant effects of the Project and recommends that the City Council approve a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program.. DULY AND REGULARLY ADOPTED on this 12th day of April, 2018 by the City of Rohnert Park Planning Commission by the following vote: AYES: ADAM U Q B ABSENT: L ABSTAIN: 0 BORBA A GIUDICEHAYDON� Susan Ad ms, Chairperson, Rohnert Park Plaiuiing Commission Attest: UAU'Lo_ Susan .evedo, ecording Secretary INITIAL STUDY REDWOOD CROSSINGS GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT & REZONE sg ,aoKNERT PqR '%%,�ALIF0KN� [l: City of Rohnert Park Development Services 130 Avram Avenue Rohnert Park, CA 94928-2486 MARCH 2018 Initial Study TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Pane 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.............................................................................................................. 11 2.2 Agriculture and Forestry Resources...................................................................... 14 2.3 Air Quality ............................................................................................................ 15 2.4 Biological Resources............................................................................................ 25 2.5 Cultural Resources................................................................................................ 36 2.6 Geology and Soils................................................................................................. 39 2.7 Greenhouse Gas Emissions................................................................................... 43 2.8 Hazards and Hazardous Materials........................................................................ 50 2.9 Hydrology and Water Quality............................................................................... 54 2.10 Land Use and Planning......................................................................................... 60 2.11 Mineral Resources................................................................................................ 62 2.12 Noise..................................................................................................................... 63 2.13 Population and Housing........................................................................................ 84 2.14 Public Services...................................................................................................... 86 2.15 Recreation............................................................................................................. 87 2.16 Transportation and Traffic.........................................................•.......................... 89 2.17 Tribal Cultural Resources................................................................................... 105 2.18 Utilities and Service Systems.............................................................................. 107 2.19 Mandatory Findings of Significance................................................................... 111 3 REFERENCES...............................................................................................................113 3.1 References Cited ................................................................................................. 113 APPENDICES A Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Calculations B Biological Resource Analysis C Roadway Construction Noise Model D Traffic Impact Study Redwood Crossings Project D U D E K i March 2018 Initial Study INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK Redwood Crossings Project D U D E K rte March 2018 Initial Study INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK Redwood Crossings Project DUDEK 2 March 2018 SOURCE: Esri Basemaps (2017) FIGURE 1 � V D E � © Regional Map Mies Redwood Crossings Initial Study . _ _3 ,r:4r i e 'ILA • 1 f "r - ;r - .I Project Site SOURCE: Bing Maps (Accessed 2017) FIGURE 2 Vicinity Map DUDEK © ° z• �, Redwood Crossings Initial Study N I' r�-i-OF � 1 ..i SOURCE: Bing Maps (Accessed 2017) FIGURE 2 Vicinity Map DUDEK © ° z• �, Redwood Crossings Initial Study Initial Study in the General Plan would also be required to reflect changes in acreage totals resulting from the project. The rezone of the project site would require an amendment to the City of Rohnert Park Zoning Map to change the zoning designation for the project site from Industrial (I -L) zone district to the High Density Residential zone district (R -H). Entitlements and required approvals: The project would require the following approvals: • General Plan Amendment and • Zoning Amendment 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 ® Biological Resources ❑ Greenhouse Gas Emissions ® Land Use and Planning ❑ Population and Housing ® Transportation and Traffic ❑ Agriculture and Forestry Resources ® Cultural Resources ❑ Hazards and Hazardous Materials ❑ Mineral Resources ❑ Public Services ❑ Utilities and Service Systems DETERMINATION: (To be completed by the Lead Agency) On the basis of this initial evaluation: ® Air Quality ® Geology and Soils ® Hydrology and Water Quality ® Noise ❑ Recreation ® Mandatory Findings of Significance ❑ I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. Redwood Crossings Project D U D E K 8 March 2018 Initial Study ® 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. ❑ 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. d v Z Redwood Crossings Project D U D E K 9 March 2018 Initial Study 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. • The explanation of each issue should identify: a. The significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and b. The mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significance. 2.1 Aesthetics a) Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? Redwood Crossings Project DUDEK11 March 2018 Less Than Potentially Significant with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated 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 ❑ ElEl 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 ❑ ❑ J ❑� views in the area? 2.1 Aesthetics a) Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? Redwood Crossings Project DUDEK11 March 2018 Initial Study d) Would the project create anew source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? The proposed GPA and rezone associated with the project would allow for future development of high-density residences on the vacant, undeveloped project site. While development of apartment units at the site would introduce new sources of light in the area, the project would be required to comply with the City of Rohnert Park's lighting and glare standards (Municipal Code Section 17.12.050). Accordingly, impacts associated with lighting and glare would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures No mitigation measures are necessary. 1'1 Redwood Crossings Project D U D E K 13 March 2018 Less Than Potentially Significant with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact It. 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? 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? 1'1 Redwood Crossings Project D U D E K 13 March 2018 Initial Study 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. Mitigation Measures No mitigation measures are necessary. 2.3 Air Quality The Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) adopted updated CEQA Air Quality Guidelines, including new thresholds of significance, in June 2010 (BAAQMD 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 Redwood Crossings Project D U D E K 15 March 2018 Less Than Potentially Significant with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated 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? 2.3 Air Quality The Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) adopted updated CEQA Air Quality Guidelines, including new thresholds of significance, in June 2010 (BAAQMD 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 Redwood Crossings Project D U D E K 15 March 2018 Initial Study Table 2.3-1 Thresholds of Significance Source: BAAQMD 2017a lbs/day = pounds per day; tons/year= tons per year, ppm = parts per million; µgim3 = micrograms per cubic meter; ROG = reactive organic gases; Na = oxides of nitrogen; PMio = particulate matter with an aerodynamic resistance diameter of 10 micrometers or less; PM2.5 = fine particulate matterwith an aerodynamic resistance diameter of 2.5 micrometers or less; CO = carbon monoxide a) Would the project conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air qualityplan? 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 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 (SFBAAB), which is designated non -attainment for the federal 8 -hour ozone (03) 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 03, 24-hour PM1o, annual PM1o, and annual PM2.5. On April 19, 2017, the BAAQMD adopted the Spare the Air: Cool the Climate Final 2017 Clean Air Plan (BAAQMD 2017b). The 2017 Clean Air Plan provides a regional strategy to protect public health and protect the climate. To protect public health, the 2017 Clean Air Plan includes all feasible measures to reduce emissions of 03 precursors (ROG and NO,,) and reduce 03 transport to neighboring air basins. In addition, the 2017 Clean Air Plan builds upon the BAAQMD efforts to reduce fine particulate matter (PM) and TACs. To protect the climate, the plan defines a vision for transitioning the region to a post -carbon economy needed to achieve ambitious GHG reduction targets for 2030 and 2050, and Redwood Crossings Project DUDEK 17 March 2018 Construction Thresholds Operational Thresholds Average Daily Emissions Average Daily Emissions Maximum Annual Emissions Pollutant fibs/day) (lbs/day) (tonslyear) Risks and Hazards Compliance with Qualified Community Risk Reduction Plan (Cumulative) or Cancer risk of>100 in a million (from all local sources) Noncancer risk of >10.0 Hazard Index (chronic, from all local sources) Ambient PM25>0.8 pg/m3 annual average (from all local sources) Zone of Influence: 1,000 -foot radius from property line of source or receptor Accidental Release of None Storage or use of acutely hazardous material located near Acutely Hazardous Air receptors or new receptors located near stored or used Pollutants acutely hazardous materials considered significant Odors None Five confirmed complaints to BAAQMD per year averaged over 3 years Source: BAAQMD 2017a lbs/day = pounds per day; tons/year= tons per year, ppm = parts per million; µgim3 = micrograms per cubic meter; ROG = reactive organic gases; Na = oxides of nitrogen; PMio = particulate matter with an aerodynamic resistance diameter of 10 micrometers or less; PM2.5 = fine particulate matterwith an aerodynamic resistance diameter of 2.5 micrometers or less; CO = carbon monoxide a) Would the project conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air qualityplan? 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 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 (SFBAAB), which is designated non -attainment for the federal 8 -hour ozone (03) 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 03, 24-hour PM1o, annual PM1o, and annual PM2.5. On April 19, 2017, the BAAQMD adopted the Spare the Air: Cool the Climate Final 2017 Clean Air Plan (BAAQMD 2017b). The 2017 Clean Air Plan provides a regional strategy to protect public health and protect the climate. To protect public health, the 2017 Clean Air Plan includes all feasible measures to reduce emissions of 03 precursors (ROG and NO,,) and reduce 03 transport to neighboring air basins. In addition, the 2017 Clean Air Plan builds upon the BAAQMD efforts to reduce fine particulate matter (PM) and TACs. To protect the climate, the plan defines a vision for transitioning the region to a post -carbon economy needed to achieve ambitious GHG reduction targets for 2030 and 2050, and Redwood Crossings Project DUDEK 17 March 2018 Initial Study 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 in the area, nor would it include excessive parking. Therefore, the project would not hinder implementation of 2017 Clean Air Plan control measures. In summary, the responses to all three of the questions with regard to Clean Air Plan consistency are affirmative and the proposed project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the 2017 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 (CaIEEMod) Version 2016.3.2 was used to estimate emissions from construction and operation of the proposed project. CaIEEMod 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. CaIEEMod input parameters, including the proposed project land use type and size and construction schedule were based on information provided by the project applicant, or default model assumptions if project specifics were unavailable. Construction. Future development of the project site would involve construction and potential operation of a 156 -unit apartment complex and associated above surface level parking. Construction would likely begin in April 2020 and take approximately 24 months to complete. Construction would involve site preparation and grading of the site. All soils would be balanced on-site. Sources of emissions would include: off-road construction equipment exhaust, on -road vehicles exhaust and entrained road dust (i.e., material delivery trucks and worker vehicles), fugitive dust associated with site preparation and grading activities, and paving and architectural coating activities. Detailed assumptions associated with project construction are included in Appendix A. 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 2.3-2 shows average daily construction emissions of 03 precursors (ROG and NO.), PM10 exhaust, and PM2.5 exhaust during project construction.' ' Fuel combustion during construction and operations would also result in the generation of sulfur dioxide (SO2) and CO. These values are included in Appendix A. However, since the SFBAAB is in attainment of these pollutants, the Redwood Crossings Project D U D E K 19 March 2018 Initial Stud Table 2.3-3 Daily Unmitigated Operational Emissions Source ROG NOR I 0M10 PC pounds per day Area 4.49 1.24 0.16 0.16 Energy 0.04 0.34 0.03 0.03 Mobile 1.22 4.79 4.20 1.15 Total 5.75 6.36 4.39 1.34 BAAQMD Operational Thresholds 54 54 82 54 Exceed Threshold? No No No No Source: Appendix A Note: The values shown are the maximum summer or winter daily emissions results from CalEEMod. ROG = reactive organic gases; NOx = oxides of nitrogen; PM,o = coarse particulate matter; PM2.5 = fine particulate matter As indicated in Table 2.3-3, project -related operational emissions of ROG, NO,,, PMIo, and PM2.5 would not exceed the BAAQMD significance thresholds during operations, and thus, the proposed project would have a less than significant impact in relation to regional operational emissions. In regards to localized CO concentrations, according to the BAAQMD 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 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. Redwood Crossings Project D U D E K 21 March 2018 Initial Study Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) risk -assessment methodology (OEHHA 2015). In addition, some TACs have non -carcinogenic effects. TACs that would potentially be emitted during construction activities would be diesel particulate matter, emitted from heavy-duty construction equipment and heavy-duty trucks. Heavy-duty construction equipment and diesel trucks are subject to CARB air toxic control measures to reduce diesel particulate matter emissions. According to the OEHHA, health risk assessments, which determine the exposure of sensitive receptors to toxic emissions, should be based on a 30 -year exposure period for the maximally exposed individual resident; however, such assessments should be limited to the period/duration of activities associated with the project (OEHHA 2015). Thus, the duration of proposed construction activities (approximately 24 -months) would only constitute a small percentage of the total 30 -year exposure period. Regarding long-term operations, the proposed project's multi- family housing units would not result in non -permitted stationary sources that would emit air pollutants or TACs. In summary, the project would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial, long-term pollutant concentrations or health risk during construction or operations, and this impact would be less than significant on a project -level and cumulative basis. 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. Although the project itself would not create objectionable odors, the site is located adjacent to industrial uses that could emit detectable odors. However, all uses within the City must comply with Municipal Code Section 17.12.040 which prohibits continuous frequent or repetitive odors that are perceptible on or beyond adjacent property lines. Section 17.12.040 of the Municipal Code further prohibits emission of dust or particulate matter that is detectable at boundary lines or property by a reasonable person without instruments and requires exhaust air ducts to be located or directed away from abutting residentially zoned properties. Compliance with the Municipal Code requirements in conjunction with Mitigation Measure AIR -2 would serve to further ensure that odors associated with uses on the adjacent industrial properties would not adversely affect future residents at the project site. Mitigation Measure AIR -2 requires the project developer to retain a qualified air Redwood Crossings Project D U D E K 23 March 2018 Initial Study recommendations for minimizing odor exposure at the project site. The report must be reviewed and approved by the City before a building permit is issued and the developer would be required to implement all applicable recommendations. Potential changes to any approved building or site configuration as a result of the required report may require additional approvals. 2.4 Biological Resources A Biological Constraints Report (Dudek 2017) was prepared for the proposed project to describe existing, onsite biological resources and identify potentially significant impacts that could occur from future development on the 6.50 -acre project site. For the report, literature research and a field Redwood Crossings Project Ire 1.,,r `.i D E K 25 March 2018 Less Than Potentially Significant with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated 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? 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 Biological Constraints Report (Dudek 2017) was prepared for the proposed project to describe existing, onsite biological resources and identify potentially significant impacts that could occur from future development on the 6.50 -acre project site. For the report, literature research and a field Redwood Crossings Project Ire 1.,,r `.i D E K 25 March 2018 Initial Study Non -Native Annual Grassland The classification of non-native annual grassland consists of the predominance of bare ground, non-native plant species, and other ruderal plant species commonly associated with anthropogenic disturbance. Non-native annual grassland habitat generally corresponds to areas that have been physically disturbed by previous human activity and is no longer recognizable as a native or naturalized vegetation association, but that continue to retain a soil substrate. Typically, vegetation, if present, is nearly exclusively composed of non-native annual plant species (i.e., weeds). The majority of the project site is comprised of non-native annual grassland land (refer to Attachment 1 in the Biological Constraints Report, Representative Site Photographs). The vegetation within this land cover type is typical of non-native species found in previously graded lots and include species such as Italian ryegrass (Festuca perennis), bristly oxtongue (Helminthotheca echioides), English plantain (Plantago lanceolata), spring vetch (Vicia sativa), black mustard (Brassica nigra), prickly lettuce (Lactuca serriola), fennel (Foeniculum vulgare), and field bindweed (Convolvulus arvensis). Although disturbed, the grassland within this land cover type may provide low -quality habitat for several special -status wildlife species (Dudek 2017). Seasonal Wetland Seasonal wetlands occur within the disturbed landscape community in a few depressions and along the margins of the mound of fill dirt. These areas were dry during the November 2017 field survey. Based on historic aerial photography, these features are likely inundated only during the winter rainy season and then dry by early spring to summer. The wetlands on site are shallow and degraded, providing only marginal habitat for wetland species. Plant species present include bristly oxtongue, pennyroyal (Mentha pulegium), and curly dock (Rumex crispus) (Dudek 2017). Waters of the United States Waters of the United States, including wetlands, are special habitats regulated by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE), and other state and federal agencies, in accordance with the federal Clean Water Act. Some isolated features that may not fall under the jurisdiction of the ACOE would potentially fall under the jurisdiction of the Regional Water Quality Control Board as waters of the state. Determining the extent of waters of the United States and waters of the state on a given site requires that a wetland delineation be prepared according to standards issued by the ACOE and submitted to the ACOE for review and verification. No formal wetland delineation has been prepared for the project site. Waters of the United States and waters of the state on the project site could include seasonal wetlands. These features could be Redwood Crossings Project D U D E K 27 March 2018 Initial Study 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? Special -status biological resources present or potentially present on the project site were identified through a literature search using the following sources: the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Information, Planning, and Conservation (IPaC) Trust Resource Report (USFWS 2017); the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) (CDFW 2017); and the California Native Plant Society (CNPS) online Inventory of Rare, Threatened, and Endangered Plants (CNPS 2017). Searches were completed for the following U.S. Geological Survey 7.5 -minute quadrangles: Cotati, Sebastopol, Santa Rosa, Kenwood, Two Rock, Glen Ellen, Point Reyes NE, Petaluma, and Petaluma River. For this analysis, special -status species are those that are (1) listed, proposed for listing, or candidates for listing under the federal Endangered Species Act as threatened or endangered; (2) listed or candidates for listing under the California Endangered Species Act as threatened or endangered; (3) a state fully protected species; (4) a CDFW Species of Special Concern; or (5) a species listed on the CNPS Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants with a California Rare Plant Rank of 1 B or 2B. Special -status vegetation communities are those communities identified as high priority for inventory in the List of Vegetation Alliances and Associations (CDFG 2010) with a state rarity ranking of S1, S2, or S3. Dudek conducted a field reconnaissance on November 30, 2017. All observed native and naturalized plant species encountered within the project site were identified and recorded. The potential for special -status plant and wildlife species to occur within the project site was evaluated based on the vegetation communities and soils present. Vegetation communities and land covers on site were mapped directly in the field. This section addresses potential impacts to special -status biological resources that could result from implementation of the proposed project. For the purposes of this analysis, it is assumed that the entire project site would be permanently impacted by development. Special -Status Plants The project site is located in eastern Rohnert Park, near the intersection of Business Park Drive and Dowdell Avenue within the Santa Rosa Plain Conservation Strategy. The Conservation Strategy was prepared by a team of local, state, and federal stakeholders to Redwood Crossings Project D U D E K 29 March 2018 Initial Study species are protected by the federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act and California Fish and Game Code 3503.5 (which specifically protects raptors). To avoid impacts to nesting birds, the project would be required to implement Mitigation Measure BIO -3, which requires preconstruction surveys for nesting birds prior to any clearing and ground -disturbing activities occurring during the nesting season. Implementation of this measure would ensure that impacts to nesting birds remain less than significant during future development of the project site. California Tiger Salamander (Ambystoma californiense) The Sonoma population of CTS is a federally and state -listed as a threatened amphibian species. This species utilizes vernal pools, other ephemeral pools, and sometimes stream courses and man-made pools if predatory fishes are absent, for breeding. They utilize annual grassland and valley and foothill hardwood forest for aestivation and overland dispersal habitat. The project site is located within CTS Critical Habitat Unit 1 and is located within the recovery area under the Santa Rosa Plain Conservation Strategy, which specifically addresses protection and recovery of the Sonoma County distinct population segment of CTS. The seasonal wetlands on site do not characterize suitable breeding habitat due to the shallow depth of the features (maximum depth of about 6 inches) and the short inundation period (typically dry by April or May). Several cracks were observed on site that might offer temporary refugia; however, small mammal burrows that could provide permanent refugia were not observed during the November 2017 site visit. As a result, it is highly unlikely this species would utilize the project site. Multiple CNDDB occurrences for CTS occur nearby, with the nearest documented CNDDB occurrence of this species located approximately 0.75 miles north of the project site (Figure 3; CDFW 2017). Even though the site does not provide suitable breeding habitat or upland refugia, given its presence within both critical habitat and the Santa Rosa Plain Conservation Strategy, formal consultation with USFWS and CDFW would likely be required. To avoid potential impacts to CTS, the project would implement Mitigation Measure BIO - 4, which requires the project applicant to demonstrate compliance with all applicable state and federal resource agency requirements for species protected under the federal Endangered Species Act and the California Endangered Species Act. The measure requires that the applicant consult with the necessary regulatory agencies, obtain any required state and/or federal permits for impacts to protected species, and/or adopt specific avoidance measures in coordination with the regulatory agencies. Redwood Crossings Project D U D E K 31 March 2018 Initial Study No formal wetland delineation has been prepared for the study area. Waters of the United States and waters of the state on the project site could include seasonal wetlands. The seasonal wetland features could be under the jurisdiction of the ACOE and/or the Regional Water Quality Control Board. As discussed previously, the project would be required to implement Mitigation Measure BIO -5, which requires a formal wetland delineation to determine the jurisdictional limits of these features. The measure further requires that the applicant consult with the necessary regulatory agencies, obtain any required state and/or federal permits for impacts to protected species, and/or adopt specific avoidance measures in coordination with the regulatory agencies. With implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO -5, potential impacts to onsite wetlands would be less than significant. 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? Due to the developed nature of the surrounding area, the project site does not function as a wildlife corridor. Mitigation Measure BIO -1, discussed previously, would ensure no impacts occur to potentially nesting bird species resulting from project implementation. As a result, development at the project site would result in no impacts to these resources. e) Would the project conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? The Rohnert Park Code of Ordinances, Title 17, Chapter 17.15 provides regulation for development around trees within the City of Rohnert Park. Future development at the proposed project site could result in potentially significant impacts to protected trees. To reduce potential impacts, the project would be required to implement Mitigation Measure BIO -6, which provides for compliance with the City's tree replacement mitigation requirements. Implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO -6 and satisfaction of any required tree replacement plantings or in -lieu fees would reduce this impact to a less than significant level. J) 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? As previously discussed, 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. Mitigation Measure BIO -4 requires the project applicant to Redwood Crossings Project D U D E K 33 March 2018 Initial Study would be avoided until the chicks have fledged and the nests are no longer active. Dudek also recommends removing any habitat (i.e., trees) outside of the breeding bird season. As a result, no significant impacts to nesting birds would occur. Mitigation Measure BI04 (California Tiger Salamander (Ambystoma californiense)): Prior to issuance of grading permits, the applicant shall demonstrate compliance with all applicable state and federal resource agency requirements for species protected under the federal Endangered Species Act and the California Endangered Species Act. The applicant shall consult with the regulatory agencies, obtain any required state and/or federal permits for impacts to protected species, and/or adopt specific avoidance measures in coordination with the regulatory agencies, if necessary. Mitigation Measure 13I0-5 (Jurisdictional Waters): A wetland delineation shall be performed for the project site to verify the presence of potentially jurisdictional wetland features. If the wetland feature qualifies as jurisdictional, the project proponent shall obtain requisite wetland regulatory permits such as a nationwide permit from the ACOE and/or water quality certification from the Regional Water Quality Control Board. During the course of permitting, mitigation of direct impacts will be agreed upon, which may include the purchase of credits, to ensure no net loss of wetlands result from the proposed project and may consist of off-site mitigation of impacted seasonal wetland at a minimum ratio of 1:1 (preserved/mitigated wetlands: impacted wetlands). Mitigation Measure BI0-6 (Trees): Any tree replacement mitigation shall be at the discretion of the City of Rohnert Park. Any scheduled tree placement may be in accordance with the value of the tree as defined in the City's Tree Chapter Section 17.04.030 (Definitions of words and terms). The City may also allow payment of an in -lieu fee or by planting an equivalent number of new tree(s). The planting of any new tree(s) must be approved by the City arborist. The Location of Replacement Trees shall be replanted on the site of the original tree removal. Otherwise, replacement trees may be located on any parcel within Rohnert Park City limits, depending on the feasibility and appropriateness of the site as determined by the City arborist (Ord. 769 § 3 (part), 2007). Any tree replacement mitigation required by the City of Rohnert Park shall be mitigation that must be implemented to compensate for impacted trees. Redwood Crossings Project D U D E K 35 March 2018 Initial Study American representatives included on the NAHC tribal contact list and invited consultation on the project. Pursuant to Assembly Bill (AB) 52 (Public Resources Code [PRC] Section 21082.3[d][3]), the City of Rohnert Park sent notification about the project to the tribes that have requested notification of projects subject to CEQA. To date, the City has not received a response from any tribal contacts. The City now considers its Native American tribal consultation complete. 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 NRNP, 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 50+ year old structures or built -features on the project site and as such, there are no historical resources to be impacted by future development at the site. Accordingly, the project would have no impact on historic resources. 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, the project would be required to implement Mitigation Measures CUL -1, CUL -2, and CUL -3. These mitigation measures 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. Redwood Crossings Project D U D E K 37 March 2018 Initial Study 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 project area and the San Andreas Fault, approximately 15 miles Redwood Crossings Project D U D E K 39 March 2018 Less Than Potentially Significant with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated 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? 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 project area and the San Andreas Fault, approximately 15 miles Redwood Crossings Project D U D E K 39 March 2018 Initial Study b) Would the project result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? The existence of expansive soils within the project area makes necessitates determination that the soils used for foundation support are sound (City of Rohnert Park 2015). 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-1. Implementation of Mitigation Measure GEO-1, which requires preparation of a site-specific soil analysis, including site-specific recommendations, 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? Unstable geologic units or soils are characterized by materials lacking in sufficient integrity to support urban development (e.g., poorly consolidated fill). The project area supports development, which indicates that geologic conditions in the area are capable of supporting the proposed development. As previously discussed, the project would be required to implement Mitigation Measure GEO-1, which requires preparation of a site-specific geotechnical report and implementation of site-specific design recommendations. Prior to issuance of grading permits, the City Engineer would review and approve all grading and structural foundation plans to verify that recommendations of the geotechnical report have been followed and to provide supplemental recommendations, if necessary. The City Engineer, or a representative thereof, would also inspect and approve all grading and site preparation prior to construction of improvements to ensure compliance with Uniform Building Code and local codes. With implementation of Mitigation Measure GEO-1, the project would have less than significant impacts associated with unstable geologic units or soils. 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? Expansive soils shrink and swell as a result of moisture change. These volume changes can result in damage over time to building foundations, underground utilities, and other subsurface facilities and infrastructure if they are not designed and constructed appropriately to resist the damage associated with changing soil conditions. A review of Redwood Crossings Project DUDEK 41 March 2018 Initial Study Design and construction of all new project development shall be in accordance with the CBC. The project applicant shall provide for engineering inspection and certification by a qualified geotechnical or civil engineer that earthwork has been performed in conformity with recommendations contained in the geotechnical report. 2.7 Greenhouse Gas Emissions 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 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 carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide, 03, and water vapor. Some GHGs, such as CO2, CH4, and nitrous oxide, 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. Manufactured GHGs, which have a much greater heat - absorption potential than CO2, include fluorinated gases, such as hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, sulfur hexafluoride, and nitrogen trifluoride, 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 Redwood Crossings Project D U D E K 43 March 2018 Less Than Potentially Significant with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated 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 ❑ ❑ E ❑ the emissions of greenhouse gases? 2.7 Greenhouse Gas Emissions 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 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 carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide, 03, and water vapor. Some GHGs, such as CO2, CH4, and nitrous oxide, 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. Manufactured GHGs, which have a much greater heat - absorption potential than CO2, include fluorinated gases, such as hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, sulfur hexafluoride, and nitrogen trifluoride, 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 Redwood Crossings Project D U D E K 43 March 2018 Initial Study a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment? Construction. Construction of the proposed project would result in GHG emissions, which are primarily associated with use of off-road construction equipment, on -road 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 38 MT CO2E. A detailed depiction of the construction schedule—including information regarding phasing, equipment utilized during each phase, vendor trucks, and worker vehicles—is included in Appendix A. Operations. Long-term operational emissions would occur over the life of the project. CaIEEMod 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). CaIEEMod default mobile source data, including temperature, trip characteristics, variable start information, emission factors, and trip distances, were 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 residential land use traffic. The CaIEEMod default trip rate was adjusted to match project -specifics provided in the project report (W -Trans 2018). It is assumed that the first full year of project operation would be in the year 2023. 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 and adjusted to account for 33 percent renewable portfolio standard by 2020. The most recent amendments to Title 24, Part 6, referred to as the 2016 standards, became effective on January 1, 2017. These standards are incorporated in the latest version of CaIEEMod, which was used to estimate project emissions. Redwood Crossings Project D U D E K 45 March 2018 Initial Stud on the environment and this would represent a cumulatively less than significant GHG impact. b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions ofgreenhouse gases? The City of Rohnert Park has a GHG reduction plan that focuses on municipal operations, and thus is not applicable to the proposed 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 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., Low Carbon Fuel Standard), among others. To the extent that these regulations are applicable to the project, the project would comply will all regulations adopted in furtherance of the Scoping Plan to the extent required by law. Regarding consistency with Senate Bill (SB) 32 (goal of reducing GHG emissions to 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030) and Executive Order (EO) 5-3-05 (goal of reducing GHG emissions to 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050), there are no established protocols or thresholds of significance for that future -year analysis. However, CARB has expressed optimism with regard to both the 2030 and 2050 goals. It states in the First Update to the Climate Change Scoping Plan that "California is on track to meet the near- term 2020 GHG emissions limit and is well positioned to maintain and continue reductions beyond 2020 as required by AB 32" (CARB 2014). With regard to the 2050 target for reducing GHG emissions to 80 percent below 1990 levels, the First Update to the Climate Change Scoping Plan states the following (CARB 2014): Redwood Crossings Project D U D E K 47 March 2018 Initial Study 05's 80 percent reduction target by 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 above 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 mitigation is required. This impact would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures No mitigation measures are necessary. C Redwood Crossings Project D U D E K 49 March 2018 Less Than Potentially Significant with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated 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 ❑ El ® ❑ 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 ❑ El Elwaste 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 ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑X 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 ❑ ❑ ❑ EJ for people residing or working in the project area? g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or ❑ ❑ ❑ 11 emergency evacuation plan? C Redwood Crossings Project D U D E K 49 March 2018 Initial Study coordinated, quicker response to emergencies. Therefore, impacts related to the creation of significant hazards to the public through routine transport, use, disposal, and risk of upset during project operations would be 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 project proposes to amend the land use and zoning designation of the project site to allow for future development of high-density residential land uses. Development resulting from this change in land use and zoning would not be expected to result in hazardous emissions or hazardous waste and would not involve the handling of hazardous materials or substances within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school. Accordingly, 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 the project site (DTSC 2017). The project 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. 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? There are no airports or airstrips within 2 miles of the project area. Therefore, the project would have no impact related to airport safety. Redwood Crossings Project D U D E K 51 March 2018 Initial Study Redwood Crossings Project D m' D 53 March 2018 Less Than Potentially Significant with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact IX, HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY — Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste ❑ ❑ ❑ i ❑ 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? ❑ ❑ ❑ Redwood Crossings Project D m' D 53 March 2018 Initial Study 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 and HYDRO 2, which include post -construction BMPs, as well as adherence to the City's SWMP and to state and local regulatory requirements, potential water quality and runoff impacts from future 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 (Le., 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)? Development of the project site with high-density residences would result in an increase of impervious surfaces that would interfere with on-site groundwater recharge. However, the project would be required to comply with the City's standards and current stormwater BMPs. Furthermore, development at the site would be required to comply with the City's stormwater drainage standards and the City of Santa Rosa and Sonoma County LID Manual. Design requirements include the treatment of all runoff generated by an 85th percentile, 24-hour storm event and specify that new development or redevelopment must not increase the volume of runoff in an 85th percentile, 24-hour storm event. The LID Manual also includes a menu of BMPs that can be used to capture, infiltrate, and/or reuse stormwater on-site. Therefore, this impact would be less than significant. 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 of high-density residential units at the project site would result in 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. 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. Implementation of Measures HYDRO -1 and 11YDRO-2 would prescribe specific construction BMPs as part of the SWPPP and ECP, which would reduce the effects of ground disturbance at the site during construction, which in turn would reduce the impact on drainage, erosion, and sedimentation during construction to less than significant level. Redwood Crossings Project D U D E K 55 March 2018 Initial Study runoff volume in comparison to existing conditions, because 100 percent of any increase in stormwater volume would be required to be infiltrated and/or reused on-site. In addition, SCWA reviews project drainage system plans for compliance with its Flood Control Design Criteria. Compliance with these regulations would ensure that storm drainage systems are adequately sized to convey post -development runoff. With implementation of Mitigation Measures HYDRO -1 and HYDRO -2 and adherence to the City's SWMP, in addition to compliance with SCWA's design criteria, future development at the project site would not result in flooding or exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems. Accordingly, this impact would be less than significant. 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 ofpolluted runoff? The project site is vacant and predominately flat. The proposed project would allow for future development of up to 156 apartment units on the project site. During construction, surfaces would be graded to direct drainage away from structures. New impervious surfaces would reduce surface water infiltration and increase the rate and volume of surface runoff leaving the site. With project -specific stormwater detention measures in place and operative, there would be no increase in the runoff rate that leaves the site over 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 future 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. Redwood Crossings Project D U D E K 57 March 2018 Initial Study 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: The applicant or its consultant shall apply to the North Coast RWQCB for coverage under the Construction General Permit and prepare a site- specific SWPPP for approval by the North Coast RWQCB before any onsite demolition, grading, or construction activities begin. The SWPPP shall cover pre - and post- construction activities and describe site-specific and construction phase - specific activities detailing the following: o activities that may cause pollutant discharge (including sediment); o BMPs, consistent with the requirements of the NPDES permit, to reduce the potential for contaminated runoff, such as limiting ground -disturbing activities during the winter rainfall period, minimizing exposure of disturbed areas and soil stockpiles to rainfall, and minimizing construction activities near or within drainage facilities; o erosion and sedimentation control measures to be implemented, such as soil stabilization, mulching, silt fencing, or temporary desilting basins; good housekeeping practices, such as road sweeping and dust control; and diversion measures, such as the use of berms to prevent clear runoff from contacting disturbed areas; and o hazardous materials spill prevention and response measure requirements, including lists of materials proposed for use, handling and storage practices, identification of spill response equipment, spill containment and cleanup procedures, and identification of regulatory notification protocols and contact phone numbers to be used in the event of a spill. Redwood Crossings Project D U D E K 59 March 2018 Initial Study established community. Therefore, no impact would occur with implementation of the project. 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 project site is designated and zoned Industrial in the City's General Plan and Zoning Ordinance. The proposed High Density Residential designation is not consistent with the current plan and ordinance, however the inconsistency does not affect environmental mitigation. The project would amend the General land use designation and zoning of the site to High Density Residential. With approval of the proposed amendments, the project would be consistent with the City's General Plan and Zoning Map, and other City plans and policies, and impacts would be less than significant. c) Would the project conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? As discussed in Section 2.4 Biological Resources, 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. As discussed in Section 2.4 Biological Resources, future development at the proposed project site would comply with Mitigation Measure BIO -2, which requires botanical surveys to be conducted in accordance with the established guidelines for the Santa Rosa Plain Conservation Strategy. In addition, Mitigation Measure BIO -4 requires the project to consult with regulatory agencies, obtain any required state and/or federal permits for impacts to protected species, and/or adopt specific avoidance measures in coordination with the regulatory agencies, if necessary. Implementation of these measures would ensure that potential impacts resulting from conflicts with the Santa Rosa Plain Conservation Strategy would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures Refer to Mitigation Measures BIO -2 and BIO -4 in Section 2.4 of this document. Redwood Crossings Project D U D E K 61 March 2018 Initial Study 2.12 Noise Background 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 public's health and welfare. Residences are considered a noise -sensitive land use. Future high-density residences located at the Redwood Crossings project site may potentially be impacted by the surrounding land uses, specifically, the Press Democrat light industrial use adjacent to the eastern boundary of the site. Future development of the project site could also potentially impact existing residential developments in the site vicinity through short-term construction noise, long-term increased traffic on local roadways, and on-site operational noise sources. 1'1 Redwood Crossings Project D U D E K 63 March 2018 Less Than Potentially Significant with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated 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? 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 ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 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 ❑ ❑ ❑ 10 residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? 2.12 Noise Background 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 public's health and welfare. Residences are considered a noise -sensitive land use. Future high-density residences located at the Redwood Crossings project site may potentially be impacted by the surrounding land uses, specifically, the Press Democrat light industrial use adjacent to the eastern boundary of the site. Future development of the project site could also potentially impact existing residential developments in the site vicinity through short-term construction noise, long-term increased traffic on local roadways, and on-site operational noise sources. 1'1 Redwood Crossings Project D U D E K 63 March 2018 Initial S PPV (Caltrans 2004). Hence, the use of the 0.1 inches/second vibration annoyance threshold is also meant to be very conservative in avoiding damage to existing structures in the project vicinity. Thresholds of Significance California Noise Insulation Standards (CCR Title 24) The State of California has established noise insulation standards for new single-family residences, multi -family residential units, hotels, and motels that would be subject to relatively high levels of transportation -related noise. These requirements are collectively known as the California Noise Insulation Standards (Title 24, California Code of Regulations). The noise insulation standards set forth an interior standard of Ldn 45 dBA in any habitable room. The California Building Code requires an acoustical analysis demonstrating how dwelling units have been designed to meet this interior standard where such units are proposed in areas subject to exterior noise levels greater than Ldn 60 dBA. Title 24 standards are typically enforced by local jurisdictions through the building permit application process. Rohnert Park Regulations The project site is located in the City of Rohnert Park, and therefore noise levels are governed by the City of Rohnert Park Noise Element and Noise Ordinance. Noise Ordinance Chapter 17.12 of the Rohnert Park Code of Ordinances offers performance standards applicable to the noise generated by an individual property (i.e. residences, commercial businesses, or industrial plants). The ordinance states: A. No uses or activities shall create noise levels which exceed the following standards: Table 2.12-1 City of Rohnert Park Maximum Noise Levels (dBA) [11 Redwood Crossings Project D U D E K 65 March 2018 Maximum Noise Level in dBA (Levels not to be exceed more than 5 minutes in any hour) 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 11) Residential 60 121 N.A. 50 or ambient noise level Commercial 70 60 50 or ambient noise level Redwood Crossings Project D U D E K 65 March 2018 Initial Study It is common for local and regional regulations to assess exterior traffic noise based on the Ldn and/or CNEL noise metrics. Following this convention, traffic noise is assessed using these same metrics. To address the levels set at no more than 5 minutes out of every hour L8% is an appropriate metric. For 1 minute out of every hour, the L2% metric is appropriate. If the LN is less than the threshold, then the L8% and L2% metrics will likely be below the threshold. The City prohibits noise producing construction activities in residential zones from between the hours of 6:00 p.m. of one day and 8:00 a.m. of the next day, where such noise would cause discomfort or annoyance to a reasonable person of normal sensitiveness residing in the area, unless beforehand a permit has been duly obtained from the superintendent of public works. The City prohibits noise from mechanical equipment operations to cause the noise level at the property line of any property to exceed the ambient base noise level by more than 5 decibels. Noise Element The Rohnert Park Noise Element contains a table summarizing normally acceptable exterior noise exposure levels (Ldn) for proposed new developments, based on land use category. The Rohnert Park land use compatibility table noise guidelines are based on the guidelines published by the state of California. Table 2.12-2 lists the Rohnert Park exterior noise exposure criterion (limit of Normally Acceptable noise level expressed as Ldn) applicable to land uses in the project vicinity, as well as identifying nearby noise sensitive receptors and their distances to the project site. Table 2.12-2 Distances to Receivers Receptor Description Distance to Proposed Site Normally Acceptable Ldh Future Light Industrial (Press -10 to 25 feet 70 dBA Democrat) Existing Multi -Family Residential -35 feet 65 dBA Located South The most stringent limit applies to multi -family residential uses, with a normally acceptable Ldn of 65 dBA. The other nearby receptors have a normally acceptable limit of 70 dBA Lan. As illustrated in Table 2.12-2, the City noise element thresholds regarding multi -family residential land uses has 65 dBA CNEL or Lan for exterior exposure at multi -family residential site boundaries (such as for the residential apartments to the south), and 70 dBA CNEL or Lan for commercial site boundaries (such as the commercial and light industrial land uses to the east and southeast of the project site). It is important to note that these guidelines are intended for long-term noise exposure at the identified land uses, and are not intended to address noise from short-term construction activities. Redwood Crossings Project D U D E K 67 March 2018 A- IN 'i -3 LT -3 112 M3_ r "Ar 0 Project Boundary Noise Measurement Locations 0 Long-term Receiver Short-term Receiver 00 Modeled Location SOURCE USDA NAIP Imagery (2016) '00 DUDEK 6 -le-at *4 61 "..FEW, I 0, I FIGURE 4 Noise Modeling and Measurement Locations Redwood Crossings Initial Study Initial Study Table 2.12-5 Long Term Measurement Results Location CNEL te_ Cdew LON (&A) Avg CNEL (�u�1 Avg LQN quay LT1: Press Democrat Parkin Lot Piccolo 1014 Tuesday, October 10, 2017 65 64 66 66 Wednesday, October 11, 2017 67 66 Thursday, October 12, 2017 67 67 LT2: Field Location Between Parking Lots Piccolo 7038 Tuesday, October 10, 2017 58 58 61 60 Wednesday, October 11, 2017 63 63 Thursday, October 12, 2017 60 60 LT3: Residential Parking Lot Piccolo 1011 Tuesday, October 10, 2017 57 57 57 57 CNEL and Ld. calculated from measured hourly average noise levels ranges from 57 dBA to 67 dBA. The measured hourly average sound pressure levels (Lrq) range from 43 to 68 dBA. Long-term measurement locations further from Highway 101 experienced lower ambient noise levels than those closer to Highway 101. These results are to be expected, due to varying distance and associated attenuation losses for Highway 101 traffic noise, the major noise source in the vicinity. LT2 is located near the project site. This location has measured noise levels that calculated to values ranging from 58 to 63 dBA CNEL. Table 2.12-6 shows the resulting modeled existing ambient noise levels at selected receiver locations based on existing ADT data and the short-term measurement results conducted for model calibration. Table 2.12-6 RC: Existing Traffic Noise Level Results Modeled Receptor Existing (MA) M1: Nearest Residential Receiver, South of the Project 57 M2: Residential Receiver Along Dowdell Avenue, East Side 55 M3: Residential Receiver Along Dowdell Avenue, West Side 56 M4: Future Proposed Residential Receptor at the Corner of Dowdell Avenue and Business Park Drive 60 Redwood Crossings Project D U D E K 71 March 2018 Initial Study site plans for development of the project site, this location was assumed to be approximately 10 feet from existing roads. M5 was placed along Business Park Drive closer to Highway 101. Finally, M6 was located along the eastern boundary of the Redwood Crossing proposed project, closest to the Highway 101 noise source. Table 2.12-7 provides the results of future traffic noise modeling at receivers representative of future worst-case residential exposure locations. Table 2.12-7 Future Traffic Noise Exposure Levels at On -Site Residences Modeled Receptor Future (dBA) M4: Future Proposed Residential Receptor at the Corner of Dowdell 64 Avenue and Business Park Drive M5: Future Proposed Residential Receptor along Business Park 63 Drive M6: Future Proposed Residential Receptor Facing Highway 101 58 As indicated in Table 2.12-7, the representative residential receiver locations have expected traffic noise levels between 58-64 dBA CNEL. This would be within the acceptable range for multi -family residences. As such, impacts associated with future traffic noise exposure levels at the project site would be less than significant. Because the project site is located adjacent to existing and approved industrial uses, there is the potential for future residents to be exposed to operational noise associated with those industrial uses. To ensure that the impacts associated with exposure to noise from adjacent uses remain less than significant, the project would be required to implement Mitigation Measure NOI-1. This measure requires the project applicant to retain a qualified acoustical consultant to review and confirm that exterior and interior noise exposure levels at the future residences would not exceed the City of Rohnert Park noise element thresholds of 65 dBA CNEL maximum for exterior exposure and 45 dBA CNEL maximum for interior exposure. This measure further requires preparation of a report detailing compliance with the applicable noise performance standard or, if necessary, the acoustical treatments to be applied for compliance with the noise performance standards. Implementation of Mitigation Measure NOI-I would reduce potential impacts to a less than significant level. b) Would the project result in exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? Redwood Crossings Project D U D E K 73 March 2018 Initial Study the expected vibration levels at the nearest residences would be less than even the threshold for annoyance (0.1 inches/second PPV), impacts associated with short-term construction - related ground vibration would be less than significant. Because the project site is located adjacent to existing and approved industrial uses, there is the potential for future residents to be exposed to groundbourne vibration associated with those industrial uses. To ensure that the impacts associated with the potential exposure to groundbourne vibration from adjacent uses remains less than significant, the project would be required to implement Mitigation Measure NOI-2. Mitigation Measure NOI-2 requires the project developer to retain a qualified acoustical consultant to conduct vibration measurements and an analysis to demonstrate vibration impact criteria for the proposed land use is not exceeded. If the criteria cannot be met, the developer would be required to specify the project modifications that will be made to ensure criteria compliance. Implementation of Mitigation Measure NOI-2 would ensure the vibration impacts remain 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? Operational noise associated with high density residences at the project site would be similar to and consistent with existing uses within the project vicinity, and would therefore not be anticipated to be distinct from the ambient noise environment created by surrounding commercial and residential uses. Vehicle traffic to and from the site would result in a permanent increase in noise levels in the project vicinity. The location and specifications of mechanical equipment that would be used for a future multi -family residential development at the project site is not available at this time. However, there are existing apartments (i.e., a noise -sensitive residential land use) adjacent to the south of the site; therefore mechanical equipment associated with the multi -family residences could generate noise levels at the adjacent residences which exceed the noise ordinance standards (50 dBA daytime and 45 dBA nighttime), resulting in a potentially significant noise impact. To address this potentially significant impact, the project would be required to implement Mitigation Measure NOI-3 at the time of site development. The City's Noise Ordinance states that mechanical and electrical equipment shall have adequate shielding and baffling to meet the noise standards. Implementation of Mitigation Measure NOI-3 would ensure that impacts associated with mechanical noise at the project site would be less than significant. Development of multi -family residential development at the project site would result in an increase in noise levels associated with additional vehicle trips added to vicinity streets Redwood Crossings Project D U D E K 75 March 2018 Initial Study Table 2.12-9 shows the resulting modeled sound levels for the receiver locations representing existing noise -sensitive land uses in the project vicinity for the different traffic scenarios, and the increase in ambient noise levels expected due to development of multifamily residences at the project site. Table 2.12-9 Traffic Noise Level Results The existing CNELs along vicinity roads were determined based on the ambient noise measurement and using the current daily traffic volume for the road (using CadnaA defaults for the traffic vehicle classification mix). The future CNELs along the same roadways was determined based upon the forecast future traffic volumes along these roadways from the traffic study or Caltrans data. The addition of project -related traffic to the vicinity roadways would increase the CNEL by 1 dB or less, which is below the discernible level of change for the average human ear. Therefore, the increase in off-site traffic noise from future development of high-density residential uses at the project site would be less than significant. The modeled receivers along Dowdell Avenue near the site also experience existing with project noise levels that are less than 60 dBA Ldp. Furthermore, the sound level increase is less than 1 dB at these locations, which is below the perceptible change for human hearing. The project -related additional traffic volume along the adjacent roads would not substantially increase the existing and future noise level in the project vicinity, and operational traffic -related noise impacts would therefore be less than significant. Cumulative Noise Impacts Associated with Project Traffic Redwood Crossings Project D U D E K 77 March 2018 Existing Future with Modeled Receptor Existing with Difference Future Difference (dBA) Project (dBA) (dBA) (dBA?t (dBA) (dBA) M1: Nearest Residential Receiver, 57 57 0 1 57 57 <1 South of the Project M2: Residential Receiver Along 55.3 56 <1 57 58 <1 Dowdell Avenue, East Side 57 <1 58 M3: Residential Receiver Along 56 58 <1 Dowdell Avenue, West Side - The existing CNELs along vicinity roads were determined based on the ambient noise measurement and using the current daily traffic volume for the road (using CadnaA defaults for the traffic vehicle classification mix). The future CNELs along the same roadways was determined based upon the forecast future traffic volumes along these roadways from the traffic study or Caltrans data. The addition of project -related traffic to the vicinity roadways would increase the CNEL by 1 dB or less, which is below the discernible level of change for the average human ear. Therefore, the increase in off-site traffic noise from future development of high-density residential uses at the project site would be less than significant. The modeled receivers along Dowdell Avenue near the site also experience existing with project noise levels that are less than 60 dBA Ldp. Furthermore, the sound level increase is less than 1 dB at these locations, which is below the perceptible change for human hearing. The project -related additional traffic volume along the adjacent roads would not substantially increase the existing and future noise level in the project vicinity, and operational traffic -related noise impacts would therefore be less than significant. Cumulative Noise Impacts Associated with Project Traffic Redwood Crossings Project D U D E K 77 March 2018 Initial Stu Table 2.12-10 Typical Construction Equipment Noise Emission Levels and Usage Factors Equipment Description Impact Device? Acoustical Use Factor (Ola) Measured l,ma Woft (&A, slow) Auger Drill Rig No 20 84 Backhoe No 40 78 Compactor (ground) No 20 83 Compressor (air) No 40 78 Concrete Mixer Truck No 40 79 Concrete Pump Truck No 20 81 Crane No 16 81 Dozer No 40 82 Dump Truck No 40 76 Excavator No 40 81 Flat Bed Truck No 40 74 Front End Loader No 40 79 Generator No 50 81 Man Lift No 20 75 Paver No 50 77 Pickup Truck No 40 75 Pneumatic Tools No 50 85 Roller No 20 80 Warning Horn No 5 83 Source: DOT 2006. For example, measured backhoe maximum sound levels are 78 dBA at a distance of 50 feet. The FHWA Roadway Construction Noise Model (RCNM) (FHWA 2008) was used to estimate construction noise levels at the nearest existing noise -sensitive land uses. Although the model was funded and promulgated by the FHWA, RCNM is often used for non -roadway projects, because the same types of construction equipment used for roadways are also used for constructing most other projects as well. Input variables for the RCNM consist of the receiver/land use types, the equipment type and number of each (e.g., two graders, a loader, a tractor), the duty cycle for each piece of equipment (e.g., percentage the equipment typically works in a given time period), and the distance from the construction equipment/activity to the noise -sensitive receiver. No topographical or structural shielding was assumed in the modeling. RCNM has default duty -cycle values for the various pieces of equipment, which were derived from an extensive study of typical construction activity patterns. Those default duty -cycle values were used for this noise analysis. Table 2.12-11 provides a summary of the assumed construction equipment used Redwood Crossings Project D U D E K 79 March 2018 Initial Study center of the site (a distance of approximately 85 feet). The distance of approximately 85 feet is also representative of the distance from the closest construction boundary to the existing multifamily residence to the south. The RCNM inputs and outputs are provided in Appendix C. Table 2.12-12 Construction Noise Model Results Summary L.q = equivalent continuous sound level; dBA = A -weighted decibels; As presented in Table 2.12-12, the highest noise levels are predicted to occur during paving, when noise levels from construction activities would be expected to be approximately 88 dBA Leg at the nearest existing residences, approximately 35 feet away. For the more typical case (construction activity averaging 85 feet from residences), construction noise levels would range up to 80 dBA Leq. Average noise levels from future onsite construction activities would likely be annoying since levels are expected to be substantially higher than the ambient noise level in the site vicinity. This would be particularly true for the residential apartments located south of the project site. Restricting construction activities to the daytime period would avoid disruption during evening hours and overnight sleep periods. The City of Rohnert Park does not have noise level limits for construction activity occurring within the period between 8:00 AM and 6:00 PM daily. However, average construction noise levels could range from approximately 14 dBA to 20 dBA above ambient levels, meeting the definition of "substantial temporary increase". Therefore, temporary construction noise associated with development at the project site would be considered a potentially significant impact. Mitigation Measure NOI-4, which restricts construction hours from 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. and includes additional construction -related noise requirements, would reduce annoyance impacts from construction noise to a less than significant level. Redwood Crossings Project D U D E K 81 March 2018 RCNM Results Summary Case Description: Leq (dBA) R1— Nearest (35 feet) R2 — Typical (85 feet) Architectural Coating 77 69 Building Construction 82 78 Grading 87 80 Paving 88 80 Site Preparation 86 80 L.q = equivalent continuous sound level; dBA = A -weighted decibels; As presented in Table 2.12-12, the highest noise levels are predicted to occur during paving, when noise levels from construction activities would be expected to be approximately 88 dBA Leg at the nearest existing residences, approximately 35 feet away. For the more typical case (construction activity averaging 85 feet from residences), construction noise levels would range up to 80 dBA Leq. Average noise levels from future onsite construction activities would likely be annoying since levels are expected to be substantially higher than the ambient noise level in the site vicinity. This would be particularly true for the residential apartments located south of the project site. Restricting construction activities to the daytime period would avoid disruption during evening hours and overnight sleep periods. The City of Rohnert Park does not have noise level limits for construction activity occurring within the period between 8:00 AM and 6:00 PM daily. However, average construction noise levels could range from approximately 14 dBA to 20 dBA above ambient levels, meeting the definition of "substantial temporary increase". Therefore, temporary construction noise associated with development at the project site would be considered a potentially significant impact. Mitigation Measure NOI-4, which restricts construction hours from 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. and includes additional construction -related noise requirements, would reduce annoyance impacts from construction noise to a less than significant level. Redwood Crossings Project D U D E K 81 March 2018 Initial Study any approved building or site configuration as a result of the required studies may require additional approvals. Mitigation Measure N0I-3: Prior to issuance of a building permit for each individual multi- family residential structure of the project, the applicant shall submit documentation that the mechanical equipment does not produce levels exceeding the noise standards, or that shielding to be installed will reduce noise levels to those in compliance with City standards. Mitigation Measure N0I4: Noise -generating activities at the construction site or in areas adjacent to the construction site associated with the project in any way shall be restricted to the hours of 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. In addition, all construction activity shall comply with the following requirements: 1. Use available noise suppression devices and properly maintain and muffle loud construction equipment. 2. Avoid the unnecessary idling of equipment and stage construction equipment as far as reasonable from residences. 3. Notify adjacent uses of the construction schedule. 4. 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. 5. 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 features that are readily available for that type of equipment. 6. 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. Redwood Crossings Project D U D E K 83 March 2018 Initial Study The project would not indirectly induce population growth because it would not extend roads or infrastructure into previously undeveloped areas. In addition, the project would not displace people or housing because the site is undeveloped and does not provide existing housing. Therefore, the project would result in a less than significant impact on population and housing in the City of Rohnert Park. 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 and is designated for industrial 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. c) Would theproject displace substantial numbers ofpeople' necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? Refer to answer provided in `b' above. Mitigation Measures No mitigation measures are necessary. Redwood Crossings Project D U D E K 85 March 2018 Less Than PotentlalIy Significant with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant Impact incorporated 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? ❑ ❑ N ❑ Police protection? ❑ ❑ ® ❑ Schools? ❑ ❑ ® ❑ Parks? ❑ ❑ ® ❑ Other public facilities? ❑ ❑ ® ❑ Redwood Crossings Project D U D E K 85 March 2018 Initial Study Parks? As discussed in Section 2.15 Recreation, development of residential uses at the project site would be required to comply with the City's Municipal Code requirements for parkland. As stipulated in the City's Municipal Code, new residential for -sale development is required to provide parkland, in accordance with the City's parkland standards of 5 acres per 1,000 residents. Based on a potential population of 312 residents, to satisfy parkland requirements, the project would be required to provide 1.56 acres of parkland or pay in - lieu fees. Should the future units associated with the proposed project be offered as rentals, the project would be required to provide a minimum of 400 square feet of open space on- site per unit in compliance with development standards included in Rohnert Park Municipal Code Section 17.10.020. Compliance with the applicable Code requirements and development standards would ensure potential impacts associated with the provision of parks and the physical expansion of facilities remains less than significant. Mitigation Measures No mitigation measures are necessary. 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? The project proposes to amend the General Plan and zoning designations of the project site from Industrial to High Density Residential; no specific construction is proposed at this time. In the future, the project site could support up to 156 high-density residential units. ' V�1 Redwood Crossings Project ®U IEK 87 March 2018 Less Than Potentially Significant with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated 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? 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? The project proposes to amend the General Plan and zoning designations of the project site from Industrial to High Density Residential; no specific construction is proposed at this time. In the future, the project site could support up to 156 high-density residential units. ' V�1 Redwood Crossings Project ®U IEK 87 March 2018 Initial Study Mitigation Measures No mitigation measures are necessary. 2.16 Transportation and Traffic W -Trans prepared a Traffic Impact Study (2018) to analyze the potential traffic impacts associated with the rezoning of the project site from a light industrial land use to a high density residential land use designation. W -Trans' report was referenced to complete the assessment below and is included in Appendix D of this Initial Study. Transportation Setting — Operational Analysis The project study area consists of the following intersections: Redwood Crossings Project 10 �,, E ' 89 March 2018 Less Than Potentially Significant with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact XVI. TRANSPORTATIONITRAFFIC — 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 11 Elmeasures, El 0 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? ❑ ❑ ❑ N f) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian ❑ N ❑ ❑ facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities? 2.16 Transportation and Traffic W -Trans prepared a Traffic Impact Study (2018) to analyze the potential traffic impacts associated with the rezoning of the project site from a light industrial land use to a high density residential land use designation. W -Trans' report was referenced to complete the assessment below and is included in Appendix D of this Initial Study. Transportation Setting — Operational Analysis The project study area consists of the following intersections: Redwood Crossings Project 10 �,, E ' 89 March 2018 Initial Study Redwood Drive/Rohnert Park Expressway is a four -legged signalized intersection with protected left -turn phasing on all approaches. The northbound and westbound approaches include right -turn overlap signal phases. Marked crosswalks and pedestrian phasing are provided at each leg. Rohnert Park Expressway/US 101 South Ramps is a four -legged signalized intersection. The south leg includes both the US 101 on-ramp from eastbound Rohnert Park Expressway and an entry/exit to a park-and-ride lot. The southbound, westbound, and northbound approaches have protected left -turn phasing. The north and south legs include pedestrian crosswalks. Rohnert Park Expressway/US 101 North Ramps is a signalized four -legged intersection. Similar to the adjacent southbound ramps intersection, the north leg includes the US 101 on-ramp from westbound Rohnert Park Expressway as well as an entry/exit to a park-and-ride lot. The northbound, eastbound, and southbound approaches have protected left -turn phasing. Marked crosswalks are included at the north and south legs. The locations of the study intersections and the existing lane configurations and controls are shown in Figure 1 of the Traffic Impact Study (W -Trans 2018), included as Appendix D 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. A continuous sidewalk exists on the west side of Dowdell Avenue and on the south side of Business Park Drive along the project frontage. There are limited pedestrian facilities along the east side of Dowdell Avenue, which fronts the project site. Marked crosswalks exist on major and minor intersections along Business Park Drive and pedestrian signal phases are included at major intersections. Bicycle Facilities Redwood Crossings Project D U D E K 91 March 2018 Initial Study 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 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. It should be noted that the HCM 2000 methodologies were applied in W -Trans' Traffic Impact Study because the more recent HCM 2010 methodology is incompatible with the signal phasing schemes currently utilized at several of the study intersections. 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. The study intersections that are 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 (W -Trans 2018). 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 Delay of 0 to 10 seconds. Most vehicles arrive available for drivers exiting the minor street. during the green phase, so do not stop at all. B Delay of 10 to 15 seconds. Gaps in traffic are Delay of 10 to 20 seconds. More vehicles stop than somewhat less readily available than with LOS A, but with LOS A, but many drivers still do not have to no queuing occurs on the minor street. stop. Redwood Crossings Project D U D E K 93 March 2018 Initial Under existing conditions, all study intersections are operating in accordance with minimum acceptable standards except Redwood Drive/Rohnert Park Expressway, which operates at LOS D during both peak hours. A summary of the existing intersection level of service calculations is provided in Table 2.16-2. The Traffic Impact Study (included in Appendix D of this Initial Study) provides the existing traffic volumes in Figure 2 and provides copies of the Level of Service calculations in Appendix A. Table 2.16-2 Existing Peak Hour Intersection Levels of Service Study Intersection Approach AM Peak Delay 28.4 LOS C PM Peak Delay 38.3 LOS D 1. Golf Course Dr W/Redwood Dr 2. Golf Course Dr/US 101 S Ramps 15.3 B 23.9 C 3. Golf Course Dr/Commerce Blvd 20.1 C 29.1 C 4. Commerce Blvd/US 101 N Ramps 8.9 A 14.9 B 5. Business Park D/Dowdell Ave 2.2 A 2.1 A Northbound (Dowdell Ave) Approach 9.0 A 9.8 A 6. Redwood Dr/Business Park Dr 5.9 A 7.1 A 7. Rohnert Park Expwy/Redwood Dr 35.3 D 44.3 D 8. Rohnert Park Expwy/US 101 S Ramps 27.6 C 30.2 C 9. Rohnert Park Expwy/US 101 N Ramps 17.2 B 22.8 C 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 2018 Future Conditions Traffic volume projections for the horizon year of 2040 were obtained from the traffic analyses contained in the environmental impact reports prepared for the Northwest Specific Plan and Central Rohnert Park PDA Plan. At study intersections and/or for periods not analyzed in those prior studies, future traffic projections were developed using the Sonoma County Transportation Authority's SCTM\10 regional travel demand mode. Future traffic volumes were also updated to include the recently approved Press Democrat industrial project, located immediately to the east of the Redwood Crossings project site. The "Future plus Project" traffic volumes applied in this traffic impact study and that completed for the Press Democrat project are the same, with the future "no project" volumes differing to remove the traffic associated with whichever project is being analyzed. Redwood Crossings Project D U D E K 95 March 2018 Initial Stu Table 2.16-3 Future Peak Hour Intersection Levels of Service Study Intersection Approach Future Conditions AM Peak Delay LOS PM Peak Delay LOS 1. Golf Course Dr W/Redwood Dr With NWSP Mitigation 32.7 30.1 C C 74.7 54.1 E D 2. Golf Course Dr/US 101 S Ramps With NWSP Mitigation 20.3 25.4 C C 86.8 45.3 F D 3. Golf Course Dr/Commerce Blvd With NWSP Mitigation 30.1 26.9 C C 55.1 52.0 E D 4. Commerce Blvd/US 101 N Ramps 11.7 B 39.7 D 5. Business Park D/Dowdell Ave Northbound (Dowdell Ave) Approach Southbound (Dowdell Ave) Approach With NWSP Mitigation' 4.8 12.7 14.5 10.9 A 8 8 B 17.8 24.0 98.8 21.1 C C F C 6. Redwood Dr/Business Park Dr 7.5 A 18.6 B 7. Rohnert Park Expwy/Redwood Dr 37.1 D 46.7 D 8. Rohnert Park Expwy/US 101 S Ramps 29.5 C 34.7 C 9. Rohnert Park Expwy/US 101 N Ramps I 18.6 B 29.2 C 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; shaded cells include mitigations identified in the Northwest Specific Plan (NWSP) EIR;'Mitigation generally consistent with the NWSP EIR except that intersection would have all -way stop -controls (or roundabout) instead of a traffic signal. Source: W -Trans 2018 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 project was estimated using standard rates published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) in Trip Generation Manual, 10th Edition, 2017 for "Multifamily Housing (Mid -Rise)" (ITE LU 221). As indicated in Table 2.16-4, the future high density residential project, once developed, would be expected to generate an average of 849 trips per day, including 56 trips during the a.m. peak hour and 69 during the p.m. peak hour. Redwood Crossings Project D U D E K 97 March 2018 Initial Study slightly during the a.m. peak hour. While this is counter -intuitive, this condition occurs when a project adds trips to movements that are currently underutilized or have delays that are below the intersection average, resulting in a better balance between approaches and lower overall average delay. Project traffic volumes are shown in Figure 5 of the Traffic Impact Study (Appendix D of this Initial Study), and the resulting levels of service are summarized in Table 2.16-6 below. Table 2.16-6 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. Golf Course Dr W/Redwood Dr 28.4 C 38.3 D 28.7 C 38.5 D 2. Golf Course Dr/US 101 S Ramps 15:3 B 23.9 C 15.5 B 24.1 C 3. Golf Course Dr/Commerce Blvd 20.1 C 29.1 C 20.1 C 29.1 C 4. Commerce Blvd/US 101 N Ramps 8.9 A 14.9 B 8.9 A 14.9 B 5. Business Park D/Dowdell Ave 2.2 A 2.1 A 3.2 A 3.0 A Northbound (Dowdell Ave) Approach 9.0 A 9.8 A 9.2 A 10.1 B 6. Redwood Dr/Business Park Dr 5.9 A 7.1 A 6.8 B 7.7 A 7. Rohnert Park Expwy/Redwood Dr 35.3 D 44.3 D 35.5 D 44.3 D 8. Rohnert Park Expwy/US 101 S Ramps 27.6 C 30.2 C 25.4 C 30.2 C 9. Rohnert Park Expwy/US 101 N Ramps 17.2 B 22.8 C 16.6 B 22.8 C 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 2018 As shown in Table 2.16-7 above, the study intersections are expected to continue operating acceptably upon the addition of project -generated traffic, except for the intersection of Redwood Drive/Rohnert Park Expressway, which would continue operating unacceptably at LOS D (W -Trans 2018). Since project -generated trips do not cause further reductions in levels of service at this intersection, the impact would be less than significant. Future plus Project Conditions With project -related traffic added to Future volumes, the study intersections at Golf Course Drive West/Redwood Drive, Golf Course Drive West/US 101 South Ramps, and Golf Course Drive/Commerce Boulevard are expected to continue operating at the same unacceptable p.m. peak hour levels of service as without the project, but are projected to operate acceptably at LOS D upon completion of the mitigations identified in the Northwest Specific Plan EIR. The project would be expected to increase average Redwood Crossings Project D U D E K 99 March 2018 Initial Study 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; shaded cells include mitigations identified in the Northwest Specific Plan (NWSP) EIR; 1Mitigation generally consistent with the NWSP EIR except that intersection would have all -way stop -controls (or roundabout) instead of a traffic signal Source: W -Trans 2018 As shown in Table 2.16-7 above, the intersections at Golf Course Drive West/Redwood Drive and Golf Course Drive/Commerce Boulevard are projected to continue operating unacceptably at LOS E upon the addition of project -generated trips to future volumes. The intersection at Rohnert Park Expressway/Redwood Drive is projected to continue operating unacceptably at LOS D upon the addition of project -generated trips (W -Trans 2018). Because the levels of service at these intersections would not further degrade upon the addition of project -generated traffic, the project's impacts would be considered less than significant. The intersection at Golf Course Drive/US 101 South Ramps would be expected to continue operating at LOS F under Future plus Project conditions, with a 2.1 -second increase in delay attributable to the project (W -Trans 2018). Because the added delay would be less than five seconds, the impact is considered less than significant. The project is anticipated to add 6.3 seconds to the overall average delay to the intersection of Business Park Drive/Dowdell Avenue in the future when unacceptable LOS F operation is projected to occur during the p.m. peak hour (W -Trans 2018). However, because mitigation is unlikely to be required until such time that Dowdell Avenue is extended to the north, the project's impact is considered be less than significant. The Traffic Impact Study prepared for the project concluded that, with implementation of the mitigation measures identified in the Northwest Specific Plan EIR, the intersections on Golf Course Drive at Redwood Drive, US 101 South Ramps, and Commerce Boulevard would be expected to operate acceptably under Future plus Project conditions (W -Trans 2018). With the extension of Dowdell Avenue, installation of all -way stop controls, and the addition of left -turn pockets on all approaches, the Traffic Impact Study concluded that the intersection of Business Park Drive/Dowdell Avenue would be expected to operate acceptably under Future plus Project conditions. These mitigations are generally consistent with the Northwest Specific Plan EIR except that all -way stop controls (or a roundabout) would be implemented instead of a traffic signal (W -Trans 2018). To ensure that potential impacts resulting from the future plus project conditions at these intersections remain less than significant, the project would be required to implement Mitigation Measure TRA -1. Mitigation Measure TRA -1 incorporates W -Trans' recommendation to have the project pay traffic impact mitigation fees for use in contributing toward future circulation infrastructure improvements in the vicinity, including those identified in the Northwest Specific Plan EIR. Redwood Crossings Project D U D E K 101 March 2018 Initial Study 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 have no impact related to conflicts with an applicable congestion management program for designated roads or highways. 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. 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)? Because the project being evaluated is a change in land use rather than a specific project with a site plan, access and circulation was evaluated in the Traffic Impact Study at a broad level. Additional review would be completed by the City at the time that project -specific entitlements are submitted. As noted in the Traffic Impact Study (W -Trans 2018), Dowdell Avenue and Business Park Drive front the project site and are generally straight and level with adequate sight distance in all directions. The Traffic Impact Study recommends that the project driveways be set back from the intersection of Business Park Drive/Dowdell Avenue so as to not interfere with the current or future operations of that intersection. It is also recommended that the main access driveway be provided on Dowdell Avenue where the existing two-way left - turn lanes will facilitate left turns into and out of the site. These recommendations have been incorporated as Mitigation Measure TRA -3. With implementation of Mitigation Measure TRA -3, impacts resulting from hazardous design features would remain less than significant. e) Would the project result in inadequate emergency access? Redwood Crossings Project D U D E K 103 March 2018 Initial Study Less Than Potentially Significant withLess Than Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact XVILTRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES — Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is: a) Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local ❑ El ❑ register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code section 5020.1(k), or b) A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in ❑ ❑ ❑ subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024. 1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe. 2.17 Tribal Cultural Resources Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is: a) Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code section 5020.1(k), or The proposed project would allow for future development of high-density residential units at the undeveloped project site. No tribal cultural resources are known to be present at the site. The Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) provided a review of their Sacred Lands files on October 25, 2017, which indicated that there is no specific information on the site in the NAHC's Sacred Lands File. In compliance with Senate Bill 18 (SB 18) (Government Code [GC] Section 65352.3), the City sent notification of the project, which includes a General Plan Amendment, to the Native American representatives included on the NAHC tribal contact list and invited consultation on the project. Assembly Bill (AB) 52 requires lead agencies to consult with Redwood Crossings Project DU DE K 105 March 2018 Initial Study 2.18 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. It is expected that the capacity required to serve future development of multifamily residential units at the project site 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. Accordingly, 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 future demand associated with development of high-density residences at the project site. The proposed project alone would not require SCWA to Redwood Crossings Project D U D E K 107 March 2018 Less Than Potentially Significant with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant • Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider, which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve ❑ ❑ E] ❑ 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? 2.18 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. It is expected that the capacity required to serve future development of multifamily residential units at the project site 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. Accordingly, 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 future demand associated with development of high-density residences at the project site. The proposed project alone would not require SCWA to Redwood Crossings Project D U D E K 107 March 2018 Initial Study 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 Citywide 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 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). The existing water supply sources are expected to be sufficient to provide an adequate supply of water for future development of the project site. Development at the project site would not require SCWA to increase its existing water entitlements; as discussed above, Redwood Crossings Project D U D E K 109 March 2018 Initial Study Mitigation Measures No mitigation measures are necessary. 2.19 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? To ensure that development on the project site 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 several mitigation measures for implementation. Specifically, Mitigation Measure BIO -1 and BIO -2, would require botanical surveys prior to site development, Mitigation Measure BIO -3 requires preconstruction surveys for Redwood Crossings Project D U D E K March 2018 Less Than Potentially Significant with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated 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 ❑ [ ❑ r_; 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 ❑ t`,'�]�'. ❑ ❑ 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 ❑ El ❑ ❑ human beings, either directly or indirectly? 2.19 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? To ensure that development on the project site 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 several mitigation measures for implementation. Specifically, Mitigation Measure BIO -1 and BIO -2, would require botanical surveys prior to site development, Mitigation Measure BIO -3 requires preconstruction surveys for Redwood Crossings Project D U D E K March 2018 Initial Study 3 REFERENCES 3.1 References Cited 14 CCR 15000-15387 and Appendices A through L. Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act, as amended. 24 CCR Part 2. 2013 California Building Code. Sacramento, California: California Building Standards Commission. July 2013. ISBN 978-1-60983-457-9. BAAQMD (Bay Area Air Quality Management District). 2010. California Environmental Quality Act Air Quality Guidelines. May 2010. Accessed March 2017. http://www.baagmd. gov/—/media/files/planning-and- research/ceqa/draft_baagmd_cega_guidelines may_2010_final.pdPla=en. BAAQMD. 2012. California Environmental Quality Act Air Quality Guidelines. Updated May 2012. Accessed March 2017. http://www.baagmd.gov/—/media/Files/ Planning%20and%20Research/CEQA/BAAQMD%20CEQA%20Guidelines Final May %202012.ashx?la=en. BAAQMD. 2017a. California Environmental Quality Act Air Quality Guidelines. Updated May 2017. http://www.baagmd.gov/—/media/files/planning-and- research/cega/cega_guidelines_may2017-pdf.pdf?la=en. BAAQMD. 2017b. Spare the Air: Cool the Climate - Final 2017 Clean Air Plan. April 19, 2017. http://www.baagmd.gov/—/media/files/planning-and-research/plans/2017-clean-air- plan/attachment-a -proposed-final-cap-vol-l-pdf.pdVla=en. California Public Resources Code, Section 21000-21177. California Environmental Quality Act, as amended. Cal -IPC (California Invasive Plant Council). 2017. California Invasive Plant Inventory Database. http://www.cal-ipc.org/paP. CalRecycle (California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery). 2013. Jurisdiction Diversion/Disposal Rate Detail for Sonoma County Waste Management Agency, Reporting Year 2011. Accessed January 2018. http: //www. calrecycle. ca. gov/LGCentral/Reports/DiversionProgram/JurisdictionDiversio nDetail. aspx?JurisdictionID=503 &Year =2011. Redwood Crossings Project D U D E K 113 March 2018 Initial Study CDFW (California Department of Fish and Wildlife). 2017. RareFind 5. California Natural Diversity Database. CDFW, Biogeographic Data Branch. Accessed December 2017. hftps://www.dfg.ca.gov/biogeodata/cnddb/mapsanddata.asp. City of Rohnert Park. 2015 (May) (originally adopted 2000). City of Rohnert Park General Plan. Our Place ... Rohnert Park 2020, ,4 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. 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. Accessed November 2017. http://ci.santa- rosa.ca.us/doclib/agendas_packets_minutes/Documents/20081118 CC Item10.5.pdf. 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. CNPS (California Native Plant Society). 2017. Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants (online edition, v8-02). Sacramento, California: California Native Plant Society. Accessed December 2017. http://www.rareplants.cnps.org. DOC (California Department of Conservation). 2014. Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program. Sonoma County data. Accessed November 2017. ftp://ftp.consrv.ca.gov/pub/dlrp/FMMP/Pdf/2014/sonl4.pdf. DOC. 2013. Sonoma County Williamson Act FY 2013/2014. Sonoma County data. Accessed November 2017. ftp://ftp.consrv.ca.gov/pub/dlrp/wa/Sonoma_I3_14 WA.pdf. DOT. 2006. FHWA Roadway Construction Noise Model: User's Guide. Final Report. FHWA- HEP-06-015. DOT-VNTSC-FHWA-06-02. Cambridge, Massachusetts: DOT, Research and Innovative Technology Administration. Final Report. August 2006. DTSC (California Department of Toxic Substances Control). 2017. EnviroStor. Accessed November 2017. http://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/. Redwood Crossings Project DUDEK 115 March 2018 Initial Stu USFWS. 2017. Critical Habitat and Occurrence Data. Accessed December 2017. http://fws.maps.aregis.com/home/webmap/ viewer.html?webmap= 9d8de5e265ad4fe09893cf75b8dbfb77. W -Trans. 2018. Traffic Impact Study for Redwood Crossings. Prepared for the City of Rohnert Park. January 23, 2018. Redwood Crossings Project D U Q E K 117 March 2018 Appendices can be viewed/copied/downloaded at City Hall