Loading...
2017/04/13 Planning Commission Resolution (5)PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2017-09 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROHNERT PARK CALIFORNIA APPROVING THE MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR THE ASSISTED LIVING AND MEMORY CARE FACILITY CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND SITE PLAN AND ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW (APN 159-460-026 & 027) FILE NO. PLSU16-0003 WHEREAS, the applicant, Tony Ferrero and Carissa Savant for CSL Berkshire Acquisitions, LLC, have submitted a Conditional Use Permit and Site Plan and Architectural Review for an Assisted Living and Memory Care facility located on property at the intersection of Rohnert Park Expressway and Snyder Lane (APN 159-460-26 & 27); and WHEREAS, Planning Application No. PLSU16-0003 was processed in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law; and WHEREAS, an Initial Study was prepared and on the basis of that study, it was determined that the project 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 13, 2017 to April 13, 2017; and WHEREAS, pursuant to California State Laws and the City of Rohncrt Park Municipal Code (RPMC), a public hearing notice for the proposed Assisted Living and Memory Care Facility Center was mailed to all property owners within a 300 foot radius of the subject property and to all agencies and interested parties as required by California State Planning Law, and a public hearing notice was published in the Community Voice for a minimum of 10 days prior to the first public hearing; and WHEREAS, at the April 13, 2017 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 1; and WHEREAS, the members of the Planning Commission, using their independent judgment, reviewed the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration in the record related to such request, including the staff report, public testimony, and all evidence presented both orally and in writing. 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 makes the following findings, determinations and recommendations with respect to the Mitigated Negative Declaration for the proposed Project: 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; and 3. The Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared, publicized, circulated and reviewed incompliance 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 the administrative record of proceedings upon which the Commission's resolution is based are located at the City of Rohnert Park, City Clerk, 130 Avram Ave., Rohnert Park, CA 94928. The custodian of records is the City Clerk. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of Rohnert Park that approval of the Project would not result in any significant effects on the environment with implementation of mitigation measures identified in the Mitigated Negative Declaration and the Planning Commission does hereby approve and adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Initial Study set forth in Exhibit 1 and direct the filing of a Notice of Determination with the County Clerk; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of Rohnert Park that Exhibit 2 (Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program) of this resolution provide Mitigation required under Section 15091 of the CEQA Guidelines for significant effects of the Project and is hereby approved; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that any interested persons may appeal this Resolution of the Planning Commission to the City Council within 10 calendar days of its passage pursuant to RPMC Section 17.25.123. Any such appeal shall be in the form provided by RPMC Section 17.25.124 and with the payment of the fee established by the City. DULY AND REGULARLY ADOPTED on this 13th day of April, 2017 by the City of Rohnert Park Planning Commission by the following vote: AYES: � NOES: O ABSENT: 4 ABSTAIN: 6 --Lo t ADAMSb� BLANQUIE/'��`' Q' 0RBA1' t GIUDICE * HAYDOI Haydon, Chairperson, Rohnert Park Planning Commission Attest: ALJ Susan Ai3vedo, Recording Secretary Exhibit Resolution No. 2017- U INITIAL STUDY AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION CLEARWATER AT SONOMA HILLS ASSISTED LIVING AND MEMORY CARE FACILITY 19 aovANERT Pqa ALIF0RNt� 62 City of Rohnert Park Development Services 130 Avram Avenue Rohnert Park, CA 94928-2486 MARCH 2017 The Clearwater at Sonoma Hills Initial Study TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Page No. 1 INTRODUCTION..............................................................................................................1 1.1 Project Overview.................................................................................................... 1 1.2 California Environmental Quality Act Compliance ............................................... 1 1.3 Project Planning Setting......................................................................................... 1 1.4 Public Review Process............................................................................................ 1 2 INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST......................................................................................3 2.1 Aesthetics..............................................................................................................15 2.2 Agriculture and Forestry Resources...................................................................... 17 2.3 Air Quality............................................................................................................ 19 2.4 Biological Resources............................................................................................ 29 2.5 Cultural Resources................................................................................................ 34 2.6 Geology and Soils................................................................................................. 38 2.7 Greenhouse Gas Emissions................................................................................... 43 2.8 Hazards and Hazardous Materials........................................................................ 49 2.9 Hydrology and Water Quality ............................................................................... 54 2.10 Land Use and Planning......................................................................................... 62 2.11 Mineral Resources................................................................................................ 64 2.12 Noise..................................................................................................................... 65 2.13 Population and Housing....................................................................................... 72 2.14 Public Services...................................................................................................... 73 2.15 Recreation............................................................................................................. 75 2.16 Transportation and Traffic.................................................................................... 76 2.17 Tribal Cultural Resources..................................................................................... 81 2.18 Utilities and Service Systems................................................................................ 83 2.19 Mandatory Findings of Significance..................................................................... 88 3 REFERENCES.................................................................................................................90 3.1 References Cited................................................................................................... 90 APPENDICES Appendix A Air Quality and Greenhouse Gases Appendix B Biological Resources Studies Appendix C Traffic Impact Assessments D U D E K i Clearwater at Sonoma Hills March 2017 The Clearwater at Sonoma Hills Initial Stu TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONTINUED) FIGURES Page No. Figure1 Regional Location Map.............................................................................................................4 Figure2 Aerial Photo Map...............................................................................................................b Figure3 Site Plan.............................................................................................................................7 Figure4 Amenity Plan.....................................................................................................................9 TABLES Table 2.3-1 Average Daily Construction Emissions......................................................................24 Table 2.3-2 Daily Unmitigated Operational Emissions.................................................................25 Table 2.7-1 Estimated Annual Unmitigated Operational Greenhouse Gas Emissions..................46 Table 2.16-1 Trip Generation Summary ......................................................... ...........77 V Q E K Clearwater at Sonoma Hills ii March 2017 Clearwater at Sonoma Hills Initial Study 1 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Project Overview The proposed project, Clearwater at Sonoma Hills, would construct a two-story, 85,815 square foot assisted living and memory care facility with 90 units and 114 beds on an approximately 3.5 -acre site located east of the intersection of Rohnert Park Expressway and Snyder Lane in Rohnert Park, California. The proposed project is Phase II of the Oak View Senior Residential Project approved by the City in 2002. Phase I of the Oak View Senior Residential Project was completed in 2006 and involved construction of an independent senior living facility and a fitness/wellness center on the property located immediately east of the proposed Clearwater at Sonoma Hills project site. 1.2 California Environmental Quality Act Compliance This Initial Study has been prepared per the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) of 1970 (Public Resources Code [PRC] Section 21000, et seq.), and the CEQA Guidelines (California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Section 15000 et seq.). 1.3 Project Planning Setting The proposed project site is located in Rohnert Park, Sonoma County, California. 1.4 Public Review Process The Initial Study and the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration will be circulated for public review for a period of 30 days, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15073(a). The City of Rohnert Park will provide public notice at the beginning of the public review period. D U D E K Clearwater at Sonoma Hills 1 March 2017 Clearwater at Sonoma Hills Initial Study INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK D U D E K 2 Clearwater at Sonoma Hills March 2017 Clearwater at Sonoma Hills Initial Stud 2 INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST Project title: Clearwater at Sonoma Hills Lead agency name and address: City of Rohnert Park Development Services 130 Avram Avenue Rohnert Park, CA 94928-2486 Contact person and phone number: Jeffrey Beiswenger, Planning Manager (707) 588-2253 Project location: Rohnert Park Expressway at Snyder Lane Rohnert Park, CA 94928 APNs: 159-460-026 and -027 Project sponsor's name and address: Carissa Savant, Vice President CSL Berkshire Acquisitions LLC 5000 Birch Street, Suite 400 Newport Beach, CA 92660 General plan and zoning designations: General Plan Designation Zoning District Office C-0: Office Commercial Description of project: Project Location and Site Characteristics As shown on Figure 1 Regional Location Map, the project site is within the City of Rohnert Park, Sonoma County, California. The proposed site is comprised of two parcels (Assessor's Parcel Numbers (APNs) 159-460-026 and -027) totaling approximately 3.5 acres east of the intersection of Rohnert Park Expressway and Snyder Lane and south of D U D E K 3 Clearwater at Sonoma Hills March 2017 �Id Park. t` �p )NIHe � � �• �anta s In • \ % � >sa Santa — o• = 101 Project Site Peta � � : ti o — _ _ -- • � ,5' •• oma C Coa'sj. / rail sK � zs ' ii ' • Z` �- •.ai Crane � . "\ - .a.__ ' • 160 K r <R AVE Ar ; IF am 106 /+ Rohneri Park 1r Nri - L � t,� • it _ •�i� t -� • `Ayir li _ Al � , • • fM � . a? Coftti Il ;R\' , ' ............. y .•4 y� r i r Cill 0 1.000 2,000 8f • �` Q Parcel Boundary SOURCE: USGS 7 5 -Minute Series Cotati Quadrangle FIGURE 1 Township 6N, Range 7W, Section 19 D U D E K Regional Map Clearwater at Sonoma Hills Initial Study City of Rohnert Park Clearwater at Sonoma Hills Initial Study Medical Center Drive. Development to the north and west of the site is generally office and professional space, to the east are the Oak View of Sonoma Hills Apartments and the University District Specific Plan area, and to the south are Rohnert Park Expressway and a single-family residential neighborhood located in proximity to Rancho Cotate High School and Sonoma State University. The project site is mostly level and disturbed by past grading and maintenance. The range in elevation over the site is approximately 3 feet. Non-native grassland species dominate the site and approximately 1,600 square feet (sf) of shallow seasonal wetlands occur in the westerly portion of the property. An existing, paved pathway extends along the southern boundary of the project site, parallel to Rohnert Park Expressway. The site is accessible from Oak View Circle via Medical Center Drive. Figure 2 Aerial Photo Map provides aerial imagery of the project site. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting As previously mentioned, the project site is located in eastern Rohnert Park in an area predominately characterized by existing residential, office, and professional uses. The site is adjacent to Medical Center Drive to the north, Rohnert Park Expressway to the south, the Oak View of Sonoma Hills senior living facility and University District Specific Plan area to the east, and Snyder Lane to the west. Proposed Project Characteristics The proposed Clearwater at Sonoma Hills project is Phase II of the Oak View Senior Residential Project that was approved by the City in 2002. Phase I was completed in 2006 and involved construction of the Oak View of Sonoma Hills, an independent senior living facility and fitness/wellness center located immediately east of the proposed project site. Phase I also included construction of a medical office building located on Medical Center Drive, near the entrance to the senior living facility. When approved in 2002, the Oak View of Sonoma Hills project assumed development of 100 to 200 assisted living units in Phase H. The Clearwater at Sonoma Hills project proposes to construct a two-story, 85,815 sf assisted living and memory care facility with 90 residential units and 114 beds on 2 parcels totaling approximately 3.5 acres. Figure 3 Site Plan provides the proposed site layout. As shown on Figure 3, the residential facility and associated parking lot with 51 parking spaces would be located on the approximately 3 -acre project parcel (APN 159- 460-026). An additional, stand-alone parking lot providing 32 spaces would be Clearwater at Sonoma Hills DUDEK 5 March 2017 • T i ■ ■ Clearwater at Sonoma Hills Initial Study constructed on the adjacent .50 -acre parcel located to the northeast of the facility, at the Medical Center Drive and Oak View Circle entrance. Three parking spaces would be handicapped accessible. Of the total parking spaces proposed for use by the project, approximately 14 are existing spaces associated with the Oak View of Sonoma Hills facility. For the proposed project, an additional 12 existing spaces and a carport would be relocated to the south, near the new entrance at Rohnert Park Expressway. Four existing spaces would be eliminated to accommodate the proposed project. Figure 4 Amenity Plan shows the proposed amenities associated with the facility. As shown on the figure, and in addition to the residential rooms, the facility would include a main entrance into a lobby and reception area; a separate entrance for the memory care center; a kitchen and dining area; dance floor and lounge area; and several outdoor garden, courtyard, and recreation areas. A dog run area would be included in the central courtyards for residents with dogs. The proposed facility would be fully licensed by State of California's Department of Social Services and would provide 24-hour staffing and support services for residents. The total number of staff members would range from a maximum of 20 employees during the peak hours from 10:00am to 2:00pm to approximately 3 employees during the hours of 10:00pm and 6:00am. The project would have an onsite emergency generator. The main entrance to the project would be from Medical Center Drive onto Oak View Circle. Secondary access would be provided from Rohnert Park Expressway via a new driveway limited to right -turns in and out. The project would install a new monument sign at the Rohnert Park Expressway driveway entrance. A fire / loading lane would be located along the north side of the building. An additional fire lane would be constructed outside the southwest corner of the facility, accessible from Rohnert Park Expressway. The project would tie into the City water system to serve domestic and fire protection demands. Existing water mains are located in the streets adjacent to the project site. Recycled water would be utilized for irrigation on-site. The project would tie into the existing City recycled water system to serve irrigation demands. To serve wastewater demands, the project would tie into the existing City sanitary sewer system in the public streets adjacent to the site. The project would connect to an existing 8 -inch sewer main that connects to an existing 15 -inch sewer main located in Rohnert Park Expressway. The project proposes to route stormwater into underground stormwater retention cubes. Captured volume would be routed underground within the cubes and treatment of the Clearwater at Sonoma Hills D U D E K 8 March 2017 t i rat Lqt I 1. `,NS rr r OW G MLM slutartG a4ih+mttiai �r NCRIM: souna vrosr�tmicl FIGURE 4 D U DE K amenity Pian cwrra«.t ewwm.tu.. InRtM ewer Clearwater at Sonoma Hills Initial Study volume would occur as water percolates into the ground. The proposed project also includes pollution prevention measures to treat stormwater leaving the site including: planting interceptor trees throughout the site, utilizing a covered trash enclosure, providing pervious surfaces, and installing best management practices (BMPs) to treat stormwater before it enters the storm drain system. The project would include the following energy and water conservation features to minimize greenhouse gas emissions and to promote more sustainable practices: • Use of voluntary CALGreen Tier 1 water -efficiency measures: • The project would use low-water irrigation and a weather system irrigation control to ensure that watering occurs only as needed. • The project would install water -efficient appliances and plumbing fixtures, in compliance with required City code requirements • Outdoor lighting would use LED bulbs for minimum energy consumption; • Project landscape plans include numerous shade trees; • High -efficiency, on -demand water heating would be utilized; • The project would increase transit accessibility by being built on a transit corridor; Building construction would commence in June 2017 and be completed around December 2018. Background documents and plans: Oak View Senior Residential Project Negative Declaration As previously discussed, the City of Rohnert Park approved the Oak View Senior Residential Project in 2002. The Oak View Senior Residential Project provided for development of senior housing with recreational and medical facilities. As part of the decision-making process, the City conducted environmental review under CEQA that encompassed construction of the Project in two phases. Phase I, built in 2006, included a 207 -unit independent senior living facility in four buildings, an 8,500 -square -foot fitness/wellness center, and a 12,000 square foot medical office building. The medical office building was constructed on Medical Center Drive, near the main entrance to the senior living complex. A total of 268 parking spaces were provided in the active living area of the development. The proposed project would result in the development of Phase II of the Oak View Senior Residential Project. This Initial Study has been prepared per the requirements of CEQA D U D E K 10 Clearwater at Sonoma Hills March 2017 Clearwater at Sonoma Hills Initial Stud and the CEQA Guidelines to evaluate the potential environmental impacts of the proposed project. While the 2002 environmental review did include and consider the environmental effects of the proposed project, it did not quantify air quality emission nor did it include an evaluation of greenhouse gas emissions. In addition, the proposed project includes slight changes in project design as compared to the project approved in 2002. Accordingly, this Initial Study provides a thorough assessment of the environmental effects associated with the proposed project, including the updates and changes from the 2002 project. Entitlements and required approvals: The project would require the following approvals • Site Plan and Architectural Review (City of Rohnert Park); • Conditional Use Permit (City of Rohnert Park); • Section 404 Permit (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers) and Section 401 Water Quality Certification (Regional Water Quality Control Board); and • A Letter of Map Revision (FEMA) 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 ® Mandatory Findings of Significance DUDEK ❑ Agriculture and ❑ Air Quality Forestry Resources ® Cultural Resources ® Geology and Soils ® Hazards and ® Hydrology and Hazardous Materials Water Quality ❑ Mineral Resources ® Noise ❑ Public Services ❑ Recreation ❑ Tribal Cultural ❑ Utilities and Resources Service Systems Clearwater at Sonoma Hills 11 March 2017 Clearwater at Sonoma Hills Initial Study DETERMINATION: (To be completed by the Lead Agency) On the basis of this initial evaluation: ❑ I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. ® I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. ❑ I Lind that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. ❑ 1 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 ENVIRONMEN'T'AL IMPACT REPORT or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required, Signa D U D E K 12 Clearwater at Sonoma Hills March 2017 Clearwater at Sonoma Hills Initial Study EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A "No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g., the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A "No Impact" answer should be explained where it is based on project -specific factors as well as general standards (e.g., the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project -specific screening analysis). 2. All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well as on- site, cumulative as well as project -level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts. 3. Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the checklist answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant with mitigation, or less than significant. "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect may be significant. If there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made, an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) is required. 4. "Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less Than Significant Impact." The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from "Earlier Analyses," as described in (5) below, may be cross- referenced). 5. Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case, a brief discussion should identify the following: a. Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review. b. Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. c. Mitigation Measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or Clearwater at Sonoma Hills DUDEK 13 March 2017 Clearwater at Sonoma Hills Initial Study refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project. 6. 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. 7. Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion. 8. 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. 9. 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. D U D E K 14 Clearwater at Sonoma Hills March 2017 Clearwater at Sonoma Hills Initial Study 2.1 Aesthetics a) Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? Scenic vistas are visibly prominent landscapes containing scenic resources. The project would be constructed in an existing commercial, office, and residential area. There are no scenic resources or unique natural features at the site. The site is graded and has been previously disturbed. In the project vicinity, the eastern ridgelines of the Sonoma Mountains constitute a prominent feature of the Rohnert Park landscape (City of Rohnert Park, 2015). However, views of the ridgelines from the project site are substantially limited due to the existing buildings located immediately to the east. Because of the relatively flat topography of the site and existing built environment, that includes adjacent development, no scenic vistas occur in the project area. The project site is not located adjacent to any officially designated scenic highways within Sonoma County (Caltrans, 2017) and as proposed, the project would not contrast substantially with the existing office, commercial, and residential landscape, nor provide a substantial contrast to adjacent areas in view of the project area. Therefore, the project would have a less than significant impact on scenic vistas and on scenic resources within a state scenic highway. b) Would the project substantially damage scenic resources including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? Refer to answer provided in `a' above. c) Would the project substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? D U D E K 15 Clearwater at Sonoma Hills March 2017 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? ❑ ❑ M ❑ b) Substantially damage scenic resources including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and ❑ ❑ M ❑ historic buildings within a state scenic highway? c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character ❑ ❑ ® ❑ or quality of the site and its surroundings? d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime [( ❑ M ❑ views in the area? 2.1 Aesthetics a) Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? Scenic vistas are visibly prominent landscapes containing scenic resources. The project would be constructed in an existing commercial, office, and residential area. There are no scenic resources or unique natural features at the site. The site is graded and has been previously disturbed. In the project vicinity, the eastern ridgelines of the Sonoma Mountains constitute a prominent feature of the Rohnert Park landscape (City of Rohnert Park, 2015). However, views of the ridgelines from the project site are substantially limited due to the existing buildings located immediately to the east. Because of the relatively flat topography of the site and existing built environment, that includes adjacent development, no scenic vistas occur in the project area. The project site is not located adjacent to any officially designated scenic highways within Sonoma County (Caltrans, 2017) and as proposed, the project would not contrast substantially with the existing office, commercial, and residential landscape, nor provide a substantial contrast to adjacent areas in view of the project area. Therefore, the project would have a less than significant impact on scenic vistas and on scenic resources within a state scenic highway. b) Would the project substantially damage scenic resources including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? Refer to answer provided in `a' above. c) Would the project substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? D U D E K 15 Clearwater at Sonoma Hills March 2017 Clearwater at Sonoma Hills Initial Study The project site is within an infill area that has been previously disturbed and contains minimal vegetation. Development of the site would not substantially contrast with the surrounding areas; the additional development would not differ substantially from the area's existing visual character or alter its existing scenic quality. The proposed project would comply with the City's design guidelines and the City's review processes. Accordingly, the project's impact on the visual character of the site and the surrounding area would be less than significant. d) Would the project create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? Although the project would introduce new sources of light in the area, all new lighting would be required to comply with the City of Rohnert Park's lighting and glare standards (Municipal Code Section 17.12.050). Impacts associated with lighting and glare would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures No mitigation measures are necessary. D U D E K 16 Clearwater at Sonoma Hills March 2017 Clearwater at Sonoma Hills Initial Study 2.2 Agriculture and Forestry Resources a) Would the project convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? The project site is surrounded by existing commercial, office, and residential, development. The project site does not contain land that is designated as prime agricultural soils by the Natural Resources Conservation Service, nor does it contain Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance as designated by the California Department of Conservation, or any forest land or timberland (DOC, 2012). The proposed project site is not subject to, nor is it located near, a Williamson Act I�� Clearwater at Sonoma Hills IDUDEK 17 March 2017 Less Than Potentially Significant with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact II. AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES — In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Department of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. In determining whether impacts to forest resources, including timberland, are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to information compiled by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection regarding the state's inventory of forest land, including the Forest and Range Assessment Project and the Forest Legacy Assessment project; and forest carbon measurement methodology provided in Forest Protocols adopted by the California Air Resources Board. Would the project: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non- agricultural use? b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or El 11 1:1 0 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 El 11 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 El El E] forest land to non -forest use? e) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result E] El El in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non -forest use? 2.2 Agriculture and Forestry Resources a) Would the project convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? The project site is surrounded by existing commercial, office, and residential, development. The project site does not contain land that is designated as prime agricultural soils by the Natural Resources Conservation Service, nor does it contain Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance as designated by the California Department of Conservation, or any forest land or timberland (DOC, 2012). The proposed project site is not subject to, nor is it located near, a Williamson Act I�� Clearwater at Sonoma Hills IDUDEK 17 March 2017 Clearwater at Sonoma Hills Initial Study contract site pursuant to Sections 51200-51207 of the California Government Code (DOC, 2013). The project site is designated as developed land and not designated as farmland under the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Department of Conservation or the City of Rohnert Park General Plan (General Plan) (City of Rohnert Park, 2015). The project site is not considered forest land as defined in PRC Section 12220(g). Timberland (as defined by PRC Section 4526) or timberland -zoned timberland production (as defined by Section 51104[g] of the Government Code) is not present on- site, nor are any active or potential commercial timber operations present in the area (City of Rohnert Park, 2016). Therefore, no impact associated with agriculture and forestry resources would result from development at the project site. b) Would the project conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? Refer to answer provided in `a' above. c) Would the project conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section 51104(g))? Refer to answer provided in `a' above. d) Would the project result in the loss offorest 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. Clearwater at Sonoma Hills DUDEK 18 March 2017 Clearwater at Sonoma Hills Initial Study 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, and revised them in May 2011. The CEQA Air Quality Guidelines advise lead agencies on how to evaluate potential air quality impacts, including establishing quantitative and qualitative thresholds of significance. The BAAQMD resolutions adopting and revising the significance thresholds in 2011 were set aside by a judicial writ of mandate on March 5, 2012. In May of 2012, BAAQMD updated its CEQA Air Quality Guidelines to continue to provide direction on recommended analysis methodologies, but without recommended quantitative significance thresholds (BAAQMD 2012). On August 13, 2013, the First District Court of Appeal ordered the trial court to reverse the judgment and upheld the BAAQMD's CEQA thresholds. BAAQMD has not formally re- instated the thresholds or otherwise responded to this Appellate Court reversal at this time. The air quality impact analysis below uses the previously -adopted 2011 thresholds of the BAAQMD to determine the potential impacts of the project. While the significance thresholds adopted by BAAQMD in 2011 are not currently recommended by the BAAQMD, these thresholds are based on substantial evidence identified in BAAQMD's 2009 Justification Report and are therefore used within this document. Project emissions have been compared to the BAAQMD 2011 significance criteria, which include the following: Clearwater at Sonoma Hills D U D E K 19 March 2017 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 pian? 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, and revised them in May 2011. The CEQA Air Quality Guidelines advise lead agencies on how to evaluate potential air quality impacts, including establishing quantitative and qualitative thresholds of significance. The BAAQMD resolutions adopting and revising the significance thresholds in 2011 were set aside by a judicial writ of mandate on March 5, 2012. In May of 2012, BAAQMD updated its CEQA Air Quality Guidelines to continue to provide direction on recommended analysis methodologies, but without recommended quantitative significance thresholds (BAAQMD 2012). On August 13, 2013, the First District Court of Appeal ordered the trial court to reverse the judgment and upheld the BAAQMD's CEQA thresholds. BAAQMD has not formally re- instated the thresholds or otherwise responded to this Appellate Court reversal at this time. The air quality impact analysis below uses the previously -adopted 2011 thresholds of the BAAQMD to determine the potential impacts of the project. While the significance thresholds adopted by BAAQMD in 2011 are not currently recommended by the BAAQMD, these thresholds are based on substantial evidence identified in BAAQMD's 2009 Justification Report and are therefore used within this document. Project emissions have been compared to the BAAQMD 2011 significance criteria, which include the following: Clearwater at Sonoma Hills D U D E K 19 March 2017 Clearwater at Sonoma Hills Initial Study • Result in total construction emissions of reactive organic gases (ROG), nitrogen oxides (NOJ, or fine particulate matter (PM2.5) (exhaust) of 10 tons per year or greater or 54 pounds per day or greater. • Exceed a construction emission threshold for coarse particulate matter (PMto) (exhaust) of 15 tons per year or greater, or 82 pounds per day or greater. • For PM10 and PM2.5 as part of fugitive dust generated during construction, the BAAQMD Guidelines specify compliance with Best Management Practices as the threshold. • Result in total operational emissions of ROG, NO,,, or PM2.5 of 10 tons per year or greater, or 54 pounds per day or greater. • Exceed an operational emission threshold for PMto of 15 tons per year or greater, or 82 pounds per day or greater. • Result in carbon monoxide (CO) concentrations of 9.0 ppm (8 -hour average) and 20.0 ppm (1 -hour average) as estimated by roadway vehicle volumes exceeding 44,000 vehicles per hour at any intersection. • For risks and hazards during construction and operations, the BAAQMD Guidelines specify an increase in cancer risk exposure by 10 in one million, contribute hazard indices by a ratio of 1.0, or increase local concentrations of PM2,5 by 0.3 micrograms per cubic meter (gg/m3). A project's contribution to regional cumulative impacts for criteria pollutants are considered significant if the project's impact individually would be significant (i.e., if it exceeds the BAAQMD's quantitative thresholds). With regard to localized cumulative impacts from PM2.5, a significant cumulative air quality impact would occur if localized annual average concentrations of PM2.5 would exceed 0.8 µg/m3 at any receptor from project operations in addition to cumulative emissions sources within a 1,000 -foot radius of the property line of the source or receptor. Sensitive receptors are groups of individuals, including children, the elderly, the acutely ill, and the chronically ill, that may be more susceptible to health risks due to chemical exposure. Sensitive -receptor population groups are likely to be located at hospitals, medical clinics, schools, playgrounds, childcare centers, residences, and retirement homes. With regard to cumulative impacts from toxic air contaminants (TACs), a significant cumulative air quality impact would be considered to occur if the probability of contracting cancer for the maximally exposed individual (MEI) would exceed 100 in one million as a result of project operations plus cumulative emissions sources within a 1,000 -foot radius of the project site. A Clearwater at Sonoma Hills D U D E K 20 March 2017 Clearwater at Sonoma Hills Initial Study significant cumulative TAC impact would also be considered to occur if a non -cancer chronic Hazard Index (HI) of 10.0 would be exceeded at any receptor as a result of project operations plus cumulative emissions sources within a 1,000 foot radius of the project site. Notably, a project's construction or operational impacts would be considered to result in a considerable contribution to an identified cumulative health risk impact if the project's construction or operation activities would exceed the project -level health risk significance thresholds identified above. a) Would the project conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? An area is designated as "in attainment" when it is in compliance with the federal and/or state standards. These standards are set by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) or California Air Resources Board (CARB) for the maximum level of a given air pollutant that can exist in the outdoor air without unacceptable effects on human health or public welfare with a margin of safety. The project site is located within the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin, which is designated non -attainment for the federal 8 -hour ozone (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 PMio, annual PMto, and annual PM2.5. The BAAQMD adopted the Bay Area 2010 Clean Air Plan (BAAQMD 2010), in cooperation with the Metropolitan Commission and the Association of Bay Area Governments, which sets forth a plan to reach compliance with the state's 1 -hour air quality 03 standard. The 2010 Clean Air Plan is an update to the BAAQMD 2005 Ozone Strategy to comply with State air quality planning requirements. The 2010 Clean Air Plan is a comprehensive strategy to reduce air pollution from stationary and mobile sources. The plan outlines strategies to reduce 03 precursors as well as particulate matter (PM), TACs, and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions to meet their goal of reducing air pollution to attain air quality standards and protect public health. Currently, the BAAQMD, the Metropolitan Commission, and Association of Bay Area Governments are working on the 2016 Clean Air Plan/Regional Climate Protection Strategy, which is an update to the current 2010 Clean Air Plan. The BAAQMD Guidelines identify a three-step methodology for determining a project's consistency with the current Clean Air Plan. If the responses to these three questions can be concluded in the affirmative and those conclusions are supported by substantial evidence, then the BAAQMD considers the project to be consistent with air quality plans prepared for the Bay Area. D U D E K 21 Clearwater at Sonoma Hills March 2017 Clearwater at Sonoma Hills Initial Study The first question to be assessed in this methodology is "does the project support the goals of the Air Quality Plan" (currently the 2010 Clean Air Plan)? The BAAQMD- recommended measure for determining project support for these goals is consistency with BAAQMD thresholds of significance. If a project would not result in significant and unavoidable air quality impacts, after the application of all feasible mitigation measures, the project would be consistent with the goals of the 2010 Clean Air Plan. As indicated in the following discussion with regard to air quality impact questions b) and c), the project would result in less than significant construction emissions and would not result in long- term adverse air quality impacts. Therefore, the project would be considered to support the primary goals of the 2010 Clean Air Plan and, therefore, consistent with the current Clean Air Plan. The second question to be assessed in this consistency methodology is "does the project include applicable control measures from the Clean Air Plan?" The 2010 Clean Air Plan contains control measures aimed at reducing air pollution in the Bay Area. Projects that incorporate all feasible air quality plan control measures are considered consistent with the Clean Air Plan. The project includes plans for a 90 unit, 85,815 square -foot assisted living and memory care facility. The control strategies of the 2010 Clean Air Plan include measures in the traditional categories of stationary source measures, mobile source measures, and transportation control measures. The stationary source measures will be implemented by BAAQMD using its permit authority and are therefore not suited to implementation through local planning efforts. The 2010 Clean Air Plan identifies two new subcategories of control measures, including land use and local impact measures and energy and climate measures. a. Transportation and Mobile Source Control Measures: The transportation control measures are designed to reduce emissions from motor vehicles by reducing vehicle trips and vehicle miles traveled in addition to vehicle idling and traffic congestion. The proposed project would not conflict with the identified transportation and mobile source control measures of the 2010 Clean Air Plan. b. Land Use and Local Impact Measures: The 2010 Clean Air Plan includes Land Use and Local Impacts Measures (LUMs) to achieve the following: promote mixed-use, compact development to reduce motor vehicle travel and emissions; and ensure that planned growth is focused in a way that protects people from exposure to air pollution from stationary and mobile sources of emissions. The LUMs identified by the BAAQMD are not specifically applicable to the proposed project as they relate to actions the BAAQMD will take to reduce impacts from goods movement and health risks in affected communities. Therefore, the project would not conflict with any of the LUMs of the 2010 Clean Air Plan. D U ©E K 22 Clearwater at Sonoma Hills March 2017 Clearwater at Sonoma Hills Initial Study c. Energy Measures: The 2010 Clean Air Plan also includes Energy and Climate Control Measures (ECM), which are designed to reduce ambient concentrations of criteria pollutants and reduce emissions of CO2. Implementation of these measures is intended to promote energy conservation and efficiency in buildings throughout the community, promote renewable forms of energy production, reduce the "urban heat island" effect by increasing reflectivity of roofs and parking lots, and promote the planting of (low-VOC-emitting) trees to reduce biogenic emissions, lower air temperatures, provide shade, and absorb air pollutants. The proposed project would incorporate energy efficiency and green building measures in compliance with state and/or local standards and would not conflict with any of the ECM measures. The third question to be assessed in this consistency methodology is "does the project disrupt or hinder implementation of any control measures from the Clean Air Plan?" Examples of how a project may cause the disruption or delay of control measures include a project that precludes an extension of a transit line or bike path, or proposes excessive parking beyond parking requirements. The proposed project would not create any barriers or impediments to planned or future improvements to transit or bicycle facilities is the area and therefore, would not hinder implementation of Clean Air Plan control measures. In summary, the responses to all three of the questions with regard to Clean Air Plan consistency are affirmative and the proposed project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the 2010 Clean Air Plan. This is a less than significant impact. b) Would the project violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? The California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod) Version 2016.3.1 was used to estimate emissions from construction and operation of the proposed project. CalEEMod is a statewide computer model developed in cooperation with air districts throughout the state to quantify criteria air pollutant and GHG emissions associated with the construction and operational activities from a variety of land use projects, such as residential, commercial, and industrial facilities. CalEEMod input parameters, including the proposed project land use type and size, construction schedule, and anticipated construction equipment utilization, were based on information provided by the project applicant, or default model assumptions if project specifics were unavailable. Construction. Construction of the proposed project would involve construction and operation of a 90 -unit, 85,815 square foot assisted living and memory care facility and associated parking on a 3.49 -acre site. Construction is anticipated to occur beginning June 2017 through December 2018. Construction would involve site preparation and Clearwater at Sonoma Hills DUDEK 23 March 2017 Clearwater at Sonoma Hills Initial Study grading of the site. The proposed earthwork would import approximately 10,000 -cubic yards of soil. Standard construction methods would be employed for building construction. Sources of emissions would include: off-road construction equipment exhaust, on -road vehicles exhaust and entrained road dust (i.e., soil haul trucks, 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 2.3-1 shows average daily construction emissions of 03 precursors (ROG and NO,), PMio exhaust, and PM2.5 exhaust during project construction. Table 2.3-1 Average Daily Construction Emissions Year ROG NOx I PlAoiU au_st pounds per day 2017-2018 Construction 3.1 14.5 0.9 0.8 BAAQMD Construction Thresholds 54 54 82 54 Exceed Threshold? No No No No Source: Appendix A Note: The values shown are average daily emissions based on total overall tons of construction emissions, converted to pounds, and divided by 412 active work days. ROG = reactive organic gases; NOx = oxides of nitrogen; PMio = coarse particulate matter; PM2 e = fine particulate matter As shown in Table 2.3-1, construction of the proposed project would not exceed BAAQMD significance thresholds. Criteria air pollutant emissions during construction would be less than significant. Although the BAAQMD does not have a quantitative significance threshold for fugitive dust, the BAAQMD's CEQA Guidelines recommend that projects determine the significance for fugitive dust through application of best management practices (BMPs). The project contractor would be required as conditions of approval to implement the following BMPs that are required of all projects: 1. All exposed surfaces (e.g., parking areas, staging areas, soil piles, graded areas, and unpaved access roads) shall be watered two times per day. 2. All haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose material off site shall be covered. 3. All visible mud or dirt track -out onto adjacent public roads shall be removed using wet power vacuum street sweepers at least once per day. The use of dry power sweeping is prohibited. D U D K 24 Clearwater at Sonoma Hills March 2017 Clearwater at Sonoma Hills Initial Study 4. All vehicle speeds on unpaved roads shall be limited to 15 miles per hour (mph). 5. All roadways, driveways, and sidewalks to be paved shall be completed as soon as possible. Building pads shall be laid as soon as possible after grading unless seeding or soil binders are used. 6. Idling times shall be minimized either by shutting equipment off when not in use or reducing the maximum idling time to 5 minutes (as required by the California Airborne Toxics Control Measure Title 13, Section 2485 of California Code of Regulations [CCR]). Clear signage shall be provided for construction workers at all access points. 7. All construction equipment shall be maintained and properly tuned in accordance with manufacturer's specifications. All equipment shall be checked by a certified mechanic and determined to be running in proper condition prior to operation. 8. Post a publicly visible sign with the telephone number and person to contact at the Lead Agency regarding dust complaints. This person shall respond and take corrective action within 48 hours. The BAAQMD's phone number shall also be visible to ensure compliance with applicable regulations. Implementation of the required fugitive dust control measures would ensure air quality and fugitive dust -related impacts associated with construction would remain less than significant. Operations. Operation of the project would generate criteria pollutant (including ROG, NO., PMto, and PM2.5) emissions from mobile sources (vehicular traffic), area sources (consumer products, architectural coatings, landscaping equipment), and energy sources (natural gas appliances, space and water heating). CaIEEMod was used to estimate daily emissions from the operational sources. The CalEEMod default trip rate was adjusted to match the Traffic Impact Study for the project (W -Trans 2017). Table 2.3-2 summarizes the daily mobile, energy, and area emissions of criteria pollutants that would be generated by project development and compares the emissions to BAAQMD operational thresholds. Table 2.3-2 Daily Unmitigated Operational Emissions Source ROG NOK I Wo Exhaust PMA .5 Exhaust pounds per day Area 2.4 1.8 0.2 0.2 Energy 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 Mobile 0.8 3.4 0.0 0.0 Total 3.2 5.5 0.2 0.2 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. Clearwater at Sonoma Hills D U D E K 25 March 2017 Clearwater at Sonoma Hills Initial Study ROG = reactive organic gases; NOx = oxides of nitrogen; PMio = coarse particulate matter; PM2 e = fine particulate matter As indicated in Table 2.3-2, project -related operational emissions of ROG, NO,,, PMto, 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 2011 thresholds, a project would result in a less than significant impact if the following screening criteria are met: 1. The project is consistent with an applicable congestion management program established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways, regional transportation plan, and local congestion management agency plans. 2. The project traffic would not increase traffic volumes at affected intersections to more than 44,000 vehicles per hour. 3. The project traffic would not increase traffic volumes at affected intersections to more than 24,000 vehicles per hour where vertical and/or horizontal mixing is substantially limited (e.g., tunnel, parking garage, bridge underpass, natural or urban street canyon, below -grade roadway). The project would generate minimal new traffic trips that would be far below the minimum criteria above and would comply with the BAAQMD screening criteria. Accordingly, project -related traffic would not exceed CO standards and therefore, no further analysis was conducted for CO impacts. This CO emissions impact would be considered less than significant on a project -level and cumulative basis. c) Would the project result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non -attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? Past, present, and future development projects may contribute to the region's adverse air quality impacts on a cumulative basis. Per BAAQMD's CEQA Guidelines, by its nature air pollution is largely a cumulative impact; no single project is sufficient in size to, by itself, result in nonattamment of ambient air quality standards. In developing thresholds of significance for air pollutants, BAAQMD considered the emission levels for which a project's individual emissions would be cumulatively considerable. If a project exceeds the identified significance thresholds, its emissions would be considered cumulatively D U D E K 26 Clearwater at Sonoma Hills March 2017 Clearwater at Sonoma Hills Initial Study considerable, resulting in significant adverse air quality impacts to the region's existing air quality conditions. Therefore, if the proposed project's emissions are below the BAAQMD thresholds or screening criteria, then the proposed project's cumulative impact would be considered to be less than significant. As described in criterion "b" above, criteria pollutant emissions generated by short-term construction and long-term operations of the project would not exceed the BAAQMD significance thresholds. Thus, the project would have a less than significant cumulative impact in relation to regional emissions. In addition, project -related traffic would not exceed the BAAQMD CO screening criteria and would result in a less than significant cumulative impact in relation to localized CO. d) Would the project expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? The BAAQMD has adopted project and cumulative thresholds for three risk -related air quality indicators for sensitive receptors: cancer risks, noncancer health effects, and increases in ambient air concentrations of PM2.5. These impacts are addressed on a localized rather than regional basis and are specific to the sensitive receptors identified for the project. As explained previously, sensitive receptors are groups of individuals, including children, the elderly, the acutely ill, and the chronically ill, that may be more susceptible to health risks due to chemical exposure, and sensitive -receptor population groups are likely to be located at hospitals, medical clinics, schools, playgrounds, childcare centers, residences, and retirement homes. There are existing senior residential apartments and single-family homes proximate to the project site, with the nearest located approximately 40 feet east of the project. The closest schools and day care centers are the Learning to Learn Preschool and the Redwood Country Kid's Club, which are approximately 450 feet and 400 feet north of the proposed project site, respectively. "Incremental cancer risk" is the net increased likelihood that a person continuously exposed to concentrations of TACs resulting from a project over a 9-, 30-, and 70 -year exposure period would contract cancer based on the use of standard Office of 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 D U D E K 27 Clearwater at Sonoma Hills March 2017 Clearwater at Sonoma Hills Initial Study associated with the project (OEHHA 2015). Thus, the duration of proposed construction activities (approximately 18 -months) would only constitute a small percentage of the total 30 -year exposure period. Regarding long-term operations, if a diesel emergency generator were needed for the project to support any critical care equipment during a power failure, then the applicant would be required to obtain a permit from BAAQMD to ensure the generator's operation would result in minimal air pollutant emissions and less than significant health risk impacts. The proposed project would not result in non - permitted stationary sources that would emit 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. Potential odor impacts would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures No mitigation measures are necessary. D U D E K 28 Clearwater at Sonoma Hills March 2017 Clearwater at Sonoma Hills Initial Study 2.4 Biological Resources A Biological Site Assessment of the project site was prepared by Prunuske Chatham, Inc. in September 2016 (PCI, 2016) and a Wetland Delineation was prepared by Laurence P. Stromberg, Ph.D. in August 2013 (Stromberg, 2013). These assessments, which were used to complete this impact analysis, are included as Appendix B of this Initial Study. A peer review of the studies was completed by Dudek in February 2017 and is included in Appendix B of this Initial Study (Dudek, 2017). The project site is a previously graded lot and is largely level except for some casually graded areas at the west side where wetlands occur. Non-native grassland dominates the site with abundant native and nonnative forbs (PCI, 2016). Clearwater at Sonoma Hills DUDEK 29 March 2017 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 ❑ ❑ (_j 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 Site Assessment of the project site was prepared by Prunuske Chatham, Inc. in September 2016 (PCI, 2016) and a Wetland Delineation was prepared by Laurence P. Stromberg, Ph.D. in August 2013 (Stromberg, 2013). These assessments, which were used to complete this impact analysis, are included as Appendix B of this Initial Study. A peer review of the studies was completed by Dudek in February 2017 and is included in Appendix B of this Initial Study (Dudek, 2017). The project site is a previously graded lot and is largely level except for some casually graded areas at the west side where wetlands occur. Non-native grassland dominates the site with abundant native and nonnative forbs (PCI, 2016). Clearwater at Sonoma Hills DUDEK 29 March 2017 Clearwater at Sonoma Hills Initial Stu Flows from the property drain to City storm drains and ultimately to the Laguna de Santa Rosa, thence the Russian River. Copeland Creek is the closest creek, located approximately 900 feet from the edge of the project site, with a residential neighborhood in between (PCI, 2016). a) Would the project have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? As previously mentioned, a Biological Site Assessment was prepared for the project in August 2016 (PCI, 2016). For the assessment, a background literature review and database search were conducted to determine the potential occurrence of special -status species at the project site. The search focused on reported occurrences within two miles of the project site. Following review of existing site information and possible special - status species, a field survey of the project site was conducted in August 2016 by a Prunuske Chatham, Inc. ecologist. Based on the suitability of habitat within the property and surrounding areas and proximity of recorded sightings, special -status species were evaluated for potential occurrence within the project site. Of the special -status animal species with reported occurrences within the project area, none were documented during any of the previous property surveys or during the project site survey in August 2016. However, breeding bird species were documented on the property. All native birds in California are protected by the federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) of 1918 and Section 3503.5 of the California Fish and Game Code, which specifically protects raptors. As discussed in the Biological Site Assessment prepared for the project, ground dwelling birds may nest in the project area. Nesting activities of these birds could be directly impacted by habitat removal, which would result in the loss of active nests, and could indirectly be affected by adjacent construction noise and vibration, nighttime lighting, or excessive dust creation that would result in nest abandonment or breeding/rearing failure. Because of this potential loss of habitat and temporary disturbance, the project would be required to implement Mitigation Measure BIO -1 and conduct preconstruction nesting bird surveys a maximum of 2 weeks before the start of any new construction activities that would occur during the breeding season (February 1—August 31). Implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO -I would ensure that impacts to migratory birds would remain less than significant. Of the special -status plant species with potential to occur in the project area, none have been documented at the project site (PCI, 2016). Focused blooming season surveys for onsite wetland plants confirmed their absence (PCI, 2016). Accordingly, impacts to special -status plant species would be less than significant. Clearwater at Sonoma Hills D U D E K 30 March 2017 Clearwater at Sonoma Hills Initial Stud b) Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife= Service? There are no riparian areas located on the project site and construction activities would not involve alternations within any creek area. As noted in the Biological Site Assessment, Copeland Creek, which flows to the Laguna de Santa Rosa, is located approximately 900 feet south of the project area (PCI, 2016). To ensure water quality impacts from sedimentation due to construction do not adversely impact aquatic resources in the Laguna de Santa Rosa, the project would be required to implement recommended best management practices for erosion control and water quality protection. As discussed in Section 2.9 Hydrology and Water Quality, Mitigation Measures HYDRO -1 and HYDRO -2 would require that the project implement a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) as well as a site-specific erosion control plan (ECP). These plans would help to reduce the potential for erosion and sedimentation of riparian habitat as a result of project activities. Thus, implementation of Mitigation Measures HYDRO -1 and HYDRO -2 would reduce the impact on water features and potential riparian sensitive natural communities to a less than significant level. c) Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, . frlling, hydrological interruption, or other means? A wetland delineation prepared for the project site found that two artificial, low -quality seasonal wetlands resulting from past construction occur on the project site: one is 72 sf and the other is 1,031 sf. The combined total area of wetland is 1,103 sf or 0.025 acres (Stromberg, 2013). The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) has verified the wetland delineation and determined that the seasonal wetlands on the site are subject to its jurisdictional authority. Direct removal, filling, or hydrological interruption of a federally or state -protected wetlands as defined in the Clean Water Act and/or the Porter -Cologne Water Quality Control Act would be considered a significant impact. To ensure impacts to wetlands are reduced to a less than significant level, the proposed project would implement Mitigation Measure BIO -2. Mitigation Measure BIO -2 requires that the project obtain required permits and fulfill compensatory mitigation requirements for wetland impacts. Implementation of Mitigation Measures BIO -2 would ensure that potential impacts to riparian areas would be reduced to a less than significant level. Clearwater at Sonoma Hills DUDEK 31 March 2017 Clearwater at Sonoma Hills Initial Study 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? Because the project site and the surrounding areas are composed of existing urban development and bordered on all sides by existing development, the project footprint does not function as an important corridor between larger open space wildlife areas. Therefore, the impact on wildlife corridors would be less than significant. e) Would the project conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? The project site has previously been graded and currently only supports small, sparse vegetation. The project would not be expected to conflict with local policies or ordinances such as the City's tree preservation policy. Therefore, no impact would occur. f) Would the project conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? No drafted or adopted conservation plans are in place that would apply to the project site. Therefore, no impact would occur. Mitigation Measures Mitigation Measure BI0-1: A preconstruction survey shall be conducted by a qualified biologist for nesting raptors and other special -status bird species a maximum of 2 weeks before the start of any new construction activities (i.e., ground clearing and grading, staging of equipment, ground disturbance) during the breeding season (February 1—August 31) so that no nesting migratory birds are within or adjacent to the construction area. If active nests are found during the preconstruction survey, a no -disturbance buffer zone shall be created around active nests during the breeding season or until a qualified biologist has determined that the young have fledged. The no -disturbance buffer zone shall be a minimum of 250 feet from active raptor nests, 100 feet from special -status species, and 50 feet from non -special -status nesting bird species until the chicks have fledged. Reductions in the size of the buffer zones and or allowances of limited types of construction activities within the buffer zone shall be determined by a qualified biologist and shall be based on existing noise and human disturbance levels in the project area and observed evidence of disturbance to birds. Clearwater at Sonoma Hills DUDEK 32 March 2017 Clearwater at Sonoma Hills Initial Study Mitigation Measure BI0-2: For any impacts to waters of the U.S., a Section 404 permit from the Corps and a Section 401 water quality certification from the Regional Water Quality Control Board shall be obtained and compensatory mitigation shall be provided for all impacts at a minimum 1 to 1 ratio according to the Corps Standard Operating Procedure for Determination of Mitigation Ratios. As part of the wetlands permitting process, the Corps must conduct a Section 7 consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for any potential impacts to listed species. The terms and conditions of USFWS's Biological Opinion (or Programmatic Biological Opinion) shall be implemented as part of the project. Clearwater at Sonoma Hills D U D E K 33 March 2017 Clearwater at Sonoma Hills Initial Study 2.5 Cultural Resources Records Search A records search including the project site and a half -mile search radius was conducted by Dudek at the Northwest Information Center (NWIC) of the California Historical Resources Information System located in Rohnert Park; the records search is listed at the NWIC under IC File Number Number 16-1125. The NCIC records search indicates that there are no recorded resources within the project area. One previous technical study been conducted in the project area and an additional 15 reports that have been conducted within the records search area. The NWIC records search indicates that there are two prehistoric sites within a one-half mile radius of the project site. Dudek's archaeological staff determined that it is unlikely that intact archaeological deposits are present within the project area. Based on the current disturbed nature of the site, no additional cultural inventory or monitoring was recommended by Dudek archaeological staff. Native American Consultation Dudek sent a request to the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) on January 31, 2017, to search its sacred lands file for any Native American resources in the project area, and to provide a list of Native American representatives who may have knowledge of Native American cultural resources in the project area. The NAHC responded stating that the sacred lands file search did not indicate the presence of Native American cultural resources in the immediate project area. The NAHC also provided a list of individuals who may have knowledge of cultural resources in the project area. Pursuant to Assembly Bill (AB) 52 (Public Resources Code [PRC] D U D E K 34 Clearwater at Sonoma Hills March 2017 Less Than Potentially Significant with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact V. CULTURAL RESOURCES - Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined ❑ ❑ ❑ in §15064.5? b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource ❑ ® ❑ ❑ pursuant to §15064.5? c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic ❑ ® ❑ ❑ feature? d) Disturb any human remains, including those ❑ © ❑ ❑ interred outside of dedicated cemeteries? 2.5 Cultural Resources Records Search A records search including the project site and a half -mile search radius was conducted by Dudek at the Northwest Information Center (NWIC) of the California Historical Resources Information System located in Rohnert Park; the records search is listed at the NWIC under IC File Number Number 16-1125. The NCIC records search indicates that there are no recorded resources within the project area. One previous technical study been conducted in the project area and an additional 15 reports that have been conducted within the records search area. The NWIC records search indicates that there are two prehistoric sites within a one-half mile radius of the project site. Dudek's archaeological staff determined that it is unlikely that intact archaeological deposits are present within the project area. Based on the current disturbed nature of the site, no additional cultural inventory or monitoring was recommended by Dudek archaeological staff. Native American Consultation Dudek sent a request to the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) on January 31, 2017, to search its sacred lands file for any Native American resources in the project area, and to provide a list of Native American representatives who may have knowledge of Native American cultural resources in the project area. The NAHC responded stating that the sacred lands file search did not indicate the presence of Native American cultural resources in the immediate project area. The NAHC also provided a list of individuals who may have knowledge of cultural resources in the project area. Pursuant to Assembly Bill (AB) 52 (Public Resources Code [PRC] D U D E K 34 Clearwater at Sonoma Hills March 2017 Clearwater at Sonoma Hills Initial Stu 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. No response letters have been received to date. 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? According to CEQA (Pub. Res. Code §5024.1, Title 14 CCR, Section 4852), a project with an effect that may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an historical resource is a project that may have a significant effect (adverse effect) on the environment and the cultural resource itself. A substantial adverse change in the significance of an historical resource would be constituted by physical demolition, destruction, relocation, or alteration of the resource or its immediate surroundings such that the significance of a historical resource would be materially impaired. The native topography and surface and near -surface soils on the project site have been disturbed by past grading activities, and it is unlikely that any intact archaeological deposits remain on the site. It is anticipated that further grading and development of the project site would result in no impact associated with an adverse change in the significance of historic resources. There are no known historical resources or no built - environment cultural resources within the project area. Therefore, no impact to historical resources would occur. b) Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5? There are no known archaeological resources in the project area. The site is previously disturbed and located in a developed area. However, the project site is located in an area covered in alluvial fans, which in the San Francisco Bay Area have been known to contain buried archaeological resources that tend to be relatively old. It is therefore possible that undiscovered, buried archaeological deposits that might be eligible as archaeological resources are present in the project site. If archaeological resources are encountered during construction activities, this impact would be significant. Implementation of Mitigation Measure CUL -1 would reduce potential impacts to less than significant. c) Would the project directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? D U D E K 35 Clearwater at Sonoma Hills March 2017 Clearwater at Sonoma Hills Initial Study There are no known unique paleontological or geologic features within the project boundaries and the site has been graded and modified from a natural condition. However, to ensure impacts to inadvertently discovered paleontological or geologic features remains less than significant, the project would be required to implement Mitigation Measure CUL -1, as discussed in item (b) above. Implementation of Mitigation Measure CUL -1 would ensure potential impacts to paleontological resources remains less than significant. d) Would the project disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of dedicated cemeteries? There are no known human remains onsite and it is unlikely that previously unknown human remains would be encountered during future site grading for construction of the project. Nevertheless, it is possible that buried human remains are present on the project site. There are specific state regulations regarding discovery of human remains that must be followed. If human remains are encountered during construction activities, this impact would be potentially significant. With the implementation of Mitigation Measure CUL -2 would reduce any potential impacts to less than significant. Mitigation Measures Mitigation Measure CUL -1: All appropriate federal, state, and local regulations regarding cultural resources shall be closely adhered to; these regulations contain measures that safeguard against significant impacts on cultural resources. If cultural resources are encountered during project construction, the applicant shall notify the City of Rohnert Park, and all activity within 100 feet of the find shall halt until it can be evaluated by a qualified archaeologist. Prehistoric archaeological materials might include obsidian and chert flaked -stone tools (e.g., projectile points, knives, scrapers) or toolmaking debris; culturally darkened soil (midden) containing heat -affected rocks, artifacts, or shellfish remains; and stone milling equipment (e.g., mortars, pestles, handstones, or milling slabs); and battered stone tools, such as hammerstones and pitted stones. Historic -period materials might include stone, concrete, or adobe footings and walls; filled wens or privies; and deposits of metal, glass, and/or ceramic refuse. If the resource is Native American in origin and the archaeologist and a Native American representative determine that the resources may be significant and cannot be avoided, they shall notify the City of Rohnert Park and an appropriate treatment plan for the resources shall be developed by the applicant, in consultation with the City of Rohnert Park and the archaeologist. Measures in the treatment plan could include preservation in place (capping) and/or data recovery. The archaeologist shall consult with Native DUD Clearwater at Sonoma Hills V 36 March 2017 Clearwater at Sonoma Hills Initial Stud American representatives in determining appropriate treatment for prehistoric or Native American cultural resources. Ground disturbance shall not resume within 100 feet of the find until an agreement has been reached as to the appropriate treatment of the find. Mitigation Measure CUL -2: If human remains, including disarticulated or cremated remains, are encountered during project construction, all ground -disturbing activities within 100 feet of the discovery must immediately cease. PRC Section 5097.98, and Section 7050.5 of California Health and Safety Code require that the County Coroner be immediately notified when human remains are identified. The project proponent and City of Rohnert Park also must be immediately notified. If the County Coroner determines that the remains are Native American, the NAHC must be contacted within 24 hours, pursuant to Subdivision (c) of §7050.5 of the Health and Safety Code. The City of Rohnert Park shall consult with the Most Likely Descendent, if any, identified by the NAHC regarding excavation and removal of the human remains. The project proponent and appropriate agency should be responsible for approval of any recommended investigation and action, taking into account state law as presented in State CEQA Guidelines 15064.5(e) and PRC 5097.98. Before resumption of ground -disturbing activities within 100 feet of the human remains, all mitigation regarding the human remains shall be implemented. If removal of human remains is determined to be the appropriate mitigation, it shall be conducted by a qualified archaeologist with Native American burial experience. D U D E K 37 Clearwater at Sonoma Hills March 2017 Clearwater at Sonoma Hills 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, about 5 miles to the east of the City and the San Andreas Fault, about 15 miles west of the D U D E K 38 Clearwater at Sonoma Hills March 2017 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 ❑ ❑ El ❑ 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, about 5 miles to the east of the City and the San Andreas Fault, about 15 miles west of the D U D E K 38 Clearwater at Sonoma Hills March 2017 Clearwater at Sonoma Hills Initial Study City (City of Rohnert Park, 2015). Because the project area is located approximately 5 miles from traces of any potentially active fault and from known traces the nearest zoned active fault (the Rodgers Creek fault) and it not located within an Alquist-Priolo Fault Zone, fault -line surface rupture would not be a hazard within the project area. Impacts related to fault rupture potential would be less than significant. ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? The intensity of ground shaking depends on the distance from the earthquake epicenter to the site, the magnitude of the earthquake, site soil conditions, and the characteristics of the source. As the project site is within the proximity of two active faults, the project could potentially result in exposure of people or structures to substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving seismic ground shaking. This impact can be mitigated to a less than significant level though implementation of Mitigation Measure GEO-1 which requires preparation of a site-specific geotechnical report. iii) Seismic -related ground failure, including liquefaction? Soil liquefaction most commonly occurs when ground shaking from an earthquake causes a sediment layer saturated with groundwater to lose strength and take on the characteristics of a fluid, thus becoming similar to quicksand. Liquefaction may also occur in the absence of a seismic event, when unconsolidated soil above a hardpan becomes saturated with water. Factors determining the liquefaction potential are the level and duration of seismic ground motions, the type and consistency of soils, and the depth to groundwater. Loose sands and peat deposits; uncompacted fill and other Holocene materials deposited by sedimentation in rivers and lakes (fluvial or alluvial deposits); and debris or eroded material (colluvial deposits) are the most susceptible to liquefaction. The project area is classified as having moderate to high liquefaction hazard (City of Rohnert Park, 2007). Mitigation Measure GEO-1, which requires preparation of site-specific geotechnical reports and implementation of site-specific design recommendations, would ensure impacts related to seismic related ground failure remain less than significant. iv) Landslides? D U D E K 39 Clearwater at Sonoma Hills March 2017 Clearwater at Sonoma Hills Initial Study The topography of the project site is essentially level and therefore presents no risk of landslides. The project would have no impact. b) Would the project result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? A review of U.S. Natural Resources Conservation Service soil survey data indicates that the project area consists entirely of Clear Lake clay loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes, and Clear Lake clay, sandy substratum, drained, 0 to 2 percent slopes (NRCS, 2014). These soil types are classified as hydrologic soil groups C and D, which means they have a high stormwater runoff potential. If the storm is large enough to generate runoff, localized erosion could occur. However, the soil has a low water erosion hazard (because of its high clay content) and a moderate wind erosion hazard. In addition, soil disturbance during the summer as a result of construction activities could result in soil loss and loss of topsoil because of wind erosion. With the implementation of Mitigation Measures HYDRO -1 and HYDRO -2, which include post -construction BMPs, as well as adherence to the City's Stormwater Management Plan and to state and local regulatory requirement, this impact would remain to 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 existing office and residential 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? D U D E K 40 Clearwater at Sonoma Hills March 2017 Clearwater at Sonoma Hills Initial Study 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 NRCS (2014) soil survey data indicates that the project area is composed of Clear Lake Clay, which has a high shrink -swell potential. Implementation of Mitigation Measure GEO-1, which requires preparation of a site-specific geotechnical report and implementation of site-specific design recommendations, would ensure that this impact remains less than significant. e) Would the project have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? No septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems are proposed and the project would have no impact related to these types of wastewater disposal. Mitigation Measures Mitigation Measure GEO-1: The project applicant shall retain a licensed geotechnical engineer to prepare a final geotechnical report per California Building Standards Code and City requirements for the proposed facilities that shall be submitted for review and approved by the City of Rohnert Park prior to issuance of a grading permit. The final geotechnical engineering report shall address and make recommendations on the following: • seismic design parameters; • seismic ground shaking; • liquefaction; • expansive/unstable soils; • site preparation; • soil bearing capacity; • structural foundations, including retaining -wall design; • grading practices; and • soil corrosion of concrete and steel. In addition to the recommendations for the conditions listed above, the geotechnical investigation shall include subsurface testing of soil and D U D E K 41 Clearwater at Sonoma Hills March 2017 Clearwater at Sonoma Hills Initial Study groundwater conditions (as appropriate), and shall determine appropriate foundation designs that are consistent with the version of the CBC that is applicable at the time building and grading permits are applied for. All recommendations contained in the final geotechnical engineering report shall be implemented by the project applicant. 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. D U D E K 42 Clearwater at Sonoma Hills March 2017 Clearwater at Sonoma Hills Initial Study 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 (C114), 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 from the instantaneous release of 1 kilogram of a trace substance relative to that of 1 kilogram of a reference gas (IPCC 2014). The reference gas used is CO2i therefore, GWP - weighted emissions are measured in metric tons of CO2 equivalent (MT CO2E). Regarding impacts from GHGs, both BAAQMD and the California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA) consider GHG impacts to be exclusively cumulative impacts n' 1 D Clearwater at Sonoma Hills v v 43 March 2017 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 ❑ 1-1 ® ❑ impact on the environment? b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the ❑ ❑ I] ❑ 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 (C114), 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 from the instantaneous release of 1 kilogram of a trace substance relative to that of 1 kilogram of a reference gas (IPCC 2014). The reference gas used is CO2i therefore, GWP - weighted emissions are measured in metric tons of CO2 equivalent (MT CO2E). Regarding impacts from GHGs, both BAAQMD and the California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA) consider GHG impacts to be exclusively cumulative impacts n' 1 D Clearwater at Sonoma Hills v v 43 March 2017 Clearwater at Sonoma Hills Initial Study (BAAQMD 2012; CAPCOA 2008); therefore, assessment of significance is based on a determination of whether the GHG emissions from a project represent a cumulatively considerable contribution to the global atmosphere. This analysis uses both a quantitative and a qualitative approach. The quantitative approach is used to address the first significance criterion: "Would the Project generate GHG emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment?" This analysis considers that, because the quantifiable thresholds developed by BAAQMD in its 2009 Justification Report were formulated based on Assembly Bill (AB) 32 and California Climate Change Scoping Plan reduction targets for which its set of strategies were developed to reduce GHG emissions statewide, a project cannot exceed a numeric BAAQMD threshold without also conflicting with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of GHGs (the state Climate Change Scoping Plan). Therefore, if a project exceeds a numeric threshold and results in a significant cumulative impact, it would also result in a significant cumulative impact with respect to plan, policy, or regulation consistency, even though the project may incorporate measures and have features that would reduce its contribution to cumulative GHG emissions. Separate thresholds of significance are established by'the BAAQMD for operational emissions from stationary sources (such as generators, furnaces, and boilers) and nonstationary sources (such as on -road vehicles). As no threshold has been established for construction -related emissions, the operational emissions thresholds have been applied. The threshold for stationary sources is 10,000 MT CO2E per year (i.e., emissions above this level may be considered significant). For nonstationary sources, the following three separate thresholds have been established: • Compliance with a Qualified Greenhouse Gas Reduction Strategy (i.e., if a project is found to be out of compliance with a Qualified Greenhouse Gas Reduction Strategy, its GHG emissions may be considered significant). • 1,100 MT CO2E per year (i.e., emissions above this level maybe considered significant). • 4.6 MT CO2E per service population per year (i.e., emissions above this level may be considered significant). (Service population is the sum of residents plus employees expected for a development project.) The quantitative threshold of 1,100 metric tons of CO2E annually proposed by BAAQMD in its 2009 Justification Report is applied to this analysis. If the project construction or operational GHG emissions would exceed this threshold then, consistent with BAAQMD Guidelines, it would be considered to have a cumulatively considerable contribution of GHG emissions and a cumulatively significant impact on climate change. D U D E K 44 Clearwater at Sonoma Hills March 2017 Clearwater at Sonoma Hills 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 hauling and vendor (material delivery) trucks, and worker vehicles. Since the BAAQMD has not established construction -phase GHG thresholds, construction GHG emissions were amortized assuming a 30 -year development life after completion of construction and added to operational emissions to compare to the BAAQMD operational GHG threshold. Amortized GHG emissions associated with project construction would result in annualized generation of 23 MT CO2E. A detailed depiction of the construction schedule—including information regarding phasing, equipment utilized during each phase, haul trucks, vendor trucks, and worker vehicles—is included in Appendix A. Operations. Long-term operational emissions would occur over the life of the project. CalEEMod was used to estimate GHG emissions from motor vehicle trips, grid electricity usage, solid waste, and other sources (including area sources, natural gas combustion, and water/wastewater conveyance). CalEEMod default mobile source data, including temperature, trip characteristics, variable start information, emission factors, and trip distances, were conservatively used for the model inputs. Project -related traffic was assumed to be comprised of a mixture of vehicles in accordance with the model defaults for traffic. The CalEEMod default trip rate was adjusted to match the Traffic Impact Study for the project (W -Trans 2017). It is assumed that the first full year of project operation would be in the year 2019. CalEEMod was also used to estimate emissions from the project's area sources, which includes operation of gasoline -powered landscape maintenance equipment, which produce minimal GHG emissions. The estimation of operational energy emissions was based on CalEEMod land use defaults and total area (i.e., square footage) of the proposed project. Annual natural gas (non -hearth) and electricity emissions were estimated in CalEEMod using the emissions factors for PG&E as a conservative estimate and adjusted to account for 25% renewable portfolio standard by 2016. The most recent amendments to Title 24, Part 6, referred to as the 2016 standards, became effective on January 1, 2017. The previous amendments were referred to as the 2013 standards. Residential buildings constructed in accordance with the 2016 standards are anticipated to use 28% less energy for lighting, heating, cooling, Clearwater at Sonoma Hills DUDEK 45 March 2017 Clearwater at Sonoma Hills Initial Study ventilation, and water heating than the 2013 standards. Although the project would be required to comply with the 2016 Title 24 standards, CalEEMod default assumptions were conservatively used, which incorporate the 2013 Title 24 standards. Supply, conveyance, treatment, and distribution of water for the project require the use of electricity, which would result in associated indirect GHG emissions. Similarly, wastewater generated by the proposed project requires the use of electricity for conveyance and treatment, along with GHG emissions generated during wastewater treatment. Water consumption estimates for both indoor and outdoor water use and associated electricity consumption from water use and wastewater generation were estimated using CaIEEMod default values. However, low flow toilets, showers, faucets, and water efficient irrigation would be part of the project per City Code and were accounted for in the model. The proposed project would generate solid waste and would therefore result in CO2E emissions associated with landfill off -gassing. The project was assumed to comply with the 75% diversion rate consistent with AB 341 (Chesbro, Chapter 476, Statutes of 2011) (25% increase from the solid waste diversion requirements of AB 939, Integrated Waste Management Act). The estimated operational project -generated GHG emissions from area sources, energy usage, motor vehicles, solid waste generation, water supply, and wastewater treatment are shown in Table 2.7-1. Table 2.7-1 Estimated Annual Unmitigated Operational Greenhouse Gas Emissions Emission Source CO2E (MT/yr) Area 12.4 Energy 160.6 Mobile 306.3 Solid Waste 10.3 Water Supply and Wastewater 16.0 Total 505.6 Amortized Construction Emissions 22.9 Operation + Amortized Construction Total 528.5 BAAQMD GHG Threshold 1,100 Significant (Yes or No)? No Source: Appendix A Note: Project GHG emissions are based on the "Mitigated" CalEEMod outputs in order to incorporate solid waste diversion rates consistent with AB 341 and beneficial project features including low flow toilets, showers, and faucets, water efficient irrigation, and energy star appliances, even though these would not be considered actual mitigation. CO2E = carbon dioxide -equivalent; MT/year = metric tons per year Clearwater at Sonoma Hills D U D E K 46 March 2017 Clearwater at Sonoma Hills Initial Study Table 2.7-1 indicates that the GHG emissions associated with the project would be below BAAQMD's GHG threshold of 1,100 MT CO2E per year. Therefore, the project would not generate GHG emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment and this would represent a cumulatively less than significant GHG impact. 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. Although this plan has not yet been adopted, the project does implement some of the measures that Rohnert Park is specifically contemplating: • Measure 1-L2: Outdoor Lighting — outdoor lighting will use LED bulbs for minimum energy consumption. ■ Measure 1-L3: Shade Tree Planting — numerous shade trees are on the landscape plan. • Measure 3-L1: Convert to Electric Water Heating — while the project will use gas for heating water, emissions will be reduced by use of high -efficiency, on - demand water heating. • Measure 4-L2: Increase Transit Accessibility — the project provides this by being built on a transit corridor. Sonoma County Transit routes 10, 12, 14, and 26 all stop within 'h -block of the project, so residents and staff have bus options to work and to shopping. • Measure 4-L3: Supporting Land Use Measures — the project provides this by being built in an infill area. Implementation of these measures would reduce estimated GHG emissions, but conservatively were not quantified in this analysis. 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 pursuant to AB 32. As such, the Scoping Plan is not directly applicable to specific projects. Relatedly, in D U D E K 47 Clearwater at Sonoma Hills March 2017 Clearwater at Sonoma Hills Initial Study the Final Statement of Reasons for the Amendments to the CEQA Guidelines, the CNRA observed that "[t]he [Scoping Plan] may not be appropriate for use in determining the significance of individual projects because it is conceptual at this stage and relies on the future development of regulations to implement the strategies identified in the Scoping Plan" (CNRA 2009). Under the Scoping Plan, however, there are several state regulatory measures aimed at the identification and reduction of GHG emissions. CARB and other state agencies have adopted many of the measures identified in the Scoping Plan. Most of these measures focus on area source emissions (e.g., energy usage, high -GWP GHGs in consumer products) and changes to the vehicle fleet (i.e., hybrid, electric, and more fuel-efficient vehicles) and associated fuels (e.g., LCFS), among others. To the extent that these regulations are applicable to the project, its inhabitants, or uses, the project would comply will all regulations adopted in furtherance of the Scoping Plan to the extent required by law. Regarding consistency with Senate Bill (SB) 32 (goal of reducing GHG emissions to 40% below 1990 levels by 2030) and Executive Order 5-3-05 (goal of reducing GHG emissions to 80% below 1990 levels by 2050), there are no established protocols or thresholds of significance for that future -year analysis. However, CARB forecasts that compliance with the current Scoping Plan puts the state on a trajectory of meeting these long-term GHG goals, although the specific path to compliance is unknown (CARB 2014). As discussed previously, the project would generate minimal GHGs and would not conflict with the state's trajectory toward future GHG reductions. In addition, since the specific path to compliance for the state in regards to the long-term goals will likely require development of technology or other changes that are not currently known or available, specific additional mitigation measures for the project would be speculative and cannot be identified at this time. With respect to future GHG targets under SB 32 and Executive Order S-3-05, CARB has also made clear its legal interpretation that it has the requisite authority to adopt whatever regulations are necessary, beyond the AB 32 horizon year of 2020, to meet the reduction targets in 2030 and in 2050; this legal interpretation by an expert agency provides evidence that future regulations will be adopted to continue the state on its trajectory toward meeting these future GHG targets. Based on the preceding considerations, the project would not conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of GHGs, and no mitigation is required. This impact would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures No mitigation measures are necessary. D U D E K 48 Clearwater at Sonoma Hills March 2017 Clearwater at Sonoma Hills Initial Study 2.8 Hazards and Hazardous Materials a) Would the project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? Construction of the proposed project would involve temporary use of hazardous materials, including fuel for construction equipment, paints, solvents and sealants. Storage, handling, and use of these materials would occur in accordance with standard construction BMPs to minimize the potential for spill or release and ensure that any such Clearwater at Sonoma Hills DUDEK 49 March 2017 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 ❑ ❑ M ❑ and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste ❑ ❑ ® ❑ within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? d) Be located on a site that is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a ❑ ❑ ❑ result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use ❑ ❑ ❑ airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for ❑ ❑ ❑ people residing or working in the project area? g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or ❑ ® ❑ ❑ emergency evacuation plan? h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to ❑ ❑ ® Cl urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? 2.8 Hazards and Hazardous Materials a) Would the project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? Construction of the proposed project would involve temporary use of hazardous materials, including fuel for construction equipment, paints, solvents and sealants. Storage, handling, and use of these materials would occur in accordance with standard construction BMPs to minimize the potential for spill or release and ensure that any such Clearwater at Sonoma Hills DUDEK 49 March 2017 Clearwater at Sonoma Hills Initial Study spill or release would be controlled onsite. The standard construction BMPs include storing all hazardous materials inside buildings or under other cover, vehicle specifications for hazardous material transport and disposal, procedures for safe storage, and training requirements for those handling hazardous materials. Project construction contractors and future on-site businesses are required by law to implement and comply with existing hazardous material regulations. Because each of these regulations is specifically designed to protect the public health through improved procedures for handling hazardous materials, improved technology in the equipment used to transport these materials, and quicker, more coordinated response to emergencies, impacts related to the creation of significant hazards to the public through routine transport, use, disposal, and risk of upset during construction would be less than significant. During operation, the proposed project would be required to use, store, and transport hazardous materials in compliance with applicable federal, state, and local regulations during project operation. Each of these regulations is specifically designed to protect the public health through improved procedures for the handling of hazardous materials, better technology in the equipment used to transport these materials, and a more 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 Learning to Learn Preschool and Redwood Country Kid's Club are both located within 450 feet of the proposed project site. The project site is also within one-quarter mile of Rancho Cotate High School and Lawrence E. Jones Middle School. Under PRC Section 21151.4, unless certain conditions are met, EIRs or mitigated negative declarations may not be certified or adopted for projects within a quarter -mile radius of schools that would include constructing or altering facilities that meet any of the following criteria: • might reasonably be anticipated to emit hazardous air emissions; D U D E K 50 Clearwater at Sonoma Hills March 2017 Clearwater at Sonoma Hills Initial Study • would handle an extremely hazardous substance or a mixture containing extremely hazardous substances in a quantity equal to or greater than the state threshold quantity specified in Section 255320) of the Health and Safety Code; or • may pose a health or safety hazard to persons who would attend or would be employed at the school. As discussed in Section 2.3 of this Initial Study, the project would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial, long-term pollutant concentrations or health risk during construction or operations. Neither construction nor operation would result in the handling of substances classified as extremely hazardous. The implementation of the proposed project would not subject existing school children or school employees to new hazardous substances, or hazardous substances at locations that are any closer than the current distances. Small quantities of hazardous materials such as fuels, oils, and lubricants would be used in construction equipment. Construction contractors would be required to use, store, and transport hazardous materials in compliance with federal, state, and local regulations. There would be no significant or extraordinary conditions associated with the project that would result in the release of hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste. During operation of the project, the use, storage, and transport of hazardous materials would be required to comply with applicable federal, state, and local regulations. The use of these materials during construction and operation would not represent a safety hazard for persons who would attend or be employed in either of the nearby schools. Therefore, this impact would be less than significant. 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. The project site 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. Therefore, 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. Clearwater at Sonoma Hills DUDEK 51 March 2017 Clearwater at Sonoma Hills Initial Study e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? The closest open, operational airport is the Petaluma Municipal Airport, approximately 9 miles southeast of the project area. There are no airports or airstrips within 2 miles of the project area. Therefore, there would be no impact. f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? Refer to the answer provided in `e' above. g) Would the project impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? The development of the proposed assisted living and memory care facility on a 3.5 -acre site in the City of Rohnert Park would not include the development of new roads or uses that would interfere with the City's emergency response or evacuation plans. The project would be designed to facilitate emergency traffic through and around the site, in accordance with the City's Public Safety Department development standards. Access for all fire and police emergency response vehicles would be maintained on Medical Center Drive and in the immediate project area throughout the construction period. During project construction, nearby roadways in the project vicinity could be affected intermittently. Construction activities could result in temporary lane closures, increased construction truck traffic, and other roadway effects that could slow or interfere with emergency vehicles, temporarily increasing response times and impeding existing services. Implementation of Mitigation Measure HAZ-1, which would require preparation of a traffic control plan for construction activities, would ensure that travel of emergency vehicles on potentially affected roadways would not be adversely impacted and related impacts remain at a less than significant level. At the completion of the project, construction traffic would no longer be using City streets for site access, and the potential for lane and roadway closures and detours related to construction traffic would no longer be present. Therefore, no potential for project - related operational activities would exist to result in delays in emergency vehicle response times, or to impede access for emergency vehicles, and there would be no impact. D U D E K 52 March 01 Clearwater at S117 Clearwater at Sonoma Hills Initial Study h) Would the project expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? The project area is in a local responsibility area (LRA) that does not contain any very high fire hazard severity zones. Most of the area surrounding the project site is already developed with urban land uses. Fire suppression services in the project area are currently and would continue to be provided by the City of Rohnert Park. Because the project area is not in or near an area of high fire hazard severity, and because adequate fire protection services would be provided by a local fire protection district, this impact would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures Mitigation Measure HAZ-1: The project applicant shall prepare and implement a traffic control plan for construction activities that may affect road rights-of-way, to facilitate travel of emergency vehicles on affected roadways. The traffic control plan must follow applicable City of Rohnert Park standards and must be approved and signed by a professional engineer. Measures typically used in traffic control plans include advertising of planned lane closures, warning signage, a flag person to direct traffic flows when needed, and methods to ensure continued access by emergency vehicles. During project construction, access to the existing land uses shall be maintained at all times, with detours used, as necessary, during road closures. The traffic control plan shall be submitted to the City for review and approval prior to commencing construction. Clearwater at Sonoma Hills D U D E K 53 March 2017 Clearwater at Sonoma Hills Initial Study 2.9 Hydrology and Water Quality a) Would the project violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? Many construction -related wastes have the potential to degrade existing water quality and beneficial uses by altering the dissolved oxygen content, temperature, pH, suspended - Clearwater at Sonoma Hills D U D E K 54 March 2017 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 ❑ ® ❑ ❑ 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 ❑ M ❑ ❑ flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? ❑ ❑ ® ❑ 2.9 Hydrology and Water Quality a) Would the project violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? Many construction -related wastes have the potential to degrade existing water quality and beneficial uses by altering the dissolved oxygen content, temperature, pH, suspended - Clearwater at Sonoma Hills D U D E K 54 March 2017 Clearwater at Sonoma Hills Initial Study sediment and turbidity levels, or nutrient content, or by causing toxic effects in the aquatic environment. Development at the project site would include earth -disturbing activities, grading, and trenching that could expose disturbed areas and stockpiled soils to winter rainfall and stormwater runoff. Areas of exposed or stockpiled soils could be subject to sheet erosion during short periods of peak stormwater runoff, allowing temporary discharges of sediment to Copeland Creek, which empties into Laguna de Santa Rosa. If not managed properly, water used for dust suppression during construction could also enter drainage systems or creeks and ultimately into Laguna de Santa Rosa. Accidental spills of construction -related contaminants (e.g., fuels, oils, paints, solvents, cleaners, and concrete) could also occur during construction, resulting in releases to nearby surface water, and thereby degrading water quality. Implementation of Mitigation Measures HYDRO -1 and HYDRO -2 would require adherence to applicable local regulations, and compliance with grading plan requirements would adequately avoid violations of water quality standards and would reduce construction -related impacts on water quality to a less than significant level. The proposed project could result in changes to drainage patterns and water quality associated with the altered use of the site. Stormwater that drains from the site would potentially carry different or possibly higher concentrations of pollutants into receiving waters. Water used for irrigation of landscaped areas may encounter pesticides, herbicides, and fertilizer. Water that encounters these chemicals but is not absorbed by plants and soil could enter the storm drain system and be conveyed to receiving waters. The potential discharges of contaminated urban runoff from paved and landscaped areas with implementation of the proposed project could contribute to adverse effects on aquatic organisms in receiving waters. Water quality and stormwater runoff is regulated under a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) municipal separate storm sewer system (MS4) stormwater permit with the North Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). Project improvements must be consistent with the City of Rohnert Park Storm Drain Design Standards. As of 2014, the Storm Drain Design Standards reference the City of Santa Rosa and Sonoma County 2011 LID Manual, as required by the City's MS4 permit. The LID manual provides technical guidance for project designs that require the implementation of permanent LID features and stormwater BMPs. The design goal stated in the LID Manual requires that 100 percent of the design storm event (85th percentile, 24 hour) runoff generated from the developed site be treated on-site, and that any increase in runoff volume caused by development or redevelopment for the design storm be infiltrated and/or reused on-site (City of Santa Rosa and County of Sonoma, 2011). The report that satisfies the project -specific MS4 permit requirements is a project -specific D U D E K 55 Clearwater at Sonoma Hills March 2017 Clearwater at Sonoma Hills Initial Study Standard Urban Stormwater Mitigation Plan (SUSMP). The City's Revised Phase II NPDES Storm Water Management Plan (SWMP) identifies BMPs and an overall strategy to minimize stormwater runoff pollution and sediment (City of Rohnert Park, 2005). The 2011 LID Manual is in the process of being revised to meet new NPDES Permit requirements. In the proposed revised manual, new development would not create any new runoff. 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 development at the project site would be reduced to a less than significant level. b) Would the project substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (i.e., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level that would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? Implementation of the proposed project would result in impervious surfaces that would interfere with on-site groundwater recharge. New development associated with the project would be required to comply with the City's standards and current stormwater BMPs. Furthermore, the project 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 at the project site would require vegetation removal, grading, trenching, and soil movement for the placement of new structures on-site, which could alter drainage courses and runoff patterns from existing conditions. Alterations to existing D U D E K 56 Clearwater at Sonoma Hills March 2017 Clearwater at Sonoma Hills Initial Stud drainage patterns or flow velocities could result in a short-term increase in erosion or siltation that may have adverse effects on water quality. Development would not alter the course of existing creeks. Implementation of Measures HYDRO -1 and HYDRO -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. Once completed, the project could result in altered drainage patterns that could increase the potential for erosion, siltation, and associated adverse water quality effects on- or off- site. As previously discussed, the City requires all new development projects to design and construct storm drainage systems in accordance with the City of Rohnert Park Storm Drain Design Standards, which includes the City of Santa Rosa and Sonoma County's Manual and associated LID requirements. Adherence to the City's SWMP would provide for compliance with the City's MS4 NPDES stormwater permit requirements through the implementation of site-specific stormwater capture and treatment BMPs, as well as maintenance and inspection requirements for those BMPs. Implementation of Mitigation Measures HYDRO -1 and HYDRO -2 would also include post -construction stormwater pollution prevention BMPs. 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. Implementation of Mitigation Measures HYDRO -1 and HYDRO -2, adherence to the City's SWMP, and compliance with SCWA's design criteria would reduce impacts from erosion and siltation caused by changes in existing drainage patterns to a less than significant level. d) Would the project substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site? Construction. Construction of the project would require grading and soil disturbance for placement of a new structure on-site, which could substantially alter drainage courses and runoff patterns from existing conditions, and could result in flooding on- or off-site. Implementation of Mitigation Measures HYDRO -1 and HYDRO -2 would prescribe specific construction BMPs as part of project -specific SWPPPs, which would reduce the impact of ground disturbance and would reduce the impact on drainage and the rate or amount of surface runoff during construction to less than significant level. Clearwater at Sonoma Hills D U D E K 57 March 2017 Clearwater at Sonoma Hills Initial Study Operations. As described above, the proposed project would not result in a net increase of impervious surfaces. The City requires all new development projects to design and construct storm drainage systems in accordance with the City of Rohnert Park Storm Drain Design Standards, which includes the City of Santa Rosa and Sonoma County's Manual. The design goal stated in the manual requires that any increase in runoff volume from development or redevelopment for the design storm (85th percentile, 24 hour storm event) be infiltrated and/or reused on-site (City of Santa Rosa and County of Sonoma, 2011). Through compliance with the MS4 Permit requirements, which would include i adherence to the City's SWMP, the proposed project would not result in any increase in 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, the proposed plan 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? Refer to answer provided in `d' above. f) Would the project otherwise substantially degrade water quality? Refer to answer provided in `a' above. g) Would the project place housing within a 100 year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? The project site is within a 100 -year flood zone (City of Rohnert Park, 2015: Figure 7.2- 2). According to the Federal Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA's) Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) Number 06097C0881E, the project site is located within Zone AO, a Special Flood Hazard Area defined as having "flood depths of 1 to 3 feet (usually sheet flow on sloping terrain); average depths determined." (FEMA, 2017). Under Mitigation Measure HYDRO -3, the project proponent would be required to ensure that the project structures are located outside the 100 -year flood zone. This may be Clearwater at Sonoma Hills D U D E K 58 March 2017 Clearwater at Sonoma Hills Initial Study achieved through various methods, including the project proponents proposed course of action, which is to obtain a Letter of Map Revision from FEMA. A Letter of Map Revision from FEMA would serve to remove the site from the designated 100 -year flood zone, in compliance with Mitigation Measure HYDRO -3. With implementation of Mitigation Measure HYDRO -3, the project would not be constructing housing within a 100 -year flood hazard area and impacts would be reduced to a less than significant level. 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? The project site is not located in an area that is protected by levees, there are no reservoirs located in the vicinity, and the project area is located outside of a dam inundation area, as described in the City of Rohnert Park's draft Local Hazard Mitigation Plan (ABAG, 2011). Therefore, project implementation is not expected to expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam. As previously discussed, the project is currently within the 100 year floodplain as designated on FEMA's FIRM Number 06097C0881E. To ensure impacts related to flooding remain less than significant, the project would be required to implement Mitigation Measure HYDRO -3, which would ensure that no structures are located within the 100 year floodplain. Implementation of Mitigation Measure HYDRO -3 would ensure impacts related to flooding are less than significant. j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? The potential for tsunamis or seiches in the project area would be negligible due to the distance from water bodies that could generate seismically induced tidal phenomena (i.e., the Pacific Ocean is approximately 20 miles west of the project area at the closest point, and there are no large water bodies [i.e., lakes, reservoirs] near the plan area). Therefore, no impact would occur. The project area is on flat terrain. Soils are primarily Clear Lake clays, which typically have low erosion potential. In addition, the project area is located at a distance from hillier areas that could result in landslides and mudflows that could affect the site D U D E K 59 Clearwater at Sonoma Hills March 2017 Clearwater at Sonoma Hills Initial Study (ABAG, 2011). Therefore, potential impacts from mudflows would be less than significant. 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: activities that may cause pollutant discharge (including sediment); 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; * 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 • 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. The applicant shall implement the SWPPP, monitoring all BMPs and the parties responsible for them, in conformance with the guidelines set forth in the Construction General Permit. Mitigation Measure HYDRO -2: The project applicant shall submit a site- specific erosion control plan (ECP) to the City of Rohnert Park City Engineer prior to issuance of a grading permit. All sites that will have grading activities are required to submit an ECP. The ECP shall include the placement of structural and nonstructural stormwater pollution prevention controls that prevent erosion during and after construction. Proper soil stabilization shall be required for all graded areas. A Clearwater at Sonoma Hills D U D E K 60 March 2017 Clearwater at Sonoma Hills Initial Stu grading permit shall not be issued until all of the required data, including the ECP, have been submitted and approved. City of Rohnert Park Ordinance 798, Section 15.50.090, provides additional detail regarding excavation, grading, and filling regulations. Mitigation Measure HYDRO -3: The project proponent shall ensure that the project will be located outside of the 100 -year floodplain. It is expected this will be achieved through approval of a Letter of Map Revision by FEMA. The method(s) used to ensure the future structures are outside of the floodplain shall be approved by the City and implemented prior to construction. Clearwater at Sonoma Hills DUDEK 61 March 2017 Clearwater at Sonoma Hills Initial Study 2.10 Land Use and Planning a) Would the project physically divide an established community? The proposed project site is located adjacent to existing office and residential land uses. The Oak View of Sonoma Hills senior apartments are located on the adjacent property. The project would match the land uses of the surrounding area and would not physically divide an established community. Therefore, the project would have no impact related to dividing existing neighborhoods. 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 General Plan Land Use Designation is Office. The project site is zoned C -O: Office Commercial. The project proposes an assisted living and memory care facility. This proposed use would be permitted within the office commercial designation with a conditional use permit. With approval of the proposed permit, the project would be consistent with the City's General Plan and Zoning Map, and other City plans and policies, and impacts would remain less than significant. c) Would the project conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? The proposed project would not conflict with any habitat conservation plans or natural community conservation plans because no approved plans apply to the project area. No impact would occur. Clearwater at Sonoma Hills D U D E K 62 March 2017 Less Than Potentially Significant with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact X. LAND USE AND PLANNING - Would the project: a) Physically divide an established community? ❑ ❑ ❑ b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general CI ❑ ® ❑ plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation ❑ ❑ ❑ plan or natural community conservation plan? 2.10 Land Use and Planning a) Would the project physically divide an established community? The proposed project site is located adjacent to existing office and residential land uses. The Oak View of Sonoma Hills senior apartments are located on the adjacent property. The project would match the land uses of the surrounding area and would not physically divide an established community. Therefore, the project would have no impact related to dividing existing neighborhoods. 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 General Plan Land Use Designation is Office. The project site is zoned C -O: Office Commercial. The project proposes an assisted living and memory care facility. This proposed use would be permitted within the office commercial designation with a conditional use permit. With approval of the proposed permit, the project would be consistent with the City's General Plan and Zoning Map, and other City plans and policies, and impacts would remain less than significant. c) Would the project conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? The proposed project would not conflict with any habitat conservation plans or natural community conservation plans because no approved plans apply to the project area. No impact would occur. Clearwater at Sonoma Hills D U D E K 62 March 2017 Clearwater at Sonoma Hills Initial Study Mitigation Measures No mitigation measures are necessary. A Clearwater at Sonoma Hills 63 March 2017 Clearwater at Sonoma Hills Initial Study 2.11 Mineral Resources a) Would the project result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? The undeveloped site is located in an urban area surrounded by existing development; is not designated as a locally important mineral resource recovery site; and does not have an operating mine, sampling area, or available known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state (City of Rohnert Park, 2015). Therefore, no impact associated with mineral resources would result from implementation of the proposed plan. b) Would the project result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan? Refer to answer provided in `a' above. Mitigation Measures No mitigation measures are necessary. Clearwater at Sonoma Hills D U D E K 64 March 2017 Less Than Potentially Significant vAth Liss Than Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact XI. MINERAL RESOURCES - Would the project: a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and ❑ 0 ❑ Q the residents of the state? b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally - important mineral resource recovery site ❑ ❑ ❑ delineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan? 2.11 Mineral Resources a) Would the project result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? The undeveloped site is located in an urban area surrounded by existing development; is not designated as a locally important mineral resource recovery site; and does not have an operating mine, sampling area, or available known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state (City of Rohnert Park, 2015). Therefore, no impact associated with mineral resources would result from implementation of the proposed plan. b) Would the project result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan? Refer to answer provided in `a' above. Mitigation Measures No mitigation measures are necessary. Clearwater at Sonoma Hills D U D E K 64 March 2017 Clearwater at Sonoma Hills Initial Study - -- 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 ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ 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 public use i] ❑ ❑ airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing ❑ ❑ ❑ or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? 2.12 Noise The proposed project site is comprised of approximately 3.5 acres east of the intersection of Rohnert Park Expressway and Snyder Lane and south of Medical Center Drive. Development to the north and west of the site is office and professional space, to the east are the Oak View of Sonoma Hills Apartments and the University District Specific Plan area, and to the south are Rohnert Park Expressway and a single-family residential neighborhood located in proximity to Rancho Cotate High School and Sonoma State University. Existing noise sources affecting the noise environment in the project area include traffic from Rohnert Park Expressway, local traffic on Snyder Lane and Medical Center Drive, other local streets serving existing developments in the area, and noise generated by existing land uses in the project vicinity. Thresholds of Significance 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. Chapter 17.12 of the Rohnert Park Clearwater at Sonoma Hills D U D E K 65 March 2017 Clearwater at Sonoma Hills Initial Study Code of Ordinances offers performance standards. The ordinance states: A. No uses or activities shall create noise levels which exceed the following standards: Table 5: City of Rohnert Park Maximum Noise Levels (d BA) [1] Zoning District Measured at Property Line or District Boundary Measured at any Boundary of a Residential District Between 7PM and 7AM measured at any boundary of a residential zone (4] Residential 60 [2] N.A. 50 or ambient noise level Commercial 70 60 50 or ambient noise level Industrial (4) 70 [3] 60 50 or ambient noise level Mixed Use 65 [2] 60 50 or ambient noise level Public/institutional 65 60 50 or ambient noise level Open Space 65 60 50 or ambient noise level 1 Levels not to be exceeded more than 5 minutes in any hour 2 The maximum interior noise level for residential uses shall be forty-five dBA with all openings closed. 3 For commercial and industrial properties, the measurement shall be at the property line of the use or activity. 4 Restdcted hours may be modified through conditions of an approved conditional, administrative, or temporary use permit. B. The noise standards above shall be modified as follows to account for the effects of time and duration on noise levels: 1) Noise that is produced for no more than a cumulative period of five minutes in any hour may exceed the above standards by five dBA except between the hours of 7: 00 PM and 7: 00 AM. 2) Noise that is produced for no more than a cumulative period of one minute in any hour may exceed the above standards by ten dBA except between the hours of 7: 00 PM and 7: 00 AM. 3) Mechanical and electrical equipment shall provide adequate shielding and baffling so that noise levels from such equipment will not exceed the above noise levels when measured at the property line. The City provides certain exemptions or further restrictions from these operational noise standards. For example, the City prohibits noise producing construction activities in residential Clearwater at Sonoma Hills D U D E K 66 March 2017 Clearwater at Sonoma Hills Initial Study zones from between the hours of 6:00 p.m. of one day and 8:00 a.m. of the next day in such a manner that a reasonable person of normal sensitiveness residing in the area is caused discomfort or annoyance unless beforehand a permit therefore 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. a) Would the project result in exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? Construction Noise The project proposes to construct an assisted living and memory care facility in an area primarily developed with office, commercial, and residential uses. On the adjacent property to the east of the project site is the Oak View of Sonoma Hills Apartment complex for residents age 55 and older. The Oak View Apartments were constructed as Phase I of the Oak View Senior Residential Project and the proposed project will be Phase Il. During the construction phases of the proposed project, noise from construction activities would add to the noise environment in the immediate project vicinity. Project construction activities would occur in a single phase and are anticipated to occur from June 2017 to December 2018. Temporary construction -related noise levels may at times cause minor annoyance, but the City of Rohnert Park does not have construction noise level limits for construction activity occurring within the period between 8:00 AM and 6:00 PM daily. Therefore, this would be considered a less than significant impact with implementation of the standard noise control measures included in Mitigation Measure N01- 1. Exterior Noise Existing exterior noise sources in the project area include traffic from Rohnert Park Expressway, local traffic on Snyder Lane and Medical Center Drive, other local streets serving existing developments in the area. While the proposed project includes outdoor recreational areas for the residents, none of the designated recreational areas are located on the side of the property.that is adjacent to Rohnert Park Expressway. The outdoor recreational activities and garden areas are located on the west side of the building and within courtyards that are internal to the building itself. Buildings are expected to shield D U D E K 67 Clearwater at Sonoma Hills March 2017 Clearwater at Sonoma Hills Initial Study outdoor use areas due to noise from adjacent roadways. Accordingly, impacts related to exposure to traffic noise would be less than significant. Interior Noise The proposed residences on the project site would be exposed to future Rohnert Park Expressway noise. To ensure noise levels are in compliance with the City of Rohnert Park interior (45 dB Ldn) noise level standards for new residential developments, the project would be required to implement Mitigation Measure NOI-2 which requires the project applicant to demonstrate compliance with the interior noise performance standard or, if necessary, to include the necessary acoustical treatments. With implementation of this measure, interior noise impacts would be less than significant. b) Would the project result in exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? The proposed project would not include equipment or activities capable of producing substantial ground borne vibration or ground borne noise levels. The only ground vibration potential would be associated with short-term construction of the proposed project. Project construction activities (e.g., earthwork) could expose persons to groundborne vibration; however, these activities are temporary in nature and would not be expected to result in any unusual or excessive vibration levels. In addition, the potential for groundborne vibration to occur is low because the type of equipment used and construction activities would not create the type of vibration that could be experienced by adjacent uses (e.g. pile drivers). Also, as previously stated, the City of Rohnert Park Municipal Code (Ord. 152 § 3.1, 1971) limits noise -generating construction activities to 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Compliance with the City's Municipal Code requirements and implementation of the standard noise control measures included in Mitigation Measure NOI-1 would ensure that short-term construction related 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? After construction of the proposed project, vehicle traffic to and from the site and residential activities onsite would result in a permanent increase in noise levels in the project vicinity. However, project -related operational noise would be similar to and consistent with existing uses within the project vicinity. Noise generated on the project site would result in no substantial change in existing noise levels in the project area and D U D E K 68 Clearwater at Sonoma Hills March 2017 Clearwater at Sonoma Hills Initial Study as experienced by existing residences in close proximity to the proposed project. This impact would be less than significant. Area noise levels are not expected to increase significantly due to HVAC or mechanical equipment servicing the project. However, details regarding mechanical equipment are not yet available for review. 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 N0I-3 would ensure that impacts associated with mechanical noise remain less than significant. d) Would the project result in a substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? Short-term noise would be associated with heavy equipment used for the grading and construction of the project. Temporary construction -related noise levels may at times cause minor annoyance, but the City of Rohnert Park does not have construction noise level limits for construction activity occurring within the period between 8 AM and 6 PM daily. Therefore, this would be considered a less than significant impact with implementation of the standard noise control measures included in Mitigation Measure NOI-1. The outdoor dog run associated with the project would not be expected to result in a substantial increase in the ambient noise levels. Parking lot noise would cause minor increases in nearby ambient noise levels, but these levels would be expected to fall to a level that is less than significant at the nearest residential receivers. e) Would the project be located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? The proposed project site is not located within an airport land use plan or located near a public airport or public use airport. Petaluma Municipal Airport is the closest airport and located approximately 9 miles away from the proposed project location. There would be no impact related to airport noise. f) Would the project be within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? The proposed project is not located near a private airstrip. Graywood Ranch Airport is the closest private airstrip and located approximately 18 miles away from the proposed N Clearwater at Sonoma Hills U D E K 69 March 2017 Clearwater at Sonoma Hills Initial Study project location. Accordingly, there would be no impact related to airstrip noise exposure. Mitigation Measures Mitigation Measure N0I-1: 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. 7. Construction site and access road speed limits shall be established and enforced during the construction period. D U D E K 70 Clearwater at Sonoma Hills March 2017 Clearwater at Sonoma Hills Initial Study 8. The use of noise -producing signals, including horns, whistles, alarms, and bells, shall be for safety warning purposes only. 9. Construction hours, allowable workdays, and the phone number of the job superintendent shall be clearly posted at all construction entrances to allow surrounding property owners to contact the job superintendent if necessary. Mitigation Measure N0I-2: The project applicant shall retain a qualified acoustical consultant to ensure that interior noise levels at residences does not exceed as a result of traffic noise 45 dB Ldn. If treatments are necessary, treatments may include installing acoustically rated windows, and blocking sound transmission paths through vents or other openings in the building shell. If windows must be closed to achieve this performance standard, air conditioning must be provided. The acoustical consultant will prepare and submit to the City a report detailing compliance with the interior noise performance standard or, if necessary the acoustical treatments to be applied to the building for compliance with the interior noise performance standard. The report must be reviewed and approved by the City before a building permit is issued. Mitigation Measure N0I-3: Prior to issuance of a building permit, 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. Clearwater at Sonoma Hills DUDEK 71 March 2017 Clearwater at Sonoma Hills Initial Study 2.13 Population and Housing a) Would the project induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? The proposed project is an assisted living and memory care facility that would serve existing City residents. The project would not result in or encourage substantial population growth. The project site is currently undeveloped and thus the project would not demolish existing homes and would not necessitate the construction of replacement homes. Furthermore, the development of the site would not displace any number of people and would not require replacement housing. Therefore, the project's impact on population and housing would be less than significant. b) Would the project displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? Refer to answer provided in `a' above. c) Would the project displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? Refer to answer provided in `a' above. Mitigation Measures No mitigation measures are necessary. Clearwater at Sonoma Hills D U D E K 72 March 2017 Less Than Potentially Significantwith Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact XIII. POPULATION AND HOUSING — Would the project: a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new ❑ ❑ ® ❑ homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement ❑ ❑ ® ❑ housing elsewhere? c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement ❑ ❑ ❑ housing elsewhere? 2.13 Population and Housing a) Would the project induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? The proposed project is an assisted living and memory care facility that would serve existing City residents. The project would not result in or encourage substantial population growth. The project site is currently undeveloped and thus the project would not demolish existing homes and would not necessitate the construction of replacement homes. Furthermore, the development of the site would not displace any number of people and would not require replacement housing. Therefore, the project's impact on population and housing would be less than significant. b) Would the project displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? Refer to answer provided in `a' above. c) Would the project displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? Refer to answer provided in `a' above. Mitigation Measures No mitigation measures are necessary. Clearwater at Sonoma Hills D U D E K 72 March 2017 Clearwater at Sonoma Hills Initial Study 2.14 Public Services a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for any of the public services: Fire protection? The City of Rohnert Park Department of Public Safety Fire Services Division provides fire protection and emergency medical services for the project site. Residents and employees of the project may require the services from the City Fire Department. The nearest City fire station is located at 500 City Center Drive, approximately 1 mile from the project site. The added increase in service calls associated with development of the proposed assisted living and memory care facility in the City would not be expected to pose a significant challenge or concern for the Fire Services Division. The project would not require the construction of new or expanded fire facilities or an expansion of the existing fire station The proposed facility would be required to comply with applicable building and fire safety codes, including availability of water for fire suppression, emergency vehicle access, and fire safety regulations. The Fire Services Division also would be notified of any temporary and short-term impacts on fire protection services resulting from construction activities, such as street closures. Therefore, the impact related to fire protection would be less than significant. Clearwater at Sonoma Hills D U D E K 73 March 2017 Less Than Potentially Significant with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant FNo Impact Incorporated Impact impact XIV. PUBLIC SERVICES a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for any of the public services: Fire protection? ❑ ❑ ® ❑ Police protection? ❑ ❑ ® ❑ Schools? ❑ ❑ ® ❑ Parks? ❑ ❑ ® ❑ Other public facilities? ❑ I ❑ I ® ❑ 2.14 Public Services a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for any of the public services: Fire protection? The City of Rohnert Park Department of Public Safety Fire Services Division provides fire protection and emergency medical services for the project site. Residents and employees of the project may require the services from the City Fire Department. The nearest City fire station is located at 500 City Center Drive, approximately 1 mile from the project site. The added increase in service calls associated with development of the proposed assisted living and memory care facility in the City would not be expected to pose a significant challenge or concern for the Fire Services Division. The project would not require the construction of new or expanded fire facilities or an expansion of the existing fire station The proposed facility would be required to comply with applicable building and fire safety codes, including availability of water for fire suppression, emergency vehicle access, and fire safety regulations. The Fire Services Division also would be notified of any temporary and short-term impacts on fire protection services resulting from construction activities, such as street closures. Therefore, the impact related to fire protection would be less than significant. Clearwater at Sonoma Hills D U D E K 73 March 2017 Clearwater at Sonoma Hills Initial Study Police protection? The City of Rohnert Park Department of Public Safety Police Services Division provides law enforcement protection for the project site. Residents and employees of the project may require police assistance in the event of an emergency. The police department headquarters is located at 500 City Center Drive, approximately 1 mile from the project site. The added increase in service calls associated with development of the proposed assisted living and memory care facility in the City would not be expected to pose a significant challenge or concern for the Police Services Division and would not require constructing new or expanded law enforcement facilities. Accordingly, the project would result in a less than significant impact on provision of police protection services or related to the physical expansion of police facilities. Schools? The proposed project would result in the development of an assisted living and memory care facility. Due to the nature of the facility and its intended residents, the development of this facility would not result in an increased need for new school facilities. Impacts to existing school facilities would be less than significant. Parks and other public facilities? The proposed project would result in the development of an assisted living and memory care facility. Due to the nature of the facility, recreational facilities proposed and its intended residents, the development of this facility would not result in an increased need for new parks or other public facilities. Accordingly, impacts to parks and other public facilities would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures No mitigation measures are necessary. D U D E K 74 Clearwater at Sonoma Hills March 2017 Clearwater at Sonoma Hills Initial Study 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 proposed project would construct an assisted living and medical care facility. Due to the nature of the facility and its intended residents, the development of this facility would not be expected to result in an increase the use of existing neighborhood parks or recreational facilities. The project would be expected to serve primarily existing City residents and would not result in an increase in the local or regional residential population. Accordingly, the project would not increase demand for neighborhood or regional parks. The project would have a less than significant impact on existing neighborhood and regional parks. b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities, which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? As discussed in the Project Description, the proposed project would include onsite recreational facilities and amenities for its residents. Effects associated with the construction of the proposed project and recreational amenities are evaluated under the individual resource topics in this Initial Study. The project would have less than significant impacts resulting from construction or expansion of recreational facilities. Mitigation Measures No mitigation measures are necessary. Clearwater at Sonoma Hills D U D E K 75 March 2017 Clearwater at Sonoma Hills Initial Study 2.16 Transportation and Traffic W -trans conducted an evaluation of potential traffic impacts (W -trans, 2017) associated with the Clearwater at Sonoma Hills project within the context of the traffic study that prepared for the project in 2002. In the Traffic Impact Study for the Oak View Independent Senior Living & Wellness Campus, TJKM Transportation Consultants, May 21, 2002, (TIS) the currently - proposed project was evaluated as Phase II of the project. Both traffic reports were referenced to complete the assessment below and are included in Appendix C of this Initial Study. D U D E K 76 Clearwater at Sloan ch 0117 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 ❑ ❑ © ❑ measures, or other standards established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 location that results in substantial safety risks? d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous ❑ ❑ ® ❑ intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? e) Result in inadequate emergency access? ❑ ❑ ❑ f) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian ❑ ® ❑ ❑ facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities? 2.16 Transportation and Traffic W -trans conducted an evaluation of potential traffic impacts (W -trans, 2017) associated with the Clearwater at Sonoma Hills project within the context of the traffic study that prepared for the project in 2002. In the Traffic Impact Study for the Oak View Independent Senior Living & Wellness Campus, TJKM Transportation Consultants, May 21, 2002, (TIS) the currently - proposed project was evaluated as Phase II of the project. Both traffic reports were referenced to complete the assessment below and are included in Appendix C of this Initial Study. D U D E K 76 Clearwater at Sloan ch 0117 Clearwater at Sonoma Hills Initial Study 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 When the TIS for the project was prepared in 2002, Phase II of the project was identified as including a health clinic with ten employees and 135 beds of congregate assisted living. The 2002 TIS concluded that Phase II of the project, as evaluated, was expected to generate 32 trips during the morning peak hour and 56 during the evening peak hour. The project as currently proposed, includes 114 beds in an assisted living facility. Based on the decreased number of beds, W -Trans concluded that the project would be expected to generate 16 trips during the morning peak hour and 25 during the evening peak hour, less than what was assumed in the original TIS. These results are summarized in Table 2.16-1 below. Table 2.16-1 Trip Generation Summary Land Use Units Daily Rate Trips AM Peak Hour I Rate Trips In Out Rate PM Peak Hour Trips In Out 2002 Traffic Study Health Clinic 10 employees 7.75 78 0.90 10 5 5 1.23 12 5 7 Congregate Care 135 beds 2.15 290 0.06 8 5 3 0.17 23 13 10 Sub -total 368 18 10 8 35 18 17 Proposed Project Assisted Living 114 beds 2.66 303 0.14 16 10 6 0.22 25 11 14 Change in Trip Generation -65 -2 0 -2 -10 -7 -3 Source: W -Trans, 2017 As shown in Table 2.16-1, the proposed project would be expected to generate fewer trips than originally evaluated in 2002 and impacts associated with trip generation would remain less than significant. Intersection Operation The 2002 TIS indicated that the intersection of Rohnert Park Expressway/Snyder Lane was operating at Level of Service (LOS F), and while the addition of project -generated traffic resulted in increased delay, because the service level did not deteriorate further, D U D E K 77 Clearwater at Sonoma Hills March 2017 Clearwater at Sonoma Hills Initial Study this was deemed acceptable under the City's standards. Capacity enhancements that have occurred since 2002, including providing protected left -turn phasing on all approaches, or are currently planned and will be under construction soon, such as widening of both Snyder Lane and Rohnert Park Expressway, provide additional capacity along these corridors that would reasonably be expected to improve operation at this intersection, and thereby better accommodate the minimal number of new trips generated by the project. The 2002 TIS included a recommendation that the intersection of Snyder Lane/Medical Center Drive be signalized. Under Mitigation Measure TRA -1, the Conditions of Approval for the 2002 Oak View Senior Residential project would remain applicable to the proposed project, with the need for installing a signal to be based on what was determined in 2002. Implementation of Mitigation Measure TRA -1 would ensure that intersection impacts remain less than significant. Alternative Modes Consideration was not given to adequacy of facilities for pedestrians, bicyclists and transit riders in the 2002 study. A review of existing conditions together with plans for improvements on Rohnert Park Expressway and recently -constructed improvements on Snyder Lane indicates that a fully -connected system of pedestrian walkways would be available to residents, guests and employees of the site, resulting in adequate access for pedestrians (W -Trans, 2017). Sonoma County Transit Routes 10, 10T, 12, 12T, 14, 14T and 46 serve the area surrounding the project site, and all stop on Snyder Lane near Medical Center Drive, a short walk from the project site. Given the number of routes that run through the area, transit access for the project is considered to be adequate (W -Trans, 2017). Bike lanes exist on both Snyder Lane and Rohnert Park Expressway, providing good bicycle connectivity to the site. The updated traffic study suggests that a rack providing space for at least four bicycles be included as part of the development. This requirement is included as Mitigation Measure TRA -2. Implementation of Mitigation Measure TRA -2 would ensure that this impact remains less than significant. b) Would the project conflict with an applicable congestion management program, including, but not limited to level of service standards and travel demand measures, or other standards established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? D U D E K 78 Clearwater at Sonoma Hills March 2017 Clearwater at Sonoma Hills Initial Study The proposed plan would not conflict with an applicable congestion management program for designated roads or highways. Therefore, this impact would be less than significant. c) Would the project result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? The proposed project would not result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in air traffic levels or a change in location that would result in substantial safety risks during construction or operation. The closest airports are the Sonoma County Airport and Petaluma Municipal Airport, both over 9 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)? Access to the project site is proposed via a connection to the parking fields for the Phase I project, Oak View Apartments, which takes access to Rohnert Park Expressway across from Jasmine Circle. The site also includes a driveway on Medical Center Drive, which connects to Snyder Lane. In addition to these two existing access points to the surrounding street network, a new driveway on Rohnert Park Expressway is proposed to be located at the easterly side of the project site. At the location where the new driveway is proposed, Rohnert Park Expressway is a divided boulevard, with a planted median separating the two directions of travel. The median ends in the vicinity of the proposed driveway, but the planted median extends beyond its proposed location. As a result the driveway would be limited to right -turns in and out. This section of Rohnert Park Expressway has a posted speed limit of 45 mph. Due to current construction activities the speed limit has been temporarily reduced, so actual speeds at the driveway location would not translate to post -project conditions. However, sight distance to the east was measured at approximately 600 feet, which is adequate for speeds of up to about 60 mph. Sight lines are similarly good to the west, but since drivers would only be able to turn right, sight lines to the west are not relevant. Assuming that drivers approaching on Rohnert Park Expressway would be traveling at or even above the posted speed limit, the available sight distance is more than adequate (W -Trans, 2017). D U D K 79 Clearwater at Sonoma Hills March 2017 Clearwater at Sonoma Hills Initial Study Given the proposed design and surrounding conditions, the access as proposed is expected to operate acceptably and impacts related to design features or incompatible uses would be less than significant. e) Would the project result in inadequate emergency access? The proposed site plan includes a fire access road surrounding the building. This would provide sufficient access to the site and all portions of the building for police, fire, and emergency medical services. Emergency access would be maintained on all roads throughout construction. No impact associated with inadequate emergency access would result from implementation of the proposed project. J) Would the project conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilitie.v, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities? Refer to the answer provided in `a' above. Mitigation Measures Mitigation Measure TRA -1: The Conditions of Approval for the 2002 Oak View Senior Residential project shall remain applicable to the proposed Clearwater at Sonoma Hills project. Mitigation Measure TRA -2: The project shall provide a minimum of four onsite bicycle spaces in compliance with Section 17.16.140 of the City of Rohnert Park Zoning Code. Clearwater at Sonoma Hills D U D F K 80 March 2017 Clearwater at Sonoma Hills Initial Study 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 construct an assisted living and memory care facility on a vacant, previously disturbed property. 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 February 6, 2017, which indicated that there is no specific information on the site in the NAHC's Sacred Lands File. Assembly Bill (AB) 52 requires lead agencies to consult with California Native American Tribes that request such consultation prior to the agency's release of a Notice of Preparation (NOP) of an EIR, or notice of an MND, or Negative Declaration (ND) on or after July 1, 2015. The City of Rohnert Park sent AB 52 letters to Native American tribes D U D E K 81 Clearwater at Sonoma Hills March 2017 Less Than Potentially Significant with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incor orated Impact No Impact XVII.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 ❑ ❑ ❑ Z 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 construct an assisted living and memory care facility on a vacant, previously disturbed property. 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 February 6, 2017, which indicated that there is no specific information on the site in the NAHC's Sacred Lands File. Assembly Bill (AB) 52 requires lead agencies to consult with California Native American Tribes that request such consultation prior to the agency's release of a Notice of Preparation (NOP) of an EIR, or notice of an MND, or Negative Declaration (ND) on or after July 1, 2015. The City of Rohnert Park sent AB 52 letters to Native American tribes D U D E K 81 Clearwater at Sonoma Hills March 2017 Clearwater at Sonoma Hills Initial Study in the area to inform them about the project and to offer an opportunity to consult or comment prior to the public circulation of the Notice of Intent. No responses have been received to date. Since there are no known tribal cultural resources on the site, no impacts to these resources would occur with the project. 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. Refer to the answer provided in `a' above. Mitigation Measures No mitigation measures are necessary. Clearwater at Sonoma Hills D IAK 82 March 2017 Clearwater at Sonoma Hills Initial Study 2.18 Utilities and Service Systems a) Would the project exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? 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 (City of Rohnert Park, 2016). D U D E K 83 Clearwater at Sonoma Hills March 2017 Less Than Potentially Significant with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated impact No Impact XVIII. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS — Would the project: a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the ❑ ❑ ® 1J applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of ❑ i ],) ❑ existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing ❑ Q LIA ❑ facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or ❑ ❑ ® ❑ are new or expanded entitlements needed? e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider, which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the JJ ❑ E] ❑ 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 ❑ ❑ z ❑ 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? 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 (City of Rohnert Park, 2016). D U D E K 83 Clearwater at Sonoma Hills March 2017 Clearwater at Sonoma Hills Initial Stud As discussed in the Sanitary Sewer Analysis prepared for the project (EBA Engineering, 2016), the proposed project would result in the treatment and disposal of up to 0.021 MGD of wastewater or less than one percent of the available build -out capacity. Because the capacity required to serve the project site can be accommodated by the City's existing approved wastewater capacity and would not result in the need for any new off-site wastewater system expansions, this impact would be less than significant. b) Would the project require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? The City's existing water supply facilities are expected to be sufficient to provide an adequate supply of water to meet the current and future demand of the project. The proposed project alone would not result in the need for new water treatment or storage facilities, other than the on-site facilities included for the project. In addition, the proposed project alone would not require SCWA to increase its existing water entitlements; as discussed in criterion `d' below, SCWA has an adequate supply to meet the demands associated with the project. Therefore, the water supply and related facility impacts would be less than significant. Wastewater treatment and disposal is provided by the Santa Rosa Subregional Water Reclamation System. Wastewater from the Subregional System is treated at the Laguna Water Reclamation Plant, located about two miles northwest of Rohnert Park. As discussed in criterion `a' above, the capacity required to serve the project site can be accommodated by the City's existing approved wastewater capacity and would not result in the need for any new off-site wastewater system expansions. Accordingly, wastewater facility impacts would be less than significant. c) Would the project require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? The project site is served by the City's existing storm drainage system, which conveys stormwater through closed conduits (pipes) to Sonoma County Water Agency's (SCWA) system of open channels, which in turn divert major drainage flows west toward the Laguna de Santa Rosa. In the project vicinity, Hinebaugh Creek and Copeland Creek convey storm drainage from east to west. The project vicinity is largely developed and constructing the proposed project would not be expected to result in significant changes in runoff volume or velocity. However, the Clearwater at Sonoma Hills D U D E K 84 March 2017 Clearwater at Sonoma Hills Initial Stud project would be required comply with the City's storm drain standards, including the City of Santa Rosa and County of Sonoma's Low Impact Development Technical Design Manual (LID Manual). Design requirements include the requirements to treat all runoff generated by the 85th percentile, 24-hour storm and to ensure that the volume of runoff from the site in the 85th percentile, 24-hour storm does not increase as a result of development or redevelopment. The LID Manual includes best management practices that can be used to capture, infiltrate, and/or reuse stormwater on-site. Because the existing stormwater system provides adequate protection to the project area and because existing design requirements minimize any increases in stormwater runoff or changes in stormwater quality, the stormwater-related impacts associated with development of the proposed project would be less than significant. d) Would the project have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? The City has three water sources: Sonoma County Water Agency (SCWA) supply, local groundwater, and recycled water. The City manages these supplies using a "conjunctive use" strategy, drawing on SCWA and recycled -water supplies first and using its local groundwater to manage peak demands. The total supply available to the City through these three sources is 11,427 AFY, including 10,077 AFY of potable water and 1,350 AFY of recycled water (City of Rohnert Park, 2016). Under its contract with SCWA, the City has access to as much as 7,500 AFY, although a number of conditions can limit the SCWA supply. Because of these limitations, the City uses 6,372 AFY as its reliable supply from SCWA under all hydrologic conditions. Over the past 10 years, the City has used between 2,500 and 5,000 AFY of SCWA supply, which is significantly less than its maximum allocation (City of Rohnert Park, 2016). The City's local groundwater supply is from the Santa Rosa Plain Subbasin of the Santa Rosa Valley Groundwater Basin. The City manages its groundwater supply in accordance with its 2004 Water Policy Resolution, which limits groundwater pumping to 2,577 AFY. The City's 2004 City-wide Water Supply Assessment provides the technical support for this maximum pumping rate. The City participates actively in the implementation of the Santa Rosa Plain Watershed Groundwater Management Plan and is currently working with other water suppliers in the basin to implement the requirements of the Groundwater Sustainability Act of 2014. Modeling and monitoring data collected by the City and others indicate that groundwater levels are generally rising around the City's well field, an indication of stable supply. Over the past 10 years the City has used between 350 and 1,600 AFY of groundwater, significantly less than its policy limitation on groundwater use (City of Rohnert Park, 2016). D U D E K 85 Clearwater at Sonoma Hills March 2017 Clearwater at Sonoma Hills Initial Study The City's tertiary -treated recycled -water supply is produced by the Santa Rosa Subregional Water Reclamation System (Subregional System). The City and the Subregional System have recently entered into a producer/distributor agreement that provides the City with access to 1,350 AFY of recycled water. The City uses recycled water primarily for irrigation purposes; demand for recycled water has varied between 800 and 1,100 AFY over the past 10 years (City of Rohnert Park, 2016). The City recently completed its 2015 Urban Water Management Plan Water Demand and Water Conservation Measures Update. This analysis, which is based on Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) population and job projections, projects the City's potable water demands through 2040. This demand is expected to range between 5,600 and 6,100 AFY, depending on the level of water conservation undertaken by the City. This projected demand is significantly less than the City's available water supplies. This analysis also indicates that the City has the potential to secure approximately 500 AFY (the difference between 5,600 and 6,100 AFY) by undertaking more aggressive water conservation activities (City of Rohnert Park, 2016). The existing water supply sources are expected to be sufficient to provide an adequate supply of water for the project. Development of the project would not require SCWA to increase its existing water entitlements; as discussed above, SCWA has an adequate supply to meet the demands associated with the project. Therefore, the water supply associated with the project would be less than significant. e) Would the project result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider, which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? Refer to the answer provided in `a' above. f) Would the project be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? The proposed project, consisting of an assisted living and memory care facility with 90 units and 114 beds, would generate solid waste. The North Bay Corporation provides solid waste disposal and composting of organic materials in the city. Waste would be disposed of at the Central Disposal Landfill, which has maximum daily throughput of 2,500 tons per day (City of Rohnert Park, 2016). The Landfill has sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's disposal needs. Accordingly, the project would have a less than significant impact on the demand for solid waste collection and disposal in the City. Clearwater at Sonoma Hills D U D E K 86 March 2017 Clearwater at Sonoma Hills Initial Study g) Would the project comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? Assembly Bill (AB) 939 requires the City to develop and implement a solid waste management program. PRC Section 41780(a)(2) also requires cities and counties to divert 50 percent of the solid waste produced within their respective jurisdictions through source reduction, recycling, and/or composting activities. Since 2007, Senate Bill 1016 has required cities to report to the California Integrated Waste Management Board (now known as CalRecycle) the amount of garbage disposed in the landfill per person per day. According to CalRecycle's jurisdiction/disposal rate detail for SCWMA for the 2011 reporting year (CalRecycle, 2013), SCWMA's residential disposal target is 7.1 pounds per person per day. Rohnert Park's annual residential disposal rate of 3.6 pounds per person per day met this target in 2014. The employee disposal target (18.3 pounds per employee per day) was also met, with an actual employee disposal rate of 10.2 pounds per employee per day. The project would not contain features that would generate waste flows at rates that would exceed typical disposal rates for the City; therefore, this impact would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures No mitigation measures are necessary. D U D E K 87 Clearwater at Sonoma Hills March 2017 Clearwater at Sonoma Hills Initial Study 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 wildli f , 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 the project does not degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, or reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal, this Initial Study has identified several mitigation measures for implementation. Mitigation Measure B10- 1, which would require a nesting bird survey prior the start of any construction, would ensure impacts to special status and migratory birds would be less than significant. Additionally, Mitigation Measures HYDRO -1 and HYDRO -2 would reduce the potential for construction to result in the degradation of habitat for special status species. Clearwater at Sonoma Hills D E K 88 March 2017 Less Than Potentially Significant with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact_ _ XIX. 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 ❑ ❑ ❑ Q 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 El ❑ ® L when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human ❑ M [j ❑ 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 wildli f , 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 the project does not degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, or reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal, this Initial Study has identified several mitigation measures for implementation. Mitigation Measure B10- 1, which would require a nesting bird survey prior the start of any construction, would ensure impacts to special status and migratory birds would be less than significant. Additionally, Mitigation Measures HYDRO -1 and HYDRO -2 would reduce the potential for construction to result in the degradation of habitat for special status species. Clearwater at Sonoma Hills D E K 88 March 2017 Clearwater at Sonoma Hills Initial Study There have been no important historic or prehistoric resources identified on the project site and implementation of Mitigation Measure CUL -1 and CUL -2 would ensure that the project has a less than significant impact on cultural resources. b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? The analysis provided throughout this Initial Study demonstrates that the project's contribution to cumulative impacts would be less than significant. c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? The analysis provided throughout this Initial Study identifies project impacts that may be potentially significant and identifies mitigation measures that would reduce each impact to a less than significant level. Clearwater at Sonoma Hills D U D E K 89 March 2017 Clearwater at Sonoma Hills 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. ABAG (Association of Bay Area Governments). 2011 (August 31). Draft Annex to 2010 Association of Bay Area Governments Local Hazard Mitigation Plan: Taming Natural Disasters, City of Rohnert Park. Available: http://resilience.abag.ca.gov/wp-content/ documents/2010LHMP/RohnertPark-Annex-2011.pdf. Accessed February 6, 2017. BAAQMD (Bay Area Air Quality Management District). 2009. Revised Draft Options and Justification Report California Environmental Quality Act Thresholds of Significance, October 2009. Available: http://www.baaqmd.gov/—/media/files/planning-and- research/cega/revised-draft-ceqa-thresholds justification-report-oct-2009.pdf?la=en. Accessed February 6, 2017. BAAQMD. 2010. Bay Area 2010 Clean Air Plan, adopted September 15, 2010. Available: http://www.baagmd.gov/plans-and-climate/air-quality-plans/current-plans. Accessed February 6, 2017. BAAQMD. 2012, California Environmental Quality Act Air Quality Guidelines. Updated May 2012. Available: http://www.baagmd. gov/—/media/Files/Planning%20and%2OResearch/CEQA/BAAQMD %20CEQA%20Guidelines—Final May%202012.ashx?la=en. Accessed February 6, 2017. California Public Resources Code, Section 21000-21177. California Environmental Quality Act, as amended. CalRecycle (California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery). 2013. Jurisdiction Diversion/Disposal Rate Detail for Sonoma County Waste Management Agency, Reporting Year 2011. Available: http://www. calrecycle.ca. gov/LGCentral/Reports/DiversionProgram/JurisdictionDiversio nDetail.aspx?JurisdictionlD=503&Year=2011. Accessed February 6, 2017. Caltrans (California Department of Transportation), California Scenic Highway Mapping System, Sonoma County. Available: http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/LandArch/16—livability/scenic—highways/index.htm. Accessed February 8, 2017. D U D E K 90 Clearwater at Sonoma Hills March 2017 Clearwater at Sonoma Hills Initial Study CAPCOA (California Air Pollution Control Officers Association). 2008. CEQA & Climate Change: Evaluating and Addressing Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Projects Subject to the California Environmental Quality Act. January 2008. CAT (California Climate Action Team). 2006. Climate Action Team Report to the Governor Schwarzenegger and the Legislature. Sacramento, California. March 2006. Available: http://www. climatechange.ca. gov/climate_action_team/reports/2006report/2006-04- 03_FINAL CAT_REPORT.PDF. Accessed February 6, 2017. City of Rohnert Park. 2005 (March 14). City of Rohnert Park Revised Phase II NDPES Storm Water Management Plan. Submitted to North Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board, Santa Rosa, CA. Available: http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/water issues/programs/stormwater/swmp/rohnertpark_swmp.p df. Accessed February 6, 2017. City of Rohnert Park. 2015 (May) (originally adopted 2000). City of Rohnert Park General Plan. Our Place ... Rohnert Park 2020, A Plan for the Future. Adopted in July 2000; seventh edition printed May 2015. Rohnert Park, CA. Prepared by Dyett & Bhatia Urban and Regional Planners. City of Rohnert Park. 2016 (February). Central Rohnert Park Priority Development Plan Final Environmental Impact Report. Certified March 22, 2016. Prepared by AECOM. City of Santa Rosa. 2008 (November 18). Proposed Fifth Amendment to the Subregional Agreement for Operation of the Laguna Treatment Plant and Water Reclamation System. Agenda Item #10.5 for Council Meeting of 11/18/2008. Available: http://ci.santa- rosa.ca.us/doclib/agendas_packets_minutes/Documents/2008111$ CC_Item10.5.pdf. Accessed February 6, 2017. City of Santa Rosa and County of Sonoma. 2011 (August). Storm Water Low Impact Development Technical Design Manual. Available: http://srcity.org/doclib/Documents/ LID_ManualFinalNarrative2012.pdf. Accessed February 6, 2017. DOC (California Department of Conservation). 2014. Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program. Sonoma County data. Available: ftp://ftp.consrv.ca.gov/pub/dlrp/FMMP/pdV20l4/sonl4.pdf Accessed February 8, 2017. DOC. 2013. Sonoma County Williamson Act FY 2013/2014. Sonoma County data. Available: ftp://ftp.consrv.ca.gov/pub/dlrp/wa/Sonoma_13_14_WA.pdf. Accessed February 8, 2017. D U D E K g1 Clearwater at Sonoma Hills March 2017 Clearwater at Sonoma Hills Initial Study Dudek, 2017. EBA Engineering. 2016. Sanitary Sewer Analysis Technical Memorandum. November 10. FEMA. (Federal Emergency Management Agency). 2017. Federal Emergency Management Agency Flood Map Service Center. Available: https://mse.fema.gov/portal/search? AddressQuery=rohnert%20park%2C%20ca. Accessed February 5, 2017. IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change). 2014."Summary for Policymakers." In Climate Change 2014 Synthesis Report. A Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Available: http://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/syr/. Accessed February 6, 2017. Municode. 2015. Rohnert Park Code of Ordinances: Municipal Code. Codified through Ordinance No. 889, passed June 9, 2015 (Supp. No. 37). Available: https://www.municode.com/library/ca/rohnert_park/codes/code—of ordinances?nodeld=T IT17Z0 CH17.12PEST_17.12.050LIGLST. Accessed February 6, 2017. NRCS (U.S. Natural Resources Conservation Service). 2014. Web Soil Survey. Available: http://websoilsurvey.se.egov.usda.gov/App/WebSoilSurvey.aspx. Last updated September 2014. Accessed February 6, 2017. OEHHA (Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment). 2015. Air Toxics Hot Spot Program — Risk Assessment Guidelines — Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments. February 2015. Available: http://oehha.ca.gov/media/downloads/crnr/2015guidancemanual.pdf Accessed February 6, 2017. PCI (Prunuske Chatham, Inc.) 2016. Biological Resources Evaluation Summary, Clearwater at Sonoma Hills, Assisted Living Facility Rohnert Park, California (APN #159-460-026), September. Stromberg, Laurence P. 2013. Pre -Jurisdictional Determination, Waters of the United State AP Nos. 159-460-026 and 159-460-027, Rohnert Park, Sonoma County, California. August 30. TJKM Transportation Consultants. 2017. Traffic Impact Study for Oak View Senior Independent Senior Living & Wellness Campus. May 21. W -Trans. 2017. Focused Traffic Analysis for the Clearwater at Sonoma Hills Project. January 30. D U D E K 92 Clearwater at Sonoma Hills March 2017 City of Rohnert Park Clearwater at Sonoma Hills Project Mitigation Monitoring & Reporting Program Mitigation measures are proposed or recommended for the following sections: • 2.4 Biological Resources • 2.5 Cultural Resources ■ 2.6 Geology and Soils ■ 2.8 Hazards and Hazardous Materials Exhibit A Resolution No. 2017 - ■ 2.9 Hydrology and Water Quality • 2.12 Noise ■ 2.16 Transportation and Traffic Clearwater at Sonoma Hills Mitigation Monitoring & Reporting Program 1 April 2017 Implementation Monitoring T-ResponsibilityRes Performance Mitigation Measure onsibili Timing Evaluation Criteria 2.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Mitigation Measure BIO -1: A preconstruction survey Applicant or City of Rohnert Park Prior to construction Submittal of shall be conducted by a qualified biologist for nesting Applicant's Contractor activities and noted on preconstruction raptors and other special -status bird species a improvement plans, nesting maximum of 2 weeks before the start of any new grading plans and bird survey results or construction activities (i.e., ground clearing and building plans confirmation from a grading, staging of equipment, ground disturbance) qualified project during the breeding season (February 1 — August 31) biologist during the so that no nesting migratory birds are within or breeding season adjacent to the construction area. If active nests are (February 1 st-August found during the preconstruction survey, a no- 31 st) that no migratory disturbance buffer zone shall be created around birds are within or active nests during the breeding season or until a adjacent to the qualified biologist has determined that the young have construction area or if fledged. The no -disturbance buffer zone shall be a active nests are found, minimum of 250 feet from active raptor nests, 100 feet implement protective from special -status species, and 50 feet from non- actions, including special -status nesting bird species until the chicks confirmation from the have fledged. Reductions in the size of the buffer project biologist that zones and or allowances of limited types of the nesting cycle has construction activities within the buffer zone shall be been completed, as a determined by a qualified biologist and shall be based condition of grading on existing noise and human disturbance levels in the and building permits project area and observed evidence of disturbance to for the project. birds. Mitigation Measure BI0-2: For any impacts to waters Applicant or City of Rohnert Park Prior to activities in Appropriate permits of the U.S., a Section 404 permit from the Corps and Applicant's Contractor jurisdictional areas obtained for any a Section 401 water quality certification from the impacts to Waters of Regional Water Quality Control Board shall be the U.S. Clearwater at Sonoma Hills Mitigation Monitoring & Reporting Program 1 April 2017 City of Rohnert Park Clearwater at Sonoma Hills Project Mitigation Monitoring & Reporting Program Clearwater at Sonoma Hills Mitigation Monitoring & Reporting Program 2 April 2017 Implementation Monitoring Performance Mitigation Measure _ Responsiblifty Responsibility Timing Evaluation Criteria obtained and compensatory mitigation shall be provided for all impacts at a minimum 1 to 1 ratio according to the Corps Standard Operating Procedure for Determination of Mitigation Ratios. As part of the wetlands permitting process, the Corps must conduct a Section 7 consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for any potential impacts to listed species. The terms and conditions of USFWS's Biological Opinion (or Programmatic Biological Opinion) shall be implemented as part of the project. 2,5 CULTURAL RESOURCES Mitigation Measure CUL -1: All appropriate federal, City of Rohnert Park City of Rohnert Park Ongoing during earth Compliance with state, and local regulations regarding cultural and Applicant or disturbing activities federal, State, and resources shall be closely adhered to; these Applicant's Contractor local regulations contain measures that safeguard against regulations regarding significant impacts on cultural resources. If cultural inadvertent discovery resources are encountered during project and treatment of construction, the applicant shall notify the City of cultural resources Rohnert Park, and all activity within 100 feet of the find shall halt until it can be evaluated by a qualified archaeologist. Prehistoric archaeological materials might include obsidian and chert flaked -stone tools (e.g., projectile points, knives, scrapers) or toolmaking debris; culturally darkened soil (midden) containing heat -affected rocks, artifacts, or shellfish remains; and stone milling equipment (e.g., mortars, pestles, handstones, or milling slabs); and battered stone tools, such as hammerstones and pitted stones. Historic -period materials might include stone, concrete, or adobe footings and walls; filled wens or privies; and deposits of metal, glass, and/or ceramic refuse. If the resource is Native American in origin and the archaeologist and a Native American representative determine that the resources may be significant and cannot be avoided, they shall notify the City of Rohnert Park and an appropriate treatment Clearwater at Sonoma Hills Mitigation Monitoring & Reporting Program 2 April 2017 City of Rohnert Park Clearwater at Sonoma Hills Project Mitigation Monitoring & Reporting Program Mitigation Measure Implementation Responsibility Monitoring Responsibility Timing Performance Evaluation Criteria plan for the resources shall be developed by the applicant, in consultation with the City of Rohnert Park and the archaeologist. Measures in the treatment plan could include preservation in place (capping) and/or data recovery. The archaeologist shall consult with Native American representatives in determining appropriate treatment for prehistoric or Native American cultural resources. Ground disturbance shall not resume within 100 feet of the find until an agreement has been reached as to the appropriate treatment of the find. Mitigation Measure CUL -2: If human remains, City of Rohnert Park City of Rohnert Park Ongoing during earth Compliance with including disarticulated or cremated remains, are and Applicant or disturbing activities federal, State, and encountered during project construction, all ground- Applicant's Contractor local disturbing activities within 100 feet of the discovery regulations regarding must immediately cease. PRC Section 5097.98, and inadvertent discovery Section 7050.5 of California Health and Safety Code and treatment of require that the County Coroner be immediately human remains notified when human remains are identified. The project proponent and City of Rohnert Park also must be immediately notified. If the County Coroner determines that the remains are Native American, the NAHC must be contacted within 24 hours, pursuant to Subdivision (c) of §7050.5 of the Health and Safety Code. The City of Rohnert Park shall consult with the Most Likely Descendent, if any, identified by the NAHC regarding excavation and removal of the human remains. The project proponent and appropriate agency should be responsible for approval of any recommended investigation and action, taking into account state law as presented in State CEQA Guidelines 15064.5(e) and PRC 5097.98. Before resumption of ground -disturbing activities within 100 feet of the human remains, all mitigation regarding the human remains shall be implemented. If removal of human remains is Clearwater at Sonoma Hills Mitigation Monitoring & Reporting Program 3 April 2017 City of Rohnert Park Clearwater at Sonoma Hills Project Mitigation Monitoring & Reporting Program Clearwater at Sonoma Hills Mitigation Monitoring & Reporting Program 4 April 2017 Implementation Monitoring Performance Mitigation Measure Responsibility Responsibility Timing Evaluation Criteria determined to be the appropriate mitigation, it shall be conducted by a qualified archaeologist with Native American burial experience. 2.6 GEOLOGY AND SOILS Mitigation Measure GEO-1: The project applicant Applicant or City of Rohnert Park Prior to issuance of Submit final shall retain a licensed geotechnical engineer to Applicant's Contractor grading/ building geotechnical prepare a final geotechnical report per California permits engineering repot and Building Standards Code and City requirements for implement all report the proposed facilities that shall be submitted for recommendations. review and approved by the City of Rohnert Park prior to issuance of a grading permit. The final geotechnical engineering report shall address and make recommendations on the following: • seismic design parameters; • seismic ground shaking; • liquefaction; • expansive/unstable soils; • site preparation; • soil bearing capacity; • structural foundations, including retaining -wall design; • grading practices; and • soil corrosion of concrete and steel. In addition to the recommendations for the conditions listed above, the geotechnical investigation shall include subsurface testing of soil and groundwater conditions (as appropriate), and shall determine appropriate foundation designs that are consistent with the version of the CBC that is applicable at the time building and grading permits are applied for. All recommendations contained in the final geotechnical engineering report shall be implemented by the project applicant. Design and construction of all new project development shall be in accordance with the Clearwater at Sonoma Hills Mitigation Monitoring & Reporting Program 4 April 2017 City of Rohnert Park Clearwater at Sonoma Hills Project Mitigation Monitoring & Reporting Program Clearwater at Sonoma Hills Mitigation Monitoring & Reporting Program 5 April 2017 implementation Monitoring Performance Mitigation Measure Responsibility I Respons_ ibili Timing Evaluation Criteria 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. 2,8 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS Mitigation Measure HAZ-1: The project applicant shall Applicant or City of Rohnert Park Prior to commencing Prepare and prepare and implement a traffic control plan for Applicant's Contractor construction implement traffic construction activities that may affect road rights -of- control plan way, to facilitate travel of emergency vehicles on affected roadways. The traffic control plan must follow applicable City of Rohnert Park standards and must be approved and signed by a professional engineer. Measures typically used in traffic control plans include advertising of planned lane closures, warning signage, a flag person to direct traffic flows when needed, and methods to ensure continued access by emergency vehicles. During project construction, access to the existing land uses shall be maintained at all times, with detours used, as necessary, during road closures. The traffic control plan shall be submitted to the City for review and approval prior to commencing construction. y _ 2.9 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY Mitigation Measure HYDRO -1: The applicant or its Applicant or City of Rohnert Park Applied at the time a Implement regulatory consultant shall apply to the North Coast RWQCB for Applicant's Contractor grading permit or permit requirements, coverage under the Construction General Permit and building permit including SWPPP and prepare a site-specific SWPPP for approval by the application is Erosion and Sediment North Coast RWQCB before any onsite demolition, submitted and Control Plan grading, or construction activities begin. The SWPPP completed with the shall cover pre- and post- construction activities and issuance of the describe site-specific and construction phase -specific certificate of activities detailing the following: occupancy. • activities that may cause pollutant discharge (including sediment); Clearwater at Sonoma Hills Mitigation Monitoring & Reporting Program 5 April 2017 City of Rohnert Park Clearwater at Sonoma Hills Project Mitigation Monitoring & Reporting Program Mitigation Measure Implementation Responsibility Monitoring Responsibility Timing Performance Evaluation Criteria • 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; • 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 • 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. The applicant shall implement the SWPPP, monitoring all BMPs and the parties responsible for them, in conformance with the guidelines set forth in the Construction General Permit. Mitigation Measure HYDRO -2: The project applicant Applicant or City of Rohnert Park Prior to issuance of Prepare and shall submit a site- specific erosion control plan (ECP) Applicant's Contractor grading/ building implement ECP to the City of Rohnert Park City Engineer prior to permits issuance of a grading permit. All sites that will have grading activities are required to submit an ECP. The ECP shall include the placement of structural and Clearwater at Sonoma Hills Mitigation Monitoring & Reporting Program 6 April 2017 City of Rohnert Park Clearwater at Sonoma Hills Project Mitigation Monitoring & Reporting Program TResponsibility._ Implementation Monitoring Performance Miti ation Measure Responsibility Timing Evaluation Criteria _ nonstructural stormwater pollution prevention controls that prevent erosion during and after construction. Proper soil stabilization shall be required for all graded areas. A grading permit shall not be issued until all of the required data, including the ECP, have been submitted and approved. City of Rohnert Park Ordinance 798, Section 15.50.090, provides additional detail regarding excavation, grading, and filling regulations. Mitigation Measure HYDRO -3: The project proponent Applicant or City of Rohnert Park Prior to issuance of Removal of project shall ensure that the project will be located outside of Applicant's Contractor grading/building from 100 -year the 100 -year floodplain. It is expected this will be permits floodplain achieved through approval of a Letter of Map Revision by FEMA. The method(s) used to ensure the future structures are outside of the floodplain shall be approved by the City and implemented prior to construction. 2.12 NOISE Mitigation Measure NOH: Noise -generating activities Applicant or City of Rohnert Park Approved measures to Compliance with at the construction site or in areas adjacent to the Applicant's Contractor be included in building specific construction construction site associated with the project in any permits and ongoing noise reduction way would be restricted to the hours of 8:00 a.m. to during construction measures 6:00 p.m. In addition , all construction activity shall comply with the following requirements: • Use available noise suppression devices and properly maintain and muffle loud construction equipment. • Avoid the unnecessary idling of equipment and stage construction equipment as far as reasonable from residences. • Notify adjacent uses of the construction schedule. • Designate a "noise disturbance coordinator" who would be responsible for responding to any local complaints about construction noise. Clearwater at Sonoma Hills Mitigation Monitoring & Reporting Program 7 April 2017 City of Rohnert Park Clearwater at Sonoma Hills Project Mitigation Monitoring & Reporting Program Mitigation Measure Implementation Res ons bility Monitoring Responsibility Timing Performance Evaluation Criteria The disturbance coordinator would determine the cause of the noise complaints (e.g., starting too early, bad muffler, etc.) and would require that reasonable measures warranted to correct the problem be implemented. Conspicuously post a telephone number for the disturbance coordinator at the construction site and include it in the notice sent to neighbors regarding the construction schedule. • All noise -producing project equipment and vehicles using internal combustion engines shall be equipped with mufflers, air -inlet silencers where appropriate, and any other shrouds, shields, or other noise -reducing features in good operating condition that meet or exceed original factory specification. Mobile or fixed "package" equipment (e.g., arc -welders, air compressors) shall be equipped with shrouds and noise control features that.are readily available for that type of equipment. • All mobile or fixed noise -producing equipment used on the project that are regulated for noise output by a local, state, or federal agency shall comply with such regulation while in the course of project activity. • Construction site and access road speed limits shall be established and enforced during the construction period. • The use of noise -producing signals, including horns, whistles, alarms, and bells, shall be for safety warning purposes only. • Construction hours, allowable workdays, and the phone number of the job superintendent shall be clearly posted at all construction Clearwater at Sonoma Hills Mitigation Monitoring & Reporting Program 8 April 2017 City of Rohnert Park Clearwater at Sonoma Hills Project Mitigation Monitoring & Reporting Program Clearwater at Sonoma Hills Mitigation Monitoring & Reporting Program 9 April 2017 Implementation, Monitoring Performance Miti atlon__Measure Responsibility ResponsibilityRespon.4ibility Timing Evaluation Crftna entrances to allow surrounding property owners to contact the job superintendent if necessary. Mitigation Measure NOI-2: The project applicant shall Applicant or City of Rohnert Park Prior to issuance of Preparation of retain a qualified acoustical consultant to ensure that Applicant's Contractor building permit acoustical engineering interior noise levels at residences does not exceed as report to confirm a result of traffic noise 45 dB Ldn. If treatments are compliance with necessary, treatments may include installing interior noise levels acoustically rated windows, and blocking sound transmission paths through vents or other openings in the building shell. If windows must be closed to achieve this performance standard, air conditioning must be provided. The acoustical consultant will prepare and submit to the City a report detailing compliance with the interior noise performance standard or, if necessary the acoustical treatments to be applied to the building for compliance with the interior noise performance standard. The report must be reviewed and approved by the City before a building permit is issued. Mitigation Measure NOI-3: Prior to issuance of a Applicant or City of Rohnert Park Prior to issuance of Documentation building permit, the applicant shall submit Applicant's Contractor building permit confirming acceptable documentation that the mechanical equipment does mechanical equipment not produce levels exceeding the noise standards or noise that shielding to be installed will reduce noise levels to those in compliance with City standards . 2.16 TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC Mitigation Measure TRA -1: The Conditions of Project Applicant City of Rohnert Park Ongoing Compliance with 2002 Approval for the 2002 Oak View Senior Residential COAs project shall remain applicable to the proposed Clearwater at Sonoma Hills project. Mitigation Measure TRA -1: The project shall provide a Project Applicant City of Rohnert Park Approval with Inclusion of required minimum of four onsite bicycle spaces in compliance improvement plans bicycle spaces with Section 17.16.140 of the City of Rohnert Park and implemented Zoning Code. I during construction Clearwater at Sonoma Hills Mitigation Monitoring & Reporting Program 9 April 2017 City of Rohnert Park Clearwater at Sonoma Hills Project Mitigation Monitoring & Reporting Program Clearwater at Sonoma Hills Mitigation Monitoring & Reporting Program 10 April 2017