The URL can be used to link to this page

2014/04/10 Planning Commission Resolution (2)PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2014-18 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROHNERT PARK CALIFORNIA RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPTION OF A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR MODIFICATIONS TO THE WILFRED/DOWDELL SPECIFIC PLAN AND APPROVAL OF A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR AMY'S KITCHEN RESTAURANT IN VILLAGE SOUTH OF THE WILFRED/DOWDELL SPECIFIC PLAN WHEREAS, the applicant, Mark Rudolph, CFO for Amy's Kitchen, has submitted a Conditional Use Permit AND Development Area Plan for a fast food restaurant with a drive- thru located on property at the corner of Redwood Drive and Golf Course Drive West in Village South of the Wilfred/Dowdell Specific Plan (APN 045-075-002 and 003); and WHEREAS, Planning Application No. PL2013-0019UP 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 modification to the Wilfred/Dowdell Specific Plan 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 February 28, 2014 to March 31, 2014; and WHEREAS, pursuant to California State Laws and the City of Rohnert Park Municipal Code (RPMC), a public hearing notice for Amy's Kitchen fast food restaurant were mailed to all property owners within a 300 foot radius of the subject property and to all agencies and interested parties as required by California State Planning Law, and a public hearing notice was published in the Community Voice for a minimum of 10 days prior to the first public hearing; and WHEREAS, on April 10, 2014, the Planning Commission reviewed Planning Application No PL2013-019UP during a scheduled public meeting at which time interested persons had an opportunity to testify either in support or opposition to the proposed project; and WHEREAS, at the April 10, 2014, Planning Commission meeting, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all persons desiring to be heard, the Planning Commission considered all facts relating to Planning Application No. PL2013-019UP; WHEREAS, the members of the Planning Commission, using their independent judgment, reviewed the proposed project and all evidence in the record related to such requests, including the staff report, public testimony, and all evidence presented both orally and in writing. WHEREAS, at the April 10, 2014 public meeting the Planning Commission of the City of Rohnert Park reviewed and considered the information contained in the Initial Study and -- - -- - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - =- - -- - - - - - - - - -- � - - - - -- ...... - -_ -- - - - - -_ - - - - - - - - ^ - --- - -- - - - - - - - - - - -- - ... - -- --- -- -= - - - �- � - -- - - �^ � - ... -- - ,... ��'... - - � - -- - - -- - - � - - � - ��.� - ...... - - -- - —�. �� - -- -= - -- - - - - �- - - - - - - ... -- - - - - - ...... -- -—� - --_- - - ~ - - - z- -- - - - - - - - - - --� - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - -- ��- - - - _-� - - - - - --- - - --- ----- - ... - - - - --� - -=c - -- - - - -- ~ - - -- -- - - - - �� -- - - - - -- --� z - - - - -- � - -- - -- - - _ = - - -- - - -- - - - - - - -- ~ - - - - - - - - - � - - - - - - - -- - - -- - - - - - ��' - - -- � - ~ - �� - -__- - - - - - - -- - -- - - - - a = - -- p_ - - - - - -- - ... - - -- --- - -� �� - - - - -- - - - ---- - - —".- ~ - - -- - - - - - - - -- - _ ...... = ~ -- - - - - - -- -- ...... - - Mitigated Negative Declaration for the proposal, which is attached to this resolution as Exhibit 1; and WHEREAS, Section 21000, et. Seq., of the Public Resources Code and Section 15000, et. Seq., of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations (the "CEQA Guidelines"), which govern the preparation, content and processing of Negative Declarations, have been fully implemented in the preparation of the Mitigated Negative Declaration. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of the City of Rohnert Park 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 making recommendations to the City Council on the proposed Project; and 2. An Initial Study was prepared for the project, and on the basis of substantial evidence in the whole record, there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the environment, therefore a Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared which reflects the lead agency's independent judgment and analysis. 3. The Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared, publicized, circulated and reviewed incompliance with the provisions of CEQA Guidelines. 4. The Mitigated Negative Declaration constitutes an adequate, accurate, objective and complete Mitigated Negative Declaration in compliance with all legal standards. 5. The documents and other materials, including without limitation staff reports, memoranda, maps, letters and minutes of all relevant meetings, which constitute and administrative record of proceedings upon which the Commission's resolution is based are located at the City of Rohnert Park, City Clerk, 130 Avram Ave., Rohnert Park, CA 94928. 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 Environmental Impact Report for the Wilfred/Dowdell Specific Plan and the Planning Commission does hereby recommend that City Council 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 from the EIR - -- - - - - -- m -- � � � - - -- � ` ` - - - - - - � �. � - - - ... - - - '- - - - - -- - -- - � - - - -- - - - - -- - - - -- - - - - - - - �� -�......... - - - - -- _ - -- - - - - - - -- -- - - - - - - ~ - - � - - '�- -- '�� - - - o -- - - - - - - - - - - -- =- - -� - -- - - - - - - - - - - - --- - -- - -- - - -- - - ... - -- -_ � � - -- �. �. -- -- - ` - -_ - - - - - - � - - -� - -- -- -...- - - - - `.-- ~, -�- - '~ � � - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - -- -- -- - _� - - - - - -- - - � � �� - -� ` - - ' - _ - -- - - - - - - - - - - � _. - - � - ... - -� - - - - -� � - - - =c -- - - - '- - - - - �� - _� - p_ - _ - -- -.~ - - - - - - -- - -- - - - ~ -. ... - ��' - - � .......... - - - � - ........ - - - - -- - - - � � � c - --~, _� ' - -_ - - - ~ - - - _� - � - - - p-...... ... - - - - - - -- - - �� -' -`. `. � ~, - - - - - -- - - -- ... ` - - - - r� � - - - - - - - - - - - - _ �� - -- - ~ - - ) of this resolution provide Mitigation required under Section 15091 of the CEQA Guidelines for significant effects of the Project; 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 10th day of April, 2014 by the City of Rohnert Park Planning Commission by the following vote: AYES: ✓ NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN:. )(b 99-00 r� S�-v�� ADAMS N IE BORBA GIUDICE � HAYDON \AQRr,chTFal'u—dice,,)Zhairperson, Rohnert Park Planning Commission Attest: usan Azevedo, Re ding Secretary sz EXHIBIT Proposed MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act, the City of Rohnert Park has prepared an Initial Study to determine whether the following project may have a significant adverse effect on the environment. On the basis of that study, the City of Rohnert Park finds that the proposed project will not have a significant adverse effect on the environment with implementation of mitigation measures. Thus, the City proposes to adopt this Mitigated Negative Declaration. PROTECT TITLE: Amy's Kitchen Restaurant LEAD AGENCY: CONTACT: City of Rohnert Park Marilyn Ponton, AICP 130 Avram Avenue Interim Development Services Director Rohnert Park, CA 94928-3126 City of Rohnert Park, (707) 588-2231 mponton@rpcity.org PROTECT LOCATION: The project site is located on a 2.35 acre parcel at the southwest corner of Redwood Drive and Golf Course Drive West in the Village South area of the Wilfred/Dowdell Specific Plan in the City of Rohnert Park, Sonoma County, California. Please refer to Figures 1, 2, and 3. PROTECT DESCRIPTION: The project proposes to construct a 3,998 square -foot Amy's Kitchen Restaurant with a drive-thru and 2,104 square -foot outdoor seating area on a 2.35 -acre parcel within Village South of the Wilfred/Dowdell Specific Plan (WDSP). The project will also include an approximately 369 square -foot refuse and dry storage building. The restaurant building will include a 900 square -foot customer seating area with seating for 72 guests. The remainder of the building will be kitchen area, storage, and restrooms. There will be two outdoor eating areas that will accommodate 76 diners; one at the northwest corner of the building and the other on the south side of the building. The floor area ratio (FAR) will be 0.05 and building coverage approximately 5%. The exterior of the building will be a combination of stucco, structural steel and glass for a very contemporary look. The sloped roof of the building will be corten steel planted with grass. There will also be a round metal water tower that will collect water from the roof and use it for irrigation. Building height to the peak of the sloped roof will be 22.5 feet. The water storage tank will be constructed of metal with a height of approximately 25.5 feet. A low plaster wall will surround the outdoor eating areas and a wood trellis will be provided on top of the wall on the northerly eating areas at the northwest side of the restaurant. The trash enclosure and storage building will have stucco walls, metal doors and a standing seam metal roof with solar panels covering the roof. A low screen wall will screen the water service equipment on the Golf Course Drive West street frontage. A steel trellis roof with solar panels will be placed over a portion of the customer drive-thru area on the east side of the building. Amy's Kitchen Restaurant February 2014 The Specific Plan requires that the applicant submit a Sign Program for the project (Section 5.6.1). The signage submittal for the project will be under a separate permit. The preliminary signage concept includes wall signs, monument signs, and a painted water tower. Street access to the project will be provided from Golf Course Drive West and Redwood Drive. Both driveways will permit a right turn into the project and a right turn out of the project. Circulation is designed to facilitate access into the remainder of Village South when that area develops. Pedestrian path-of-travel will be provided to Redwood Drive and Golf course Drive West and across the parking lot to the refuse and dry storage building. There will be a total of 68 parking spaces including five (5) compact spaces and four (4) handicap stalls. All of the parking stalls will be 90° and the typical stall will be 9 feet wide by 19 feet deep. For the safety of customers using the parking lot there will be no bumper stops. Six (6) bicycle parking racks will be located on the west side of the building. Bio-swales will be located along Golf Course Drive West, Redwood Drive and interior landscape areas to conform to the requirement that site drainage flow through a vegetated swale. They will also provide storage for site drainage during heavy periods of rain. Native- like grasses and shrubs of varying heights, textures and colors will be used. All of the trees will be 24 inch box size for maximum impact. The parking lot and drive-thru will be screened by a two foot landscape berm. The outdoor eating areas will be paved with decomposed granite which will allow percolation of rain water. For shade in the summer months, trees will be planted in the outdoor eating areas and one tree will be provided for every four parking spaces as required by the Zoning Ordinance. Recycled water will be used for irrigation. The proposed water storage tank will collect rainwater from the roof of the building and store it for use during the warmer months. The project will conform with the standards for parking lot landscaping in Municipal Code Section 17.16.100. The requirement is one tree for every four (4) parking spaces and no more than six (6) consecutive parking spaces should be allowed in any row of parking without a tree well or tree well finger. The WDSP requires setbacks for the street frontages and the rear yard of the site. The Redwood Drive yard requirement is thirty (30) feet, Golf Course Drive West is 20 feet, and there is no rear yard requirement since the project backs up to land in the Specific Plan area that will be developed in the future. The landscape setback along Golf Course Drive West exceeds twenty (20) feet to the back of the sidewalk on that street. Along Redwood Drive the setback varies from twenty (20) feet to thirty (30) feet and is considered to be substantially in conformance. Parking lot lighting will consist of pole lights with low voltage LED lights. Sconce lights will be located on the building for security lighting around the building. The lighting will conform to Municipal Code Chapter 17.12.050 Lighting and Glare Standards. The proposed project includes a Specific Plan Amendment to allow for development to proceed incrementally on each separate parcel within the WDSP and to allow for a second drive-thru restaurant within the WDSP area. Amy's Kitchen Restaurant February 2014 AMY'S KITCHEN RESTAURANT INITIAL STUDY PROJECT TITLE: Amy's Kitchen Restaurant LEAD AGENCY: City of Rohnert Park Development Services 130 Avram Avenue Rohnert Park, CA 94928-2486 CONTACT PERSON: Marilyn Ponton, AICP Interim Development Services Director (707)588-2231 PROJECT LOCATION: 58 Golf Course Drive West Rohnert Park, CA Assessor's Parcel Numbers: 045-075-002 and 045-075-003 See Figures 1, 2, and 3 PROJECT APPLICANT: City of Rohnert Park 130 Avram Avenue Rohnert Park, CA 94928-2486 GENERAL PLAN: Commercial R ZONING: Specific Plan (S -P) EXISTING LAND USE: Vacant land The project proposes to construct a 3,998 square -foot Amy's Kitchen PROJECT SUMMARY Restaurant with a drive-thru and 2,104 square -foot outdoor seating area on a 2.35 -acre parcel within Village South of the Wilfred/Dowdell Specific Plan (see Figures 4 and 5). The project will also include an approximately 369 square -foot refuse and dry storage building. The total floor area ratio (FAR) will be 0.05. The restaurant building height will be 22.5 feet at the peak of the sloped roof. Access to the site will be provided from Redwood Drive and Golf Course Drive West. Pedestrian access to the site will be provided via sidewalks along Redwood Drive and Golf Course Drive West, as well as within the parking lot. A total of 68 parking spaces and 6 bicycle parking spaces will be provided on the site. Approximately 35 percent of the site will be landscaped using native - like grasses, shrubs, and trees. The parking lot and drive-thru will be screened by a 2 -foot landscape berm and one tree will be provided per four parking spaces within the parking lot. Trees will also be planted in the outdoor eating areas to provide shade. Recycled water will be used for irrigation. Bio-swales will be located along Golf Course Drive West, Redwood Drive, and interior landscape areas. Amy's Kitchen Restaurant February 2014 Initial Study Page 1 i. L ° � •�� . �� y, a ��° e 0 250 500 Feel SOURCE: Bing 2014 7390 1 AMY'S KITCHEN RESTAURANT INITIAL STUDY I,, Project Boundary FIGURE 3 Site Map GOLF COURSE DRIVE WEST SOURCE: TRACHTENBERG ARCHITECTS AMY'S KITCHEN RESTAURANT INITIAL STUDY iO FIGURE 4 Site Plan ,'�4+., ovmktL PERSPECENE FROM SOUTH•EASTCORNEFI PERSPECTNE CF -RTH-- CORNER SOURCE: TRACHTENBERG ARCHITECTS 7390 AMY'S KITCHEN RESTAURANT INITIAL STUDY }l PERSPECTNEOFSOUTFi-WESTCORNER I !�1�; PERSPECTIVE OF NCRTFLWEST_COfMER FIGURE 5 Renderings PROJECT LOCATION The project site is located at the southwest corner of Redwood Drive and Golf Course Drive West in the Village South area of the Wilfred/Dowdell Specific Plan in the City of Rohnert Park, Sonoma County, California. Please refer to Figures 1, 2, and 3. PROJECT SITE CHARACTERISTICS The project site, located on Golf Course Drive West in the City of Rohnert Park, comprises approximately 2.35 acres. The entire site is currently vacant. Until summer of 2013, there were buildings on the southern parcel, including a single family residence and associated out buildings. These structures and foundations were removed in summer 2013 and the voids were filled with aggregate material. Topography onsite is generally flat. The site is characterized by fallow agricultural fields, former building sites, and several trees. SURROUNDING LAND USES AND SETTING The project site is located between existing commercial and business development along Redwood Drive to the east, and agricultural fields and rural residential uses to the west. Fallow, mowed agricultural fields are located to the south and west of the site, as well as north of the site across Business Park Drive. A large commercial development with Home Depot, Walmart, and several other businesses is located north of the site along Redwood Drive. BACKGROUND DOCUMENTS AND PLANS Wilfred/Dowdell Specific Plan On September 23, 2008, the City Council adopted the Wilfred/Dowdell Specific Plan (WDSP). The Specific Plan covers a 24.77 acre site divided into Village North and Village South. Village South is 20.19 acre site southerly of Golf Course Drive West and westerly of Redwood Drive. In accordance with the City of Rohnert Park Zoning Code 17.06. Article VIII, the purpose of a Specific Plan Zoning District is to ensure that large developing areas of the city are master planned and compatible with the surrounding community, as well as to provide the city with flexibility to regulate design phases and allow variations form the zoning ordinance standards as appropriate. The WDSP provides the specific development standards for the 2.35 -acre project site. The project site is included in Village South of the WDSP, which is envisioned as a commercial shopping center with a mix of compatible uses. Village South allows for a total of 246,253 square feet of building area The Specific Plan requires a Conditional Use Permit for a fast food restaurant with a drive-thru. WDSP Environmental Impact Report The WDSP Environmental Impact Report (EIR) (SCH # 1998072036) was certified by the City of Rohnert Park City Council on August 20, 2008. Amy's Kitchen Restaurant February 2014 Initial Study Page 7 The WDSP and EIR are available for review upon request from the City of Rohnert Park Planning Department. Additional sources consulted in preparing the Initial Study are listed in the References section of this document. PROPOSED PROJECT CHARACTERISTICS As previously stated, the project proposes to construct an Amy's Kitchen Restaurant with a drive-thru as follows (see Figures 4 and 5): Square Footage - The restaurant building will be 3,998 square feet and the exterior courtyard seating area will be 2,104 square feet. The project will also include an approximately 369 square - foot refuse and dry storage building. Floor Plan - The restaurant building will include customer seating area of 900 square feet with seating 72 guests. The remainder of the building will be kitchen area, storage and restrooms. There will be two outdoor eating areas for customers with a total area of 2,104 square feet. One. will be at the northwest corner of the building and the other on the south side of the building. Outdoor seating will accommodate 76 diners. The small refuse and recycling building will be broken up into the refuse area and a small dry storage area. The FAR will be 0.05 and building coverage approximately 5%. Architecture - As shown on Figure 5, the exterior of the building will be a combination of stucco, structural steel and glass for a very contemporary look. The sloped roof of the building will be corten steel planted with grass. There will also be a round metal water tower that will collect water from the roof and use it for irrigation. Building height to the peak of the sloped roof will be 22.5 feet. The water storage tank will be constructed of metal with a height of approximately 25.5 feet. A low plaster wall will surround the outdoor eating areas and a wood trellis will be provided on top of the wall on the northerly eating areas at the northwest side of the restaurant. The trash enclosure and storage building will have stucco walls, metal doors and a standing seam metal roof with solar panels covering the roof. A low screen wall will screen the water service equipment on the Golf Course Drive West street frontage. A steel trellis roof with solar panels will be placed over a portion of the customer drive-thru area on the east side of the building. Signage - The Specific Plan requires that the applicant submit a Sign Program for the project (Section 5.6.1). The signage submittal for the project will be under a separate permit. The preliminary signage concept include wall signs, monument signs, and a painted water tower. Circulation - As shown on Figure 4, street access to the project will be provided from Golf Course Drive West and Redwood Drive. Both driveways will permit a right turn into the project and a right turn out of the project. Circulation is designed to facilitate access into the remainder of Village South when that area develops. Pedestrian path -of -travel will be provided to Redwood Drive and Golf course Drive West and across the parking lot to the refuse and dry storage building. Parking - There will be a total of 68 parking spaces including five (5) compact spaces and four (4) handicap stalls. All of the parking stalls will be 90° and the typical stall will be 9 feet wide Amy's Kitchen Restaurant February 2014 Initial Study Page 8 by 19 feet deep. For the safety of customers using the parking lot there will be no bumper stops. Six (6) bicycle parking racks will be located on the west side of the building. Landscaping - Bio-swales will be located along Golf Course Drive West, Redwood Drive and interior landscape areas to conform to the requirement that site drainage flow through a vegetated swale. They will also provide storage for site drainage during heavy periods of rain. Native -like grasses and shrubs of varying heights, textures and colors will be used. All of the trees will be 24 inch box size for maximum impact. The parking lot and drive-thru will be screened by a two foot landscape berm. The outdoor eating areas will be paved with decomposed granite which will allow percolation of rain water. For shade in the summer months, trees will be planted in the outdoor eating areas and one tree will be provided for every four parking spaces as required by the Zoning Ordinance. Recycled water will be used for irrigation. The proposed water storage tank will collect rainwater from the roof of the building and store it for use during the warmer months. The project will conform with the standards for parking lot landscaping in Municipal Code Section 17.16.100. The requirement is one tree for every four (4) parking spaces and no more than six (6) consecutive parking spaces should be allowed in any row of parking without a tree well or tree well finger. The WDSP requires setbacks for the street frontages and the rear yard of the site. The Redwood Drive yard requirement is thirty (30) feet, Golf Course Drive West is 20 feet, and there is no rear yard requirement since the project backs up to land in the WDSP area that will be developed in the future. The landscape setback along Golf Course Drive West exceeds twenty (20) feet to the back of the sidewalk on that street. Along Redwood Drive the setback varies from twenty (20) feet to thirty (30) feet. Lighting - Parking lot lighting will consist of pole lights with low voltage LED lights. Sconce lights will be located on the building for security lighting around the building. The lighting will conform to Municipal Code Chapter 17.12.050 Lighting and Glare Standards. Specific Plan Amendment Section 3.1.1 "Develop the project site as a unified development." would be deleted to allow for the development of the proposed project on two (2) of the parcels in Village South, separate from the development of the remainder of Village South. Section 3.3 Permitted Land Uses, 3.3.2 "One drive-through restaurant." Would be modified to allow for more than one drive-through restaurant. ENTITLEMENTS AND REQUIRED APPROVALS The project would require the following approvals: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service • Section 7 consultation City of Rohnert Park • Grading Permit • Development Area Plan -- - - ---------- Amy's -_-_ .Amy's Kitchen Restaurant February 2014 Initial Study Page 9 • Specific Plan Amendment • Conditional Use Permit Amy's Kitchen Restaurant February 2014 Initial Study Page 10 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 0 Biological Resources ❑ Greenhouse Gas Emissions 01 ❑ Agriculture and ❑ Air Quality Forestry Resources ❑ Cultural Resources ❑ ❑ Hazards& Hazardous ❑ Materials Land Use/Planning ❑ Population / Housing ❑ Transportation/ Traffic ❑ Mineral Resources Public Services Utilities / Service Systems DETERMINATION: (To be completed by the Lead Agency) On the basis of this initial evaluation: Geology/Soils Hydrology/Water Quality Noise Recreation ❑ Mandatory Findings of Significance ® None with Mitigation ❑ I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. ® I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. ❑ I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. ❑ I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. ❑ I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required. Signature: Fr�r t W t �'�r`-' Date: February 28, 2014 Printed Marilyn Ponton, AICP For: City of Rohnert Park Name: Interim Development Services Director Amy's Kitchen Restaurant February 2014 Initial Study Page 11 EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: a., b. The project site is not visible from, or within the viewshed of, any designated or locally important scenic vista, and is not visible from any state scenic highway or locally designated scenic corridor, according to the City's General Plan (City of Rohnert Park, 2000). The site is currently vacant and there are no scenic resources or unique natural features on the site. The project site is located within Village South of the WDSP. As noted in the WDSP EIR, application of the Specific Plan Standards and Guidelines at the Architectural and Design Review stage will ensure impacts to scenic views are less than significant. Therefore, the proposed project would have no impacts to scenic vistas, nor would it result in damage to scenic resources. C. The project site is located at the edge of an urban area that contains a mix of regional commercial and business park uses. Because the project is included in the WDSP, development of the project site would be required to be consistent with Mitigation Measure AES -1 (Mitigation Measure 3.9-4 in the WDSP EIR). This measure would ensure that impacts to the visual character of the area remain less than significant by applying the City's design standards to future development projects. Development of the proposed restaurant would change the visual character of the site, as shown on Figure 5, but because the site does not provide substantial scenic value and the future development would be consistent with the nature of the surrounding area, the project would have a less than significant effect on visual character. d. The project includes parking lot lighting that would consist of pole lights with low voltage LED lights. Sconce lights would be located on the building for security lighting. Since the project is included in the WDSP, development of the project site would be required to be consistent with Mitigation Measure AES -2 (Mitigation Measure 3.9-3 in the WDSP EIR). This measure would require that all lighting conform to the Lighting and Glare Standards in Municipal Code Chapter 17.12.050. This mitigation measure would ensure that the addition of light or glare associated with the proposed project would be less than significant. Amy's Kitchen Restaurant February 2014 Initial Study Page 12 Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than I. AESTHETICS Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? ❑ ❑ ❑ X b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, ❑ ❑ ❑ 7 but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character ❑ ❑ ❑ or quality of the site and its surroundings? d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare ❑ ® ❑ El which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? a., b. The project site is not visible from, or within the viewshed of, any designated or locally important scenic vista, and is not visible from any state scenic highway or locally designated scenic corridor, according to the City's General Plan (City of Rohnert Park, 2000). The site is currently vacant and there are no scenic resources or unique natural features on the site. The project site is located within Village South of the WDSP. As noted in the WDSP EIR, application of the Specific Plan Standards and Guidelines at the Architectural and Design Review stage will ensure impacts to scenic views are less than significant. Therefore, the proposed project would have no impacts to scenic vistas, nor would it result in damage to scenic resources. C. The project site is located at the edge of an urban area that contains a mix of regional commercial and business park uses. Because the project is included in the WDSP, development of the project site would be required to be consistent with Mitigation Measure AES -1 (Mitigation Measure 3.9-4 in the WDSP EIR). This measure would ensure that impacts to the visual character of the area remain less than significant by applying the City's design standards to future development projects. Development of the proposed restaurant would change the visual character of the site, as shown on Figure 5, but because the site does not provide substantial scenic value and the future development would be consistent with the nature of the surrounding area, the project would have a less than significant effect on visual character. d. The project includes parking lot lighting that would consist of pole lights with low voltage LED lights. Sconce lights would be located on the building for security lighting. Since the project is included in the WDSP, development of the project site would be required to be consistent with Mitigation Measure AES -2 (Mitigation Measure 3.9-3 in the WDSP EIR). This measure would require that all lighting conform to the Lighting and Glare Standards in Municipal Code Chapter 17.12.050. This mitigation measure would ensure that the addition of light or glare associated with the proposed project would be less than significant. Amy's Kitchen Restaurant February 2014 Initial Study Page 12 Mitigation Measures Mitigation Measures AES -1 (WDSP EIR Mitigation Measure 3.9-4): Implementation of polices in the General Plan EIR will be required as part of the project design. The polices to mitigate visual impacts on the City's Westside including planting and setbacks that ensure the edge of the urban uses results in a "soft" view will reduce these impacts to a less than significant level. Mitigation Measures AES -2 (WDSP EIR Mitigation Measure 3.9-3): The Project shall comply with municipal code section 17.12.050 that requires that exterior lighting be designed to avoid spillover lighting onto adjacent properties. Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than II. AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact Would the project: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or ❑ ❑ ❑ Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a ❑ ❑ ❑ Williamson Act contract? c) 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? d. Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of ❑ ❑ ❑ i forest land to non -forest use? e. Involve other changes in the existing environment ❑ ❑ ❑ 171 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? a. - e. The proposed project site is located at the edge of an existing urban area, adjacent to existing commercial uses to the east and rural residential uses to the west. The project site is designated Commercial in the City's General Plan and zoned Specific Plan (S -P). The site is not identified as prime farmland, unique farmland, or farmland of statewide importance; the project site is not under a Williamson Act contract; and the project site does not support any forestry resources. The site is not planned for or used for any agricultural or forestry purposes and the proposed project would not result in the conversion of any agricultural or forest land, conflict with any agricultural use, or conflict with a Williamson Act contract. Mitigation Measures No mitigation measures are necessary. Amy's Kitchen Restaurant February 2014 Initial Study Page 13 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 [j 0 ® (❑ concentrations? e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial ❑ ❑ ® El number of people? The following discussion is based on the Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Analysis prepared by Dudek for the proposed project (Dudek 2014). The analysis is included in Appendix A. a. - d. The project site is located within the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin, which is designated non -attainment for the federal 8 -hour ozone standard. 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 ozone, 24-hour small particulate matter (PM10), annual PM10, and annual respirable particulate matter (PM2.5). To address the region's non -attainment status, the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) adopted the Bay Area 2005 Ozone Strategy (BAAQMD 2006) and the Bay Area 2010 Clean Air Plan (BAAQMD 2010a). The 2010 Clean Air Plan provides "an integrated, multi -pollutant strategy to improve air quality, protect public health, and protect the climate." This strategy includes a number of control measures to be adopted or implemented to reduce emissions of ozone, PM, air toxics, and greenhouse gases. The BAAQMD has adopted CEQA Guidelines (the 2010 BAAQMD Guidelines, BAAQMD 2010b) that establish air pollutant emission thresholds that identify whether a project would violate any applicable air quality standards or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation. The 2010 BAAQMD Guidelines also establish screening criteria based on the size of a project to determine whether detailed Amy's Kitchen Restaurant February 2014 Initial Study Page 14 Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than III. AIR QUALITY Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact 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 ❑ [f 0 applicable air quality plan? b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute ❑ ❑ ❑ substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase ❑ ❑ ® ❑ of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non -attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant [j 0 ® (❑ concentrations? e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial ❑ ❑ ® El number of people? The following discussion is based on the Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Analysis prepared by Dudek for the proposed project (Dudek 2014). The analysis is included in Appendix A. a. - d. The project site is located within the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin, which is designated non -attainment for the federal 8 -hour ozone standard. 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 ozone, 24-hour small particulate matter (PM10), annual PM10, and annual respirable particulate matter (PM2.5). To address the region's non -attainment status, the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) adopted the Bay Area 2005 Ozone Strategy (BAAQMD 2006) and the Bay Area 2010 Clean Air Plan (BAAQMD 2010a). The 2010 Clean Air Plan provides "an integrated, multi -pollutant strategy to improve air quality, protect public health, and protect the climate." This strategy includes a number of control measures to be adopted or implemented to reduce emissions of ozone, PM, air toxics, and greenhouse gases. The BAAQMD has adopted CEQA Guidelines (the 2010 BAAQMD Guidelines, BAAQMD 2010b) that establish air pollutant emission thresholds that identify whether a project would violate any applicable air quality standards or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation. The 2010 BAAQMD Guidelines also establish screening criteria based on the size of a project to determine whether detailed Amy's Kitchen Restaurant February 2014 Initial Study Page 14 modeling to estimate air pollutant emissions is necessary. The proposed project, at 3,998 square feet, is well below the screening criteria for construction emissions (277,000 square feet) and operational criteria for pollutant emissions (6,000 square feet). In addition, the following Basic Construction Emission Control Measures would be included in the project design and implemented during construction, as required by BAAQMD. The inclusion of these measures is consistent with the WDSP and complies with Mitigation Measure 3.7-3 included in the WDSP EIR. a. All active construction areas shall be watered at least two times per day. b. All exposed non -paved surfaces (e.g., parking areas, staging areas, soil piles, graded areas, and access roads) shall be watered at least three times per day and/or non-toxic soil stabilizers shall be applied to exposed non -paved surfaces. C. All haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose material offsite shall be covered and/or shall maintain at least two feet of freeboard. d. 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. e. All vehicle speeds on unpaved roads shall be limited to 15 miles per hour. f. 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. g. Idling times shall be minimized either by shutting equipment off when not in use or reducing the maximum idling time to five minutes (as required by the California airborne toxics control measure Title 13, Section 2485 of California Code of Regulations). Clear signage regarding idling restrictions shall be provided for construction workers at all access points. h. 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. The prime construction contractor shall post a publicly visible sign with the telephone number and person to contact at the construction site and at the City of Rohnert Park or the regarding dust complaints. The prime construction contractor shall respond and take corrective action within 48 hours. The Air District's phone number shall also be visible to ensure compliance with applicable regulations With implementation of the Basic Construction Emission Control Measures listed above, construction of the proposed project would have a less than significant impact related to air pollutant emissions, violations of air quality standards, and would not conflict with any applicable air quality plans. As described previously, the proposed project size is below the screening criteria for Amy's Kitchen Restaurant Initial Study February 2014 Page 15 operational criteria air pollutant emissions. The air pollutant emissions during operation of the proposed project would have a less than significant impact to air quality and the potential for the region to experience violations of applicable air quality standards. In addition, emissions of carbon monoxide (CO) from idling vehicles can create pockets of high CO concentrations, called "hot spots." These pockets can exceed the applicant state standards for CO. High CO concentrations can cause headaches, dizziness, and nausea and can contribute to chronic health conditions. At very high concentrations and/or with prolonged contact, CO exposure can be fatal. Typically, high CO concentrations are associated with roadways or intersections operating at unacceptable levels of service and/or with extremely high traffic volumes. More specifically, CO hot - spots occur where there are many thousands of cars idling. Screening criteria included in the BAAQMD 2010 CEQA Guidelines are designed to identify potentially significant CO hot -spots. Those criteria indicate that project -related CO emissions would not cause a significant impact on air quality if the project does not increase traffic volumes at affected intersections to more than 44,000 vehicles per hour (or 24,000 vehicles per hour in an area where air flow is limited, such as a tunnel or parking garage). The Traffic Impact Study prepared by W -Trans for the proposed project found that three of the five signalized study intersections would operate at an acceptable LOS under future plus project conditions, while two intersections would operate at deficient LOS in the future with and without the project (W -Trans 2014). However, the project would only cause the delay at the two deficient intersections to increase by 0.5 seconds and 4.0 seconds, which is not considered significant. In addition, the traffic volumes at the study intersections would be far less than 44,000 vehicles per hour in the future with and without the project. Therefore, the project would not cause or contribute to a significant impact related to CO concentrations. Further, as described in Section I.2 of the BAAQMD 2010 CEQA Guidelines, Thresholds of Significance, "by its very nature, air pollution is largely a cumulative impact. No single project is sufficient in size to, by itself, result in nonattainment of ambient air quality standards." Therefore, the thresholds of significance developed by the BAAQMD reflect the "emission levels for which a project's individual emissions would be cumulatively considerable." A project with emissions that are below the thresholds of significance would not make a considerable contribution to any cumulative impacts. As discussed above, the proposed project would have emissions that are below the applicable thresholds of significant, therefore, the project would make a less than significant contribution to cumulative air quality impacts. e. As discussed in the WDSP EIR, there are no existing major sources of odors that would affect proposed residences in the project area and the proposed project would not be expected to create objectionable odors. Temporary odors could be generated by construction associated with the proposed project, but no odors would be generated by the project once completed. Odors are required by the BAAQMD to remain within the property boundary. Therefore, this impact is less than significant. Mitigation Measures No mitigation measures are necessary. Amy's Kitchen Restaurant February 2014 Initial Study Page 16 c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally Less Than protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Significant Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, Potentially With Less Than IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Significant Mitigation Significant No means? Impact Incorporated Impact Impact Would the project: native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or ❑ M ❑ ❑ through habitat modifications, on any species nursery sites? identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ species in local or regional plans, policies, or protecting biological resources, such as a tree regulations, or by the California Department of Fish f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? Conservation Plan, Natural Community 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 Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally ❑ n ❑❑ 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 Q 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 ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat ❑ ❑ ❑ Z Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? In August 2011, AECOM biologists prepared a Biological Resources Assessment (BRA) for the 24.77 -acre Wilfred Dowdell Village Project, which included the 2.35 -acre project site (AECOM 2011). In addition, AECOM prepared a Wetland Delineation and Preliminary Jurisdictional Determination for the Wilfred Dowdell Village Project, which the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers approved in December 2011 (USACE 2011). The northern portion of the project site is mapped as Non -Native Annual Grassland and includes an unvegetated swale along Golf Course Drive West (the northern boundary of the site). This unvegetated swale was removed as part of the widening of Golf Course Drive West and is no longer considered a part of the existing conditions of the project site. The southern portion of the project site, where the former residence and associated structures were located, is mapped as Developed/ Disturbed and Landscaped Lands (AECOM 2011). These reports are included in Appendix B. Amy's Kitchen Restaurant February 2014 Initial Study Page 17 a., b. AECOM conducted a search of the California Department of Fish and Wildlife's (CDFW) California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) to create a list of special -status species and sensitive biological communities with potential to occur within the project area. AECOM staff also reviewed the special -status species lists created by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and the California Native Plant Society (CNPS) inventory of special -status plants in the region. The resulting lists of special -status species and their habitat requirements were evaluated to determine the potential for these species to occur within the project site. A discussion of potential impacts to listed species is provided in the subsequent paragraphs. Special -Status Plants As discussed in the BRA prepared by AECOM and the WDSP EIR, most of the special - status plant species occurring in the region are not expected to occur on the project site due to lack of suitable habitat. However, since site-specific surveys of the project site were not conducted, the following special -status plant species identified in the WDSP FIR have potential to occur on the site: Sonoma sunshine, Dwarf downingia, Burke's goldfields, Legenere, and Sebastopol meadowfoam. Grading and construction activity on the project site could adversely impacts populations of these special -status plant species, resulting in a significant impact. However, implementation of Mitigation Measures BIO - 1 through BIO -4 (WDSP EIR Mitigation Measures 3.4-3a though 3.4-3d), which require a pre -construction survey of the site and appropriate measures in the event a species is determined to occur on the site, would ensure that potential impacts to these plant species would remain less than significant. Special -Status Wildlife As discussed in the WDSP EIR and the BRA prepared by AECOM (2011), special -status wildlife species that could occur within the project area include the California tiger salamander (CTS) and various raptor species. California Tiger Salamander According to the WDSP EIR and BRA prepared by AECOM, the project site provides potential for occurrence as breeding habitat, but only marginal to no potential for occurrence as estivation and foraging habitat for CTS. The proposed project would result in the permanent loss of suitable upland habitat for CTS. As a result, the proposed project would be required to comply with the terms and conditions of incidental take permits issued by USFWS and CDFW. The project site occurs within an area subject to a 1 to 1 mitigation ratio for impacts to suitable CTS upland habitat; however, the final mitigation ratio is determined by USFWS through the Section 7 consultation process. In addition, the minimization measures from the Santa Rosa Plain Conservation Strategy (2005) would be implemented as part of the project. These measures include an on-site designated biologist, wildlife checks, and construction monitoring. Conservation and minimization measures developed for the proposed project would reduce the effects of the project to levels that are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the listed CTS population. In addition, implementation of Mitigation Measures BIO -5 through BIO -7 (WDSP EIR Mitigation Measures BIO -3.4-4a through BIO -3.4-4c), which require formal consultation with USFWS, surveys, and compensation Amy's Kitchen Restaurant February 2014 Initial Study Page 18 for CTS habitat loss, would ensure that impacts to this species would remain less than significant. Nesting Raptors The trees within the project site could support nesting raptors and other migratory birds. Nesting birds are protected by the California Fish and Game Code and the federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act and disturbance of breeding or nesting would be a significant impact. Implementation of Mitigation Measures BIO -8 through BIO -10 (WDSP EIR Mitigation Measures BIO -3.4-6a through 3.4-6c), which require seasonal restrictions on tree removal and pre -construction surveys if trees are removed during the breeding season, would ensure that impacts to these species remain less than significant. C. As described in the WDSP EIR and BRA prepared by AECOM in 2011, the greater Wilfred Dowdell Village Project area includes jurisdictional wetlands and waters; however, as shown on Exhibit 1-2 of the BRA (AECOM 2011), the only jurisdictional waters on the project site is the unvegetated swale along the northern edge of the site. As described previously, this swale was removed as part of the widening of Golf Course Drive West (formerly Wilfred Avenue) and is no longer part of the project site. Since no other potentially jurisdictional waters or wetlands exist on the site, no impact would occur as a result of the proposed project. d. As described in response to a. and b. above, the proposed project would impact suitable upland habitat for CTS. As described in the WDSP EIR, excluding the loss of this habitat described above, the project site does not provide high quality habitat or resources to attract other wildlife species that might migrate onto or through the site, or use the site for wildlife nursery sites. As a result, the proposed project would have a less than significant impact on the movement of species or use of wildlife nursery sites. e. There are several trees located on the project site; however none of the existing trees are regulated or protected by the City's Heritage Tree Preservation Ordinance. No other policies for the protection of biological resources apply to the project site. Therefore, no impacts would result from any conflict with policies, provisions or adopted plans protecting biological resources. f. The project site is located within the area covered by the Santa Rosa Plain Conservation Strategy (USFWS 2005). The purpose of the Conservation Strategy is to create a long-term conservation program to mitigate potential adverse effects on listed species from future development on the Santa Rosa Plain. CTS is addressed by the Santa Rosa Plain Conservation Strategy. As terms and conditions of permits required from the Corps and CDFW, the project would be required to implement mitigation measures consistent with the Conservation Strategy and would therefore result in no conflict with the provisions of this adopted plan. Mitigation Measures Mitigation Measure BI0-1 (WDSP EIR Mitigation Measure 3.4-3a): A pre -construction survey of ruderal seasonal wetland habitat shall occur prior to, but no earlier than 30 days prior to the commencement of grading and/or construction activities. This survey shall be conducted within the blooming period of all five special -status plants identified as having the potential to Amy's Kitchen Restaurant February 2014 Initial Study Page 19 be present on the Project site. If one or more of these species is observed during the survey, then appropriate alternative measures should be executed. Mitigation Measure BIO -2 (WDSP FIR Mitigation Measure 3.4-3b): If special -status plant species are determined to occur on the project site, they shall be avoided to the extent feasible. For those plants that cannot be avoided, the following mitigation measure shall be implemented. 1) All plants within the construction footprint (including staging areas) shall be transplanted to a mitigation site approved by CDFG and the USFWS. 2) Lost plant habitat shall be replaced at a ratio of two acres of replacement habitat for each acre of special- status plant habitat lost. The success of the transplantation program shall be evaluated to have been achieved if 80% or more of the transplanted plants have survived five years after transplantation. 3) Mitigation projects will be monitored annually for five years using success criteria developed in coordination with the CDFG and USFWS. Mitigation Measure BI0-3 (WDSP EIR Mitigation Measure 3.4-3c): Where complete avoidance is not feasible, pre -construction surveys shall be conducted to flag the limits of areas where special -status plant species occur. Mitigation Measure BI04 (WDSP FIR Mitigation Measure 3.4-3d): The City of Rohnert Park and the developer should establish an ongoing and aggressive weed abatement program to prevent the spread and establishment of exotic weeds along established habitat on the site or habitat subject to further invasion of seed stock resulting from grading and development activities. Mitigation Measure BI0-5 (WDSP EIR Mitigation Measure 3.4-4a): A formal consultation should be initiated with the USFWS regarding the California Tiger Salamander (CTS). Based on the ensuing Biological Opinion provided by the USFWS as part of the consultation, further measures may be necessary by the USFWS before initiation of any grading and construction activities would be permitted to begin. Mitigation Measure BI0-6 (WDSP EIR Mitigation Measure 3.4-4b): A CTS protocol survey could be one of the USFWS's recommendations, based on the consultation. CTS survey protocol guidelines appear in a publication produced by the USFWS (USFWS, 2004). Mitigation Measure SI0-7 (WDSP EIR Mitigation Measure 3.4-3c): Any active CTS must not be disturbed. If CDFW determines that CTS habitat will be lost because of development, the developer/ applicant shall provide compensation for habitat loss to be determined in consultation with the CDFW. Mitigation Measure BI0-8 (WDSP EIR Mitigation Measure 3.4-6a): The applicant shall retain a qualified biologist, acceptable to the City to conduct nest surveys on the site and within 200 feet of its borders prior to construction or site preparation activities occurring during the nesting/ breeding season raptor species (typically February through August). The surveys shall be conducted no earlier than 30 days prior to commencement of construction/ restoration activities. Amy's Kitchen Restaurant February 2014 Initial Study Page 20 Mitigation Measure SI0-9 (WDSP EIR Mitigation Measure 3.4-6b): If active raptor nests are present in the construction zone or within 200 feet of these areas, a fence shall be erected at a minimum of 50 feet around the nest site and remain until the end of the nesting season or until the biologist deems necessary. This temporary buffer may be greater depending on the identification of the bird species and construction activity elements, as determined by the biologist. Mitigation Measure BIO -10 (WDSP EIR Mitigation Measure 3.4-6c): If an active raptor nest is located on or adjacent to the project site, tree removal, grading, and other project -related disturbances shall be prohibited within 200 feet of the active raptor nest until the young have fledged. Prior to disturbance within 200 feet of an active raptor nest, the project developer shall retain a qualified biologist or ornithologist, acceptable to the City to confirm that the young have fledged. The biologist shall serve as a construction monitor during those periods when construction activities will occur near active nest areas to ensure the safety of raptors at peril. a. - d. As described in the WDSP EIR, no archaeological, historical, or Native American resources have been previously identified in the WDSP area, including the project site. It is unlikely that previously unknown cultural resources would be encountered during site grading for construction of the proposed project. However, to ensure that impacts to cultural resources remain less than significant, should any such resources be encountered during project grading and construction, Mitigation Measures CUL - 1, CUL -2, and CUL -3 will be implemented. These mitigation measures are included in the WDSP EIR as Mitigation Measures 3.5-1, 3.5-2a, and 3.5-2b. Mitigation Measures Mitigation Measure CUL -1 (WDSP EIR Mitigation Measure 3.5-1): A cultural resources field survey of the Project site shall be performed prior to construction activities. All prehistoric and historic archaeological and historic architectural properties identified during the field survey Amy's Kitchen Restaurant February 2014 Initial Study Page 21 Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than V. CULTURAL RESOURCES Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the ❑ ❑ ❑ significance of a historical resource as defined in §15064.5? b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the ❑ ® ❑ ❑ significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5? c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique ❑ ❑ ❑ paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred ❑ ® ❑ ❑ outside of formal cemeteries? a. - d. As described in the WDSP EIR, no archaeological, historical, or Native American resources have been previously identified in the WDSP area, including the project site. It is unlikely that previously unknown cultural resources would be encountered during site grading for construction of the proposed project. However, to ensure that impacts to cultural resources remain less than significant, should any such resources be encountered during project grading and construction, Mitigation Measures CUL - 1, CUL -2, and CUL -3 will be implemented. These mitigation measures are included in the WDSP EIR as Mitigation Measures 3.5-1, 3.5-2a, and 3.5-2b. Mitigation Measures Mitigation Measure CUL -1 (WDSP EIR Mitigation Measure 3.5-1): A cultural resources field survey of the Project site shall be performed prior to construction activities. All prehistoric and historic archaeological and historic architectural properties identified during the field survey Amy's Kitchen Restaurant February 2014 Initial Study Page 21 shall be recorded to State of California, Department of Parks and Recreation standards on 523 (DPR 523) series forms. Mitigation Measure CUL -2 (WDSP EIR Mitigation Measure 3.5-2a): If any cultural resources are discovered during ground -disturbing activities, work in the immediate area shall stop and a qualified archaeologist brought in to evaluate the resource and to recommend further action, if necessary. Construction crews shall be directed by holder of the grading permit to be alert for cultural resources which could consist of, but not be limited to: artifact of stone, bone, wood, shell, or other materials; features, including hearths, structural remains, or dumps; areas of discolored soil indicating the location of fire pits, post molds, or living area surfaces. Mitigation Measure CUL -3 (WDSP EIR Mitigation Measure 3.5-2b): In the event that human remains are discovered, all work in the area shall stop immediately, and the applicant shall contact the County Coroner. If the remains are determined to be of Native American origin, both the Native American Heritage Commission and any identified descendants shall be notified and recommendations for treatment solicited pursuant to CEQA Section 15064.59(e). Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact 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 H n f delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? ❑ ® ❑ ❑ iii) Seismic -related ground failure, including ❑ ® ❑ ❑ liquefaction? iv) Landslides? ❑ ❑ ® ❑ b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of ❑ ❑ ® ❑ topsoil? c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, ❑ N ❑ ❑ 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 Tablel8- ❑ ® ❑j 1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? Amy's Kitchen Restaurant February 2014 Initial Study Page 22 a. Surface Fault Rupture As stated in the WDSP EIR, the project site could be subject to violent ground shaking from a major seismic event on the Healdsburg-Rodgers Creek fault. However, because the project site is not underlain by known traces of any potentially active fault, fault -line surface rupture would not be a hazard within the project site. Impacts related to fault rupture potential would be less than significant. Groundshaking As discussed in the WDSP EIR, it is apparent that the project site could be subjected to at least one major earthquake during the useful economic life of the proposed project. Resulting vibration from a major earthquake on the Healdsburg-Rodgers Creek fault could cause damage to buildings, roads, and infrastructure, and could cause ground failures such as liquefaction. The proposed project would be designed and constructed in accordance with all applicable buildings codes, which address seismic hazards and would reduce the potential for structure damage. However, since non-structural building elements could injure building occupants during an earthquake, this would be considered a significant impact. Because the project site is within the WDSP, the project would be required to implement Mitigation Measure GEO-1 (WDSP EIR Mitigation Measure 3.2-1), which requires building contents to be secured to the extent feasible. This would ensure impacts related to groundshaking are less than significant. Liquefaction According to the WDSP EIR, soils on the project site have a moderate to high potential for liquefaction. Therefore, impacts are significant. The proposed project would be required to comply with Mitigation Measure GEO-2 (WDSP EIR Mitigation Measure 3.2-2), which requires a detailed soils analysis for areas having a "high" liquefaction potential. This would ensure impacts due to liquefaction would be less than significant. Landslides No landslide deposits have been mapped within the WDSP area or in the immediate vicinity. The California Geological Survey slope stability map of southern Sonoma County categorizes the project area as an area of the greatest relative stability because there are no slopes steeper than 1 percent. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. Amy's Kitchen Restaurant February 2014 Initial Study Page 23 Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact Would the project: e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the L, F__1 I_ use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater? a. Surface Fault Rupture As stated in the WDSP EIR, the project site could be subject to violent ground shaking from a major seismic event on the Healdsburg-Rodgers Creek fault. However, because the project site is not underlain by known traces of any potentially active fault, fault -line surface rupture would not be a hazard within the project site. Impacts related to fault rupture potential would be less than significant. Groundshaking As discussed in the WDSP EIR, it is apparent that the project site could be subjected to at least one major earthquake during the useful economic life of the proposed project. Resulting vibration from a major earthquake on the Healdsburg-Rodgers Creek fault could cause damage to buildings, roads, and infrastructure, and could cause ground failures such as liquefaction. The proposed project would be designed and constructed in accordance with all applicable buildings codes, which address seismic hazards and would reduce the potential for structure damage. However, since non-structural building elements could injure building occupants during an earthquake, this would be considered a significant impact. Because the project site is within the WDSP, the project would be required to implement Mitigation Measure GEO-1 (WDSP EIR Mitigation Measure 3.2-1), which requires building contents to be secured to the extent feasible. This would ensure impacts related to groundshaking are less than significant. Liquefaction According to the WDSP EIR, soils on the project site have a moderate to high potential for liquefaction. Therefore, impacts are significant. The proposed project would be required to comply with Mitigation Measure GEO-2 (WDSP EIR Mitigation Measure 3.2-2), which requires a detailed soils analysis for areas having a "high" liquefaction potential. This would ensure impacts due to liquefaction would be less than significant. Landslides No landslide deposits have been mapped within the WDSP area or in the immediate vicinity. The California Geological Survey slope stability map of southern Sonoma County categorizes the project area as an area of the greatest relative stability because there are no slopes steeper than 1 percent. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. Amy's Kitchen Restaurant February 2014 Initial Study Page 23 b., c., d. As discussed in the WDSP EIR, the existence of expansive soils within the WDSP area makes it necessary to ensure the soils used for foundation support are sound. An acceptable degree of soil stability can be achieved by the required incorporation of soil treatment programs (e.g. grouting, compaction, drainage control, lime treatment) in the excavation and construction plans to address site-specific soil conditions. The site-specific analysis is necessary for areas where unsuitable conditions are suspected. To ensure that the future development at the project site is not adversely affected by unstable soil conditions, the project would be required to implement Mitigation Measure GEO-3 (WDSP EIR Mitigation Measure 3.2-3). Implementation of Mitigation Measure GEO-3 would ensure that impacts related to expansive soils would be less than significant. e. 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 (WDSP EIR Mitigation Measure 3.2-1): The contents of buildings in the proposed Project shall be secured to the extent feasible. All shelving shall be secured to structural elements of the floor, wall, or ceiling. Heavy display items and merchandise shall be placed on lower shelves and secured to building elements where possible. A certificate of occupancy shall not be issued until compliance with these requirements. Mitigation Measure GEO-2 (WDSP EIR Mitigation Measure 3.2-2): A geotechnical study acceptable to the City shall be conducted by a California Certified Geologist prior to site development. This study shall evaluate liquefaction potential at the Project site prior to issuance of a grading permit. Recommendations shall be provided, as necessary, to prevent damage to Project facilities and compliance with these recommendations shall be required as a condition of development at the Project site. This impact will be less than significant because engineering techniques to mitigate for poor ground conditions are incorporated into building codes with which the Project will have to comply. Mitigation Measure GEO-3 (WDSP EIR Mitigation Measure 3.2-3): A geotechnical study acceptable to the City shall be conducted to determine the location and extent of expansive soils at the Project site prior to issuance of a grading permit. The study will include recommendations regarding the treatment and/or remedy of onsite soils, and the structural design of foundations and underground utilities, and compliance with these recommendations shall be required as a condition of future development at the Project Site. Amy's Kitchen Restaurant February 2014 Initial Study Page 24 The following discussion is based on the Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Analysis prepared by Dudek for the proposed project (Dudek 2014). The analysis is included in Appendix A. a., b. Greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and climate change effects were not evaluated in the WDSP EIR. Climate change, which involves significant changes in global climate patterns, has been associated with an increase in the average temperature of the atmosphere near the Earth's surface, or global warming. This warming has been attributed to an accumulation of GHGs in the atmosphere. These GHGs trap heat in the atmosphere, which in turn heats the surface of the Earth. GHG emissions are typically measured in carbon dioxide equivalents (CO2e), which converts emissions of several types of GHGs into an equivalent amount of carbon dioxide based on the relative potential for each gas to contribute to climate change. State and federal legislation has resulted in policies that define targets for reductions in GHG emissions. Climate change research and policy efforts are primarily concerned with GHG emissions related to human activity. In particular, California adopted the 2006 Global Warming Solutions Act (commonly referred to as AB 32), which established a statewide emission reduction target to ensure that GHG emissions in the year 2020 are equal to the statewide GHG emissions in 1990. The California Air Resources Board (ARB) 2008 Scoping Plan estimated that GHG emissions in the state would have to be reduced by approximately 29 percent from business -as -usual (BAU) levels in order to meet the GHG emissions reduction requirement. The BAAQMD has adopted CEQA Guidelines (the 2010 BAAQMD Guidelines, BAAQMD 2010b) that identify the following GHG thresholds: • For land use development projects, the threshold is compliance with a qualified GHG Reduction Strategy; or annual emissions less than 1,100 metric tons per year (MT/yr) of CO2e; or 4.6 MT CO2e/SP/yr (residents + employees). Land use development projects include residential, commercial, industrial, and public land uses and facilities. The proposed project would construct a 3,998 -square foot fast food restaurant. This is far less than the criteria for construction emissions, but larger than the BAAQMD screening criteria for operational GHG emissions. Therefore, operational GHG emissions were estimated using CalEEMod. The project includes the following Amy's Kitchen Restaurant February 2014 Initial Study Page 25 Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than VII. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact Would the project: a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly F—! El ® i] or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment? b) Conflict with any applicable plan, policy, or [] ] ® [1 regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? The following discussion is based on the Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Analysis prepared by Dudek for the proposed project (Dudek 2014). The analysis is included in Appendix A. a., b. Greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and climate change effects were not evaluated in the WDSP EIR. Climate change, which involves significant changes in global climate patterns, has been associated with an increase in the average temperature of the atmosphere near the Earth's surface, or global warming. This warming has been attributed to an accumulation of GHGs in the atmosphere. These GHGs trap heat in the atmosphere, which in turn heats the surface of the Earth. GHG emissions are typically measured in carbon dioxide equivalents (CO2e), which converts emissions of several types of GHGs into an equivalent amount of carbon dioxide based on the relative potential for each gas to contribute to climate change. State and federal legislation has resulted in policies that define targets for reductions in GHG emissions. Climate change research and policy efforts are primarily concerned with GHG emissions related to human activity. In particular, California adopted the 2006 Global Warming Solutions Act (commonly referred to as AB 32), which established a statewide emission reduction target to ensure that GHG emissions in the year 2020 are equal to the statewide GHG emissions in 1990. The California Air Resources Board (ARB) 2008 Scoping Plan estimated that GHG emissions in the state would have to be reduced by approximately 29 percent from business -as -usual (BAU) levels in order to meet the GHG emissions reduction requirement. The BAAQMD has adopted CEQA Guidelines (the 2010 BAAQMD Guidelines, BAAQMD 2010b) that identify the following GHG thresholds: • For land use development projects, the threshold is compliance with a qualified GHG Reduction Strategy; or annual emissions less than 1,100 metric tons per year (MT/yr) of CO2e; or 4.6 MT CO2e/SP/yr (residents + employees). Land use development projects include residential, commercial, industrial, and public land uses and facilities. The proposed project would construct a 3,998 -square foot fast food restaurant. This is far less than the criteria for construction emissions, but larger than the BAAQMD screening criteria for operational GHG emissions. Therefore, operational GHG emissions were estimated using CalEEMod. The project includes the following Amy's Kitchen Restaurant February 2014 Initial Study Page 25 features that would reduce operational GHG emissions: • The project would exceed Title 24 energy efficiency requirements by 15 percent, consistent with CALGreen Tier 1 requirements, as required by the City of Rohnert Park. • The project would include onsite solar panels that would generate approximately 12,500 kWh of energy. • The project would achieve a 20 percent reduction in indoor water use, consistent with CALGreen Tier 1 requirements. The project's annual operational GHG emissions were estimated in CalEEMod to be 1,013.5 MTCO2e, which is below the BAAQMD threshold of 1,100 MTCO2e per year. Since the project's GHG emissions would remain below the applicable threshold of significance, the project would result in a less than significant contribution to climate change impacts and would not impede achievement of the state's GHG reduction goals. Mitigation Measures No mitigation measures are necessary, Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than VIII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact Would the project: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the ❑ environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? d) Be located on a site which 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 ❑ 0 F 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, E] Amy's Kitchen Restaurant February 2014 Initial Study Page 26 h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of ❑ ❑ ,�� ❑ loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? a., b. The proposed project would construct a drive-thru restaurant within the WDSP in the City of Rohnert Park. In the operational condition, the project would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials. However, construction of the project could expose construction workers, the public, or the environment to hazardous materials through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment. Small quantities of potentially toxic substances (e.g., petroleum and other chemicals used to operate and maintain construction equipment) would be used at the project site and transported to and from the site during construction. Accidental releases of small quantities of these substances could contaminate soils and degrade the quality of surface water and groundwater, resulting in a public safety hazard. However, compliance federal, state, and City plans and requirements for hazardous materials would ensure impacts are less than significant. C. The project would not create hazardous emissions or hazardous waste and would not handle hazardous materials or substances. There are no schools within 0.25 miles of the site. The project would have no impact related to exposure of the project site to hazards and hazardous materials. d. As described in the WDSP EIR, a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) of the project site was performed by MACTEC in August 2005. To prepare the ESA, a search of federal, state, and local regulatory databases was conducted for sites, within an approximately one -mile radius of the subject property, that are known to be chemical handlers, hazardous waste generators, or polluters. Results of the database search indicate that the proposed project site is not listed regulatory databases. Therefore, there would be no impacts related to the project being located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 e., f. The project would have no impact related to airport safety. Amy's Kitchen Restaurant February 2014 Initial Study Page 27 Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than VIII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact Would the project: 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 urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? a., b. The proposed project would construct a drive-thru restaurant within the WDSP in the City of Rohnert Park. In the operational condition, the project would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials. However, construction of the project could expose construction workers, the public, or the environment to hazardous materials through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment. Small quantities of potentially toxic substances (e.g., petroleum and other chemicals used to operate and maintain construction equipment) would be used at the project site and transported to and from the site during construction. Accidental releases of small quantities of these substances could contaminate soils and degrade the quality of surface water and groundwater, resulting in a public safety hazard. However, compliance federal, state, and City plans and requirements for hazardous materials would ensure impacts are less than significant. C. The project would not create hazardous emissions or hazardous waste and would not handle hazardous materials or substances. There are no schools within 0.25 miles of the site. The project would have no impact related to exposure of the project site to hazards and hazardous materials. d. As described in the WDSP EIR, a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) of the project site was performed by MACTEC in August 2005. To prepare the ESA, a search of federal, state, and local regulatory databases was conducted for sites, within an approximately one -mile radius of the subject property, that are known to be chemical handlers, hazardous waste generators, or polluters. Results of the database search indicate that the proposed project site is not listed regulatory databases. Therefore, there would be no impacts related to the project being located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 e., f. The project would have no impact related to airport safety. Amy's Kitchen Restaurant February 2014 Initial Study Page 27 g. The project would not interfere with any adopted emergency or evacuation plans. Because the project site is located at the edge of current development, it would not hinder emergency services. The development of a new public safety facility is currently under consideration by the City. Construction of the public safety facility would reduce response times in the project area. Therefore, the project would have a less than significant impact related to implementation of emergency plans. h. The City of Rohnert Park General Plan states that the potential for wildland fires varies within the City (City of Rohnert Park 2000). The project site and surrounding area is developed with small areas of vacant land. The project site is surrounded by vacant land and commercial and industrial development, and future development of the site is not expected to expose workers or the public to wildland fire. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures No mitigation measures are necessary. 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 Amy's Kitchen Restaurant February 2014 Initial Study Page 28 Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than IX. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste i❑ ❑ z ❑ 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 Amy's Kitchen Restaurant February 2014 Initial Study Page 28 a. As previously discussed, the project would construct a drive-thru restaurant within Village South of the WDSP. The only expected discharge from the project site would be stormwater runoff generated by additional impervious surfaces. Effects of runoff are discussed below in subsection 'c' and 'e'. With the incorporation of stormwater detention features, stormwater runoff would not be expected to violate water quality standards. There are no waste discharge requirements established for the project site. Wastewater generated by the project site, once developed, would be treated by the Subregional System and the additional flows would not be expected to result in a violation of the system's waste discharge requirements. Because development at the project site would be required to comply with regional or local regulations and policies prior to implementation, the effects on water quality would be less than significant. b. The future construction of impervious surfaces on the project site would reduce infiltration to the water table. However, as discussed in the WDSP EIR, the project area is not considered a major or important recharge zone in the City because the surface soils consist of poorly drained Clear Lake clays that have low permeability. As described in the WDSP EIR, water for the proposed project would be supplied through the City's municipal water system, which is supplied by both municipal wells and the Sonoma County Water Agency (SCWA) as well as treated surface water from SCWA. The WDSP EIR determined that the project would have sufficient water supply from existing sources and would not deplete groundwater supply. Therefore, the proposed project would have a less than significant impact regarding groundwater supply or recharge. Amy's Kitchen Restaurant February 2014 Initial Study Page 29 Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than IX. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact Would the project: additional sources of polluted runoff? f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? ❑ ® 0 ❑ 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 ❑j 0 ❑ ❑ which would impede or redirect flood flows? i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? ❑ ❑ ❑ Z a. As previously discussed, the project would construct a drive-thru restaurant within Village South of the WDSP. The only expected discharge from the project site would be stormwater runoff generated by additional impervious surfaces. Effects of runoff are discussed below in subsection 'c' and 'e'. With the incorporation of stormwater detention features, stormwater runoff would not be expected to violate water quality standards. There are no waste discharge requirements established for the project site. Wastewater generated by the project site, once developed, would be treated by the Subregional System and the additional flows would not be expected to result in a violation of the system's waste discharge requirements. Because development at the project site would be required to comply with regional or local regulations and policies prior to implementation, the effects on water quality would be less than significant. b. The future construction of impervious surfaces on the project site would reduce infiltration to the water table. However, as discussed in the WDSP EIR, the project area is not considered a major or important recharge zone in the City because the surface soils consist of poorly drained Clear Lake clays that have low permeability. As described in the WDSP EIR, water for the proposed project would be supplied through the City's municipal water system, which is supplied by both municipal wells and the Sonoma County Water Agency (SCWA) as well as treated surface water from SCWA. The WDSP EIR determined that the project would have sufficient water supply from existing sources and would not deplete groundwater supply. Therefore, the proposed project would have a less than significant impact regarding groundwater supply or recharge. Amy's Kitchen Restaurant February 2014 Initial Study Page 29 C. Future development at the project site would replace the existing pattern of drainage with buildings, paved areas, landscaping, and storm drains. Development at the site could have adverse effects on downstream water quality through erosion, the transport of sediments and dissolved constituents entering the receiving waters, and increasing turbidity and contaminant load. Although the amount of surface alteration necessary to accommodate future development at the project site is not considered a significant change in itself, the alteration of topography raises issues of erosion potential and downstream deposition of soil particles. Even shallow cuts of less than a foot, or the process of placing fill for leveling or foundation support, have the potential to create erodible surfaces and slopes if the cuts and fills are not specifically designed to protect their surfaces from wind and water. Erosion potential is low for almost all soils in the Rohnert Park area because of its flat terrain with a grade of less than 2 percent (City of Rohnert Park 2000). The formation of embankments or uneven topography, the effects of machinery, and the removal of vegetation can increase erosion rates. During the construction period, soils would be exposed to the erosive forces of wind and stormwater runoff. When denuded and excavated, soils would be subject to gullying under the influence of moderate to heavy rains if required preventive action is not taken. In addition, erosive conditions created during the grading period can persist into the operations period. As discussed in the WDSP EIR, the risk of construction impacts regarding the potential to increase erosion of soil from the development of sites within the WDSP and subsequent deposition of particles in drainage ways, creeks, or wetlands would be significant. Because the project was included in the WDSP, it would also be required to implement Mitigation Measure HYDRO -1 (WDSP EIR Mitigation Measure 3.3-2a), which requires implementation of a site-specific storm water pollution prevention plan and compliance with state and local regulatory permit requirements regarding the non -point pollution source control of stormwater runoff through the application of BMPs. This would ensure that sedimentation impacts are reduced to a less than significant level. d., e. As described above, site storm drainage patterns would be modified following development due to an increase in impermeable surface on the site. This would cause an increase in runoff from the site. As discussed in the WDSP EIR, since there is insufficient capacity in the existing Labath Creek channel under 10 -year storm drainage conditions, additional flows could result in flooding along Labath Creek between Dowdell Avenue and the Hinebaugh Flood Control Channel. Because the project was included in the WDSP, it would also be required to implement Mitigation Measure HYDRO -2 (WDSP EIR Mitigation Measure 3.3-1), which requires preparation of a site-specific hydrology and drainage study showing the increase in storm water runoff from the site and requires construction of a storm drain system in accordance with Sonoma County Water Agency Flood Control Design Criteria. This would ensure impacts related to on- or off-site flooding would be less than significant. f. Increased runoff from the construction of impermeable surfaces on the project site could lower the quality of stormwater runoff and infiltrating groundwater. The major contributor of contaminants to runoff and infiltrating groundwater is the land surface Amy's Kitchen Restaurant February 2014 Initial Study Page 30 over which the water passes. In developed areas, driveways, parking lots, sidewalks, streets and gutters are connected directly to storm drains that collect and guide stormwater runoff. Between rainstorms, materials accumulate on these surfaces from debris dropped or scattered by individuals, street sweepings, debris and other particulate matter washed into roadways from adjacent areas, wastes and dirt from construction and renovation or demolition, fecal droppings from animals, remnants of household refuse dropped during collection or scattered by animals or wind, oil and various residues contributed by automobiles, and fallout of air -borne particles. If uncontrolled, the accumulation of urban pollutants could have a detrimental cumulative effect because overland flow from paved surfaces and landscaped areas carries many of the above -listed contaminants, thereby contributing to the deterioration of the quality of stormwater runoff and infiltrating groundwater. The eventual result would be the deterioration of water quality in downstream receiving waters. The previous discussions of erosion and sedimentation control and storm -drainage system design provide documentation of the requirements to reduce turbidity and capacity effects. In addition, since the project is part of the WDSP, it would be required to implement Mitigation Measure HYDRO -3 (WDSP FIR Mitigation Measure 3.3-2b), which would ensure the construction of storm drainage improvements consistent with BMPs. This would ensure impacts to water quality are less than significant. g. - j. Section 7.2, Drainage, Erosion, Stormwater, and Flooding of the city's General Plan and Panel Number 06097CO877E of FEMA's Flood Insurance Rate Maps for Sonoma County both place the WDSP and the project site outside the 500 -year zone and the 100 -year flood hazard area. There are no dams or levees in the vicinity of the project site. The project would not expose people or structures to significant loss related to flooding. The project site is physically removed from any large body of water and is not subject to inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow. The project would have no impacts related to flooding or other water -related hazards. Mitigation Measures Mitigation Measure HYDRO -1: (WDSP EIR Mitigation Measure 3.3-2a): The Project developer shall develop and implement a site-specific storm water pollution prevention plan acceptable to the City that identifies best management practices for effectively reducing discharges of storm water containing sediment and construction wastes resulting from site construction activities. The applicant shall comply with all other requirements set forth in NPDES General Permit CAS000002. Mitigation Measure HYDRO -2: (WDSP EIR Mitigation Measure 3.3-1): The Project developer shall prepare a site-specific hydrology and drainage study acceptable to the City showing the increase in storm water runoff that would result from development of the Project site. Based upon the results of this study, the developer shall design and construct a storm drain system in accordance with Sonoma County Water Agency Flood Control Design Criteria (latest revision), specific to the Project. Amy's Kitchen Restaurant February 2014 Initial Study Page 31 Mitigation Measure HYDRO -3: (WDSP EIR Mitigation Measure 3.3-2b): The developer shall design and construct storm drainage improvements to remove oil and grease from discharges from parking lots, including directing runoff to vegetated swales or areas, consistent with best management practices (BMPs). Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No X. LAND USE AND PLANNING Impact Incorporated Impact Impact Would the project: a) Physically divide an established community? ❑ ❑ ❑ b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or ❑ U ® ❑ regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation ❑ ❑ ❑ plan or natural community conservation plan? a. The project site is located adjacent to urban uses to the east and rural residential uses to the west. Development of the proposed project would not physically divide an established community since access to all surrounding land uses would remain unchanged and the project would not otherwise divide a community. Therefore, the project would have no impact related to the physical division of an established community. b, The project site General Plan Land Use Designation is Commercial R, which allows for restaurants. The project site is zoned Specific Plan (S -P). The project is consistent with the City's General Plan and Zoning Map; however, the project proposes to amend the WDSP to allow for incremental development and an additional drive-thru restaurant. With implementation of the proposed Specific Plan Amendment, impacts would be less than significant. C. The project site is located within the area covered by the Santa Rosa Plain Conservation Strategy (USFWS, 2005). The purpose of the Conservation Strategy is to create a long- term conservation program to assist in the recovery of CTS and four listed plant species. Mitigation measures required as terms and conditions of permitting impacts to listed species and regulated habitats would be consistent with the Santa Rosa Plain Conservation Strategy, as discussed in Section IV Biological Resources. By complying with conditions of permitting and implementing mitigation measures contained in this document, the proposed project would be consistent with the Conservation Strategy and no impacts associated with inconsistency with the Conservation Strategy would occur. Amy's Kitchen Restaurant February 2014 Initial Study Page 32 Mitigation Measures No mitigation measures are necessary. XI. MINERAL RESOURCES Would the project: a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally -important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan? a., b. There are no known mineral resources on the subject property and the site is not delineated on the General Plan as a mineral resource recovery site. Mitigation Measures No mitigation measures are necessary. XII. NOISE Would the project: a) Expose persons to or generate noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? b) Expose persons to or generate excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? c) Create a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? d) Create a substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? ...... .— . Amy's Kitchen Restaurant Initial Study Less Than Significant Significant Potentially With Potentially With Less Than Significant Significant Mitigation Significant ❑ Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ a., b. There are no known mineral resources on the subject property and the site is not delineated on the General Plan as a mineral resource recovery site. Mitigation Measures No mitigation measures are necessary. XII. NOISE Would the project: a) Expose persons to or generate noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? b) Expose persons to or generate excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? c) Create a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? d) Create a substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? ...... .— . Amy's Kitchen Restaurant Initial Study U ❑ ❑ February 2014 Page 33 Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact ❑ ❑ X ❑ U ❑ ❑ February 2014 Page 33 ❑ N U ❑ ❑ February 2014 Page 33 a. Existing noise sources affecting the noise environment on the project site include traffic on nearby Highway 101 and Redwood Drive, local traffic on Golf Course Drive West, and noise generated by existing land uses in the area. As discussed in the WDSP EIR, structures built within the WDSP area using typical construction methods would reduce the exterior noise levels from nearby roadways to an acceptable level for commercial land uses. The commercial uses on the site would therefore be compatible with the noise environment and impacts would be less than significant. The WDSP EIR also evaluated impacts related to traffic generated noise associated with buildout of the WDSP. The EIR concluded that project generated traffic would not cause a substantial increase in noise. Although the proposed project would result in approximately 957 additional daily trips not considered in the WDSP EIR, this increase would not exceed the City's noise standards as established in the General Plan Noise Element (City of Rohnert Park 2000). Therefore, the proposed project would result in a less than significant noise impact. b. Limited groundborne vibration may occur during project construction but would not occur during project operation. Groundborne vibration during construction would not create excessive disturbance to neighboring land uses and impacts from groundborne vibration would remain less than significant. C. The proposed project site is located in an area primarily developed with commercial and business park uses, as well as rural residential uses. The potential for increases in vehicular traffic noise along the street network were analyzed in the WDSP EIR by comparing existing noise levels to future noise levels on street segments. The EIR concluded that traffic generated with buildout of the WDSP would not cause a substantial increase in noise. Although the proposed project would result in approximately 957 additional daily trips not considered in the WDSP EIR, this increase would not result in a substantial increase in noise levels since the project area is subject to a relatively high ambient noise level due to existing traffic in the area. Therefore, the project will have a less than significant impact on ambient noise levels. d. As discussed in the WDSP EIR, construction within the WDSP would generate noise and would temporarily increase noise levels in the area. Noise impacts resulting from construction depend upon the noise generated by various pieces of construction equipment, timing, duration of each noise -generating activity, and the distance between construction noise sources and noise -sensitive receptors. The only sensitive receptors in the immediate area are two houses west of Dowdell Avenue. Noise generated by construction would create a temporary noise level increase at the homes west of Dowdell Avenue. However, this significant impact would be reduced to a less than significant level provided that the standard noise control measures included in Mitigation Measure NOISE -1 (WDSP EIR Mitigation Measure 3.8-4) are implemented. Amy's Kitchen Restaurant February 2014 Initial Study Page 34 e., f. The project site is not located within an airport land use plan or in the vicinity of a private airstrip. The project will have no impact related to airport or airstrip traffic and associated noise. Mitigation Measures Mitigation Measure NOISE -1 (WDSP EIR Mitigation Measure 3.8-4): The Project shall comply with the City's Municipal Code, including hours of construction. All equipment shall be adequately muffled and properly maintained. Construction equipment noise levels shall be monitored to move, muffle and/or shield equipment to minimize noise impacts. c) Displace substantial numbers of people, ❑ ❑ necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? a. The project would involve construction of a 3,998 square -foot drive-thru restaurant on a site that is designated for commercial uses. The proposed project does not include a residential component and would not generate an increase to the population of the City. Therefore, the project would have no impact related to population growth. b. - c. The site is currently vacant and the proposed project would not any housing units or people. Therefore, no impact would occur. Mitigation Measures No mitigation measures are necessary. XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES Would the project: 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 Less Than Significant Potentially With Significant Mitigation Impact Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact Amy's Kitchen Restaurant February 2014 Initial Study Page 35 Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than XIII. POPULATION AND HOUSING Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact 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? a. The project would involve construction of a 3,998 square -foot drive-thru restaurant on a site that is designated for commercial uses. The proposed project does not include a residential component and would not generate an increase to the population of the City. Therefore, the project would have no impact related to population growth. b. - c. The site is currently vacant and the proposed project would not any housing units or people. Therefore, no impact would occur. Mitigation Measures No mitigation measures are necessary. XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES Would the project: 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 Less Than Significant Potentially With Significant Mitigation Impact Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact Amy's Kitchen Restaurant February 2014 Initial Study Page 35 Fire and police protection: The City of Rohnert Park Department of Public Safety provides police and fire protection services within the City. While the project itself would not result in increased population, the WDSP EIR concluded that development in the WDSP would contribute to the City's need for additional fire and police protection services, including a new fire station west of Highway 101. Funding for a new station would be funded by the Public Facilities Financing Plan (PFFP) fee, redevelopment funds, and development contributions. In addition, the WDSP concluded that an additional police officer would be needed as a result of the project and the project would be required to contribute to the purchase of equipment for the additional officer. Since the proposed project is within the WDSP, Mitigation Measures PUB -1 and PUS -2 (WDSP FIR Mitigation Measures 3.10-1 and 3.10-2) would be required for the proposed project. Implementation of these mitigation measures would reduce impacts to fire and police protection to less than significant. Schools: The proposed project does not include a residential component and would not generate an increase to the student population of the City. Therefore, the project would result in no impacts to area schools. Parks and other public facilities: Because the proposed project does not include any residential uses, it would not result in an increase in population. Therefore, demand on parks and other public facilities would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures Mitigation Measure PUB -1 (WDSP EIR Mitigation Measure 3.10-1): The Project will contribute to the need for additional public safety officers associated with growth of the City. As part of future development, a public safety station is identified in the stadium area specific plan and would also be funded by the Federated Indians of the Graton Rancheria as part of the proposed Casino as well as through capital improvements approved by the Redevelopment Agency and through the Public Facilities Financing Plan (PFFP). Development of the station would reduce the impact to less than significant. Amy's Kitchen Restaurant February 2014 Initial Study Page 36 Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the following public services: Fire protection? ❑ ® ❑ ❑ Police protection? ❑ ® ❑ ❑ Schools ❑ ❑ ❑ Parks ❑ ❑ ® ❑ Other public facilities? ❑ ❑ z ❑ Fire and police protection: The City of Rohnert Park Department of Public Safety provides police and fire protection services within the City. While the project itself would not result in increased population, the WDSP EIR concluded that development in the WDSP would contribute to the City's need for additional fire and police protection services, including a new fire station west of Highway 101. Funding for a new station would be funded by the Public Facilities Financing Plan (PFFP) fee, redevelopment funds, and development contributions. In addition, the WDSP concluded that an additional police officer would be needed as a result of the project and the project would be required to contribute to the purchase of equipment for the additional officer. Since the proposed project is within the WDSP, Mitigation Measures PUB -1 and PUS -2 (WDSP FIR Mitigation Measures 3.10-1 and 3.10-2) would be required for the proposed project. Implementation of these mitigation measures would reduce impacts to fire and police protection to less than significant. Schools: The proposed project does not include a residential component and would not generate an increase to the student population of the City. Therefore, the project would result in no impacts to area schools. Parks and other public facilities: Because the proposed project does not include any residential uses, it would not result in an increase in population. Therefore, demand on parks and other public facilities would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures Mitigation Measure PUB -1 (WDSP EIR Mitigation Measure 3.10-1): The Project will contribute to the need for additional public safety officers associated with growth of the City. As part of future development, a public safety station is identified in the stadium area specific plan and would also be funded by the Federated Indians of the Graton Rancheria as part of the proposed Casino as well as through capital improvements approved by the Redevelopment Agency and through the Public Facilities Financing Plan (PFFP). Development of the station would reduce the impact to less than significant. Amy's Kitchen Restaurant February 2014 Initial Study Page 36 Mitigation Measure PUB -2 (WDSP EIR Mitigation Measure 3.10-2): The Project applicant shall provide funds for the purchase of equipment needed to outfit the additional Public Safety Officer required as a result of Project development. The amount shall be determined and agreed upon by the Chief of Public Safety and the Finance Director of the City of Rohnert Park. In addition, as part of future development, a public safety station is identified in the stadium area specific plan area and would also be funded by the Graton Rancheria as part of the proposed Casino as well as through capital improvements approved by the Redevelopment Agency and through the PFFP. This funding would reduce the impact to less than significant. b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might, have an adverse physical effect on the environment? a. - b. The proposed project would not result in an increase in population; therefore, demand on existing and planned recreational facilities would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures No mitigation measures are necessary. Less Than Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Significant Mitigation Significant No Potentially With Less Than XV. RECREATION Significant Mitigation Significant performance of the circulation system, taking into Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact Would the project: components of the circulation system, including but a) Would the project increase the use of existing ❑ 0 ® ❑ neighborhood and regional parks or other b) Conflict with an applicable congestion management ❑ ❑ H ❑ recreational facilities such that substantial physical standards and travel demand measures, or other deterioration of the facility would occur or be February 2014 Initial Study Page 37 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? a. - b. The proposed project would not result in an increase in population; therefore, demand on existing and planned recreational facilities would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures No mitigation measures are necessary. Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than XVI. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact 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 ❑ ❑ H ❑ program, including, but not limited to level of service standards and travel demand measures, or other Amy's Kitchen Restaurant February 2014 Initial Study Page 37 The following information is based on the Traffic Impact Study (TIS) prepared by W -Trans for the proposed project in February 2014 (W -Trans 2014). The TIS is included in Appendix C. a., b. The TIS found that although the proposed project is within the WDSP, which was analyzed in the WDSP EIR, the proposed drive-thru restaurant would result in slightly higher trip generation than a retail use as was anticipated in the WDSP EIR. The proposed project is expected to generate an average of 1,091 trips per day, including 72 trips during the p.m. peak hour, based on the 3,998 square feet of restaurant use. The WDSP FIR assumed trip generation for the same square footage of retail would be 134 daily trips and 13 p.m. peak hours trips; therefore, the proposed project would generate 957 more daily trips and 5,9 more p.m. peak hour trips than was anticipated in the WDSP EIR. As shown in Table 1 below, all of the study intersections would continue to operate at acceptable levels of service under existing plus project conditions. Table 1 Existing and Existing Plus Project PM Peak Hour Intersection Level of Service Study Intersection Existing Less Than Delay LOS Delay LOS 1. Golf Course Drive West/Dowdell Ave. 2.2 Significant 2.2 A XVI. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC Potentially Significant With Mitigation Less Than Significant No 3. Golf Course Drive West/US 101 S Rams Impact Incorporated Impact Impact Would the project: 28.8 C 28.9 C standards established by the county congestion 24.6 C 24.8 C management agency for designated roads or highways? c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including ❑ ❑ ❑ either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design ❑ ❑ ❑ feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? e) Result in inadequate emergency access? ❑ N ❑ ❑ f) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs ❑ ❑ ❑ regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities? The following information is based on the Traffic Impact Study (TIS) prepared by W -Trans for the proposed project in February 2014 (W -Trans 2014). The TIS is included in Appendix C. a., b. The TIS found that although the proposed project is within the WDSP, which was analyzed in the WDSP EIR, the proposed drive-thru restaurant would result in slightly higher trip generation than a retail use as was anticipated in the WDSP EIR. The proposed project is expected to generate an average of 1,091 trips per day, including 72 trips during the p.m. peak hour, based on the 3,998 square feet of restaurant use. The WDSP FIR assumed trip generation for the same square footage of retail would be 134 daily trips and 13 p.m. peak hours trips; therefore, the proposed project would generate 957 more daily trips and 5,9 more p.m. peak hour trips than was anticipated in the WDSP EIR. As shown in Table 1 below, all of the study intersections would continue to operate at acceptable levels of service under existing plus project conditions. Table 1 Existing and Existing Plus Project PM Peak Hour Intersection Level of Service Study Intersection Existing Existing Plus Project Delay LOS Delay LOS 1. Golf Course Drive West/Dowdell Ave. 2.2 A 2.2 A 2. Golf Course Drive West/ Redwood Drive 31.8 C 33.3 C 3. Golf Course Drive West/US 101 S Rams 20.0 C 20.2 C 4. Golf Course Drive West/ Commerce Blvd 28.8 C 28.9 C 5. Commerce Blvd./US 101 N Rams 24.6 C 24.8 C Note: Delay is measured in average seconds per vehicle; LOS = Level of Service Amy's Kitchen Restaurant February 2014 Initial Study Page 38 As shown in Table 2, under future without project conditions, the intersections of Golf Course Drive West/Dowdell Avenue and Golf Course Drive West/Redwood Drive would operate at level of service (LOS) E and F, respectively. The proposed project would increase the average vehicle delays at Golf Course Drive West/Dowdell Avenue by 0.5 seconds, and Golf Course Drive West/ Redwood Drive by 4.0 seconds. Table 2 Future and Future Plus Project PM Peak Hour Intersection Level of Service -Study Intersection Future Delay LOS Future Plus Project Delay LOS 1. Golf Course Drive West/Dowdell Ave. 65.9 E 66.4 E 2. Golf Course Drive West/Redwood Drive 67.8 E 71.8 E 3. Golf Course Drive West/ US 101 S Rams 37.5 D 38.0 D P5.. Golf Course Drive West/Commerce Blvd 38.1 D 38.4 D Commerce Blvd./US 101 N Rams 35.9 D 36.5 D LNuce: ueiay is measureu in average seconas per vemcte; LUl = Levei of oervtce The City of Rohnert Park does not have a specific threshold to determine the significance of an increase in delay; therefore the established County of Sonoma criteria were used. For intersections projected to operate at unacceptable levels in the future without a project, a project would be considered to create a significant impacts it increased the average vehicle delay at the affected intersection by 5.0 seconds of greater. Since the addition of project traffic would increase the average vehicle delay at the intersections of Golf Course Drive West/Dowdell Avenue and Golf Course Drive West/ Redwood Drive by less than 5 seconds, impacts would be less than significant. C. The project site is not within an airport land use plan. Due to the type of project it is, the project would not have the ability to change or affect air traffic patterns resulting in any potential safety risks. Therefore, there would be no impact on air traffic patterns. d. The two proposed project driveways would be restricted to right turns in and out because raised medians exist on Golf Course Drive West and Redwood Drive. In addition, the two driveways would be located as far as possible from the signalized intersection at Golf Course Drive West/Redwood Drive, which would minimize the potential for conflicts or adverse operational impacts to occur. Therefore, the project does not include any dangerous design features or incompatible uses that could result in hazardous conditions and there would be no impact. e. As discussed in the WDSP EIR, impacts related to emergency access to the WDSP would be significant unless future development is designed to meet the requirements set forth by the City of Rohnert Park Public Safety Departments. Since the proposed project is within the WDSP, Mitigation Measure TRAF-1 (WDSP EIR Mitigation Measures 3.6.7) would be required to ensure site design includes adequate emergency access. With implementation of this mitigation measure, impacts would be less than significant. Amy's Kitchen Restaurant February 2014 Initial Study Page 39 The proposed project would include sidewalks on both Redwood Drive and Golf Course Drive West along the frontage of the project site. Additional sidewalks would be provided internally to allow for pedestrian circulation between the parking lot and the building. Bike lanes are currently provided on Redwood Drive and Golf Course Drive West and the project would include bicycle parking racks for 6 bicycles. The inclusion of sidewalks and bicycle racks is consistent with the WDSP and complies with mitigation included in the WDSP EIR (Mitigation Measures 3.6-6a and 3.6-6c). Therefore, the project would have no impact related to conflicting with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, and the project would not otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities. Mitigation Measures Mitigation Measures TRAF-1 (WDSP EIR Mitigation Measure 3.6-7): Site design should include adequate fire lanes and other emergency facilities as deemed appropriate. Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than XVII. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact Would the project: a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the ❑ ❑ N ❑ applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? b) Require or result in the construction of new water or ❑ ❑ M ❑ wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? c) Require or result in the construction of new ❑ ❑ ® ❑ stormwater drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the ❑ ❑ project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? e) Result in a determination by the wastewater ❑ ❑ ® ❑ treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted LI ❑ z ❑ capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and ❑ ❑ D 9 regulations related to solid waste? Amy's Kitchen Restaurant February 2014 Initial Study Page 40 a., b., d., e. As discussed in the WDSP EIR, wastewater from the WDSP, including the proposed project would be accommodated in the City of Rohnert Park's wastewater treatment allocation with the Subregional Reclamation System. Therefore, no expansion of the existing wastewater system would be required for the proposed project, and impacts would be less than significant. In addition, as described in the WDSP EIR, the City of Rohnert Park has sufficient water supply and water delivery infrastructure to serve the WDSP area, including the proposed project. Therefore, impacts related to water supply and infrastructure would be less than significant. C. As described in Section IX Hydrology and Water Qualihj, site storm drainage patterns would be modified following development due to an increase in impermeable surface on the site. This would cause an increase in runoff from the site. However, implementation of Mitigation Measure HYDRO -2 (WDSP EIR Mitigation Measure 3.3-1) would require the construction of a storm drainage system in accordance with the Sonoma County Water Agency Flood Control Design Criteria. Construction of new storm drain systems would be required to comply with the Stormwater Phase II regulations administered by the North Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board through permits to the City. Therefore, the project would have a less than significant impact related to construction of new stormwater drainage facilities. f. The WDSP EIR concluded that the County of Sonoma would be capable of providing the solid waste disposal services necessary to serve the entire WDSP area, including the proposed project. In addition, the city must comply with Assembly Bill 939, passed in 1989, to reduce the volume of material sent to landfills by implementation of a recycling plan for both construction and operation phases of projects. Therefore, the proposed project would result in a less than significant impact related to solid waste facilities. g. The project would comply with federal, state and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste and would have no impact related to solid waste regulations. Mitigation Measures No mitigation measures are necessary. Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than XVIII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE Significant mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate --- _............... ._... Amy's Kitchen Restaurant February 2014 Initial Study Page 41 a. 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. Mitigation measures are consistent with the Conservation Strategy for the Santa Rosa Plain and would be implemented as a condition of permitting impacts to special -status species and sensitive habitats. Impacts associated with impacts associated with degradation of the environment or impacts to important habitat or wildlife populations would be less than significant with implementation of the mitigation measures contained in this Initial Study. b. The analysis provided throughout this Initial Study demonstrates that the project's contribution to cumulative impacts would be reduced to less than significant levels through mitigation. c. 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. Amy's Kitchen Restaurant February 2014 Initial Study Page 42 Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than XVIII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b) Does the project have impacts that are individually ❑ ® ❑ ❑ limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? c) Does the project have environmental effects which ❑ ® [] ❑ will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? a. 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. Mitigation measures are consistent with the Conservation Strategy for the Santa Rosa Plain and would be implemented as a condition of permitting impacts to special -status species and sensitive habitats. Impacts associated with impacts associated with degradation of the environment or impacts to important habitat or wildlife populations would be less than significant with implementation of the mitigation measures contained in this Initial Study. b. The analysis provided throughout this Initial Study demonstrates that the project's contribution to cumulative impacts would be reduced to less than significant levels through mitigation. c. 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. Amy's Kitchen Restaurant February 2014 Initial Study Page 42 REFERENCES AECOM. 2011. Biological Resources Assessment for the Proposed Wilfred Dowdell Village Project, Sonoma, California. August 5. Bay Area Air Quality Management District. 2006. Bay Area 2005 Ozone Strategy. January 4. 2010a. Bay Area 2010 Clean Air Plan, September 10. 2010b. California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Air Quality Guidelines. May. City of Rohnert Park. 2000. General Plan (Fifth Edition). Adopted July 2000. 2008a. Wilfred/Dozodell Village Specific Plan Final EIR. August 20, 2008. 2008b. Wilfi-ed/Dowdell Village Specific Plan. Adopted September 23, 2008. Dudek. 2014. Amy's Kitchen Restaurant Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Analysis. February 18. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 2011. Approved Jurisdictional Determination. December 13. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2005. Santa Rosa Plain Conservation Strategy. December 1. Whitlock & Weinberger Transportation, Inc. (W -Trans). 2014. Traffic Impact Study for Amy's Kitchen. February 20. Amy's Kitchen Restaurant February 2014 Initial Study Page 43 APPENDIX A Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Analyses DUDEK 85? kINCOU11 WAY. SUI[f r,206 AL+BURN. CALIFORNIA 95603 [ 5308870,5G0 F 330.8658372 MEMORANDUM To: Norm Weisbrod, City of Rohnert Park From: Katherine Waugh, AICP Subject: Amy's Kitchen Restaurant Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Analysis Date: February 18, 2014 cc: Marilyn Ponton, City of Rohnert Park Attachment(s): CalEEMod Outputs Dudek has prepared the following analysis of the potential for the proposed Amy's Kitchen Restaurant project to generate significant levels of air pollutant and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. The analysis is consistent with recommendations of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD). To evaluate the project's potential GHG emissions, Dudek prepared modeling of the operation of the proposed project using the California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod) Version 2013.2.2. The CalEEMod output files are provided as Attachment A. SUMMARY Screening criteria identified by the BAAQMD indicate that emissions of criteria air pollutants associated with construction and operation of the proposed project would be less than significant. Because the construction and operation emissions would be below the BAAQMD significance thresholds, the project would not result in emissions that violate any applicable air quality standards or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation. The BAAQMD's Basic Construction Emission Control Measures must be included in the project design and implemented during construction. The project exceeds the BAAQMD screening criteria for GHG emissions. Therefore the project's operational GHG emissions were estimated using CalEEMod. The CalEEMod results indicate that GHG emissions from operation of the proposed project would remain below the thresholds identified by the BAAQMD. The applicable screening criteria and thresholds of significance are identified in the Regulatory Guidance section below. VIVWW. 0U D LK -CO M Memorandum Subject: Amy's Kitchen Restaurant Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Analysis REGULATORY GUIDANCE Criteria Air Pollutant Regulations The federal and state Clean Air Acts define allowable concentrations of six air pollutants — these pollutants are referred to as "criteria air pollutants." When monitoring indicates that a region regularly experiences air pollutant concentrations that exceed those limits, the region is designated as non -attainment and is required to develop an air quality plan that describes air pollution control strategies to be implemented to reduce air pollutant emissions and concentrations. The project site is located within the San Francisco Bay Area, which is designated non - attainment for the federal 8 -hour ozone standard. 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 ozone, 24-hour small particulate matter (PM10), annual PM10, and annual respirable particulate matter (PM2.5). To address the region's non -attainment status, the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) adopted the Bay Area 2005 Ozone Strategy (BAAQMD 2006) and the Bay Area 2010 Clean Air Plan (BAAQMD 2010a), which is an update to the 2005 document and provides "an integrated, multi -pollutant strategy to improve air quality, protect public health, and protect the climate." The 2010 plan addresses ozone, PM, air toxics, and greenhouse gases. The 2010 plan identifies a number of control measures to be adopted or implemented in the 2010 to 2012 timeframe to reduce emissions of these pollutants. State GHG Regulations In 2006, the State of California enacted Assembly Bill (AB) 32, the Global Warming Solutions Act. AB 32 requires reducing statewide greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions to 1990 levels by 2020. Meeting the AB 32 reduction targets will require an approximately 30 percent reduction compared with a "business as usual" scenario. The state's plan for meeting these reduction targets is outlined in the California Air Resource Board's (GARB) Climate Change Scoping Plan. CARB's Scoping Plan fact sheet states "This plan calls for an ambitious but achievable reduction in California's carbon footprint — toward a clean energy future. Reducing greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels means cutting approximately 30% from business -as -usual emissions levels projected for 2020, or about 15% from today's levels. On a per -capita basis, that means reducing annual emissions of 14 tons of carbon dioxide for every man, woman and child in California down to about 10 tons per person by 2020." CARB's Emissions Inventory Report 7390 D U D E K 2 February 2014 Memorandum Subject. Amy's Kitchen Restaurant Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Analysis found the total statewide GHG emissions in 2009 were equivalent to 457 million tons of CO2. Compared with the emissions in 1990, this is a 5.5% increase. BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines The BAAQMD has adopted CEQA Guidelines (the 2010 BAAQMD Guidelines, BAAQMD 2010b) that establish air pollutant emission thresholds that identify whether a project would violate any applicable air quality standards or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation. Compared with the previous set of guidelines adopted in 1999, the 2010 BAAQMD Guidelines lower the level of pollutant emissions and health risk impacts that are considered a significant environmental impact. The BAAQMD's adoption of the thresholds has been challenged in court. However, the litigation is procedural in nature and does not assert that the BAAQMD failed to provide substantial evidence to support its adoption of these thresholds. Because the 2010 thresholds are more conservative than the BAAQMD's prior thresholds, this impact analysis is based on the 2010 BAAQMD Guidelines. The 2010 BAAQMD Guidelines also establish screening criteria based on the size of a project to determine whether detailed modeling to estimate air pollutant emissions is necessary. The screening criteria applicable to the proposed project are shown in Table 1. Table 1 Screeninq Criteria for Fast Food Restaurant with Drive Throuah Emission Type Construction Emissions Operational Operational Criteria Air GHG Pollutant Emissions Emissions Project Size 277 ksf 6 ksf 1 ksf ksf = thousand square feet Source: BAAQMD 2010, Table 3-1 As discussed below, the project size is less than the screening criteria for construction emissions and operational criteria air pollutant emissions. Because the project exceeds the operational GHG emissions screening criteria, the operational GHG emissions were estimated and compared to the GHG emissions threshold established by the 2010 BAAQMD Guidelines. Note that GHG emissions are typically measured in carbon dioxide equivalents (CO2e), which converts emissions of several types of GHGs into an equivalent amount of carbon dioxide based on the relative potential for each gas to contribute to climate change. Section 2.2 of the 2010 BAAQMD Guidelines identifies the following GHG thresholds: ■ For land use development projects, the threshold is compliance with a qualified GHG Reduction Strategy; or annual emissions less than 1,100 metric tons per year (MT/yr) of 1 v 7390 D U D E is 3 February 2014 Memorandum Subject: Amy's Kitchen Restaurant Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Analysis CO2e; or 4.6 MT CO2e/SP/yr (residents + employees). Land use development projects include residential, commercial, industrial, and public land uses and facilities. Climate change, which involves significant changes in global climate patterns, has been associated with an increase in the average temperature of the atmosphere near the Earth's surface, or global warming. This warming has been attributed to an accumulation of GHGs in the atmosphere. These GHGs trap heat in the atmosphere, which in turn heats the surface of the Earth. While the greenhouse effect is a naturally occurring process that aids in maintaining the Earth's climate, human activities, such as burning fossil fuels and clearing forests, generate additional GHG emissions which contribute to the greenhouse effect and result in increased average global temperatures. PROJECTIMPACTS Construction Emissions The BAAQMD screening criteria described in Section 3.5 of the May 2010 Guidelines indicate that construction projects meeting the following characteristics have a less than significant amount of construction -related air pollutant emissions because they would not result in generation of construction -related criteria air pollutants and/or precursors that exceed the thresholds of significance: 1. The project is below the applicable construction screening level size (277,000 square feet); 2. The following Basic Construction Emission Control Measures would be included in the project design and implemented during construction a. All active construction areas shall be watered at least two times per day. b. All exposed non -paved surfaces (e.g., parking areas, staging areas, soil piles, graded areas, and access roads) shall be watered at least three times per day and/or non-toxic soil stabilizers shall be applied to exposed non -paved surfaces. c. All haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose material offsite shall be covered and/or shall maintain at least two feet of freeboard. d. 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. e. All vehicle speeds on unpaved roads shall be limited to 15 miles per hour. f. 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. 7390 D U D E K 4 February 2014 Memorandum Subject: Amy's Kitchen Restaurant Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Analysis g. Idling times shall be minimized either by shutting equipment off when not in use or reducing the maximum idling time to five minutes (as required by the California airborne toxics control measure Title 13, Section 2485 of California Code of Regulations). Clear signage regarding idling restrictions shall be provided for construction workers at all access points. h. 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. i. The prime construction contractor shall post a publicly visible sign with the telephone number and person to contact at the construction site and at the City of Rohnert Park or the regarding dust complaints. The prime construction contractor shall respond and take corrective action within 48 hours. The Air District's phone number shall also be visible to ensure compliance with applicable regulations 3. Construction -related activities would not include any of the following: a. Demolition; b. Simultaneous occurrence of more than two construction phases; c. Simultaneous construction of more than one land use type; d. Extensive site preparation; or e. Extensive material transport. The proposed project is below the applicable screening levels, would include all Basic Construction Mitigation Measures, and the proposed construction meets the listed conditions. Therefore, the project meets all screening criteria and project -specific modeling of construction emission is not required. With implementation of the Basic Construction Emission Control Measures listed above, construction of the proposed project would have less than significant impacts related to air pollutant emissions, violations of air quality standards, GHG emissions, and climate change. Operational Criteria Air Pollutant Emissions The proposed project would construct a 3,998 -square foot fast food restaurant. Based on the criteria shown in Table 1, the proposed project size is approximately 37 percent below the screening criteria for operational criteria air pollutant emissions. The air pollutant emissions during operation of the proposed project would have a less than significant impact to air quality and the potential for the region to experience violations of applicable air quality standards. In addition, emissions of carbon monoxide (CO) from idling vehicles can create pockets of high CO concentrations, called "hot spots." These pockets can exceed the applicant state standards for CO. High CO concentrations can cause headaches, dizziness, and nausea and can contribute D U ®E K 5 February 7390 2014 Memorandum Subject: Amy's Kitchen Restaurant Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Analysis to chronic health conditions. At very high concentrations and/or with prolonged contact, CO exposure can be fatal. Typically, high CO concentrations are associated with roadways or intersections operating at unacceptable levels of service and/or with extremely high traffic volumes. More specifically, CO hot -spots occur where there are many thousands of cars idling. Screening criteria included in the BAAQMD 2010 CEQA Guidelines are designed to identify potentially significant CO hot - spots. Those criteria indicate that project -related CO emissions would not cause a significant impact on air quality if the project does not increase traffic volumes at affected intersections to more than 44,000 vehicles per hour (or 24,000 vehicles per hour in an area where air flow is limited, such as a tunnel or parking garage). The Traffic Impact Study prepared by W -Trans for the proposed project found that three of the five signalized study intersections would operate at an acceptable LOS under future plus project conditions, while two intersections would operate at deficient LOS in the future with and without the project. However, the project would only cause the delay at the two deficient intersections to increase by 0.5 seconds and 4.0 seconds, which is not considered significant. In addition, the traffic volumes at the study intersections would be far less than 44,000 vehicles per hour in the future with and without the project. Therefore, the project would not cause or contribute to a significant impact related to CO concentrations. Operational GHG Emissions The proposed project would construct a 3,998 -square foot fast food restaurant. This is larger than the screening criteria for operational GHG emissions shown in Table 1. Therefore, operational GHG emissions were estimated using CalEEMod. Modeling Inputs The following inputs and changes to default assumptions were used in the CalEEMod modeling: • Land Use: Fast Food Restaurant with Drive Through, 4,000 square feet (note that this slightly overstates the project size, to ensure a conservative analysis) • Trip Generation: No changes to the default trip generation rates were made, reflecting 496.12 weekday trips per thousand square feet. • Wastewater: Changes to the default assumptions were made to reflect that all wastewater treated at City's Wastewater Treatment Plant, no septic tanks would be used. 7390 D U D E K 6 February 2014 Memorandum Subject: Amy's Kitchen Restaurant Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Analysis The following project design features were reflected as mitigation measures in the CalEEMod modeling: • Energy: The project would exceed Title 24 energy efficiency requirements (those in effect in 2014) by 15 percent, consistent with CalGreen Tier 1 requirements, as required by the City of Rohnert Park. • Energy: The onsite solar panels included in the project would generate 12,500 kWh of energy. • Water: The project would achieve a 20% reduction in indoor water use, consistent with CalGreen Tier 1 requirements. Table 2 presents the project's estimated annual GHG emissions (in MTCO2e) based on the above inputs, assumptions, and project design features. Table 2 Operational Annual GHG Emissions Source Metric Tons of Carbon Dioxide Equivalent Emissions Unmitigated Mitigated Area Sources 0.00008 0.00008 Energy 85.4 74.2 Mobile Sources 916.3 916.3 Waste 21.0 21.0 Water 2.7 2.1 TOTAL 1,025.4 1,013.5 Threshold of Significance 1,100 MTCO2e/yr As the project's GHG emissions would remain below the applicable threshold of significance, the project would result in a less than significant contribution to climate change impacts and would not impede achievement of the state's GHG reduction goals. Cumulative Impacts As described in Section I.2 of the BAAQMD 2010 CEQA Guidelines, Thresholds of Significance, "by its very nature, air pollution is largely a cumulative impact. No single project is sufficient in size to, by itself, result in nonattainment of ambient air quality standards." Therefore, the thresholds of significance developed by the BAAQMD reflect the "emission levels for which a project's individual emissions would be cumulatively considerable." A project with emissions that are below the thresholds of significance would not make a 7390 D U D E K 7 February 2014 Memorandum Subject: Amy's Kitchen Restaurant Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Analysis considerable contribution to any cumulative impacts. Because the proposed project would have emissions that are below the applicable thresholds of significance, the project would make a less than significant contribution to cumulative air quality and climate change impacts. REFERENCES Bay Area Air Quality Management District. 2006. Bay Area 2005 Ozone Strategy. January 4, 2006. 2010a. Bay Area 2010 Clean Air Plan. September 10, 2010. 2010b. California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Air Quality Guidelines. May. Dudek. 2014. Amy's Kitchen CalEEMod modeling. February 17, 2014. D U D E K 8 February 7390 2014 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMOd.2013.2.2 Page 1 of 17 Date: 2/17/2014 4:34 PM Amy's Restaurant San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin, Annual 1.0 Project Characteristics 1.1 Land Usage ?.,nu 0go., L4?EM4: - !_cl R['r i:•;F{jJ Raw 5arraw Aran opuR:;bur. Faai Food Reataurantwith Orme Thru 4.00 1Q00agf1 ; 0.09 4,000.00 r} 1.2 Other Project Characteristics Urbanization Urban Wind Speed (mis) 22 Precipitation Freq (Days) 64 Climate Zone 4 Operational Year 2015 Utility Company Pacific Gas & Electric Company CO2 Intensity 641.35 CH4Intensity 0.029 N20 Intensity 0.006 (Ib/MWhr) (Ib/MWhr) (lb/MWhr) 1.3 User Entered Comments & Non -Default Data Project Characteristics - Land Use - Construction Phase - modeling for operational emissions only Water And Wastewater - all wastewater treated at City's WWTP, no septic tanks Mobile Land Use Mitigation - Energy Mitigation - 2008 to 2014 Title 24 = 25% improvement in energy efficiency; additional 15% from CalGreen Tier 1. 1-[(1-0.25)"(1-0.15)] " 100 = 36.25 Water Mitigation - CaIEEMod Version: CaIEEMOd.2013.2.2 Page 2 of 17 Date: 2/17/2014 4:34 PM Table Name cdclaw Natno 001Qltlt Vada,' NowVatua lblConstructlonPhase NumDays 10.00 i 2.00 ------------- - ----------- ---- r ---------------- ------------ ......-..-2015.......... lblProjeclGharacteristics Y OperatlonalYeary- 2014 - ----------------------------- - -- lbl W ater _ .. r........w_______�...-----------_ AerobicPercent 87.46 - - - - ... , ............ . 100.00 ---,..-----.._.....---.....---• ------------------------------ :----'------ --------------- ----- --------- 2.21 -------------------- . .----'--- ----lblWater ------- --....... yAnaerobicandFacultativeLagoonsPercent: ----------�_ _ -- -,• •F ----- -- tblWaler Sep llcTankPercent 10.33 0.00 2.0 Emissions Summary CaIEEMod Version: CalEEMOd.2013.2.2 Page 3 of 17 Date: 2/17/2014 4:34 PM 2.1 Overall Construction Unmitigated Construction Mitigated Construction urx t1G. Co W.1 ruq,6sta ErhZW K%010 I'IUT,6. gw4uss PR72.5 ri GO2 uab•ctT; 1c10t:.02 7aCa1 C6? Cli: H7Ei co I P1410 I I PUIC, Tot01 U I I PU2.5 Total PFY26 ;,'21 I PULB tow Year iu+.h* 12 y 2014 K 1.5400e- + 0,0126 + 95200e- + 1.000Oe- + 9.0000.- 93000.- 1-0200e- + 2,0000e- + 8..9000e- 9.2000e- t 00000 1 1833 1 1833 + 2.3000e- + 0.0000 1 1882 003 003 005 005 004 003 005 004 004 1 + + + 1 + + µ , 004 Total 1.5400.- 0.0126 9.5200.- 1.0000.- 9.0000.- 9.3000e- 1.0200e- 2.000Oe- 8.9000e- 9.2000e- 0.0000 1.1833 1.1833 2.3000e- 0.0000 1.1882 005 003 003 005 005 004 003 005 004 004 0.00 0.00 0.00 004 0.00 Mitigated Construction ROG NOA C+] t;o2 FI:01 6.Jti:u:t Ptd117 RlGovtr9Je1-CLY1 lixttattel om" iV9el CrC7Q 7aCa1 C6? Cli: H7Ei co I I r+tJlO I F11440 Tata! PFY26 ;,'21 I PULB tow .. rear tw7yyl ern 2014 15400e- 00126 + 95200a- + 10000e- 90000e- + 93000e- + 10200e- 2 0000e- 8 9000e- 92000e- 00000 1.1633 1.1833 2.3000e- + 0.0000 1 1682 003 003 005 005 004 003 005 004 004 004 + ' + + + r + ' + + Total 1.5400e- 0.0126 9.5200e- 1.0000e- 9.0000.- 9.3000e- 1.0200.- 2.0000.- 8.9000e- 9.2000.- 0.0000 1.1833 1.1833 2.3000e- 0.0000 1.1882 003 003 005 005 004 003 L 005 004 004 0.00 004 AClG 0111,, 10 1102fltpiNOa exha %t Pule Fugt{lw lixttattel om" t3.fa-0O2 mala -cm 'IR"GC2 CHA �- Pu1e PAHO Tatsl P51y> PULB tow Percent0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Reduction 1 CaIEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 4 of 17 Date: 2/17/2014 4:34 PM 2.2 Overall Operational Unmitigated Operational ACK� uur C:Cf 402 ruyti°°a Etre^ l Puts FLyj6Ng &.=--4 Yd17.5 10. C.w Nvi rix Tow; CO2 Gw 1vm C,t}2pi ... PUT0 PY,110 I TOW N=a rU2.5 TOW I Area 0 0203 0.0000 4.0000e- 0.0000 0,0000 0.0000 r 0..0000 0..0000 } 0.0000 7.0000e- 7.0000e- r 0.0000 0 0000 8 0000e- 005 . r r + r r � , i 005 005 005 i r _ 0.0000 84.9490 84.9490 r2.6700e- 1.2000e- r 85..3768 Energy ++ 4.5500a- . 0.0414 40348 r 2, 5000e- r 3.1400e- r 3.1400e- r 3,1400e- 3.1400e- r r r r 003 004 003 003 003 003 n � r r r r r r r r ; 003 003 r + , i Mobile 1.2630 1.8299 9.6427 0.0112 07437 0.0217 0.7654 0-1996 0.0199 r 01194 , r r . 0.0000 9152529 915.2529 0.0489 0.0000 916.2797 r r , r .r , r 9.3538 0.0000 9.3538 0.5528 0.0000 20,9625 i Waste 0.0000 0 0000 r _ _ 0.0000 r a.0000 + Water 0,0000 . 0.0000 4000000000 t 0.4296 19901 2.4197 15700e- 95000e- ' 2.7480 + 003 004 ' Total 1.2887 1.8713 9.6775 0.0115 0.7437 0.0248 0.7685 0.1996 0.0230 02228 9.7834 1,002.192 1,011.975. 0.6059 2.1500e- 1,025.367 1 1 5 003 1 CaIEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 5 of 17 Date: 2/17/2014 4:34 PM 2.2 Overall Operational Mitigated Operational 3.0 Construction Detail Construction Phase Pilaw Nunbor RtJC1 Nbx 1',{j Sij7 F+.V14vv LOaiw I PIIItG I F'uquru Exmms Pw's Bio•t~.a<72 NBc,•CI?2 Ta1Ncce Clam _ i:20 r,O2a C.Ht4 t1YG CnI� PIA10 01.110 T%w ITw5 PU.I6 I tow I PM t6 OKA 1'o1al I'llT.S 1IR S Total r:ar.;*,n1ty 1+,"<uslyr urryr Area 0.0203 0.0000 4 0000e- 0.0000 00000 0.0000 + 0.0000 0.0000 i 0:0000 7 0000.- 7.00000- 00000 00000 " 8.00000- + _ 005.... - 005 005 - 0o5 } 0,0000 • • 73.7827 73.7827 22900e- + 1_0500e- 74.1564 . _ Energy •� 4.0500. 0.03699 0.0310 " 2 2000e- " " 2.B000e- " 2.8000e- 7- 718000e- - 2.80000- 003 004 003 003 003 003 j 003 003 _ Mobile - • 2-.638 1.8299 96427 0.0112 0.7437 0.0217 + 0.7654 i- 0.1996 001998 02194 ___ 0.0000 915.2529 " 915.2529 " 0,0489 0 0000`* 916.2797 r a • » Waste 0,0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 9.3338 0.00009.3538 0.5528 00000 20_9625 ___ _ _ f' l - Water 0 0000 0.0000 0,0000 0,0000 0.3437 1.4655 1.8091 1.2500.- 7 6000. 2.0713 15.61 003 004 + + 1990.5011 " Total 1.2882 1.6667 9.6737 0.0115 0.7437 0.0245 0.7682 0.1996 0.0227 0,2222 9.6975 1,000.198 0.6052 1.61000- 1,013.470 6 003 l7 3.0 Construction Detail Construction Phase Pilaw Nunbor ilt3C. frp. C[1 3`77 rugoliva (:AN41GI PRttb Fugit,.o 1113/411 Pr.12.6 Oko•CC3 ti91o•CQ2 70�latCO2' C.Ht4 t1YG CnI� PM t6 OKA 1'o1al I'llT.S 1IR S Total Percent 0.04 024 0.04 0.26 0.00 1.37 0.04 0.00 1.48 0.15 0.88 1.17 1.16 0.12 15.61 1.16 Reduction 3.0 Construction Detail Construction Phase Pilaw Nunbor I Phoae Nama F7155+7 Tye SUrl Date End D.11a Num Day% WGels Noun Uays Physa Dassmorum 1 :Demolition -Demolition 7/1/2014 •7/2/2014 5• Acres of Grading (Site Preparation Phase): 0 CaIEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 6 of 17 Date: 2/17/2014 4:34 PM Acres of Grading (Grading Phase): 0 Acres of Paving: 0 Residential Indoor: 0; Residential Outdoor: 0; Non -Residential Indoor: 0; Non -Residential Outdoor: 0 (Architectural Coating — sgft) OffRoad Equipment Trips and VMT Phase iwairiu Phase Name 9ftnwad E4UEp ' Unl. Type Auwunl u agu I+fxua I Harso Power Load Fa4for Demolition :Concfa1eilnduWfal Saws 11{Iwtcer YchF la a;$" 8.00' 81' 0.73 DemoGlipn :RubbarTlred Dozers 1 E,00� 255; 0.40 .. , ..... _ .................... .. _...1, .......... _ '.Demolllion :Tractorskoaderst8ackhoes 2• 6.00: 87' 0.37 Trips and VMT Phase iwairiu Offroad Equlpmani Cowl Worker Trip Number Vendcw Trip Number Hauf4v Tnp NuMbar WoAar Trip Leroh Vwgw Tr1p Length Hmu Tnp Length 11{Iwtcer YchF la a;$" V6adar Vrihii`ta,cfae V"* cwsb Demolition 4' 10.00' 0.00' 0.00' 12.40' 7.30' 20.00'LD Mix 'HDT Mlx 'HHDT 3.1 Mitigation Measures Construction CaIEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 7 of 17 Date: 211 7/201 4 4:34 PM 3.2 Demolition - 2014 Unmitigated Construction On -Site Unmitigated Construction Off -Site ROO IMA CO 902 rtr0,6--i;ary„,;1F1Af0 Mx Fr:0,9v. E:y .N 1+&12.5 $raf432 i4ew-col 'h�Coe cm Kwco;?a 3420 CA20 P1.1110 PK10 VY11�0 1 Zal P�.12� P1d2 S raw Tpdai CalaC�ry W&hT Uri" Off -Road •+ 1 4900a- + 0 0125 0,8500e- • 1 OOOOe- 9.3000e- 9 3000.- + 8 9000.- + 8 9000e- 1 0.0000 1.0952 10952 2.3000e- 0.0000 1 1000 003 003 005 004 004 004 004 + ' . i 004 + • Total 1.4900e- 0.0125 8.8500.- 1.0000e- 9.3000.- 9.3000.• 8.9000.- 8.9000.- 0.0000 1.0952 1.0952 2.3000.- 0.0000 1.1000 0.0000 003 003 005 004 004 004 004 005 005 004 005 004 005 005 Unmitigated Construction Off -Site 111111 1101 CO SiY1 FuW4W EanuvrJ P6A110- Fu*Ara I WQust PU25 @io-COQ UIIi0-CM TOCd= 00 3420 CA20 P1.1110 PMID Zal PM25 FLIZ5 Tpdai 1 'Y (4pwWT itlT3yr Hauling 00000 0.0000 0 0000 0 0000 0,0000 0.0000 r 0.0000 0.0000 0 0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 00000 0 0000 0.0000 0,0000 _ ± 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 00000«�..«�..r. 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0 OBB1 r 0.0881 1.0000e- r 0 0000 T 0.0682 - Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0..0000 0,0000 0.0000 Worker •+ 5.0000.- 7 0000e- r�6 7000a- +� 00000 9 0000. 0 0000-79.0000. Y2.0000e- + 0.0000 r 2.0000.- 005 005 004 005 005 005 005 ' 005 r Total 5.0000.- 7,OOOOe- 6.7000e. 0.0000 9.0000.- 0.0000 9.00009. 2.00009. 0.0000 2.00OOe- 0.0000 0.0881 0.0801 1.00009- 0.0000 0.0682 005 005 004 005 005 005 005 005 CaIEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 8 of 17 Date: 2/17/2014 4:34 PM 3.2 Demolition - 2014 Mitigated Construction On -Site _.. ROCS 9!C!x C6 ! 002 Fr.:V;Wta 'l-as'Ni:�l I I® Fu(giilw L.41G1t-sa ItA1: 8 1�' a i 07 N9;� Gt12 Tni,as 4;f;F2 CFi: CJS `'- WOCo?;, trW10 pUfO TOlal pK.12.5 FLClS Td1u+ 1ofrl f,%JS S 1sd, Z5 Tn1ar Ca100'a±y Ton" uv , Off -Road 14900e- 00125 + 8.8500e- 1,0000e- + • 9.3000e- + 9.30000- B.9000e- + 8.9000e-0.0000 1.0952 1 0952 + 2.3000e- + 0.0000 11000 003 003 005 004 004 004 004 • + A • • + • •, + 1004 + + Total 1.4900e- 0.0125 8.8500e- 1.00000- Vendor 00000 0.0000 0.0000 w 0.0000 r 0.0000 0.0000 0 0000 0.0000 0.0000 �- 0.0000 9.3000e- 9.3000e- s 0.9000e- 8.9000e- 0.0000 1.0952 1.0952 2.30000- 0.0000 1.1000 Total 5.0000e- 003 003 005 0.0000 004 004 0.0000 004 004 I I 0.0881 1.00000- 004 0.O882 005 Mitigated Construction Off -Site 4.0 Operational Detail - Mobile s10C Not co rir]2r yLva 1 i+tt10 ti,;Ty C1C9lo.'1 PIA25 Bio- c.S32'NC1rn-W2 T=CO2 CIW WOCo?;, I FF.S 10 P/.tTO 1ofrl f,%JS S 1sd, Z5 Tn1ar hilf�+' Hnueng 0.0000 0 0000 0.0000 0 0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 00000 ; 0.0000 0 0000 0 0000 0.0000 0.0000 • 0.0000 - _ __ Vendor 00000 0.0000 0.0000 w 0.0000 r 0.0000 0.0000 0 0000 0.0000 0.0000 �- 0.0000 i 0 0000 .r 0.00000000-0-7-00000 00000 0 0000 s 6 Worker 50000a- 70000e- 6,7000e- 0 0000 9,000Oe- 0.0000 9.000Oc 2 OOOOe- 0.0000 T 2.000Oe- _ _ 0.0000 O.OB81--�-- 0.08614 + 1 OOOOe- 0 0000- + 00882 005 005 004 005 005 005 005 � 005 , + • + + + 4 + + + Total 5.0000e- 7.0000e- 8.70000- 0.0000 9.00000- 0.0000 9.00000- 2.00000- 0.0000 2.0000e- 0.0000 0.0881 0.0881 1.00000- 0.0000 0.O882 005 005 004 005 005 005 005 005 4.0 Operational Detail - Mobile CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 9 of 17 Date: 2/17/20144:34 PM 4.1 Mitigation Measures Mobile 4.2 Trip Summary Information Averejja Oahy Trip R8W Fif7f� 040 CO nf37 PYA 10 Wwug pullo pM t0 I Tg411 FO(Ar{VV. PI.QS kYfYJ ;, PUZ4 ra;di I 1,999,642 1.999.642 CL.lr WO co 4:::lefjy /' 41nFe'yr S,1r1rr Mitigated 12636 1 8299 9 6427 0.0112 0.7437 0 0217 0 7654 0 1996 0.0199 031;4 i G C-000 9152529 9152529 0 0489 0.0000 916 2797 .___.___.__m_____T______T_____T_��-__T______T______T______T______�-______T_______; Unmitigated •• 1.2630 1.8299 9.8427 0 0112 0.7437 0.0217 0,7654 0 1996 0 0199 _______ ______T______T______T______t______. 0.2194 0.0000 9152529 915.2529 0.0489 0.0000 916 2797 4.2 Trip Summary Information Averejja Oahy Trip R8W 1lrua61411ad I Miflgaled LandUsa Wcu'krJLV Saboiay Sunday n,ueualWAT lnnuai''7M1 Fast Food Restaurant with Drive Thru 1,984.48 2,888.12 2170.88 1,999,642 1,999,642 Total 1,984.48 L2,888.12 2,170.88 1,999,642 1.999.642 4.3 Trip Type Information 1�1i6r• Tnp Ys Trip Purpose Y. rf-S ar GC -O or Cd4WIH-W ur CW 41 s ar C� H•Cr or C•r4W Primmy n t.alyd rise li•W ori;•'vY H�� YPiJC6d PSs5^ISY, est FvaJ Re:la,rranl wdh Drive: 9.50 730 • 7,30 2.20 78.8f) 19.00 "l9 71 50 LDA LOT! L17T2 I MOV I LNVI I LM02 I 61HD HHO 013US UOUS MGY I SEWS1 Nif 0 546619: 0.062800; 0 174631• 0.124220^ 0.034286• 0.004915^ 0.015254^ 0.022958^ 0,002060• 0.003298^ 0.006596• 0.000695^ 0.001661 � 4 HAPoOetail Historical Energy Use: N CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 10 of 17 Date: 2/17/2014 4:34 PM 5.1 Mitigation Measures Energy Exceed Title 24 Kilowatt Hours of Renewable Electricity Generated iii1G I NOr COail% YU2 3 MO.= DDi u• GCJ] iFI11 Qw E;u N2Ci �ifip B°0.110 Dni:11b TI5L;1 f✓hP25 F''RfSi Iaisl .oc�xy 1rH:cJ.W f 1.1t1y1 Electricity 0 0000 0 0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.4K100 03.6540 33654?) 15200e- 31000a- 33,7835 Mitigated r 003 004 _ 0.0000 0.0000 .0_- •.000400550Elecldclty 0.00_00T0_00 0.000 399014 39-9014 1.B000e'3.7 Unmitigated 003 ; 004 ; NaturalGas » 4.0500e- 0.0369 00310 • 2.2000e- �2.8000e- �2.8000e- Y Y2.B000e-.- 2.8000e- t 0.0000 401287 40.1287 • 77 7000e- �• 7.4000e- 40.3729 Mitigated003 •• 004 003 003 003 003 + 004 004 ___ NaturalG'as •• 4..5500e- 0.0414 0.0348 2.5000e- 3.1400e- 3.1400e- 3.1400e- 3.1400e• 0.0000 45.0476 45.0476 8-6000e- 8.3000e- 45.3217 Unmitigated 003 004 003 003 003 003 004 004 CaIEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 11 of 17 Date: 2/17/2014 4:34 PM 5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas Unmitigated Mitigated Nxur0+Gd WCJG now Cr] 1172 F^VA" E Kl:ju APdm 1iY Fuglk EcAnull P0211 91e.Cll2� 11910, 1,2 TO[i W2 4�•t lPW4:5 CO.i4: NMO- Gll e W. t';<W N2[7 Cwt PU 10 p1 %O TU Wt prA2 5 PU2 5 TCW PMIQ P=1 pma l l+7nU u40 Y(lTLlhr tm�izfyr AIf1Y1' - = r Fast Food • 044160 +• A. 5500e• 0.0414 0 0348 2.50006- 3 1400s- 3.1400e- 3.1400s- 3.1400e- t 0.0000 45.0475 45.0476 0-80000-. 8.3000e- 45.3217 Restaurant with is 003 004 003 003 003 003 y 004 004 n~taWIT 1 1 ' 1 , r 004 004 ^Total^ J , 1 4.55000- 0.0414 0.0348 2.6060x• 394000. 3.1400x- 0.0369 3.14006- 3.14000- 0.0000 45.0470 45.0476 8.60000- 8.30000- 45.3217 7.4000e- 40.3729 003 004 037 M 004 003 003 003 003 004 004 004 Mitigated malwmiia RT3G N7'h1 CQ C•A2 Fup-4- F5-4 t 'PUIO fug; F�1tlI01lml lPW4:5 Bio -CO2' NMO- Gll raaiutM t';<W N2[7 Cwt 4 UW pNt iii PMIQ P=1 pma l ft" raw . Ladd Um k8lufy 1on07T+ U71yr Fast Food 751984 4 0500e- 0.0369 00310 2.2000e- 2.8000a- 2.8000, 2 8000e- 2.8000e• i 0 0000 40 1287 40 1287 7.7000e- 7 4000e- 40.3729 Restaurant with t, 003 004 003 003 003 003 r 004 004 ^Total^ J , 1 4,0500e- 0.0369 0.0310 2.2000s-2.80009. 2.8000e- 2.8000e- 2.80006- 0.0000 40.1287 40.1287 7.7000.- 7.4000e- 40.3729 003 004 003 003 003 003 004 004 CaIEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 12 of 17 Date: 2/17/2014 4:34 PM 5.3 Energy by Land Use - Electricity Unmitigated Mitigated w.!:v"Y Tuut 7,.f?l G-+AhJ20 C.112o. Cma 4J40 % a`A 1, fleet%I" lwmj) 1dT11s Fast f eto 137160 1 jM00". 5 FL'0n._- . .:0 0550 Restaurant with is n... r,.... 003 004 , Total t.. 003 004 39.9014 1.8000.• 3.7000x- 59:0550 33.6540 1.5200.- 003 1 04 Mitigated 6.0 Area Detail 6.1 Mitigation Measures Area Fiactlln(y Talar Cot Cl -W 6120 Cma % a`A Land Uad mrwj, iITfYT Fast Food - 115684 33.6540 , 1.5200e- 3.1000a- 33 7835 Restaurant with t.. 003 004 na, TnM1 h Total 33.6540 1.5200.- 3.11000e. 33.7835 003 004 6.0 Area Detail 6.1 Mitigation Measures Area CaIEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 13 of 17 Date: 2/17/2014 4:34 PM 6.2 Area by SubCategory Unmitigated qw WA 00nn•; .viz? C„0,pav G F4i0 a ivi4v AiylO 1+1.110 3altl F.;pLun *f t25 E,nn;,-k A!Sr5 P642.5 irctut 'n,= Rao, = ToW CO2 Ctvl Fi'.'v I.:0? -. i:amga<y torl4r 647✓w1 Mitigated 0 0203 0 0000 4 0000e- 0 0000 0.0000 0.0000 0 0000 0.0000 0.0000 7.0000e- . 7.0000a- . 0.0000 0.0000 8 0000a- 005 I 11 y 005 005 005 3eaCat�pa-y _. lorelyr iirr4r Architectural •• .00 4 6400e- 0.0000 + 000 • 0.0000 • 00000 y Coating ;; 003 Unmitigated •• 0 0203 0 0000 4 0000e- 0 0000 0 0000 0 0000 0.0000 0.0000 0 0000 7.0000e- 7.00000- 0 0000 0 0000 ? B.000Oe- 005 _ ____ ____ 0.0000 • • 7 0000e- 7 0000e- . 0 0000 �- 0 0000 T 8 0000e- _ ___ __ _____i_ Landscaping w 0000 0.0000 4.0000e- 0.0000 , 0.0000 �w 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000_ 005 6 Y + I + ' 005 005 005 6.2 Area by SubCategory Unmitigated F[t3 W 7. •..11 .viz? "'4 E..retusi Pk+50 Fu(tiGuq EW-aunt F}L1;1.5 bus q0$ flAip OW%WCq2 1774 WOG'l?� Ph110 vM10' 1`10411 P1425 -MY 5 Tope I 3eaCat�pa-y _. lorelyr iirr4r Architectural •• .00 4 6400e- 0.0000 + 000 • 0.0000 • 00000 + 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0 0000 . 0.0000 00000 Coating ;; 003 Consumer 0.0156 , 0.0000 0.0000 • 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 •� 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 • 0.0000 _ Products " r • _ ____ ____ 0.0000 • • 7 0000e- 7 0000e- . 0 0000 �- 0 0000 T 8 0000e- _ ___ __ _____i_ Landscaping w 0000 0.0000 4.0000e- 0.0000 , 0.0000 �w 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000_ 005 6 Y + I + ' 005 005 005 . Total 0.0203 0.0000 4.0000e- 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0,0400 gA90a 7A400o. 7A0110m 0.0000 0.0000 3.0000e- 005 005 005 005 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 14 of 17 Date: 2/17/2014 4:34 PM 6.2 Area by SubCategory Mitioated 7.0 Water Detail 7.1 Mitigation Measures Water Apply Water Conservation Strategy P+7C 1404, C.i1 B;G2 ruyCOur Errau9a piAla FuOtlar. W -Wdlf PkL25 flies C472 N6it-a:tip TatarCO2 cqu N24 4r72n pule Ft•110 Tow PIA25 pwS Total - k',d3"u000ty 1-rclye - - 1d Try, Consumer 0.0156 00000 00000 00000 00000 ± 0 0000 0 0000 0.0000 0 0000 0.0000 0.0000 Products iF Y..��Y.___._._________r___�_�_____�__p�__* Landscaping 0.0000 0.0000 4.0000.- 0.0000 t 0.0000 t 0.0000 t 0.0000 0.0000 ... _ _ _ t F 0.0000 7.0000.- 7.0000.- 0 0000 0.0000 B 0000e- 005 005 tet � � � � t � 005 005 � i � i __ i Archilectura1 1. 4.6400e- t 0.0000 t 0.0000 0.0000 « 0.0000U000 0.0000 0.0000 00000 0.0000 00000 Coating 003 t ' 1 ' ' Total 0.0203 0.6000 4.0000e- 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 7.0000e- 7.0000.- 0.0000 0.0000 8.0000s- 11 005 005 005 7.0 Water Detail 7.1 Mitigation Measures Water Apply Water Conservation Strategy Fr1,ui Cta} CYU N':'C} ;s1k:. i�t!sgrry' AATrir Mitigated 1 0091 1 2500a- 7 6000e- ' 20713 003 004 Unmitigated '7-2 4T97 715700e-7 95000.-? 27480 003 004 CaIEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 15 of 17 Date: 2/17/2014 4:34 PM 7.2 Water by Land Use Unmitigated Mitigated t"Wi eoll Total CO2 cl�a 1424cOz, I I I L"LAP dow tif�-... wpvt Fast Food -3.97130616• 16091 12500e- 76000e- 2,0713 Restaurant with ; 0.077496 1: 003 004 n ' , Total Fast Food 121413 r� 2.4197 1 5700.- 9 SOObe- 2 7480 Restaurant with ; 0.077498 is 003 004 ^ ' 7.6000.- 2.0713 Total- 2.4197 1.5700.- 9.5000.- 2.7480 004 003 004 Mitigated 8.0 Waste Detail 8.1 Mitigation Measures Waste =Tow cm Ow mo cozo I I I L"LAP 4%w wpvt Fast Food -3.97130616• 16091 12500e- 76000e- 2,0713 Restaurant with ; 0.077496 1: 003 004 n ' , Total 1.6091 1.2500e- 7.6000.- 2.0713 003 004 8.0 Waste Detail 8.1 Mitigation Measures Waste CaIEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 16 of 17 Date: 2/17/2014 4:34 PM Categorv/Year 8.2 Waste by Land Use Unmitigated r�uu{Xrz rims 1 wlo 1 C<ju COU th Farm Unrti8gated 93538 0.5528 0.0000 209625 Miligaled �� 9.3538 T 0.5528 T 0,0000 20.9625 8.2 Waste by Land Use Unmitigated WasIA n, Total t`ab2. CFA I WM COU Land lhn rasa 14T1r Fast Food 46.08 9.3536 0.5528 0.0000 209625 Restaurant with n,�,... r•,.. a. Total 9.3538 0.5528 0.0000 20.9625 CaIEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 17 of 17 Date: 2/17/2014 4:34 PM 8.2 Waste by Land Use Mitigated 9.0 Operational Offroad f:quiPmrial Type; I Nurrspsr 11,11rrwiieav pain-,%Y2;lr liur�ir 't.wnr Lved F,wl ar Fu.0 TpL 10.0 Vegetation .vauss low rm c;.w wo CO24 ue,P05.1 _."I I Lsr.dI1c- Urpry i Fast Food 4608 9 3536 0.5520 r 00000 20.9625 Restaurant with ; r. r' Total^ 9.3536 0.5526 0.0000 20.9625 9.0 Operational Offroad f:quiPmrial Type; I Nurrspsr 11,11rrwiieav pain-,%Y2;lr liur�ir 't.wnr Lved F,wl ar Fu.0 TpL 10.0 Vegetation APPENDIX B Mitigation Monitoring Program Wilfred/Dowdell Specific Plan EIR Approved August 20, 2008 State Clearinghouse No. 1998072036 ENVIRONMEN'IAl. IMPACT REPORT RESPONSE TO COMMEN7S Wilfred/Dowdell Village Specific Plan City gfRohnert Park, California MALT CProjccl Na 4085040507-2 2 August 20, 2008 FINAL MB62764-RtC 8-20-08.doc Mitigation Monitoring Program Mitigation Measure Monitoring Monitoring TimingJ— Agency Action LAND USE Development of the project will be clustered and concentrated to Community Development Incorporate mitigation Prior to maintain the visual quality of the separator. The commercial center in measures related to development. Village North will be sited near existing buildings and Village South is obtaining land (M3,1-1 b) or (Note: The removal to be concentrated in buildings at the center of its site. The Project conservation easements that of this perimeter will be heavily landscaped opposite the community separator would satisfy this mitigation Wilfred/Dowdell on the west side of Dowdell Avenue and will provide bicycle and (M 3,1-1 d), area from the pedestrian access to the separator Community Separator is Prior to approval of an application for development of any portion of anticipated in the Project site that is designated in the Sonoma County General Plan September 2008 as part of the Community Separator, then one of the following during the measures shall be implemented. County's adoption of its General Plan [M] 3,1-1 a Acquisition of a similar amount of land designated Update. This for development elsewhere, which is adjacent to a community would eliminate separator, and place it in a community separator through a General Plan the need for this amendment, mitigation. [M] 3.1-1 b Provision of compensation for the loss of land in the separator by a cash payment to the Sonoma County Agricultural Preservation and Open Space District, to purchase open space on a similar amount of land, [M] 3,1- I c Purchase or transfer development rights from a similar amount of land adjacent to the separator to allow it to be retained in open space. M 3.1-1d Purchasing of conservation open space easements an 3-5 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT RESPONSE TO COMMENTS WilfredlDowdell Village Specific Plan City ofRohnerl Park, California MACTEC Project No. 4085040507-1.2 August 20, 2008 FINAL MB62764-RlC 8-20-08.doc M11igatinn Monitoring Program Mitigation Measure Monitoring Monitoring Timing Agency Action developable land that would enhance or strengthen the community separator development. [M] 3.1-2a: Comply with LAFCO procedures to consider annexations Community Development Incorporate mitigation Prior to of land in a community separator. measures related to development. obtaining land (M3.1-1 b) or (Note: The removal [M] 3.1-2b: The County is undertaking an update of its General Plan. conservation easements that of this As a part of this, the appropriateness of the Community Separator at the would satisfy this mitigation Wilfred/Dowdell Project Site maybe considered. If this site is removed from the (M 3.1-1d). area from the Community Separator, the impact would no longer exist.. Community Separator is anticipated in September 2008 during the County's adoption of its General Plan Update. This would eliminate the need for this mitigation. [M] 3.1-5: The Project shall comply with mitigation measures defined Community Incorporate required Prior to approval of to reduce traffic, dust, noise, and night lighting as described in Sections Development/Engineering/P mitigation measures to grading permit. 3.6, 3.7, 3.8 and 3.9 of the EIR, respectively. W Inspector reduce traffic, dust, noise and night lightning as described in Sections 3.6, 3.7, 3.8 and 3 9 of the EIR, respectively. 3-6 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT RESPONSE TO COMMENTS Wilfred/Dowdell Village Specific Plan City of Rohner! Park, California MACTEC Project No, 4085040507-2.2 August 20, 2008 FINAL MB62764-RtC 8-20-08.doc Mitigation Monitoring Program Mitigation Measure Monitoring Monitoring Timing Agency Action GROUND HAZARDS [M] 3.2-1: The contents of buildings in the proposed Project shall be Community Inspect businesses Prior to the secured to the extent feasible. All shelving shall be secured to Development/Building opening of the structural elements of the floor, wall, or ceiling. Heavy display items Inspector business. and merchandise shall be placed on lower shelves and secured to building elements where possible, A certificate of occupancy shall not be issued until compliance with these requirements. [M] 3.2-2: A geotechnical study acceptable to the City shall be Community Review and approve the Prior to approval of conducted by a California Certified Geologist prior to site development, Development/Engineering final grading plan and a grading permit. This study shall evaluate liquefaction potential at the Project site prior identify geotechnical Weekly throughout to issuance of a grading permit. Recommendations shall be provided, specifications as a condition the grading period. as necessary, to prevent damage to Project facilities and compliance of grading permit approval. with these recommendations shall be required as a condition of development at the Project site. This impact will be less than Conduct inspection of the significant because engineering techniques to mitigate for poor ground Project site to verify conditions are incorporated into building codes with which the Project implementations of will have to comply. geotechnical specifications [M] 3.2-3: A geotechnical study acceptable to the City shall be Community Review and approve the Prior to approval of conducted to determine the location and extent of expansive soils at the Development/Engineering/Bu final grading plan and a grading permit Project site prior to issuance of grading permit. The study will ilding Inspector/PW Inspector identify geotechnical include recommendations regarding the treatment and/or remedy of specifications as a condition Weekly throughout onsite soils, and the structural design of foundations and underground of grading permit approval, the grading period utilities, and compliance with these recommendations shall be required as a condition of future development at the Project Site Conduct inspection of the Project site to verify implementations of geotechnical specifications. 3-7 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT RESPONSE TO COMMENTS Wilfred/Dowdell Village Specific Plan City of Rohnerl Park, California MACTEC Project No. 4085040507-22 Augusl 20, 2008 FINAL M862764 -RIC 8-20-08.doc Mitigation Monitoring Program Mitigation Measure Monitoring Monitoring Timing Agency Action [M] 3,2,5: Any domestic wells associated with the 7 houses on the site Engineering/ Sonoma County Inspect well sites prior to Prior to approval of and two houses west of the intersection of Wilfred/Dpwdell Avenues Department of Environmental removal. a grading permit. shall be properly destroyed, If wells locations are not destroyed prior to Health the initiation of grading permits, well locations shall be shown on grading plans. A California licensed C-57 well driller shall destroy any wells. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY [M] 3,3-1: The Project developer shall prepare a site-specific Engineering/PW Inspector Review and approve final Prior to approval of hydrology and drainage study acceptable to the City showing the storm drainage plans a grading permit. increase in storm water runoff that would result from development of the Project site. Based upon the results of this study, the developer shall design and construct a storm drain system in accordance with Sonoma County Water Agency Flood Control Design Criteria (latest revision), specific to the Project, [M] 3.3-2a: The Project developer shall develop and implement a site- Engineering/PW Inspector Review and approve final Prior to approval of specific storm water pollution prevention plan acceptable to the City storm drainage plans. a grading permit, that identifies best management practices for effectively reducing discharges of storm water containing sediment and construction wastes resulting from site construction activities. The applicant shall comply with all other requirements set forth in NPDES General Per CAS000002: Prior to approval of a grading permit [M] 3.3-2b: The developer shall design and construct storm drainage improvements to remove oil and grease from discharges from parking Verify proper installation of lots, including directing runoff to vegetated swales or areas, consistent off-site drainage facilities with best management practices (BMPs). The Project developer will prepare a "Preliminary Storm Water Engineering Review and approve Final Prior to approval of Mitigation Plan", for each phase of development pursuant to Guidelines Storm Water Mitigation a grading permit. for the Standard Urban Storm Water Mitigation Plan, Storm Water Best Management Practices for New Development and Redevelopment, For 3-8 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT RESPONSE TO COMMENTS Wilfred/Dowdell Village Specific Plan City ofRohnert Park, California MACTEC Project No. 4085040507-2.2 August 20, 2008 FINAL MB62764-RIC 8-20-08.doc Mitigation Monitoring Program Mitigation Measure Monitoring Monitoring Timing Agency Action the Santa Rosa Area and Unincorporated Areas around Petaluma and Plan. Sonoma, June 3, 2005. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES [M] 3.4-3a: A pre -construction survey of ruderal seasonal wetland Community If special -status plants are Prior to, but no habitat shall occur prior to, but no earlier than 30 days prior to the Development/CDFG/USFWS present, monitor the site for earlier than 30 days commencement of grading and/or construction activities, This survey compliance with mitigation prior to the shall be conducted within the blooming period of all five special -status measures. commencement of plants identified as having the potential to be present on the Project site. grading as a If one or more of these species is observed during the survey, then condition of appropriate alternative measures should be executed. approval of the grading permit. [M] 3.4-3b: If special -status plant species are determined to occur on Monitor transplantation the project site, they shall be avoided to the extent feasible For those program in cooperation with plants that cannot be avoided, the following mitigation measure shall be CDB&G and USFWS. implemented. 1) All plants within the construction footprint (including staging areas) shall be transplanted to a mitigation site approved by CDFG and the USFWS. 2) Lost plant habitat shall be replaced at a ratio of two acres of replacement habitat for each acre of special- status plant habitat lost The success of the transplantation program shall be evaluated to have been achieved if 80% or more of the transplanted plants have survived five years after transplantation 3) Mitigation projects will be monitored annually for five years using success criteria developed in coordination with the CDFG and USFWS. 3-9 ENV/RONMENYAL IMPACT REPORT RESPONSE TO COMMENTS Wilfred/Dowdell Village Specific Plan City ofRohnerl Park, California MACTEC Project No. 4085040507-2 2 August 20, 2008 FINAL MB61764-RIC 8-20-08.doc Mitigation Monitoring Program Mitigation Measure Monitoring Monitoring Timing Agency Action [M] 3.4-3c: Where complete avoidance is not feasible, pre -construction surveys shall be conducted to flag the limits of areas where special - status plant species occur. [M] 3.4-3d: The City of Rohnert Park and the developer should establish an ongoing and aggressive weed abatement program to prevent the spread and establishment of exotic weeds along established habitat on the site or habitat subject to further invasion of seed stock resulting from grading and development activities. [M] 3.4-3e: The City's General Plan (City ofRohnerl Park, 2000) contains goals and policies related to the preservation of trees and native vegetation. Two of them should be noted by the Developer: 1) Goal EC -D: "Maintain existing native vegetation and encourage planting of native plants and trees'; 2) Policy EC -l2: "Protect oaks and other native trees that are of significant size through the establishment of a Heritage Tree Preservation Ordinance." Native plants and vegetation shall be utilized in the perimeter landscape. [M] 3.4-4a: A formal consultation should be initiated with the USFWS Community Development Upon consultation with the Prior to, but no regarding the California Tiger Salamander (CTW). Based on the /CDFG/USFWS USFSW, implement any earlier than 30 ensuing Biological Opinion provided by the USFWS as part of the measures that would be days prior to the consultation, further measures may be necessary by the USFWS before necessary before initiation commencement of initiation of any grading and construction activities would be permitted of any grading and grading as to begin. construction activities. condition of approval of a [M] 3.4-4b: A CTS protocol survey could be one of the USFWS's grading permit. recommendations, based on the consultation. CTS survey protocol guidelines appear in a publication produced by the USFWS (USFWS, 2004). M 3 4-4c: Any active CTS must not be disturbed. If CDFG 3-10 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT RESPONSE TO COMMENTS Wi fred/Dowdell Village Specific Plan City gfRohnerl Park, California MACTFC Project No. 4085040507-2.2 August 20, 2008 FINAL MB62764-RIC 8-20-08.doc Mitigation Monitoring Program Mitigation Measure Monitoring Monitoring Timing Agency Action determines that CTS habitat will be lost because of development, the developer/applicant shall provide compensation for habitat loss o to be determined in consultation with the CDFG. [M] 3.4-6a: The applicant shall retain a qualified biologist, acceptable PW Inspector Review results of the pre Prior to issuance of to the City to conduct nest surveys on the site and within 200 feet of its construction survey a grading permit, borders prior to construction or site preparation activities occurring but no earlier than during the nestingfbreeding season raptor species (typically February 30 days prior to through August). The surveys shall be conducted no earlier than 30 commencement of days prior to commencement of construction/restoration activities. construction/restor ation activities [M] 3.4-6b: If active raptor nests are present in the construction zone If a nest is present, monitor or within 200 feet of these areas, a fence shall be erected at a minimum the site for compliance with of 50 feet around the nest site and remain until the end of the nesting mitigation measures. season or until the biologist deems necessary. This temporary buffer may be greater depending on the identification of the bird species and construction activity elements, as determined by the biologist. [M] 3.4-6c: If an active raptor nest is located on or adjacent to the project site, tree removal, grading, and other project -related disturbances shall be prohibited within 200 feet of the active raptor nest until the young have fledged. Prior to disturbance within 200 feet of an active raptor nest, the project developer shall retain a qualified biologist or ornithologist, acceptable to the City to confirm that the young have fledged. The biologist shall serve as a construction monitor during those periods when construction activities will occur near active nest areas to ensure the safety of raptors at peril. [M] 3,4-8a: The project design shall be written so that avoidance or Community Development Verify that applicant has or to issuance of minimization of wetland impacts occurs on the site through realignment /CDFG/USFWS/USACE obtained appropriate a grading permit. and special design or construction features. In accordance with the USACE permit and has federal Clean Water Act Section 404(b)(1) uidelines (40 CFR 230 et im lemented the required 3-11 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT RESPONSE TO COMMENTS Wilfred/Dowdell Village Specific Plan City of Rohnert Park, California MACTEC Project No. 4085040507-2.2 August 20, 2008 FINAL MB62764-RIC 8-20-08.doc Mitigation. Monitoring Program Mitigation Measure Monitoring Monitoring Timing Agency Action seq.), avoidance and then minimization must be given first compensatory wetland consideration in the sequence for mitigating wetlands impacts. mitigation measures. [M] 3.4-8b: In the event construction on the site impacts any portion or all of the documented wetland habitat, mitigation standards mandated by the USFWS, CDFG, and USACE for fill of wetlands and Waters of the U.S will be required. These measures will involve either the restoration of wetlands at a ratio of 1.5:1 or the creation of new wetlands at a ratio of 2:1. If up -front mitigation is provided (wetlands are restored or created prior to the fill of project site wetlands), a 1:1 mitigation ratio is accepted. A final determination of these restoration ratio totals shall be established in consultation with the USFWS, CDFG and/or USACE. [M] 3.4-8c: The developer will incorporate provisions of the 1601 Streambed Alteration Agreement to include appropriate Best Management Practices (BMPs) or erosion control methods to ensure that erosion and sedimentation resulting from construction activities will be minimized into Labath Creek. Examples of these types of measures for alterations to creeks or streambeds that have been implemented on other projects include: construction during the dry season when flows are at a minimum; and construction of a coffer dam to reroute flows during construction. Specific measures for alterations to Labath Creek will be developed after CDFG's review. [M] 3.4-9a: Areas identified as current or potential vernal pool habitat Community Verify that applicant has Prior to issuance of shall be avoided to the extent feasible by all construction related Development/PW Inspector obtained a CDFG/USFWS- a grading permit. activities. If avoidance of current and potential vernal pool habitat is approved mitigation bank not possible, either of mitigation measure 3.4-9b or 3.4-9c below shall and they reconstruct be implemented to reduce the impact to a less -than -significant. necessary vernal pool habitat if avoidance of AMI 3.4-9b: The Prosect developer will establish a CDFG/USFWS- current and potemial vernal 3-12 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT RESPONSE TO COMMENTS Wilfred/Dowdell Village Specific Plan City gfRohneri Park, California MACTECProjecl No, 4085040-507-2.2 August 20, 2008 FINAL MB62764-RIC 8-20-08,doc Mitigation Monitoring Program Mitigation Measure Monitoring Monitoring Timing Agency Action approved mitigation bank. The project developer will reconstruct pool habitat is not possible. offsite vernal pool habitat at a replacement ratio of 1:1 for vernal pool habitat creation and 2:1 for vernal pool habitat preservation for each acre of vernal pool habitat impacted. [M] 3,4-9c: The Project developer will permanently protect the agreed- upon acreage of vernal pool habitat within the mitigation bank via a CDFG/USFWS approved conservation easement, to be held by a CDFG/JSFWS-approved entity. [M] 3,4-12a: Prior to the removal of any vegetation within 100 feet Community Verify that applicant has Prior to issuance of from Labath Creek, the developer shall prepare a Riparian Restoration Development/CDFG/PW prepared a Riparian a grading permit Erosion Control Plan. The plan shall incorporate measures such as silt Inspector Restoration Erosion Control fencing, wattling (wattling is hay encased in mesh netting to inhibit and Plan, prevent soil erosion), and staked hay bales. The plan shall be subject to approval by the City and the CDFG. [M] 3-4-12b: During construction, herbicides/pesticides shall not be applied within the riparian zone associated with Labath Creek without Verify that developer has the approval of the type of herbicide/pesticide to be used and the appropriate agency approval application by which it would be applied by the USFWS, CDFG, and if application of a National Marine Fisheries (NMFS). herbicide/pesticide is necessary. CULTURAL RESOURCES [M] 3.5-1: A cultural resources field survey of the Project site shall be Community Development Verify Completion of the Prior to approval of perfonned prior to construction activities. All prehistoric and historic field survey and its a grading permit archaeological and historic architectural properties identified during the recordation with the State field survey shall be recorded to State of California, Department of Parks and Recreation standards on 523 (DPR 523 series forms. 3-13 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT RESPONSE TO COMMENTS Wilfrec6Dowdell Village Specific Plan City gfRohnert Park, California MACTEC Project No. 4085040507-2.2 August 20, 2008 FINAL MB62764-RIC 8-10-08.doc Mitigation Monitoring Program Mitigation Measure Monitoring Monitoring Timing Agency Action [M] 3.5-2a: If any cultural resources are discovered during ground- Community Verify Completion of the Prior to approval of disturbing activities, work in the immediate area shall stop and a Development/PW Inspector field survey by a qualified a grading permit. qualified archaeologist brought in to evaluate the resource and to archaeologist and its recommend further action, if necessary. Construction crews shall be recordation with the State. directed by holder of the grading permit to be alert for cultural resources which could consist of, but not be limited to: artifact of stone, bone, wood, shell, or other materials; features, including hearths, structural remains, or dumps; areas of discolored soil indicating the location of fire pits, post molds, or living area surfaces. [M] 3.5-2b: In the event that human remains are discovered, all work in the area shall stop immediately, and the applicant shall contact the Presence of a qualified On-going during County Coroner. if the remains are determined to be of Native archaeologist to ensure that demolition, American origin, both the Native American Heritage Commission and construction workers excavation and any identified descendants shall be notified and recommendations for comply with mitigation grading treatment solicited pursuant to CEQA Section 15064.59(e). measures consistent with State and Federal law TRAFFIC AND CIRCULATION [M]36 -1a: In conjunction with the Project, a traffic signal shall be Engineering/PW Inspector Review constriction Prior to issuance of installed at the Redwood Drive/Business Park Drive intersection which documents for the building permit. would result in acceptable LOS B operation and reduce the impact to intersection improvements. less than significant. [M] 3 6-1 b: In conjunction with the Project, a right -tum overlap shall be installed on the westbound Rohnen Park Expressway approach which would result in acceptable LOS C operation at Redwood Drive/Rohnert Park Expressway, and reduce the impact to less than significant. 3-14 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTRFPORT RESPONSE TO COMMENTS Wilfred'Dowdell Village Specific Plan City of Rohnert Park, California MACTEC Project No. 4085040507-2.2 Augus120, 2008 FINAL MB62764-RIC_8-20-08 doc Mitigation Monitoring Program Mitigation Measure Monitoring Monitoring Timing Agency Action [M] 3.6-2: In conjunction with the Project, a fourth lane shall be Engineering/PW Inspector Review construction Prior to issuance of installed along the eastbound Wilfred Avenue approach to Redwood documents for the building permit Drive so that three through lanes and a left -tum lane can be provide& intersection improvements. Modification of the striping on the eastbound Rohnert Park Expressway approach to Redwood Drive shall include dual left -turn lanes and dual through lanes in place of the existing single left -turn lane and three through lanes which would result in acceptable LOS C operation and reduce the impact to less than significant. [M] 3.6-4: No street connections or driveways from the Project site Engineering/PW Inspector/ Review construction Prior to issuance of along Wilfred Avenue shall be allowed which would reduce the impact Community Development documents for the building permit, to less than significant. recommended improvements. [M] 3,6-5a: Signalization of the intersection of Redwood Drive/Willis Department Community Review construction Prior to issuance of Avenue would reduce the impact to less than significant Development — Planning documents for the building permit. Division intersection improvements [M] 3.6-5b: To address potential conflicts with traffic from the In -n- documents for the Out restaurant, the owners of the adjacent parcel should attempt to recommended negotiate with the owners of the In -N -Out site to arrive at a solution improvements. that will allow drive-through traffic to queue up entirely off the public roadway and reduce the impact to less than significant [M] 3.6-6a: Site design which shall include sidewalks on all street Engineering/PW Inspector Review construction Prior to issuance of frontages as well as pedestrian pathways and crossings connecting on- Community Development documents for the building permit. site activity centers would reduce the impact to less than significant recommended improvements. [M] 3.6-6b: Design of street improvements along Redwood Drive and Wilfred Avenue shall include bicycle lanes as indicated in the City of Rohnert Park's General Plan which would reduce the impact to less than significant fMJ 3.6-6c: The project will provide bicycle racks on-site to allow safe 3-15 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTREPORT RESPONSE TO COMMENTS Wilfred/Dowdell Village Specific Plan City ofRohnert Park, California MACTEC Project No. 4085040507-2 2 August 20, 1008 FINAL MB62764-RiC 8-20-08.doc N -litigation Monitoring Program Mitigation Measure Monitoring Monitoring Timing Agency Action and convenient storage of bikes for employees and customers which would reduce the impact to less than significant. [M] 3.6-6d: The project developer shall asses the need for a covered transit stop and/or bus pullouts along the site's frontage on Redwood Drive with the Sonoma County Transit to determine if a stop is needed or not, [M] 3.6.7: The site design shall include adequate fire lanes and other Engineering/Public Safety Review construction Review emergency facilities as deemed appropriate which would reduce the documents for the construction impact to less than significant intersection improvements documents for the intersection improvements. AIR QUALITY [M] 3 7-3: The mitigation measures listed under [M] 3.7-3 are Engineering/PW Inspector Review construction Prior to approval of incorporated in the Project to reduce the temporary impacts of documents and perform a grading permit construction dust emissions to a less -than -significant level. These are periodic visual inspections and on-going the applicable control measures recommended by the BAAQMD for to verify applicable control during construction areas larger than four acres that are located near sensitive measures are being construction. receptors. implemented. No mitigation measures are available to reduce the VMT associated Not Applicable Not Applicable. Not Applicable. with the General Plan and the Project Specific Plan; therefore, this impact would be significant and unavoidable NOISE [M] 3.8-4: The Project shall comply with the City's Municipal Code,unity Development Review construction Prior to approval of includingComm hours of construction. All equipment shall be adequately documents and perform a gradiing permit 3-16 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTREPORT RESPONSE TO COMMENTS Wilfred/Dowdell Village SpeciTc Plan City ofRohnert Park, California MACTEC Project No. 4085040507-2.2 August 20, 2008 FINAL MB61764-RiC 8-20-08.doc Mitigation Monitoring Program Mitigation Measure Monitoring Monitoring Timing Agency Action muffled and properly maintained. Construction equipment noise levels periodic visual inspections and on-going shall be monitored to move, muffle and/or shield equipment to to verify applicable control during minimize noise impacts. measures are being construction. implemented. VISUAL RESOURCES N 3.9-2: Refer to mitigation measures MM I'l-1 and [M] 3.1-2 for Community Development Incorporate mitigation Prior to the mitigation measures required to reduce the identified land use and measures related to development. visual impacts to les than significant levels. obtaining land (M3.1 -]b) or (Note: The removal conservation easements that of this would satisfy this mitigation Wilfred/Dowdell (M 3.1-1Ad). area from the Community Separator is anticipated in September 2008 during the County's adoption of its General Plan Update. This would eliminate the need for this mitigation. [M] 3.9-3: The Project shall comply with municipal code section Community Development/ Review construction Prior to issuance of 17.12.050 that requires that exterior lighting be designated to avoid PW Inspector documents to verify building permit. spillover lighting onto adjacent properties. specification are being met. 3-17 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT RESPONSE TO COMMENTS Wilfred/Dowdell Village Specific Plan City of Rohnert Park, California MACTEC Project No. 4085040507-2.2 August 20, 2008 FINAL MB62764-RiC 8-20-08.doc Mitigation Monitoring Program Mitigation Measure Monitoring Monitoring Timing Agency Action [M] 3.9-4: Implementation of polices in the General Plan EIR will be Community Development Review construction Prior to approval of required as part of the project design, The polices to mitigate visual documents to verify policies a grading permit. impacts on the City's Westside including planting and setbacks that are being met. ensure the edge of the urban uses results in a "soft" view will reduce these impacts to a less than significant level.. PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTILITIES M] 3.10-I: The Project will contribute to the need for additional public Public Safety/ Finance As an interim action, Station In conjunction with safety officers associated with growth of the City. As part of future One on Rohnert Park development of development, a public safety station is identified in the stadium area Expressway will be this project, Station specific plan and would also be funded by the Federated Indians of the expanded into a fully- One on Rohnert Graton Rancheria as part of the proposed Casino as well as through operational station to Park Expressway capital improvements approved by the Redevelopment Agency and provide better response to will be expanded through the Public Facilities Financing Plan (PFFP), Development of this area until funds have into a fully - the station would reduce the impact to less than significant, been approved to fund this operational station - station. This station would continue be staffed to support the west side of Highway 101 until anew public safety is developed in the Stadium Specific Plan Area. [M] 3-10-2: The Project applicant shall provide funds for the purchase Public Safety/Finance As an interim action, Station In conjunction with of equipment needed to outfit the additional Public Safety Officer One on Rohnert Park development of required as a result of Project development. The amount shall be Expressway will be this project, Station determined and agreed upon by the Chief of Public Safety and the expanded into a fully- One on Rohnert Finance Director of the City of Rohnert Park. In addition, as part of operational station to Park Expressway future development, a public safety station is identified in the stadium provide better response to will be expanded area specific plan area and would also be funded by the Graton this area until appropriate into a fully- Rancheria as part of the proposed Casino as well as through capital funds have been approved to 3-18 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT August 20, 2008 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS FINAL Wi{fred/Dowdell Village Specific Plan City gfRohnerl Park, California d4ACTEC Project No. 4085040507-11 MB62764-RiC 8-20-08.doc Mitigation Monitoring Program Mitigation Measure Monitoring Monitoring Timing Agency Action improvements approved by the Redevelopment Agency and through the fund this station. This operational station. PFFP. This funding would reduce the impact to less than significant. station would continue be staffed to support the west side of Highway 101 until a new public safety is developed in the Stadium Specific Plan Area. 3-19