Chapter 3: Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures Introduction

3. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING, IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES

3.1 INTRODUCTION

This chapter presents information on existing environmental conditions in the area surrounding the proposed project and examines the potential environmental impacts of the proposed project for the following environmental topic areas: • Geology, Soils and Seismicity • Biological Resources (Wetlands, Vegetation and Wildlife) • Water Resources • Parks and Recreation • Hazardous Materials • Land Use and Planning • Air Quality • Public Facilities and Safety • Transportation (Traffic, Transit, Bicycle, and Pedestrian) • Visual/Aesthetics • Noise and Vibration • Historic Resources • Energy • Archaeological Resources

The chapter is organized by issue area; each section in the chapter presents the study area (area of potential effect), regulatory setting that pertains to the topical area, the environmental setting (existing conditions and affected environment), significance criteria used to assess the impacts, methodology for assessing impacts within that issue area, summary of impact findings, identification of specific construction-related and long-term impacts of the proposed project on that environment, mitigation measures to avoid or reduce impacts and a discussion of cumulative impacts. In addition, the impact analysis in each section classifies the impacts based on the significance criteria. While Chapter 3 focuses on the impacts of the proposed project, alternatives to the proposed project are discussed in Chapter 4.

3.1.1 Assessment Methodology

Study Area

For each resource listed above, a study area was established based on the “area of potential effect.” The geographical boundaries of this study area vary among the issue areas. In some cases, the study area is broader than the project corridor and station and maintenance facility sites to factor in any direct or indirect impacts that may occur on resources adjacent to, but outside the area of physical disturbance. The study area is described in each section of Chapter 3.

Environmental Setting

The analysis of each issue area begins with an examination of the existing physical setting (baseline conditions) as determined pursuant to Section 15125(a) of the CEQA Guidelines that may be affected by the proposed project. The effects of the proposed project are defined as changes to the environmental setting that are attributable to project components or operation.

Significance Criteria

Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines provides guidance for determining the significance of project impacts. These guidelines require that physical changes in the environment be evaluated based on factual evidence, reasonable assumptions supported by facts and expert opinion based on facts.

Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit 3-1 DEIR November 2005 Chapter 3: Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures Introduction

Significance criteria or environmental thresholds are identified for each environmental issue area. The significance criteria serve as a benchmark for determining if a project action would result in a significant adverse environmental impact when evaluated against the baseline. According to CEQA Guidelines, a significant effect on the environment means “...a substantial, or potentially substantial, adverse change in any of the physical conditions within the area affected by the project...” (14 CCR Section 15382). The significance criteria are based on CEQA Guidelines, professional experience, and review of other similar projects. “Threshold of significance” can be defined as: “A quantitative or qualitative standard, or set of criteria” (Governor’s Office Of Planning and Research, 1994).

Impact Analysis

Impacts associated with the proposed project have been identified in accordance with CEQA (Public Resources Code Section 21000-21177). Each short- or long-term impact is numbered and classified. Both direct and indirect impacts are identified, and construction-related impacts are differentiated from long-term effects. Impacts are classified as: • Significant unavoidable: Substantial adverse impact that exceeds established or defined significance thresholds and remains significant after mitigation. Mitigation may be identified, but the mitigation measure would not reduce the impact to a less than significant level; • Significant mitigable: Substantial adverse impact that exceeds an established or defined threshold, but can be eliminated or reduced below an issue’s significance threshold with implementation of one or more mitigation measures; • Less than significant: Adverse impact that does not meet or exceed an issue’s established or defined significance thresholds; or • Beneficial: Effect of the proposed project that is an improvement to an environmental issue area in comparison to the baseline conditions.

The focus of the analysis is on potentially significant impacts. Issue areas that were determined during the scoping process to have less than significant impacts are summarized in Chapter 5. The summary of impacts in each individual issue area in Chapter 3 notes specific topics where a finding of “no impact” was made and the topic is not furthered analyzed in the discussion of specific impacts and mitigation measures.

Formulation of Mitigation Measures

When significant impacts are identified, feasible mitigation measures are formulated to eliminate or reduce the intensity of the impacts and focus on the protection of sensitive resources. The effectiveness of a mitigation measure is subsequently determined by evaluating the impact remaining after its application. Those impacts exceeding the impact significance criteria after mitigation are considered residual impacts that remain significant. Implementation of more than one mitigation measure may be needed to reduce an impact to a level that is not of significance. The mitigation measures recommended in this document are identified and numbered in the impact assessment sections and will be included in the Mitigation Monitoring Program.

If any mitigation measures become incorporated as part of the project’s design, they are no longer considered mitigation measures under CEQA. If they eliminate or reduce a potentially significant impact to a level below the significance criteria, they eliminate the potential for that significant impact since the “measure” is now a component of the proposed project. Such measures incorporated in the project design have the same status as any “applicant proposed measures.” The measures that are part of the proposed project are listed in Section 2.9, Environmental Compliance Measures. Additional mitigation measures are recommended in the individual issue area impact assessments where necessary to reduce or avoid significant adverse impacts.

Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit 3-2 DEIR November 2005 Chapter 3: Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures Introduction

Relationship of Impact Analysis to Technical Reports

Technical reports were prepared for the Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit (SMART) passenger rail project in advance of this DEIR. These reports document conditions within the project study area and assess the impacts of the proposed project and alternatives. Data and information from these reports were used to prepare this DEIR. Most of the reports were prepared in 2004. Additional or updated data may have been required to complete the DEIR. In most situations this updated information was not incorporated into the technical reports. As a result, discrepancies between the DEIR and the technical reports may be found. In such cases, the information in the DEIR should be considered the most up-to-date and accurate. The impact assessment in the DEIR may differ from assessments in these technical reports due to the fact that the technical report analyses were based on preliminary project description information. Since completion of the technical reports, the project description has been refined, and many measures identified as “mitigation” in the technical reports have been incorporated into the proposed project either as part of the project design or as environmental compliance measures (see Section 2.9).

Technical reports have been prepared for the following subject areas and are incorporated by reference into this DEIR: • Geology, Soils and Seismicity • Noise and Vibration • Hydrology and Water Quality • Biological Resources • Hazardous Materials • Community Impacts and Land Use • Air Quality • Visual Quality • Travel Demand Forecasting (Appendix I) • Historic Resources

Supporting technical information regarding the transportation calculations is available in the reference document - Transportation Technical Data (Parsons Brinckerhoff, 2005).

Cumulative Projects

CEQA requires a project to analyze cumulative impacts in addition to direct and indirect impacts. According to CEQA Guidelines Section 15355, cumulative impacts refers to “two or more individual effects which, when considered together, are considerable or which compound or increase other environmental impacts.” Section 15130 of the CEQA Guidelines requires that an EIR discuss cumulative impacts of a project when the project’s incremental effect is cumulatively considerable, as defined in 14 CCR Section 15065(c).

In order to analyze a proposed project’s contribution to cumulative impacts, CEQA requires that the lead agency identify reasonably foreseeable projects in the vicinity of the proposed project, summarize their effects, identify the contribution of the proposed project to cumulative impacts in the project region, and recommend feasible options for mitigating or avoiding the project’s contribution to any significant cumulative effects (CEQA Guidelines Section 15130 [b][3]).

The cumulative impacts analysis for this EIR considers the impacts on the community generated by the proposed project in combination with other projects in and around the project corridor which have been completed over the past four years, are currently under construction or have been approved for future development. The list of projects below was compiled based on discussions with various local planning agencies, non-profit housing agencies, developers, and commercial real estate brokers.

The cumulative project list for this Draft EIR includes the following projects that are either reasonably foreseeable or are expected to be constructed or operated in the vicinity of the proposed project: • Town Green Village Phase I, Windsor • Town Green Village Phase III, Windsor • Town Green Village Phase II, Windsor • Bridge Housing, Santa Rosa

Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit 3-3 DEIR November 2005 Chapter 3: Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures Introduction

• Burbank Housing, Santa Rosa • Pointe Marin Phase II, Novato • Proposed Food and Wine Center, Santa • Pointe Marin Phase III, Novato Rosa • Albertsons Grocery Store, Novato • Santa Rosa Railroad Square Station TOD • Newport and Sunny Cove, Novato • Mountain Shadow Apartments, Rohnert Park • Hamilton Landing Office Park, Novato • Federated Indians of Graton Rancheria • Meadow Park, Novato Hotel and Casino Resort Project, Rohnert • Vista Marin, San Rafael Park • Redwood Village, San Rafael • Cotati Station Townhomes, Cotati/Rohnert Park • San Rafael Corporate Center • Turnbridge Homes, Petaluma • The Lofts at Albert Park, San Rafael • Basin Street Landing, Petaluma • Monahan/EAH Development, Larkspur • Petaluma Depot Station TOD • Campus Properties Development, Larkspur

• Marin Business Center, Novato • Atherton Oaks, Novato

• Woodside Office Center, Novato • Pointe Marin Phase I, Novato

For more detailed information on the list of cumulative projects please see Appendix D.

In addition to this list of development projects, potential future freight train operations on the project corridor north of Highway 37 are considered in the cumulative analysis. There is no adopted service plan or schedule for start-up; however, preliminary operations planning calls for four northbound and four southbound trains per day running five to six days a week.

For air, energy and transportation the cumulative analysis is based on regional growth projections for the year 2025, rather than individual projects listed above.

3.1.2 Key Assumptions

In order to assess the effects of the proposed project, it is necessary to make assumptions about future environmental conditions at the time the project would be fully implemented.

• The base year or existing conditions for the transportation analysis is 2000, as that is the year for which SMART has the most current validated travel demand model for the transportation network.

• Implementation of the proposed project would require passage of a sales tax measure in the two- county SMART District to fund capital and operating costs. Assuming passage of the measure in November 2006, construction of the project would occur over two years (2007 through 2008). However, the horizon year for evaluating impacts in the issue areas of transportation, air quality and energy is 2025. Following this approach, the physical components of the proposed project can be compared to future baseline conditions in 2025 with regard to population and economic growth, future transportation improvements and future land uses. The transportation analysis also includes an analysis of interim conditions in the year 2010. Further details on the methodology for utilizing the 2025 horizon year are provided in the transportation analysis in Section 3.6.

Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit 3-4 DEIR November 2005 Chapter 3: Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures Introduction

• ABAG’s adopted Projections 2002 forms the basis for developing future baseline population and employment scenarios for the proposed project. See Section 5.3 (Growth-inducing Impacts) for further details on growth projections.

• The transportation analysis uses regional projections to determine future cumulative development and growth. These regional projections, rather than specific projects, are incorporated into the transportation modeling analysis (see Section 3.6 for additional details on methodology). Both the air quality and energy analyses use transportation modeling results to evaluate the effects of the proposed project assuming the projected population and employment growth in the region and its effect on generating increased travel. Thus, for transportation, air quality and energy, the travel demand and associated air emissions and energy consumption for the proposed project conditions is considered the same as the cumulative condition for CEQA purposes.

Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit 3-5 DEIR November 2005 Chapter 3: Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures Geology, Soils and Seismicity

3.2 GEOLOGY, SOILS AND SEISMICITY

This section provides a summary of geology, soils and seismicity issues that could be encountered during construction of the proposed project, and the potential for these issues to impact project development and operation. The study area for geology includes Sonoma and Marin counties for regional geology and seismicity, and approximately one mile on each side of the SMART corridor for geologic hazards. Detailed information is in the Geotechnical Report (MACTEC, 2005) prepared for this project.

3.2.1 Regulatory Setting

Principal state guidance relating to geologic hazards is contained in the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act (P.R.C. § 2621 et seq.), and in the Seismic Hazards Mapping Act of 1990 (P.R.C. § 2690– 2699.6). The Alquist-Priolo Act prohibits the location of most types of structures for human occupancy across the active traces of faults in earthquake fault zones shown on maps prepared by the state geologist, and regulates construction in the corridors along active faults. The Seismic Hazards Mapping Act of 1990 focuses on hazards related to strong ground shaking, liquefaction, and seismically induced landslides. Under its provisions, the state is charged with identifying and mapping areas at risk of strong ground shaking, liquefaction, landslides, and other corollary hazards, and the maps are to be used by cities and counties in preparing their general plans and adopting land use policies in order to reduce and mitigate potential hazards to public health and safety.

Structural design code for structures to withstand seismic hazards is provided in the Uniform Building Code (UBC). Published and periodically updated by the International Conference of Building Officials (ICBO) it covers earthquake provisions (Chapter 16), foundations and retaining walls (Chapter 18), and excavation and grading (Chapter A33). In California it is referred to as the California Building Code (CBC). Seismic site factors are derived from the UBC/CBC and are required by state and local agencies in geotechnical investigations for critical structures in areas of high seismicity.

3.2.2 Environmental Setting

Physiographic and Geologic Setting

The proposed project is located in the Coast Range Physiographic province of California. Elongated ridges and intervening valleys characterize the province, which trend to the northwest roughly paralleling the Pacific coastline. The San Francisco Bay serves as the southern border of the proposed project alignment, which extends northward across northwest trending bedrock ridges and into wider alluvial filled valleys including the Santa Rosa Plain, and the Alexander Valley. Elevations along the rail alignment range from four feet Mean Sea Level (MSL) at the Larkspur Ferry Terminal on the south end of the corridor to approximately 300 feet MSL at Cloverdale on the north end.

The geologic structure of the Coast Ranges is controlled by underlying basement rock types, faults and folds, with the principal fault being the San Andreas fault zone (see Figure 3.2-1). All of the major active faults in Northern California are related to the San Andreas fault system, an active transformed tectonic plate boundary, located along the Pacific Ocean coastline. Uplift due to tectonic activity on these faults has created the Coast Ranges. Rainfall and surface runoff have dissected and incised the ranges to create the rugged and varied topography that exists today.

Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit 3-6 DEIR November 2005 Chapter 3: Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures Geology, Soils and Seismicity

FIGURE 3.2-1 REGIONAL GEOLOGIC MAP

Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit 3-7 DEIR November 2005 Chapter 3: Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures Geology, Soils and Seismicity

Bedrock Geology

Younger bedrock units along the proposed project alignment reflect depositional environments that are both volcanic and marine in origin. Rhyolitic tuff, basalt, siltstone, and pyroclastic rocks of the Pliocene- Age Sonoma Volcanics and Glenn Ellen Formation are found from the hills east of Santa Rosa north to Healdsburg, and in Burdell Mountain. Older marine siltstones, sandstones and conglomerates of the Petaluma Formation outcrop in Petaluma and northern Marin County. Basement rocks of the Jurassic- Cretaceous-age equivalent Franciscan Complex and Great Valley Sequence outcrop at various locations throughout the project area.

Soils and Surficial Deposits

Soils throughout the project corridor vary considerably. The geological parent material from which the soils derive changes along the corridor, as do the various soil-creating factors. In general, the soils formed in lowland areas from either sedimentary or volcanic parent materials.

The youngest soils found along the proposed project corridor include artificial fill placed over the last 120 years as part of the NWP and its predecessor railroads. The thickest sections of fill are found in central San Rafael between Tunnel #3 (south of San Rafael) and downtown, and beneath embankments leading up to stream crossings at the Russian and Petaluma rivers.

Deposits of Young Bay Mud (YBM) are exposed along the San Francisco Bay margin and Petaluma Creek as shown on the appropriate cross-hatched areas on Figures 3.2-2 A, -2B, and -2C. The YBM consists of soft compressible silts, clays and occasionally peat. These materials are very weak (up to 45 feet in thickness) and are susceptible to settlement when loaded with fill.

Natural Chemical Hazards - Corrosivity (Corrosion Potential)

Corrosivity is based on several indices that include resistivity, conductivity and pH. Soil resistivity is a measure of the ability of a soil to conduct electrical current and is usually related to the amount of soluble salts in the soil. Low resistivity generally indicates a more corrosive condition. Conductivity is the reciprocal of resistivity.

Another factor influencing corrosion potential is pH. Values below pH 7 indicate acidic conditions, and hence, a corrosive environment for metals and concrete. Chloride and sulfate concentrations in soil also can have a corrosive effect on the buried utilities and foundation elements.

Corrosivity testing done for local projects in Sonoma and Marin counties indicate that the potential exists for shallow subsurface soils to be classified as corrosive to severely corrosive to metals, and moderately deleterious to concrete. Typically, these conditions are most evident in Young Bay Mud (YBM) soils, which exhibit high sulfate and chloride, but low pH.

Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit 3-8 DEIR November 2005 Chapter 3: Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures Geology, Soils and Seismicity

FIGURE 3.2-2A GEOLOGIC HAZARDS

Source: Modified from Armstrong, C.F. and Huffman, M.E., 1980 and Rice et. al, 1976.

Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit 3-9 DEIR November 2005 Chapter 3: Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures Geology, Soils and Seismicity

FIGURE 3.2-2B GEOLOGIC HAZARDS

Source: Modified from Armstrong, C.F. and Huffman, M.E., 1980 and Rice et. al, 1976.

Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit 3-10 DEIR November 2005 Chapter 3: Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures Geology, Soils and Seismicity

FIGURE 3.2-2C GEOLOGIC HAZARDS

Source: Modified from Armstrong, C.F. and Huffman, M.E., 1980 and Rice et. al, 1976.

Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit 3-11 DEIR November 2005 Chapter 3: Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures Geology, Soils and Seismicity

Faults and Seismicity

The numerous faults in Northern California include active, potentially active, and inactive faults (see Figure 3.2-3). The criteria for these major groups are based on criteria developed by the California Geological Survey (CGS) for the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Program (Hart, 1999). By definition, an active fault is one that has had surface displacement within Holocene time (last 11,000 years). A potentially active fault is a fault that has demonstrated surface displacement of Quaternary age deposits (last 1.6 million years). Inactive faults have not moved in the last 1.6 million years. The Healdsburg Fault is considered active south of Healdsburg and potentially active north of Healdsburg. A list of nearby active faults and the distance in kilometers between the nearest point on the proposed project to the fault, the maximum magnitude, and the slip rate for the fault are shown in Table 3.2-1. A list of historic seismicity of earthquakes that exceed Richter magnitude 5.0 and that caused shaking in the vicinity of the proposed project is presented in Table 3.2-2. The proposed project corridor is not contained within any Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Zones.

North of Geyserville, the unparallel, right lateral Maacama fault continues in a northwest trend beyond the proposed Cloverdale Station and maintenance facility. According to the Commuter Rail Implementation Plan for Sonoma and Marin Counties (Wilbur Smith, 2000), the Maacama fault zone crosses the tracks at two locations at Lytton where the mainline and an extension of an existing siding track is proposed. In fact, the Healdsburg fault, not the Maacama fault, crosses the alignment at this location (south of Windsor). The active Maacama fault is located approximately 2.5 miles northeast of the northern portion of the proposed project alignment. The Maacama fault is considered active by the CGS (Jennings, 1994).

The active San Andreas fault zone, at its closest point, is located about 10 miles southwest of the proposed project alignment. This fault zone, California's most prominent geological feature, trends generally northwest for almost the entire length of the state.

Seismic and Other Geologic Hazards

Figures 3-2A, 3-2B, and 3-2C indicate areas with potential liquefaction and other geologic hazards, including settlement, expansive soils and unstable slopes. Very few areas of the project corridor are subject to slope instability.

Liquefaction One of the major potential seismic hazards in the project area is liquefaction. Liquefaction is the transformation of subsurface soils into a liquid state due to excitation by earthquake waves, buildup of pore pressures, and subsequent loss of shear strength. Soil liquefaction causes ground failure that can damage roads and buildings with shallow foundations. Areas underlain by young, shallow (less than 50 feet) loose, saturated, granular soils with little clay content are most susceptible to liquefaction. Secondary effects of liquefaction are lateral spreading and settlement, both differential and total.

Settlement Settlement is the depression of the bearing soil when a load, such as that of a building or new fill material, is placed upon it. Soils tend to settle at different rates and by varying amounts depending on the load weight, which is referred to as differential settlement. Areas are susceptible to differential settlement if underlain by compressible sediments, such as poorly engineered artificial fill or the Bay Mud present on the San Francisco Bay margin.

Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit 3-12 DEIR November 2005 Chapter 3: Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures Geology, Soils and Seismicity

FIGURE 3.2-3 REGIONAL FAULT AND SEISMICITY MAP

Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit 3-13 DEIR November 2005 Chapter 3: Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures Geology, Soils and Seismicity

TABLE 3.2-1 MAJOR NAMED FAULTS CONSIDERED TO BE ACTIVE IN NORTHERN CALIFORNIA

Maximum Distance Moment Slip Rate From Project Direction Fault Magnitude (Mw) (mm/yr.) (kilometers) From Project Rodgers Creek-Healdsburg 1 7.0 SS 9.0 2 Northeast Maacama (South) 6.9 SS 9.0 4 Northeast West Napa 6.5 SS 1.0 28 East San Andreas 7.9 SS 24.0 16 Southwest Concord – Green Valley 6.9 SS 6.0 38 East Hayward (North) 6.9 SS 9.0 13 East San Gregorio (Seal Cove) 7.3 SS 5.0 50 North Calaveras (North of Calaveras Reservoir) 6.8 SS 6.0 54 Southeast Source: California Geological Survey, 1996. Note: SS = strike-slip. A strike-slip fault is an approximately vertical fault plane where the rock on one side of the fault slides horizontally past the other. 1 A potentially active segment of the Healdsburg fault crosses the alignment in Healdsburg

TABLE 3.2-2 HISTORIC EARTHQUAKES IN REGION GREATER THAN MAGNITUDE 5.0

Earthquake Richter Direction to (Oldest to Youngest) Date of Earthquake Magnitude Epicenter1 Oakland June 10, 1836 7.0 Southwest San Francisco Peninsula June, 1838 7.0 South-southeast Hayward October 21, 1868 7.0 Southeast San Francisco April 18, 1906 8.3 Southwest Santa Rosa October 2, 1969 5.7 Northeast Livermore Valley January 24, 1980 5.8 Southeast Loma Prieta October 17, 1989 7.0 South-southeast Yountville September 3, 2000 5.2 East-southeast Source: Toppozada et al., 1994 and USGS, 2000 – “The September 3, 2000 Yountville Earthquake”, online report by U.S. Geological Survey, Earthquake Hazards Program, released December 7. http://quake.wr.usgs.gov/recent/reports/napa Note 1 Direction to epicenter of the earthquake event from the closest point along the proposed project corridor

Earthquake-Induced Settlement Settlement of the ground surface can be accelerated and accentuated by earthquakes. Hazards associated with earthquake-induced settlement would be present for projects involving cut-and-fill activities. During an earthquake, settlement can occur as a result of the relatively rapid rearrangement, compaction, and settling of subsurface materials (particularly loose, noncompacted, and variable sandy sediments). These soils commonly have the most impact on structures that are supported by spread footings or slabs overlying these soils. Settlement can occur both uniformly and differentially (i.e., where adjoining areas settle at different rates). Areas susceptible to earthquake-induced settlement would include those underlain by thick layers of colluvial material or unengineered fill.

Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit 3-14 DEIR November 2005 Chapter 3: Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures Geology, Soils and Seismicity

Expansive Soils Expansive soils possess a “shrink-swell” characteristic. Shrink-swell is the cyclic change in volume (expansion and contraction) that occurs in fine-grained clay sediments from the process of wetting and drying. Structural damage may occur over a long period of time, usually the result of inadequate soil and foundation engineering, or the placement of structures directly on expansive soils.

3.2.3 Significance Criteria

Project-related effects concerning geology and soils are considered significant when these impacts would result in the following conditions: • Exposure of people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: o Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a know fault, o Strong seismic ground shaking, o Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction, or o Landslides. • Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil. • Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the proposed project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse. • Be located on expansive or corrosive soils creating substantial risks to life or property.

3.2.4 Impact Assessment Methodology

The methods used to identify existing geotechnical conditions and historical seismicity included performing a database search for the study area which included the rail corridor, proposed station sites and maintenance facility alternatives; a site reconnaissance; and a review of literature pertinent to the proposed project. The CEQA Initial Study Hazards and Hazardous Materials Checklist were also used for this evaluation. The following activities were performed: • Review of previously prepared documents (primarily in-house consultant reports) for the right-of-way to identify potential geological issues that may have been previously identified. • Review of construction files maintained by the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) office for the High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) upgrade of Highway 101 between the 580 interchange and Sir Francis Drake Boulevard. This is pertinent to the project engineering between the Larkspur Ferry Terminal and the proposed San Rafael Station. • Review of current seismic and fault data from the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) and California Geologic Survey (CGS), soils maps from the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), groundwater maps and reports from the California Department of Water Resources (DWR), and slope maps from the CGS. • Field reconnaissance to observe geologic conditions, focusing on tunnel portals, bridges, and areas of potential geologic hazards. This revealed whether or not immediate surrounding properties have the potential to affect or be affected by the proposed rail corridor development or proposed station and maintenance facility sites. Field reconnaissance also included observation of bridge crossings for erosion or flood damage, cut and fill slopes, and fault crossings. Engineering drawings that were prepared as part of this study were used to supplement the field reconnaissance, as needed.

Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit 3-15 DEIR November 2005 Chapter 3: Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures Geology, Soils and Seismicity

• The following documents were reviewed to evaluate whether additional geotechnical issues were present along the railway corridor: o Feasibility Study of Intercity Rail Passenger Service in San Francisco Bay Area – Eureka Corridor, No. 010290, Phase 1, Final Report. August 3, 1992, prepared by Wilbur Smith Associates. o Draft Report, San Quentin Rail Line Feasibility Study, April 24, 2002, prepared for Sonoma- Marin Area Rail Transit Commission by Wilbur Smith Associates. o Final Report Commuter Rail Implementation Plan for Sonoma and Marin Counties, September 13, 2000 for Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit Commission by Wilbur Smith Associates.

3.2.5 Impact Summary

Construction and operation of the proposed project could potentially result in adverse affects based on geologic, soil and seismic conditions. The construction of the proposed transportation facilities could potentially place facilities in areas susceptible to severe earthquake groundshaking, liquefaction, and ground settlement. Most of these impacts can be mitigated to a less than significant level by conducting subsurface investigations as appropriate, and by incorporating appropriate UBC foundation design criteria so that structures and facilities can withstand the various ground-moving forces which could impact the proposed project. However, despite these design and safety measures, there remains a low risk of derailment in the event of severe groundshaking from a large magnitude earthquake.

3.2.6 Impacts and Mitigation Measures

Construction-Related Impacts

At this time, no known impacts related to temporary construction for replacement or repair of rail beds, shoulders, culverts, bridges, or tunnels have been identified. However, the following potential environmental impacts could be encountered during construction activities.

Impact G-1: Excavations may encounter shallow or perched groundwater, which would require dewatering and potential discharge that could cause erosion of soil. (Significant mitigable)

Groundwater pumping to allow construction beneath the water table would require discharge of the water and potentially significant amounts of sediment into nearby water courses or storm drains. This situation may occur in areas where shallow groundwater is present.

Mitigation Measure G-1: Implement erosion control Best Management Practices (BMP) such as settling basins, the covering of soil stockpiles, runoff diversions, silt fences, and dewatering sediment filtersocks. Site-specific measures shall be determined during pre-construction planning.

Impact G-2: Temporary excavations and dewatering may induce ground failure and settlement to adjacent structures. (Significant mitigable)

Dewatering of sandy soils can cause ground settlement and damage to structures and underground utilities. Unsupported excavations into soft or loose soils can cause cracking and slumping and potential undermining of foundations, roadways and other infrastructure.

Mitigation Measure G-2: Implement properly designed restraint and shoring systems to avoid unstable excavations. The proper shoring design depends on the soil type, the extent of groundwater seepage, the height or depth of the excavation, the inclination of the excavation and the amount of time that the excavation will remain open. These factors can be developed during the geotechnical investigation and recommendations made to structural engineers responsible for the design. When excavations are made adjacent to sensitive structures (i.e.

Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit 3-16 DEIR November 2005 Chapter 3: Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures Geology, Soils and Seismicity

buildings of historic significance, equipment with little tolerance to settlement, or critical facilities and utilities), monitoring of ground surface and structures shall occur so that the amount of settlement or movement does not exceed acceptable levels.

Long-Term Impacts

Erosion

Impact G-3: Portions of the rail alignment are susceptible to erosion from surface runoff, particularly sloping areas adjacent to drainage swales and creeks and rivers. (Significant mitigable)

Impacts would be most substantial in any area that has slopes underlain or covered by loose sandy soils as well as localized areas adjacent to drainage outlets and unprotected abutment shoreline areas subject to wave action, such as the Petaluma River. In general, long term erosion on slopes is a function of directed runoff or rainfall. This can be caused by disturbance of drainage outlet structures discharging on the slopes (e.g. broken pipes, blockage in pipes), fires that burn existing vegetation that provide protection on surface soils, and earthwork grading or vehicular traffic that ruts or compacts surface soils. Topographic relief can control the directivity and velocity of rainfall onto slopes.

Cut slopes into bedrock, which occur on the approaches to the tunnel portals in San Rafael and through cuts north of Healdsburg, are not as susceptible to long-term erosion. Embankment fill slopes leading to bridge crossings in Petaluma, Santa Rosa and Healdsburg are more susceptible to long-term erosion. Portions of the alignment in northern Marin County and southern Sonoma County cross marshland and are adjacent to creeks and bridge crossings. In general, these areas are stable, however flooding caused by high storm runoff coupled with high tides can cause localized erosion and loss of fill beneath the rail bed as occurred in extreme northern Marin County between the Ignacio Wye and the Marin- Sonoma County line.

Mitigation Measure G-3: Implement erosion control measures including hydroseeding or erosion control materials on areas that have been graded or disturbed. Additionally, maintain and repair drainage structures (e.g. culverts, drop inlets, etc.) on cut and fill slopes to minimize long term erosion. Licensed civil engineers shall develop properly designed stormwater runoff collection structures and finished contours for new stations, rail sidings, and earthwork to maximize long-term slope stability.

Groundshaking

Impact G-4: The entire rail alignment and proposed structures are susceptible to significant groundshaking from earthquakes. (Significant unavoidable)

Impacts would vary based on a number of factors including distance to the causative earthquake fault, duration and magnitude of the earthquake, consistency of the underlying soils, and the construction of the structure. In general, the variability in intensity of groundshaking for the proposed project would be determined by the underlying foundation materials and the type of construction of the structure. Very few structures are proposed as part of the project because station development is limited in most cases to platforms and surface parking lots. All structures associated with the proposed project would be designed to meet seismic requirements and thereby reduce the potential for damage. Severe groundshaking could cause the derailment of moving or stopped trains resulting in injuries or deaths. Although the potential for this to occur is very low, the consequences could be significant. The proposed vehicle, the heavy DMU, is a stronger vehicle than some other types of rail vehicles and would help protect passengers in the event of a derailment. It should be noted that placement of transportation facilities anywhere in the region would be subject to earthquakes and groundshaking, as the entire region is within a seismically active zone. The mitigation measure below would reduce potential impacts to the extent feasible. See Section 3.12, Public Facilities and Safety for more information on rail safety.

Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit 3-17 DEIR November 2005 Chapter 3: Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures Geology, Soils and Seismicity

Mitigation Measure G-4: A site-specific geotechnical Investigation report shall be prepared as part of final project design, and its recommendations for seismic design parameters per UBC code shall be incorporated into the proposed project design. This report shall include an in- depth study of the regional seismicity and site-specific geologic conditions, including a probabilistic seismic hazard analysis that incorporates risk-based evaluations of exceedance of certain peak ground accelerations. Measures to reduce impacts would include ground improvement such as soil mixing, jet grouting, soil densification, pile supported structures, etc. The use of specific measures will depend on soil type and stratigraphy, which will be determined during final design. Implementation of geotechnical design recommendations shall be verified during construction by monitoring of construction activities by a qualified geotechnical consultant.

Fault Rupture

Impact G-5: Fault rupture can cause damage to above ground and underground built structures by horizontal or vertical displacement at the ground surface. (Significant mitigable)

Historically surface displacement in California has occurred on active faults. Active faults as defined by Hart (1999) do not cross the project alignment. The closest active fault segments are summarized in Table 3.2-1, and are the Maacama and Rodgers Creek-Healdsburg faults. A potentially active segment of the Healdsburg Fault crosses the alignment at MP 71.2 north of Healdsburg.

Mitigation Measure G-5: Evaluation of fault rupture hazard shall be undertaken during subsurface geotechnical investigations as discussed in Mitigation Measure G-3 for this segment using guidelines specified in Special Publication 42 of CGS. The evaluation shall determine the specific design features that will be most appropriate for implementation.

Liquefaction

Impact G-6: Segments of the proposed project corridor would be subject to liquefaction during strong groundshaking events. (Significant mitigable)

Liquefaction potential is most significant in areas with thicker deposits of granular alluvium (Russian River) and moderately significant near drainages with interbedded granular and cohesive sediments. The CGS (Knudsen et al) has prepared liquefaction susceptibility maps of the San Francisco Bay Area that show relative risks of liquefaction. These areas are generally low-lying stream or drainage courses with high groundwater. Secondary effects of liquefaction include settlement and lateral spreading. Lateral spreading is the lateral movement of an unsupported slope or “free-face” towards an opening. These typically are steep, incised slopes along stream courses, although they could also occur in open cuts in surface aggregate mines or artificial excavations, such as the Syar Materials haul roads in the vicinity of the southern abutment of the Russian River Bridge in Healdsburg. The alignment crosses several drainages (Gallinas Creek, Russian River, San Antonio Creek, and the Petaluma River) that exhibit this condition, but the Russian River area would be most likely to be impacted by this phenomena. Historically, ground cracks were observed in the vicinity of the downtown San Rafael rail depot following the 1906 San Francisco Earthquake (Youd and Hoose, 1978). Similar ground cracking was observed north of Petaluma. Lateral spreading was noted on the Russian River rail bridge crossing at Healdsburg, which resulted in damage.

Settlement, both total and differential can occur where loose soils are subject to increased pore pressure and dilation during a seismic event. The subsequent dissipation of pore pressure is followed by consolidation and settlement. Differential settlement represents a non-uniform settlement across a structure. Both can cause cracking in walls and floor slabs of built structures.

Mitigation Measure G-6: Proper subsurface investigation shall be conducted in areas with liquefaction potential prior to construction as detailed in Mitigation Measure G-4. This investigation should include Standard Penetration Test borings, laboratory grain size analysis and liquefaction analysis. The subsurface investigation would identify the potential for

Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit 3-18 DEIR November 2005 Chapter 3: Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures Geology, Soils and Seismicity

liquefaction and identify design features to reduce the potential for liquefaction. Geotechnical design recommendations shall be incorporated into final project designs and verified during construction by monitoring of construction activities by a qualified geotechnical consultant.

Slope Stability

Impact G-7: Portions of the proposed project may be subject to landslides and slope movement. (Significant mitigable)

Slope stability mapping at the planning level in Marin County (Rice 1976, and Wentworth et. al. 1997) and in Sonoma County (Armstrong and Huffman, 1980) has identified areas along the proposed project corridor that are susceptible to landslides and slope movement. Slopes can be inherently unstable due to weak underlying materials, or due to over steepening or loading of existing stable slopes. Along the proposed alignment, several areas have been identified with these conditions including the slopes immediately adjacent to both portals of Tunnel #3 and #4, which presently exhibit rockfalls and shallow slumping.

Mitigation Measure G-7: Minimize slope disturbance by performing scaling of loose rock, and install rock fall netting, soil nails or rock bolts as necessary. Conduct geotechnical evaluations of slope stability, including static and pseudo-static analysis to determine factors of safety and whether mitigation measures such as buttressing, retaining walls slope or rock bolting are appropriate. Implementation of the recommendations for mitigating long-term landslide impacts shall be verified by monitoring of construction activities.

Expansive and Corrosive Soils

Impact G-8: Proposed new stations south of Windsor and north of the Petaluma River would be susceptible to expansive soils and some new structures would be subject to corrosion. (Significant mitigable)

Asphaltic and concrete pavement and foundations can be severely impacted by shrink/swell of expansive soils. Expansive soils are significant in that every year soils shrink and desiccate in the dry portions of the year and swell in the wet winter months. The swelling and shrinkage has damaged pavements, sidewalks, slab and spread foundations, pools, and structures built on the ground. Rail beds typically are not impacted because rock ballast absorbs the movement of ground expansion and contraction. However, adjacent structures including platforms, pavement and station structures can be impacted.

Corrosive soils, found along tidal flats have a different impact in that they are aggressive only towards steel and concrete. New pilings, bridges and exposed concrete structures would be susceptible to these impacts.

Mitigation Measure G-8: The project shall incorporate one of the following three measures to reduce the impact of expansive soils: (1) remove expansive soil and replace with select, non- expansive, engineered fill; (2) lime treatment of expansive soil; or (3) placement of structures on drilled piers or foundation elements founded on deeper, non-expansive bearing strata.

Mitigation Measure G-9: Where corrosive soils are encountered, the project shall incorporate one or more of the following measures, as appropriate: epoxy coating of reinforcing steel, use of Type 5 Portland cement in structural concrete, or soil treatment to neutralize pH in the soil or reduce excessive chloride and sulfate concentrations in the soil.

Cumulative Impacts

Based on a review of cumulative projects within ¼ mile of the proposed project corridor and existing available information regarding the sites of the other projects, it was determined that there would be no

Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit 3-19 DEIR November 2005 Chapter 3: Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures Geology, Soils and Seismicity significant cumulative impacts related to geology, soils and seismicity. It is anticipated that the other projects examined would not result in serious geologic impacts. In addition, the majority of the projects would occur at a far enough distance from the proposed project so as not to create cumulative impacts from a geotechnical perspective. Therefore, the proposed project would not substantially contribute to cumulative geologic impacts.

Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit 3-20 DEIR November 2005 Chapter 3: Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures

Water Resources

3.3 WATER RESOURCES

This section examines the proposed project with respect to the potential impacts on hydrology, surface water quality, groundwater, flooding, and stormwater runoff. Effects on wetland resources are analyzed in Section 3.9, Biological Resources. No impacts on water supply or public drinking water sources were identified.

This analysis describes the impacts on all surface water sources including the Section 303(d) list of water bodies in the proposed project vicinity that have pollutants that cannot be completely managed. This analysis also looks at the potential impacts on flooding due to the proposed rail line improvements. Bridges, culverts and rail stations were identified and a determination was made as to whether the identified structures are within a designated floodplain by reviewing the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs). Additional detailed information is in the Hydrology and Water Quality Assessment (Winzler & Kelly, 2004) prepared for this project.

3.3.1 Regulatory Setting

Federal Regulations

Clean Water Act The Clean Water Act (CWA) establishes the basic structure for regulating discharges of pollutants into the waters of the United States (U.S.) and has given the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) the authority to implement pollution control programs. The CWA also contains requirements that set water quality standards for all contaminants in surface waters. The CWA makes it unlawful for any person to discharge any pollutant from a point source into navigable waters, unless a permit is obtained under the provision. A point source of pollution is one that can be easily identified such as pipe leading from industrial and wastewater treatment plants.

Under Section 303(d) of the CWA, states, territories and authorized tribes are required to develop a list of water quality limited segments. These waters on the list do not meet water quality standards, even after point sources of pollution have installed the minimum required levels of pollution control technology. The law requires that these jurisdictions establish priority rankings for water on the lists and develop action plans, called Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDL), to improve water quality.

National Pollution Discharge Elimination System The National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Nonpoint Source Program (established through the CWA) regulates runoff water quality; the NPDES program objective is to control and reduce pollutants to waterbodies from nonpoint discharges. Nonpoint source (NPS) pollution, unlike pollution from industrial and sewage treatment plants, comes from many different sources. NPS pollution is caused by rainfall or snowmelt moving over and through the ground. As the runoff moves, it picks up and carries away natural and human-made pollutants, finally depositing them into lakes, rivers, wetlands, coastal waters, and even underground sources of drinking water. The program and permit are administered by the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), as determined by the EPA and the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB). An NPDES permit is needed for any construction activity that will, or is part of, a “common plan” of development that will disturb one or more acres and has the potential to have a discharge of stormwater to a waterbody of the U.S.

Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit 3-21 DEIR November 2005 Chapter 3: Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures

Water Resources

Section 404 Permit Section 404 establishes programs to regulate the discharge of dredged and fill material in waters of the U.S., including wetlands. When an application for a Section 404 permit is made the applicant must show it has: • Taken steps to avoid wetland impacts where practicable; • Minimized potential impacts on wetlands; and • Provided compensation for any remaining unavoidable impacts through activities to restore or create wetlands.

Wetlands are addressed in Section 3.9 of this DEIR.

Section 401 Permit In order for any work to be completed around the various surface waterbodies, Section 401 of the CWA would be applicable. Section 401 requires any applicant for a federal permit that conducts any activity that may result in a discharge of pollutants to first obtain a Water Quality Certification (WQC) from the state.

Section 10 Permit In addition to the above permits, Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act may be applicable if the affected waterbody is designated “Navigable.” Section 10 requires authorization from the Army Corps of Engineers for the construction of any structure in or over navigable waters of the U.S., the excavation/dredging or deposition of material in these waters or any obstruction or alteration in “navigable water.” “Navigable water” in the U.S. is one subject to the ebb and flow of the tide shoreward to the mean high water mark and/or presently used, or has been used in the past, or is susceptible for use to transport interstate or foreign commerce.

Executive Order 11988/Federal Emergency Management Agency Executive Order 11988 requires federal agencies to avoid to the extent possible the long and short-term adverse impacts associated with the occupancy and modification of floodplains and to avoid direct and indirect support of floodplain development wherever there is a practicable alternative. Each federal agency is responsible for preparing procedures for carrying out the provisions of the Order. Federal agencies consult with FEMA concerning implementation of the Executive Order and base their decision on a set of guidelines to decide if a project will have any potential impacts to or within the floodplain.

FEMA has conducted flood analysis studies throughout California that have resulted in the development of FIRMs. FIRMs identify the estimated limits of the 100-year and 500-year flood event in various watersheds. The flood designations include: • Zone A – Areas of 100-year flood; base flood elevations and flood hazard factors not determined; • Zone AO – Areas of 100-year shallow flooding where depths are between one and three feet; average depths of inundation are shown, but no base hazard factors are determined; • Zone AH – Areas of 100-year shallow flooding where depths are between one and three feet; base flood elevations are shown, but no base hazard factors are determined; • Zones A1-A30 – Areas of 100-year flood; base flood elevations and flood hazard factors determined; • Zone B – Areas between limits of the 100-year flood and 500-year flood; or certain areas subject to 100-year flooding with average depths less than one foot or where the contributing drainage area is less than one square mile; or areas protected by levees from the base flood; • Zone C – Areas of minimal flooding; • Zone D – Areas of undetermined, but possible, flood hazards; and

Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit 3-22 DEIR November 2005 Chapter 3: Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures

Water Resources

• Zone X – Areas determined to be outside the 500-year floodplain.

Executive Order 11988 applies to acquisition, new construction, and most rehabilitation activities that are undertaken with Federal assistance within special flood hazard areas designated by FEMA. FEMA has designated flood hazard areas within the proposed project area in terms of Flood Hazard Boundary Maps and/or Flood Insurance Rate Maps and would require compliance with the 8-step decision-making process.

Any projects within a floodplain require a detailed analysis in the environmental document as specified in the U.S. Department of Transportation Order 5650.2 Floodplain Management and Protection (April 23, 1979). The analysis is to discuss any risk to or resulting from the action; the impacts on natural and beneficial floodplain values; the degree to which the action provides direct or indirect support for development in the floodplain; and measures to minimize harm or to restore or preserve the natural and beneficial floodplain values affected by the proposed project.

State Regulations

State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) The SWRCB and the nine RWQCBs throughout California regulate water quality in surface and groundwater bodies. The SWRCB regulates water quality through the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Act of 1969. Porter-Cologne contains a complete framework for the regulation of waste discharges to both surface waters and groundwaters of the state.

On the regional level, the proposed project falls under the jurisdiction of the North Coast Region RWQCB and the San Francisco Bay RWQCB, which are responsible for the implementation of state and federal water quality protection statutes, regulations and guidelines near the project site. The State and Regional Water Quality Control Boards would play a major role in the permitting process of the proposed project.

Lake or Streambed Alteration Agreement Since work for the proposed project would be completed along the banks of various surface water bodies (identified in Section 3.3.2), an application for a Lake or Streambed Alteration Agreement would be required. Section 1602 of the California Department of Fish and Game code requires any person who proposes a project that will substantially divert or obstruct the natural flow or substantially change the bed, channel, or bank or any river, stream, or lake or use materials from a streambed, to notify the Department before beginning the project.

Bay Conservation and Development Commission A Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC) permit may also be required if construction occurs within 100 feet of the mean high tide. BCDC is charged with administering the federal Coastal Zone Management Act within the San Francisco Bay segment of the California coastal zone to ensure that federal activities reflect Commission policies. BCDC’s jurisdiction includes the open water marshes and mudflats of the greater San Francisco Bay and portions of most creeks (including all creeks that are subject to tidal action), rivers and sloughs and other tributaries that flow into San Francisco Bay. Specific to the proposed project, the BCDC jurisdiction extends to the Petaluma River in Marin and Sonoma counties to its confluence with Adobe Creek and San Antonio Creek to the easterly line of the NWP right- of-way.

Dredging Permits Should dredging occur in surface water along the corridor right-of-way, a dredging permit will be obtained through the Dredged Material Management Office (DMMO) of the BCDC. The DMMO is a joint program of the BCDC, RWQCB, State Land Commission (SLC), the San Francisco District U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE) and the EPA. The California Department of Fish and Game, the National Marine Fisheries Service, and the Fish and Wildlife Service provide advice and expertise to the process. The purpose of the DMMO is to cooperatively review sediment quality sampling plans, analyze the results of

Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit 3-23 DEIR November 2005 Chapter 3: Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures

Water Resources sediment quality sampling, and make suitability determinations for the material proposed for disposal in the San Francisco Bay.

Local Regulations

Marin County Public Works Department The Marin County Public Works Department staffs the Marin County Flood Control and Water Conservation District. The district was formed in 1955 by an Act of the State Legislature found in Chapter 68 of the State Water Code. The boundaries of the district are those of the County of Marin and eight “zones” established to address specific water quality problems.

Sonoma County In 1996, the County adopted the Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance in Chapter 7B of the Sonoma County Code. The ordinance addresses the construction, location, extension, conversion, or alteration of structures or land in special flood hazard zones. A development permit is required before the beginning of construction or development within any special flood hazard zone; and the development must be designed and constructed according to specific standards, which include requirements for elevation of construction sites above the base flood elevation by at least 12 inches.

City Regulations All cities and counties participating in the National Flood Insurance Program have floodplain regulations for activities within the floodplain. Floodplain regulations are intended to ensure that floodplain development is safe from flooding and causes no adverse impact on adjacent property and generally includes floodplain mitigation. Floodplain mitigation refers to the measures a community takes to correct and prevent flood risks. These efforts generally include zoning, subdivision, rules for building in floodplains, and special-purpose floodplain ordinances. The following city regulations would apply in respect to the floodplain: • City of Cloverdale – Title 18 Zoning • City of Healdsburg – FIRM and Flood Insurance Study Report • City of Windsor – Title 27 – Zoning, Flood Hazard Overlay District • City of Santa Rosa – Title 20 – Zoning Code • City of Rohnert Park – Title 17 – Zoning Ordinance • City of Petaluma – Article 16 – Zoning and the Floodplain Management Plan • City of Novato – Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance • City of San Rafael – Title 14 – Zoning Ordinance • City of Larkspur – Title 18 Zoning

3.3.2 Environmental Setting

Generally, the water resources study area extends ¼ mile from the SMART railroad right-of-way in Sonoma and Marin counties; in a few instances the study area was expanded to address potentially impacted resources that fall within a ½ or one-mile range. The proposed project follows the relatively flat plain that extends northward with elevations ranging from sea level in the south to a high point in Cloverdale of approximately 300 feet. The changes in elevation can have some impact on the rainfall microclimate. However, the generally low plains along the route translate to lower rainfall than in the hills to the west and east of the rail corridor. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Atlas, Precipitation-Frequency Atlas of the Western United States, identifies peak rainfall events from a two-year through a 100-year 24-hour event. The peak 100-year rainfall event ranges from a low of 6.5 inches to just over 10 inches in 24 hours along the project corridor.

Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit 3-24 DEIR November 2005 Chapter 3: Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures

Water Resources

Surface Water Resources

The water resources within the proposed project area exist in various forms, locations and levels of quality. Surface waterbodies range from seasonal and perennial creeks, sloughs, wetlands, and rivers, with tidal influence draining into major watersheds. The most significant watersheds in the project corridor are the Russian River, Petaluma River, San Pablo Bay, and San Francisco Bay.

The majority of the proposed project, approximately 40 miles, is located within the Russian River Watershed (USGS Cataloging Unit: 18010110). Comprising approximately 950,366 acres, the Russian River basin includes almost 1,823 miles of naturally occurring waterways, some of which cross the project corridor. Surface water runoff within the Russian River Watershed drains to the Pacific Ocean. A portion of this watershed first drains to the Laguna De Santa Rosa, which is the Russian River’s largest tributary and the second largest freshwater wetland in Northern California. As a valuable environmental resource, Laguna De Santa Rosa serves as a natural flood detention basin. However, development over the past several hundred years, including land clearance, farming, urbanization and channelization, has accelerated erosion and sedimentation, which has reduced the Laguna’s flood storage capacity and caused loss of wetland area. Laguna De Santa Rosa is a 100 percent impaired waterbody.

A smaller portion of the proposed project lies within the San Francisco Bay Hydrologic Region (HR), which includes the San Pablo Bay Watershed and the Petaluma River (USGS Cataloging Unit: 18050002). Surface water runoff within the San Francisco Bay HR portion of the proposed project area drains into creeks, streams and rivers, and eventually to the San Francisco Bay.

In developed locations, stormwater runoff that does not infiltrate into the subsurface is directed into constructed stormwater drainage systems consisting of crowned streets, curbside gutters and drainage inlets. These drainage systems ultimately connect to creeks, streams and rivers.

Water quality from surface water sources in the project area is extremely variable depending on the agricultural practices and the urbanization of the various sub-regions. Approximately 40 waterbodies are located adjacent to or are crossed by the proposed project corridor right-of-way (see Table 3.3-1). Table 3.3-1 lists two crossings each for the Russian River, Petaluma River and Petaluma Marsh for a total of 43 waterbodies. Table 3.3-1 also indicates which surface waterbodies are listed by the SWRCB under Section 303(d) of the CWA (see discussion in Regulatory Setting) and includes the type of priority pollutant. Much of the water quality data for the project area is confined to the Russian River basin or to a limited number of specific sites, collected as a result of discharger self-monitoring requirements, cleanup activities or enforcement actions. With the exception of the Russian River and a few of its tributaries, there are no long-term data on any waterbody in the region.

Floodplains

There are close to 70 bridge and culvert crossings of the rail line along the proposed project corridor, with over half of them within the FEMA floodplain designation of a 100-year or 500-year flood event. The flood Insurance Rate Maps indicate that portions of the proposed project corridor are within the 100-year and 500-year flood hazard areas. Areas located within the 100-year flood hazard zone may be inundated during the 100-year (or greater magnitude) storm event. Figure 3.3-1 shows the general 100- year flood hazard zone along the proposed project corridor. The 100-year storm is expected to occur, on average, once every 100 years. Areas shown within the 500-year flood hazard zone are areas between the 100-year and the 500-year floodplains, or certain areas subject to the 100-year flood with average depths of inundation less than one foot.

Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit 3-25 DEIR November 2005 Chapter 3: Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures

Water Resources

TABLE 3.3-1 WATERBODIES WITHIN THE PROPOSED PROJECT AREA Approximate Proximity to Proposed Waterbody Name Nearest Community Priority Pollutant 303(D) List Tributary Mile Post Project Corridor Cloverdale, Sedimentation/ Siltation/ Russian River 85.0 Parallels corridor to the east Geyserville, Temperature Cloverdale Porterfield Creek Culvert Crossing None identified Russian River Rancheria Icaria Creek 82.5 Cloverdale Culvert Crossing None identified Russian River Barrelli Creek 81.8 Asti Bridge Crossing None identified Russian River Unnamed 78.7 N. Chianti Bridge Crossing None identified Russian River Unnamed 78.2 S. Chianti Culvert Crossing None identified Russian River Wood Creek 76.5 Geyserville Culvert Crossing None identified Russian River Peterson Creek 74.8 Nervo Bridge Crossing None identified Russian River Lytton Creek 72.8 Lytton Bridge Crossing None identified Russian River Norton Slough 69.2 Simi Located adjacent to rail None identified Foss Creek 68.7 Healdsburg Bridge Crossing temperature Russian River Sedimentation/ Siltation/ Russian River 67.6 Healdsburg Major Bridge Crossing Russian River Temperature Unnamed Stream 66.3 S Healdsburg Culvert crossing None identified Russian River Unnamed Stream 65.3 Sotoyome Culvert crossing None identified Russian River Unnamed Stream 64.7 S. Sotoyome Bridge Crossing None identified Russian River Windsor Creek 62.4 Windsor Bridge Crossing Temperature Russian River Pool Creek 61.3 Shiloh (Windsor) Bridge Crossing Temperature Russian Mark West Creek 59.5 Mark West Bridge Crossing Temperature Russian Piner Creek 56.1 Fulton (Santa Rosa) Bridge Crossing Temperature Santa Rosa Creek Paulen Creek 55.9 Santa Rosa Bridge Crossing Temperature Santa Rosa Creek Laguna de Santa Santa Rosa Creek 53.6 Santa Rosa Bridge Crossing Temperature Rosa Colgan Creek 52.3 Santa Rosa Flood Control Channel Temperature Russian River Laguna de Santa Rosa 49.1 S. Cotati Bridge Crossing DO/Nitrogen/Sedimentation/ Russian River

Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit 3-26 DEIR November 2005 Chapter 3: Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures

Water Resources

Approximate Proximity to Proposed Waterbody Name Nearest Community Priority Pollutant 303(D) List Tributary Mile Post Project Corridor Temperature Hinebaugh Creek Rohnert Park Bridge Crossing None identified Laguna de Santa 47.5 Rosa Copeland Creek Rohnert Park Bridge Crossing None Identified Laguna de Santa 47.0 Rosa Lichau Creek 44.4 Penngrove Bridge Crossing None identified Petaluma River Willow Brook Creek 42.4 Denman Flat Culvert crossing Temperature Petaluma River Unnamed Stream 40.8 Crown Culvert crossing None identified Petaluma River Petaluma River 39.7 N. Petaluma Bridge Crossing Sedimentation San Pablo Bay Sedimentation/ Siltation/ Petaluma River 38.9 N. Petaluma Bridge Crossing San Pablo Bay Nutrients/ Pathogens/Metals Sedimentation / Siltation/ Petaluma River 37.2 McNear (Petaluma) Major Bridge Crossing San Pablo Bay Nutrients/ Pathogens/Metals Schultz Slough 34.2 Neils Island Bridge Crossing Siltation/Temperature Petaluma River San Antonio Creek 33.5 Burdell Creek runs adjacent to tracks. Diazinon Petaluma River Mud Slough 32.6 Burdell Slough adjacent to tracks None identified Petaluma River Basalt Creek 29.7 N. Novato Creek runs adjacent to tracks None identified Petaluma River Petaluma Marsh 29.0 – 29.5 Novato Jurisdictional Wetlands None identified Petaluma River Novato Creek 26.9 Novato Major Bridge Crossing Diazinon San Pablo Bay Petaluma Marsh 26.0 Novato Bridge Crossing None identified San Pablo Bay Arroyo de San Jose 24.8 Ignacio Bridge Crossing None identified San Pablo Bay Pacheco Creek 24.0 Marin Keys Culvert crossing None identified San Francisco Bay Miller Creek 22.1 St. Vincent Bridge Crossing Diazinon San Francisco Bay Gallinas Creek 20.9 Las Gallinas Bridge Crossing Diazinon San Francisco Bay S.F. Gallinas Creek 19.8 – 20.4 Las Gallinas Creek runs adjacent to tracks None identified San Francisco Bay Rush Creek 19.9 Novato Creek runs adjacent to tracks None identified Petaluma River Mahon Creek 16.9 San Rafael Culvert crossing None identified San Francisco Bay Corte Madera Creek 14.6 San Rafael Culvert crossing Diazinon San Francisco Bay Source: Winzler & Kelly Consulting Engineers, April 2004 and USEPA 2002 CWA Section 303(d) List Of Water Quality Limited Segments. Only streams that are shown on USGS 7.5 minute topographic maps are evaluated in the CWA Section 303(d) report and listed in the table.

Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit 3-27 DEIR November 2005 Chapter 3: Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures

Water Resources

FIGURE 3.3-1 100-YEAR FLOOD HAZARD ZONE

Source: Dyett & Bhatia, Transportation 2030 Plan: Draft Environmental Impact Report, October 2004.

Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit 3-28 DEIR November 2005 Chapter 3: Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures

Water Resources

Groundwater

The project site is within the North Coast and San Francisco Bay HR. The North Coast HR covers approximately 12.46 million acres (19,470 square miles) and includes all or portions of Modoc, Siskiyou, Del Norte, Trinity, Humboldt, Mendocino, Lake, and Sonoma counties. Small areas of Shasta, Tehama, Glenn, Colusa, and Marin counties are also within the region. The North Coast HR corresponds to the boundary of RWQCB Region 1. The San Francisco Bay HR covers approximately 2.88 million acres (4,500 square miles) and includes all of San Francisco and portions of Marin, Sonoma, Napa, Solano, San Mateo, Santa Clara, Contra Costa, and Alameda counties. The region corresponds to the boundary of RWQCB Region 2.

Groundwater development in the North Coast HR occurs along the coast, near the mouths of some of the region’s major rivers, on the adjacent narrow marine terraces, or in the inland river valleys and basins. Reliability of these supplies varies significantly from area to area. There are 63 groundwater basins/subbasins delineated in the region, two of which are shared with Oregon.

The San Francisco Bay HR has 28 identified groundwater basins. One of those, the Napa-Sonoma Valley groundwater basin is further divided into three subbasins: Napa Valley, Sonoma Valley and Napa- Sonoma Lowlands.

Despite the tremendous urban development in the San Francisco Bay HR, groundwater use accounts for only about five percent (68,000 acre-feet) of the region’s estimated average water supply for agricultural and urban uses, and accounts for less than one percent of statewide groundwater uses.

In general, groundwater quality throughout most of both regions is suitable for most urban and agricultural uses with only local impairments. The primary constituents of concern are high Total Dissolved Solids (TDS), nitrate, boron, and organic compounds. The areas of high TDS (and chloride) concentrations are typically found in the region’s groundwater basins that are situated close to the San Francisco Bay, such as southern Sonoma, Petaluma and Napa valleys. Iron, boron and manganese are also problematic for the inland basins within Sonoma County. Depth to groundwater varies considerably within the proposed project corridor due to differing soil types and geological features. Groundwater can be defined as the part of the subsurface water that is in the zone of saturation. Well data was obtained and provided by the California Department of Water Resources. Depth to groundwater data, broken down by city along the proposed project corridor, is presented in Table 3.3-2.

TABLE 3.3-2 DEPTH TO GROUNDWATER (SELECTED LOCATIONS) Community Groundwater Range Below Ground Surface (BGS) Cloverdale 4.86 feet to 9.37 feet Asti 15.85 feet to 20.25 feet Geyserville 4.45 feet to 8.34 feet Healdsburg 5.41 feet to 10.09 feet Windsor 1.85 feet to 36.66 feet Santa Rosa 6.0 feet to 22.81 feet Rohnert Park 4.12 feet to 11.43 feet Cotati 6.67 feet to 28.00 feet Petaluma 4.96 feet to 9.13 feet Novato 4.43 feet to 7.73 feet San Rafael 3.34 feet to 6.16 feet Greenbrae 1.59 feet to 4.73 feet Source: Well log data; California Department of Water Resources, 1962-2000.

Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit 3-29 DEIR November 2005 Chapter 3: Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures

Water Resources

3.3.3 Significance Criteria

Project-related effects on hydrology and water quality were considered significant when these impacts would result in the following conditions: • Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements; • 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); • 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; • 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; or • Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff.

3.3.4 Impact Assessment Methodology

Existing hydraulic and water quality conditions were evaluated qualitatively in the study area, and in accordance with standard professional practice. Key sources of information consulted on existing hydrologic conditions included the following: • California Department of Water Resources, 1975 Bulletin Number 118-4; • Geology and Ground Water in the Santa Rosa and Petaluma Areas, Sonoma County, California. (G.T. Cardwell, 1958); • Soil Survey: Sonoma County, California (Miller, 1972); • California Rivers Assessment: Assembling Environmental Data to Characterize California’s Watersheds (Viers, et al, 1998); • 2005 CEQA: California Environmental Quality Act, Statutes and Guidelines (Office of Planning and Research); and • Assessment of Biological Health of Riparian Wetlands (Southern Sonoma County Resource Conservation District, 2004).

3.3.5 Impact Summary

Because the proposed project would disturb an area exceeding one acre in size, it would be subject to NPDES permit requirements. NPDES permit conformance requires that the project applicant file a Notice of Intent (NOI) and prepare a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) to the RWQCB. The SWPPP contains a listing and implementation plan for the stormwater Best Management Practices (BMPs) that would be implemented during construction of the proposed project to minimize erosion, sedimentation, and water contamination, as well as permanent post-construction BMPs. Following the NPDES permit, conformance requirements would reduce any water quality, erosion or sedimentation impacts associated with discharge or run-off to a less than significant level.

The proposed project includes approximately 125 acres of new paved areas, spread over a distance of 70 miles. This includes approximately 100 acres of proposed bicycle/pedestrian pathway and 25 acres of parking within the proposed stations and maintenance facilities. These new impermeable areas would likely lead to a slight increase in stormwater runoff from the proposed project area. In addition, potential pollutants such as oil, grease, detergents, chemicals, metals, and solid materials, could pass

Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit 3-30 DEIR November 2005 Chapter 3: Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures

Water Resources into the drainage system. Water quality impacts would be minimized through implementation of BMPs during construction and development of proper drainage and stormwater collection facilities.

The proposed project would not result in the extended extraction of groundwater and would therefore not have long-term impacts on groundwater supplies or the production rates of wells in the vicinity of the proposed project. During construction, excavations may encounter shallow or perched groundwater, which may require dewatering. Dewatering of sandy soils can cause ground settlement and damage to structures and underground utilities. These impacts and their mitigation are discussed in Section 3.2, Geology, Soils and Seismicity. Because the proposed project would not have long-term or permanent impacts on the groundwater system, no further analysis is required in the following impact discussion.

Implementation of the regulatory, permitting and mitigation requirements outlined in this section would reduce impacts on hydrology and water quality to levels that are less than significant.

3.3.6 Impacts and Mitigation Measures

Construction-Related Impacts

Hydrology Impact WR-1: Project construction could cause a temporary increase in surface erosion, sedimentation and stream alterations due to the use of earthmoving equipment. (Significant mitigable)

During construction of the proposed rail stations and the bicycle/pedestrian pathway, land would be cleared and graded. In general, the disturbance associated with construction would be temporary and the disturbed ground surface would be paved, in the case of proposed station parking areas and the proposed bicycle/pedestrian pathway. As described in Section 2.9 (Environmental Compliance Measures), in order to minimize the physical effects at water crossings the small and medium size railroad bridges would be repaired in place, and reconstruction of larger bridges would be conducted within the original footprint. Nevertheless, exposure of surface soils during construction activities could lead to increased surface runoff and erosion. In areas adjacent to streams increased erosion could lead to increased stream sedimentation. The project description (Chapter 2) includes incorporation of BMPs to reduce erosion, sedimentation and stream alteration. In addition, the following mitigation measure would ensure that impacts are not significant.

Mitigation Measure WR-1a: The proposed project shall comply with the NPDES permit process which requires project applicants to file a Notice of Intent (NOI) and prepare and submit a SWPPP to the RWQCB. The SWPPP must contain a detailed mitigation plan for erosion and sediment control, including plans for implementing BMPs for the control of stormwater runoff, erosion and sedimentation. Typical BMPs may include the use of silt fencing, temporary or permanent retention or detention basins, check dams, buffer strips adjacent to streams, and other similar devices or methods.

Mitigation Measure WR-1b: The proposed project shall comply with the requirements for a Streambed Alteration Agreement for those portions of the project that would be completed along the banks of various surface waterbodies.

Impact WR-2: Adverse impacts on surface waters could occur from the release of hydrocarbons and similar pollutants during construction activities. (Less than significant)

Construction equipment and vehicles operating in close proximity to surface waterbodies could result in accidental discharges of oil or other construction-related contaminants into streams. Accidental spills from refueling and lubrication would be avoided by implementing a spill prevention program, which is listed in the project description as an environmental compliance measure (Section 2.9). Such programs generally include exclusion zones adjacent to streams and other bodies of water, and

Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit 3-31 DEIR November 2005 Chapter 3: Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures

Water Resources specific procedures for spill containment and cleanup in the event of an accident. Spill prevention programs also establish protocols for oversight and inspection of construction activities to assure compliance with the plan. Therefore, the potential impact related to release of pollutants is less than significant.

Long-Term Impacts

Hydrology and Stormwater Runoff Impact WR-3: The proposed project would have the potential to improve water quality and stormwater management and re-establish hydrologic zones along the project right-of-way. (Beneficial)

There would be no permanent alterations of terrain that would affect watershed hydrology. The proposed project would have a negligible impact on peak flow rates or flood volumes. Instead, the proposed project would involve re-construction of drainage facilities to improve hydrologic conditions. Over the years, many of the cross-culverts along this inactive rail corridor have become clogged with debris, which has caused erosion of surface and side slopes. As part of the proposed project, cross-culverts would be cleared, resized, or reconstructed, as necessary, to re-establish hydrologic connections and minimize sediment delivery to the waterbodies listed in Table 3.3-1. These measures also would reduce the risk of flooding that can occur when surface water ponds behind clogged culverts.

Impact WR-4: The proposed project may cause an increase in runoff of pollutants from parking lots and the proposed rail maintenance facility. (Less than significant)

The increased area of impervious surfaces covered by parking lots, sidewalks and buildings could result in increased surface water runoff from storms. Process water and runoff from the proposed maintenance and storage facilities and station parking lots could contain a number of pollutants that could be released into stormwater systems. Process water such as steam cleaning, vehicle washing and floor wash-downs typically contain concentrations of oil and grease, detergents, chemicals, metals, and solid materials that could pass into the drainage system. Operation of private vehicles and buses could result in the deposition of oil and grease on surface parking lots that could subsequently be carried into the surface water systems with stormwater runoff. These materials would impact surface water quality but should have a negligible affect on drinking water supplies. None of the proposed parking lots or maintenance and storage facilities would be located in close proximity to drinking water intakes.

The proposed project includes provisions to contain runoff. Surface runoff from the rail improvements, station construction, the maintenance facilities, and park-and-ride facilities would be intercepted with bio-filtration swales or other appropriate containment devices. Surface water runoff from these areas would be dispersed in accordance with the measures required under a SWPPP from the RWQCB. With these measures in place, potential impacts would be negligible.

Floodplain Impact WR-5: Placement of new structures or fill material within a designated 100-year floodplain could increase flooding upstream of the structures. (Significant mitigable)

According to guidelines established by FEMA, increase in flood height in the floodway due to any encroachment in the floodway fringe areas may not exceed 12 inches, provided that hazardous velocities are not produced in the waterbody. Constructing bridges, levees, rail and road embankments, buildings, etc., that encroach on floodplains may reduce the flood-carrying capacity and increase flood elevations. For the proposed project, the primary floodplain impacts would occur at rail stations. Table 3.3-3 presents a listing of proposed new rail stations to be constructed. As shown in Table 3.3-3, five of the proposed stations would be located within the 100-year floodplain and could affect flooding up stream of the proposed station. The risk of a substantial increase in flooding due to new structures would be minimal at most stations since the proposed structures would be relatively small. Replacement or rehabilitation of existing structures such as bridges would be done within the original footprint, thereby

Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit 3-32 DEIR November 2005 Chapter 3: Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures

Water Resources avoiding impacts on the floodplain. In situations where existing culverts are not adequately sized and need to be replaced, the larger replacement structures would reduce flooding risk.

Mitigation Measure WR-2: Design structures and other improvements on the site so as not to raise flood levels. Specific measures shall be based on site specific hydrologic studies conducted during the final design stage of the proposed project. Once these studies have been completed, specific elements can be designed to eliminate impacts. When feasible, construction within the floodplain shall be avoided or minimized. When construction within the floodplain is unavoidable, efforts will be made to restore the floodplain, as necessary, to restore flood capacity.

Cumulative Impacts

The cumulative impact of changing land uses, from rural to suburban, and accompanying increases in population has modified the quantity, timing and quality of surface water runoff. Urban and suburban runoff typically contains higher concentrations of nutrients (e.g., nitrogen and phosphorus), oxygen consuming wastes, pathogens, pesticides, heavy metals, and oil, compared with runoff from rural areas.

The original construction of Highway 101 and subsequent land use changes (e.g., agriculture to residential) and population increases along the transportation corridor have adversely impacted basin water quality. For example, access roads and driveways in large lot subdivisions along Highway 101 comprise one-half to three-quarters of the impervious surface area surrounding this transportation corridor.

Many major residential developments are planned for the Highway 101 corridor that generally follows the course of the project right-of-way. These planned developments could contribute to the cumulative degradation of water quality in the Russian River basin and the San Francisco Bay HR.

Recognizing the importance of water quality and quantity, it is expected that federal/state regulations and guidelines, including BMPs on stormwater management and runoff, would minimize the cumulative impacts of water resources in the proposed project area. Waterbody impairments in the subject area are largely due to agricultural practices and urban runoff and are not considered cumulatively significant. The limited amount of impervious surfaces and associated runoff added by the proposed project would not represent a considerable contribution to cumulative impacts. Therefore, there is not a significant cumulative impact on hydrology and water quality.

Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit 3-33 DEIR November 2005 Chapter 3: Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures

Water Resources

TABLE 3.3-3 POTENTIAL FLOOD IMPACTS ON PROPOSED NEW STATIONS Existing SMART Structure Proposed FEMA FIRM Station Flood Zone Comments (track Structure Panel Map Name elevation) Healdsburg 106’ Station City of Healdsburg In Zone C (Area of minimal flooding - no No potential for flooding panel 060378-0005 shading) Windsor 117’ Station Sonoma County In Zone X (area determined to be outside 500- No potential for flooding panel 060375-0540 year floodplain) Corona 36’ Station Sonoma County In Zone AH, 100-year flood elevation of 32 feet Station improvements will Road panel 060375-0870 (area of 100-year flooding where depths are create impacts on the 100-year between one foot and three feet; base flood flood elevation. MM WR-2 elevations are shown but no flood hazard required. factors are determined) North 10’ Station City of Novato In a detailed 100-year flood plain Zone AE with MM WR-2 required. Novato panel 060178-0002 a 100-year flood elevation of 7 feet

Civic 12’ Station City of San Rafael Edge of Zone B (areas between limits of 100- MM WR-2 required. Center panel 065058-0005 year flood and 500-year flood; or certain areas subject to 100-year flooding with average depths less than one foot) Downtown 12’ Station City of San Rafael In Zone B (areas between limits of 100-year MM WR-2 required. San Rafael panel 065058-0015 flood and 500-year flood; or certain areas subject to 100-year flooding with average depths less than one foot) Larkspur 32’ Station City of Larkspur In Zone B (areas between limits of 100-year MM WR-2 required. panel 065040-0001 flood and 500-year flood; or certain areas subject to 100-year flooding with average depths less than one foot) Source: Winzler & Kelly Consulting Engineers, April 2004.

Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit 3-34 DEIR November 2005 Chapter 3: Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures

Hazardous Materials

3.4 HAZARDOUS MATERIALS

This section presents the existing hazardous materials conditions in the proposed project study area, including the railroad right-of-way from Cloverdale to Larkspur, segments of the proposed bicycle/pedestrian pathway requiring new construction and portions of proposed station and maintenance facility sites that are outside of the right-of-way. The section discusses the potential construction-related and long-term operational-related hazardous materials/waste issues that could be encountered, along with the cumulative impacts of the proposed project. Detailed information is in the Hazardous Materials Assessment (MACTEC, 2005) prepared for this project.

3.4.1 Regulatory Setting

Federal Regulations

Hazardous materials and waste sites, including their use and remediation, are regulated by a number of federal laws including:

Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) – provides a process and some funding to clean up uncontrolled or abandoned hazardous waste sites as well as accidents, spills and other emergency releases of pollutants and contaminants into the environment.

Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) – gave EPA the authority to control hazardous waste from the “cradle-to-grave.” This includes the generation, transportation, treatment, storage, and disposal of hazardous waste. RCRA also sets forth a framework for the management of non-hazardous wastes.

Additional federal regulations address worker exposure to safety and health hazards. The federal regulations are identified in Title 29 C.F.R and are regulated and enforced by the federal Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA).

State Regulations

California’s regulations for hazardous substances including discovery during subsurface construction and disposal and cleanup of contaminated materials (i.e., soil, groundwater, building materials) incorporate most federal hazardous materials regulations. California’s regulations and statutes for hazardous materials are contained in Health and Safety Code Section 25130 et seq. and Title 22 C.C.R, which contains regulations adopted and administered by the California Department of Toxic Substance Control (DTSC). California regulations also require the hazardous waste to be managed according to applicable regulations that include worker operations safety procedures; handling, storage and exposure requirements; transportation and disposal requirements under a uniform hazardous waste manifest; and documentation procedures. Local regulations for hazardous materials management and cleanup mirror state regulations with local regulators providing oversight on a case-by-case basis. Any storage of hazardous materials requires a Hazardous Materials Business Plan or similar plan to ensure safe storage and handling of materials.

State regulations addressing worker exposure to safety and health hazards are cited in Title 8 C.C.R. and regulated and enforced by the state OSHA.

Asbestos and Lead Paint Asbestos is a known human carcinogen. Federal, state and local requirements govern the removal of asbestos or suspected asbestos-containing material including the demolition or renovation of structures where asbestos is present. OSHA and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) promulgate the most prominent asbestos regulations. Additional agencies regulating the management of asbestos include the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD), California Division of Occupational Safety and

Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit 3-35 DEIR November 2005 Chapter 3: Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures

Hazardous Materials

Health (DOSH) and the DTSC. State and federal regulations state that all asbestos containing materials (ACM) subject to damage (able to become friable) during demolition or renovation must be abated in accordance with local (BAAQMD) requirements.

Asbestos may also be found naturally in bedrock. In accordance with BAAQMD, OSHA, DOSH, and DHS regulations, engineering controls must also be implemented to minimize or eliminate exposure of workers and the public from any potential airborne asbestos during project construction.

Lead is a suspected carcinogen, a known teratogen (i.e., causes birth defects) and a reproductive toxin. Lead oxide and lead chromate were commonly used in paints until 1978, when regulations limited the allowable lead content in paint. Regulations pertaining to demolition and renovation of non-housing structures containing lead-based paint (LBP) are promulgated by the DTSC, EPA and DOSH. In California, regulations for the protection of workers involved in lead abatement activities are promulgated by OSHA (29 CFR 1926.62), DOSH and the California Department of Health Services. Bridge crossings have the potential for the presence of LBP in coatings and asbestos in wrapped utility lines, bridge expansion joints, concrete water lines, or other building materials.

Aerially Deposited Lead Lead in soils near roadways attributed to the historic use of lead in gasoline is referred to as aerially deposited lead (ADL). The presence of ADL in soils is not considered to pose a threat to the public; however, it is considered to have the potential to impact the environment if offsite disposal of the soil is necessary. If affected soil is present, a variance of re-use of soil can be invoked through the DTSC. This variance allows ADL affected soil to be re-used on a property if it is placed a minimum of five feet above the water table and covered by at least two feet of clean soil. The RWQCB would also need to be notified and provisions for the re-use and storage of soil would need to be addressed in a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) prepared for the proposed project.

3.4.2 Environmental Setting

This section describes the existing conditions in the proposed project study area, based on a review of previously prepared documents and a database review documenting the actual or potential presence of hazardous materials/wastes in the study corridor.

Regulatory Database Review

ASTM International, formerly the American Society for Testing and Materials, is one of the largest voluntary standards development organizations in the world. ASTM Standard E 1527-00 identifies standard federal and state environmental "record sources" (e.g., the federal Superfund list, a list of registered Underground Storage Tanks [USTs]) that should be reviewed to identify potential environmental conditions. The standard defines approximate minimum search distances from the site being assessed for the types of properties listed in these records. The standard search radii are presented in Table 3.4-1, along with the number of properties identified in each database. The principal concern is whether offsite properties could affect environmental conditions on the railway corridor or proposed station and maintenance facility locations and lead to exposures to workers or the public. The appearance of a property in an environmental database, however, does not necessarily mean that it has hazardous materials/wastes problems or that it could affect the proposed project. For example, a property that is listed on the Resource Conservation and Recovery Information System, Treatment, Storage, and Disposal (RCRIS) large quantity generators (LQG) list indicates that it is a facility that generates over 1,000 kilograms (kg) of hazardous waste or over 1 kg of acutely hazardous waste per month and has properly manifested and disposed of the waste.

Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit 3-36 DEIR November 2005 Chapter 3: Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures

Hazardous Materials

TABLE 3.4-1 REGULATORY SEARCH DATABASE, SEARCH RADII AND NUMBER OF PROPERTIES IDENTIFIED IN STUDY AREA Search Radii Number of Database (miles) Properties Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and 0.50 20 Liability Information System (CERCLIS) CERCLIS No-further-remedial-action-planned (CERCLIS- 0.25 16 NFRAP) Corrective Action Report (CORRACTS) 1.0 5 National Priorities List (NPL) 1.0 2 Proposed NPL 1.0 0 Resource Conservation and Recovery Information System, 0.50 5 Treatment, Storage, and Disposal (RCRIS TSD) RCRIS large quantity generators (LQG) 0.25 12 RCRIS small quantity generators (SMQ) 0.25 522 Emergency Response Notification System (ERNS) 0.25 95 Records of Decision (RODS) 1.0 2 Cal-Sites Annual Workplan (AWP) 1.0 3 Cal- Sites 1.0 8 California Hazardous Material Incident Report System 1.0 346 (CHMIRS) CORTESE 1.0 777 Proposition 65 Notification Records (Notify 65) 1.0 143 Toxic Pits Cleanup Act Sites (Toxic Pits) 1.0 0 SWF/LF, Solid Waste Information System (SWIS; State Landfill) 0.50 23 Waste Management Unit Database System WMUDS/SWAT 0.50 6 Leaking Underground Storage Tank Information System (LUST) 0.50 1,088 Bond Expenditure Plan (BEP) 1.0 5 Hazardous Substance Storage Container Database (UST) 0.25 176 Voluntary Cleanup Program Sites VCP 1.0 8 Indian UST 0.25 0 Facility Inventory Database (FID) 0.25 400 Historical UST 0.25 674 California Spills, Leaks, Investigation, and Cleanup Cost 0.50 136 Recovery List (SLIC) Region 2 Source: Environmental Data Resources, 2003.

An environmental regulatory agency database report from Environmental Data Resources, Inc. (EDR) identified properties listed in ASTM-recommended databases within recommended search distances from the proposed project corridor (EDR, 2003) and provided information on listed properties. Over

Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit 3-37 DEIR November 2005 Chapter 3: Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures

Hazardous Materials

4,000 properties were listed in the databases that have used, stored or have had documented releases of hazardous materials. Because of the large number of properties identified in the database, the evaluation was limited to lists in the databases that document properties known to have had releases of hazardous materials to the subsurface and have the greatest potential of affecting subsurface conditions (i.e., soil and groundwater) below the railway corridor. Table 3.4-2 identifies properties that are considered as having a potential (low to high) of impacting the proposed project corridor.

Asbestos and Lead Paint Between November 24 and 26, 2003, and January 15 and 19, 2004, field geologists conducted a field reconnaissance to assess bridge crossings which had the potential for the presence of LBP in coatings and asbestos in wrapped utility lines, bridge expansion joints, concrete water lines, or other building materials within the proposed project corridor. Detailed information is in the Hazardous Materials Assessment (MACTEC, 2005) prepared for this project. Results of the reconnaissance identified the following 11 bridges with the potential for the presence of LBP and/or asbestos: • Bridge BR-044, milepost 72.48 - Potential for the presence of asbestos containing materials in joint compounds between lower and upper cement slabs • Bridge BR-047, milepost 74.47 - Potential for the presence of LBP in steel bridgework • Bridge BR-027, milepost 58.82 - Potential for the presence of asbestos containing materials in joint compounds between lower and upper cement slabs • Bridge BR-028, milepost 59.50 - Potential for the presence of LBP in steel bridgework • Bridge BR-034, milepost 64.68 - Potential for the presence of LBP in steel bridgework • Bridge BR-035, milepost 65.10 - Potential for the presence of LBP in steel bridgework. A hydrocarbon based soot buildup (from diesel trucks) was also observed beneath the trestle. • Bridge BR-036, milepost 65.68 - Potential for the presence of LBP in steel bridgework • Bridge BR-037, milepost 66.29 - Potential for the presence of LBP in steel bridgework • Bridge BR-038, milepost 67.62 - Potential for the presence of LBP in steel bridgework • Bridge BR-019, milepost 37.19 - Potential for the presence of LBP in steel bridgework. Roofing materials and patch compound with the potential to contain asbestos were observed on the maintenance shed and electrical room located on the trestle. • Bridge BR-004, milepost 20.91 - Potential for the presence of LBP and asbestos in building materials and steel bridgework.

Aerially Deposited Lead Various studies have been performed in the Bay Area that have identified ADL in soils near roadways attributed to the use of lead in gasoline, which was phased out beginning in the mid 1970s. Specifically, concentrations of lead ranging between 1.1 and 1,870 milligrams per kilogram (mg/kg) were detected in soil as part of the Site Investigation Report performed for the Wilfred Avenue to Route 12 Highway 101 widening project in Sonoma County dated August 19, 1999 (IT Corporation, 1999). Although the historical volume of traffic on roads crossing the railway corridor is not expected to be as high as that of Highway 101, it is likely that the results of the IT Corporation investigation cited above provides sufficient justification as to the likelihood of encountering lead in soil during improvements for the proposed project.

Because the railway corridor crosses multiple roadways, there is the potential to encounter lead contaminated soil during construction of the proposed project. In addition, any yellow traffic paint, yellow thermoplastic paint/tape or markings (over 10 years on pavement) containing lead chromate as the pigment, could generate debris with heavy metals after removal procedures.

Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit 3-38 DEIR November 2005 Chapter 3: Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures

Hazardous Materials

3.4.3 Significance Criteria

Project-related effects concerning hazardous materials are considered significant if impacts would result in the following conditions: • Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use or disposal of hazardous materials; • 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; • Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within ¼ mile of an existing or proposed school; or • Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites (CORTESE List) compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would create a significant hazard to the public or the environment.

Impacts related to emergency response or emergency evacuation plans are addressed in Section 3.12, Public Facilities and Safety.

3.4.4 Impact Assessment Methodology

The methods used to identify existing or historical hazardous waste/materials issues included conducting a database search report for the study area (as previously described), a site reconnaissance and a review of available published and unpublished literature pertinent to the proposed project corridor. The following activities were performed as part of this evaluation: • Obtaining and evaluating an environmental regulatory agency database report from EDR that identified properties listed in ASTM recommended databases and within recommended search distances from the right-of-way and proposed station and maintenance facility locations. • Conducting a field reconnaissance of bridge crossings associated with the proposed project to evaluate the potential for the presence of asbestos in wrapped utility lines, bridge expansion joints, concrete water lines, or other building materials. This review also included reviewing various bridge crossing photographs and engineering drawings. • Conducting a literature review of the following documents to evaluate whether additional hazardous waste/materials were present along the proposed project corridor: o Environmental Assessment/Initial Study, Proposed Acquisition of Northwestern Pacific Railroad Right-of-Way from the City of Willits in Mendocino County to the City of Healdsburg in Sonoma County and from Lombard Station in Napa County to Ignacio in Marin County, November 1995; prepared for Golden Gate Bridge, Highway and Transportation District (GGBHTD), California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), and United States Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) by Dames and Moore. o Environmental Assessment/Initial Study, Proposed Acquisition of Northwestern Pacific Railroad Right-of-Way Parallel to Highway 101 from the City of San Rafael in Marin County to the City of Healdsburg in Sonoma County, October 1988; prepared for GGBHTD, Caltrans, and FHWA by Dames and Moore. o Preliminary Environmental Evaluation Sonoma/Marin Rail Implementation Plan, November 1999; prepared for Sonoma/Marin Area Rail Transit Planning Group by the Duffey Company. • Potential impacts are defined by ASTM and industry practices as the potential exposure of human health and/or wildlife to hazardous waste or naturally occurring petroleum hydrocarbons (oil fields) or other compounds (asbestos from serpentinite) during the project activities. To assist in identifying potential impacts, each contaminated or potentially contaminated site that was identified with respect to its proximity to the rail corridor as well as proposed station and maintenance facility alternatives was classified as high, moderate or low based on its potential for detrimental environmental impacts.

Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit 3-39 DEIR November 2005 Chapter 3: Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures

Hazardous Materials

The classification of each property is based on type of operation, proximity to the project corridor and proposed station and maintenance facility sites, anticipated hydrogeologic gradient, field observations, and historical and regulatory information. In general, the classification criteria are: o High – properties with known or probable soil/groundwater contamination (e.g., LUSTs) and properties where remediation is incomplete or undocumented. o Moderate – properties with identified or potential soil contamination (e.g., LUSTs), remediation is in progress, or groundwater contamination does not appear to be migrating. o Low – properties that have completed remediation or have historically utilized only small amounts of known contaminants (e.g., Resource Conservation and Recovery Information System (RCRIS), small quantity generators or USTs.

3.4.5 Impact Summary

There are two general types of potential hazardous materials impacts: 1) encountering existing hazardous materials during construction activities, which in turn has the potential to expose workers or the public; or 2) introducing hazardous materials into the study area as part of project activities (i.e. storage and use of hazardous materials at the proposed maintenance facility or accidental spills of hazardous materials during construction). Construction of the proposed project could potentially result in less than significant impacts based on the presence of existing hazardous materials conditions. Although the proposed project corridor is in the vicinity of hazardous materials sites, none of these sites are located within the limits of the proposed project corridor. If contaminated soils, rock or groundwater were encountered, strict regulations regarding the handling and disposal of these hazardous materials would apply. Table 3.4-2, which is derived from review of the EDR regulatory database that lists properties that have used, stored or have had documented releases of hazardous materials, summarizes properties with the potential to affect the corridor and the likelihood the property would affect the corridor. Figures 3.4-1A, 3.4-1B and 3.4-1C show the location of the properties.

Rehabilitation or upgrade of bridge crossings could encounter asbestos and/or LBP in the building materials at concentrations that could be harmful to workers and the public without proper remediation or safety procedures. All of these potential impacts are considered less than significant because of stringent regulatory requirements for implementing Best Management Practices (BMPs) and removing LBP and asbestos.

Potential impacts from the routine transport, use or disposal of hazardous materials such as fuels, solvents and gases during construction or operation of the proposed project are considered less than significant. This finding is due to the fact that the proposed project would involve very limited use of hazardous materials and any such use would be regulated by existing federal and state requirements.

Although it is foreseeable that the proposed project would use and encounter hazardous materials, it is not expected that an accident involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment would create a significant hazard to the public or the environment. There is the potential for an accidental release of fuel during construction equipment refueling, but the proposed project includes spill prevention measures and a resulting release of very small amounts of materials is not considered to have the potential to create a significant hazard to the public or the environment.

The proposed project corridor is within ¼ mile of existing schools. However, construction activities and long-term operation of the passenger rail system would not involve the use of hazardous materials, substances or waste in close proximity to schools. For a discussion of potential hazardous emissions, see Section 3.5, Air Quality.

Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit 3-40 DEIR November 2005 Chapter 3: Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures

Hazardous Materials TABLE 3.4-2 SUMMARY OF AREAS OF CONCERN

Media Affected Type of Contaminant Potential to Affect Site Name and ID # Suspected Soil Groundwater Site Status Proposed Project Cloverdale to Healdsburg Redwood Empire Petroleum Hydrocarbons X X Remediation completed, case closure No Sawmill – # 5 granted in April 2000. A & M Enterprises – Petroleum Hydrocarbons X X Remediation completed, case closure No # 34 granted in March 1996 Masonite Corporation Wood treatment X X Status of investigation or remediation is Moderate – # 34 compounds unknown. Monitoring wells were observed (Pentachlorophenol) on the property. Vino Farms Vineyard Petroleum Hydrocarbons X X Remediation completed, case closure Low – # 61 granted in April 1998. Onsite waste discharge system, no evidence of releases. Former Union Petroleum Hydrocarbons X X Assessment was initiated in 1993, Low Zumwalt – # 63 excavation of soil completed in 2000. Groundwater monitoring is ongoing. Eposti Ford/ Petroleum Hydrocarbons X X Assessment was initiated in 1988. Status of Moderate Lampson Trust – # investigation or remediation is unknown. 63 Healdsburg to Petaluma SCDPW Petroleum Hydrocarbons X X Site characterization initiated in 1991. Low Maintenance Yard – Closure reportedly granted in October 1991. # 84 Excavation and disposal of soil was reportedly completed in 2000. Gaskins Service – # Petroleum Hydrocarbons X X Impacted soil has been removed; Low 86 groundwater monitoring is ongoing. Former Truck Stop – Petroleum Hydrocarbons X X Remediation consisting of soil excavation Low # 89 completed in 2000. Groundwater monitoring is ongoing. Leroy and Lydia Petroleum Hydrocarbons X X Impacted soil was removed in the mid- Low Burch – # 90 1990’s; groundwater monitoring is ongoing. Don’s Rino – # 94 Petroleum Hydrocarbons X X Groundwater investigation was initiated in Low

Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit 3-41 DEIR November 2005 Chapter 3: Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures

Hazardous Materials

Media Affected Type of Contaminant Potential to Affect Site Name and ID # Suspected Soil Groundwater Site Status Proposed Project the mid-1990’s and is ongoing. Impacted soil was removed in 2000. Aladdin Cleaners – # Tetrochlorethene (PCE) X X Status of investigation or remediation Low 94 activities is unknown. Engelke Brothers Petroleum Hydrocarbons X X No information on whether additional Low Property – # 97 investigations or remedial actions were completed. Drinking water wells have reportedly been impacted. Texaco Service Petroleum Hydrocarbons X X Pump and treatment of groundwater and Low Station – # 97 dual phase extraction was initiated in 1999 and 2000, respectively. Groundwater extraction, treatment and monitoring are ongoing. Redwood Oil– # 101 Petroleum Hydrocarbons X X Excavation of impacted soil was completed Low in April 2001. Groundwater investigation is ongoing. Chevron – # 101 Petroleum Hydrocarbons X X Impacted soil was removed in 2000; Low groundwater monitoring is ongoing. Redwood Oil – # 101 Petroleum Hydrocarbons X X Groundwater investigation was initiated in Low the mid-1990’s and is ongoing. Impacted soil was removed in 2000. Multiple facilities in Petroleum Hydrocarbons X X Some of the facilities have completed or are Low the 100 to 500 Blocks undergoing soil and/or groundwater of Healdsburg remediation. The status of groundwater Avenue – # 113 investigations is unknown for several of the cases. Action Rents – # 151 Petroleum Hydrocarbons X X Status of investigation or remediation Low activities is unknown. West Coast Metals – Petroleum Hydrocarbons, X X No information available indicating whether Low # 152 also possibly metals and remedial actions have been completed or solvents are necessary. Investigations are ongoing. Multiple facilities in Petroleum Hydrocarbons X X Some of the facilities have completed or are Low the 200 to 400 Blocks undergoing soil and/or groundwater of Windsor River remediation. The status of groundwater

Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit 3-42 DEIR November 2005 Chapter 3: Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures

Hazardous Materials

Media Affected Type of Contaminant Potential to Affect Site Name and ID # Suspected Soil Groundwater Site Status Proposed Project Road and Bell Street investigations is unknown for several of the – # 167 cases. Former Ecodyne Wood Treatment X X Extensive remediation consisting of Moderate Cooling – # 189 Chemicals and groundwater extraction and injection of Hexavalent Chromium compounds to treat soil and groundwater has been performed. Portions of the facility have also been capped. Currently only groundwater monitoring is being performed. John Donaldson – # Petroleum Hydrocarbons, X X Impacted soil was removed in 2000. Low 268 Groundwater monitoring is ongoing. Multiple facilities in Petroleum Hydrocarbons X X Some of the facilities have completed or are Low the 100 to 300 Blocks and solvents undergoing soil and/or groundwater of Wilson and West remediation. The status of groundwater Third Streets – # 349 investigations is unknown for several of the cases. Former Mead Clark Petroleum Hydrocarbons X X Impacted soil was removed during property No Lumber– # 343 redevelopment; groundwater monitoring is reportedly near completion. Chevron #9-8893 – # Petroleum Hydrocarbons X X Impacted soil was removed; groundwater Low 460 monitoring is ongoing. Petaluma to Novato J & D Automotive – # Petroleum Hydrocarbons X X No reported actions have occurred at the Low 537 facility. Bar Ale Inc. – # 583 Petroleum Hydrocarbons X X Remediation of free-floating product has Low been conducted; groundwater investigations are ongoing. Shamrock Materials – Petroleum Hydrocarbons X X Investigation activities were initiated in the Low # 584 early 1990’s. The status of investigation activities or whether any remedial activities were conducted is unknown. Pomeroy Corporation Petroleum Hydrocarbons X X Investigation activities were initiated in the Low – # 584 early 1990’s. The status of investigation activities or whether any remedial activities were conducted is unknown.

Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit 3-43 DEIR November 2005 Chapter 3: Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures

Hazardous Materials

Media Affected Type of Contaminant Potential to Affect Site Name and ID # Suspected Soil Groundwater Site Status Proposed Project Novato to San Rafael Redwood Sanitary Leachate, Methane X X Active leachate collection, methane Low Landfill – # 627 collection and spreading of sludge are occurring at this facility. Groundwater is actively being monitored. Golden Gate Transit Petroleum Hydrocarbons X X Excavation and disposal of impacted soil as Low Novato Bus Facility – well as remediation of free-floating product # 638 has occurred at the facility and groundwater investigations are ongoing. VIA Gas Station – # Petroleum Hydrocarbons X X Extensive remediation of groundwater and Low 640 free-floating product has occurred at the property. Evidence that the release has migrated offsite to the east-northeast (toward railway corridor). Hamilton DOD, Petroleum Hydrocarbons X X Extensive remediation of groundwater has Low Former Gas Station – occurred at this property. Evidence that the # 692 release has migrated offsite to the east- northeast (toward railway corridor). Multiple facilities in Petroleum Hydrocarbons X X Some of the facilities have completed or are Low the 700 Block of 2nd and solvents undergoing soil and/or groundwater and 3rd Streets and remediation. The status of groundwater 800 to 1200 Block of investigations is unknown for several of the Lincoln Avenue – # cases. 755 Source: Environmental Data Resources, 2003.

Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit 3-44 DEIR November 2005 Chapter 3: Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures

Hazardous Materials

FIGURE 3.4-1A LOCATION OF AREAS OF CONCERN

Source: MACTEC Engineering and Consulting, Inc., 2004.

Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit 3-45 DEIR November 2005 Chapter 3: Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures

Hazardous Materials

FIGURE 3.4-1B LOCATION OF AREAS OF CONCERN

Source: MACTEC Engineering and Consulting, Inc., 2004.

Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit 3-46 DEIR November 2005 Chapter 3: Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures

Hazardous Materials

FIGURE 3.4-1C LOCATION OF AREAS OF CONCERN

Source: MACTEC Engineering and Consulting, Inc., 2004.

Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit 3-47 DEIR November 2005 Chapter 3: Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures

Hazardous Materials

3.4.6 Impacts and Mitigation Measures

Construction-Related Impacts

At this time, no known impacts related to construction for replacement or repair of railbed shoulders, culverts, bridges, and tunnels have been identified. However, the following potential environmental impacts could be encountered during construction activities.

Impact HM-1: There is the potential for encountering phenol, creosol or ADL during construction. (Less than significant)

There are several potential sources of soil contamination that exist in the construction areas. Soil disturbing activities such as track improvements, shoulder re-grading for the proposed bicycle/pedestrian pathway or excavations associated with bridge improvements could result in worker exposure to phenol and creosol compounds as existing crossties supporting the rail are creosote-treated timbers. Phenol and creosol may have leached into the soil underlying these timbers. ADL may be contained in soil near road grade crossings, where crossing improvements are proposed. There is the potential that volatile emissions from the release of these materials could affect workers and the public. Public exposure to these compounds is considered unlikely through implementation of proper BMPs. Contaminated material might require offsite disposal as mandated by established regulations. There are federal and state regulations that require specific handling and disposal procedures. Although these regulations are not technically mitigation (since they are already required by law), they are outlined below for clarification.

Mitigation Measure HM-1: Samples of soil shall be submitted for analysis for phenol and creosol compounds if track shoulder re-grading or excavations associated with bridge improvements are undertaken. Samples of soil are recommended to be submitted for analysis for lead if improvements to the road crossings are required to determine if these compounds are present and have the potential to impact disposal or release to the environment. If phenol and creosol compounds or ADL are present in the soil, then preparation of a Site Mitigation Plan (SMP) will be required to address potential exposure of workers to impacted soil in order to comply with applicable waste handling and disposal regulations (if offsite disposal of soil is necessary). At a minimum, BMPs in the SMP should include provisions for excavation and grading of impacted soil, stockpiling and testing of contaminated soil, dust and odor control measures and health and safety requirements for working with impacted soil.

Impact HM-2: In areas where soil excavation or excavation to shallow or perched groundwater is anticipated, there is a low to moderate potential to encounter contaminated soil and groundwater. (Less than significant)

As presented in Table 3.4-2, multiple existing facilities were identified adjacent to the rail corridor, proposed rail stations, and the proposed Windsor maintenance facility that have had documented releases of hazardous materials to soil and groundwater. Several properties with documented releases of petroleum hydrocarbon constituents and solvents to soil and groundwater are present within ¼ mile of the proposed Healdsburg, Santa Rosa Railroad Square, Rohnert Park, Petaluma – Corona Road, Downtown Petaluma, and Downtown San Rafael Stations. The proposed Windsor maintenance facility is just west of the former Ecodyne Cooling property, which had a release from a gasoline UST and release of wood treatment chemicals to the soil and groundwater. Although remediation of soil and groundwater has been completed at the majority of these properties, there is a low potential to encounter contaminated soil and/or groundwater. Depending on final project design plans, soil grading and excavation to shallow or perched groundwater during infrastructure construction may be necessary in the vicinity of these facilities. Encountering contaminated soil and groundwater would pose a risk of dermal and respiratory exposure to workers and additional releases to the environment. There is also a possibility that volatile emissions from the release of these materials could affect the public if improper construction procedures are utilized or if proper security measures are not implemented which prevent

Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit 3-48 DEIR November 2005 Chapter 3: Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures

Hazardous Materials the public from accessing the project during construction. Contaminated soil and groundwater would require handling by specially trained workers, and possibly dewatering, and/or disposal of the materials to an approved disposal facility. This impact is similar to Impact HM-1, in that regulatory provisions require strict adherence to specific procedures for handling and disposal of contaminated materials. These required precautions are outlined below.

Mitigation Measure HM-2: Precautions, including sampling of soil and groundwater prior to work activities in the areas where proposed excavations are planned and preparation of a SMP, shall be implemented, where necessary. A qualified environmental consultant shall monitor soil and air and dust emissions during construction activities in these locations to identify whether potential hazards exist and whether special handling of soil and groundwater is required. Specially trained workers can be utilized to handle contaminated soil/groundwater and SMP implementation measures (i.e., use of personal protective equipment) can be utilized to mitigate potential exposures to contaminated soil/groundwater and additional releases to the environment. Construction-related impacts of soil excavation and groundwater dewatering in contaminated areas can be mitigated through implementation of BMPs, such as conducting daily health and safety meetings to discuss planned work in areas where contaminated soil/groundwater could be encountered. Mitigation measures to protect the public include limiting access (i.e., fencing and site security) to the railroad corridor during construction activities and implementation of BMP measures to prevent offsite migration of contaminated soil and groundwater.

Impact HM-3: Eleven bridges along the corridor have the potential to contain LBP and/or asbestos. (Less than significant)

Potential asbestos containing materials may be present in joint compounds between bridge cement slabs and LBP may be present in the paint on the steel bridgework. Those bridges that would either be upgraded or replaced as part of the proposed project have the potential to release these compounds to the water or air during those activities and potentially expose workers or the public without proper handling procedures. Friable asbestos that gets into the air can pose health risks to workers or the public. The asbestos materials used in the bridges are not likely to be friable and therefore would present no hazard. However, if friable asbestos materials are identified during bridge inspections, these can be safely removed and properly disposed so as to present no hazard to the public. LBP removed from the bridge during repainting, if not properly captured, can be deposited into the water below the bridge. There are federal and state regulations that require specific procedures for handling asbestos and LBP. Although these regulations are not technically mitigation (since they are already required by law), they are outlined below for clarification.

Mitigation Measure HM-3: Sampling activities shall be conducted in locations where asbestos containing materials or LBP are anticipated to identify whether potential hazards exist and whether special precautions to prevent workers from exposure to LBP or asbestos are necessary during bridge/overcrossing renovation and or/demolition. If friable asbestos materials are identified during bridge inspections, these materials shall be safely removed and properly disposed using procedures established by OSHA and the BAAQMD. Bridge workers shall be protected through the use of proper protective equipment. Standard procedures shall be used for capturing LBP during bridge cleaning (e.g., sand blasting) and preventing it from being released into the environment. Proper containment shall be employed for all bridge maintenance activities to prevent LBP from impacting the environment.

Long-Term Impacts

Impact HM-4: Construction and operation of the proposed project would involve limited use of hazardous materials. (Less than significant)

Construction activities, equipment and vehicles would use hazardous materials such as fuels and solvents. Operation of the proposed maintenance facility will also involve limited storage and use of

Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit 3-49 DEIR November 2005 Chapter 3: Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures

Hazardous Materials these types of materials. There is a very low potential for release of these materials into the environment and exposure of the public due to the very limited use of these materials and existing laws restricting their use. In addition to the proposed project’s environmental compliance measure regarding implementation of a spill prevention program, existing regulations require use of BMPs for handling and storage of hazardous materials and preparation of hazardous materials business plans for storage of materials at the proposed maintenance facility. Therefore, the proposed project would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment and any potential effect is considered less than significant.

Cumulative Impacts

With regard to hazardous materials, one other project has the potential to contribute to a hazardous materials cumulative impact. The Marin Gap HOV project would require Caltrans to obtain additional roadway right-of-way by relocating the mainline track farther to the west and would require the removal of a portion of the existing track for construction of southbound freeway lanes east of Lincoln Boulevard. Several properties with documented releases to soil and groundwater are located west of the proposed realignment area, which could cause hazardous materials to be released if excavation to groundwater is necessary. When combined with potential hazardous materials release associated with the construction activities of the proposed project, this could contribute to an overall cumulative impact with regards to hazardous materials. Adherence to existing regulations described above regarding sampling of soil and groundwater, preparation of a SMP, and utilization of specially trained workers will ensure that cumulative impacts are less than significant.

Another potential cumulative factor is the re-introduction of freight service on the rail corridor north of Highway 37. However, there are currently no hazardous materials disposal facilities along the train corridor, so transportation of hazardous materials by future freight train operations is unlikely. Furthermore, operation of the proposed project would not involve the transport of hazardous materials and would not contribute to any cumulative increases in the hazardous material transport. The unlikely event of a train accident would not result in a release of hazardous materials that pose a significant hazard to the public. Safety issues related to train accidents are further addressed in Section 3.12, Public Facilities and Safety.

Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit 3-50 DEIR November 2005 Chapter 3: Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures Air Quality

3.5 AIR QUALITY

This section presents existing air quality conditions in the proposed project study area, the potential construction-related and operational-related (long-term) air quality issues, such as changes in regional criteria pollutant and greenhouse gas emissions, localized “hot spots”, effects on sensitive receptors and odors that could be encountered, and cumulative impacts of the proposed project. Operational changes in air quality would be due to changes in traffic and circulation and new emissions generated by diesel multiple units (DMUs) in the area. Additional detailed information is in the Air Quality Technical Report (Parsons Brinckerhoff, 2005) prepared for the proposed project.

3.5.1 Regulatory Setting

Federal Regulations and Responsibilities

Pursuant to the federal Clean Air Act of 1970, and its subsequent amendments, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) established ambient air pollutant concentration standards and maximum allowable emission rates for certain individual sources of air pollutants. Air quality is controlled through the attainment and maintenance of ambient standards and enforcement of emission limits. A system also was set up in which EPA made each state responsible for attaining ambient air quality standards within its borders.

National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) have been established for six air pollutants: ozone (O3), carbon monoxide (CO), particulate matter (for two sizes: aerodynamic diameters less than ten micrometers [PM10] and less than 2.5 micrometers [PM2.5]), nitrogen dioxides (NO2), lead (Pb) and sulfur dioxide (SO2) (See Table 3.5-1). These pollutants were chosen because they are present throughout the country and their human health effects are well documented.

Major amendments to the Clean Air Act were signed into law on November 15, 1990. These amendments prescribe new planning requirements and attainment deadlines for areas that do not attain the NAAQS. Procedures and guidelines for conforming to the 1990 amendments are continually being prepared and updated by the EPA. The 1990 amendments also directed the EPA to set standards for air toxics and require certain industries to significantly reduce emissions of controlled chemicals.

State Regulations and Responsibilities

The California Air Resources Board (CARB) has established State ambient air quality standards, many of which are more stringent than the corresponding NAAQS (see Table 3.5-1). The CARB also is responsible for incorporating local non-attainment plans into the State Implementation Plan (SIP).

The CARB also coordinates and oversees the activities of California's many Air Pollution Control Districts (APCDs) and Air Quality Management Districts (AQMDs). The APCDs and AQMDs are primarily responsible for assuring that both federal and state standards are attained and maintained with their regions. Responsibilities include preparing attainment plans, adoption and enforcement of rules and regulations concerning air pollutant sources, issuing permits for stationary sources, inspecting stationary sources, investigating citizen complaints, and awarding grant money to be used for reducing emissions.

The CARB and the APCDs/AQMDs also operate numerous air quality monitoring stations throughout the state. Data collected at those stations are used to classify areas and air basins as attainment or non- attainment for each criteria air pollutant based on whether the standards have been achieved. Monitoring station data in the proposed project region are summarized in Section 3.5.2 (Environmental Setting).

Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit 3-51 DEIR November 2005 Chapter 3: Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures Air Quality

TABLE 3.5-1 STATE AND FEDERAL CRITERIA AIR POLLUTANT STANDARDS, EFFECTS AND SOURCES Averaging State Federal Pollutant Health and Pollutant Time Standard Standard Atmospheric Effects Major Pollutant Sources Ozone 1 hour 0.09 ppm 0.12 ppm High concentrations can Formed when volatile organic 8 hours --- 0.08 ppm directly affect lungs, compounds and nitrogen causing irritation. Long- oxides react in the presence term exposure may cause of sunlight. Major sources damage to lung tissue. include on-road motor vehicles, solvent evaporation, and commercial / industrial mobile equipment. Carbon 1 hour 20 ppm 35 ppm Classified as a chemical Internal combustion engines, Monoxide 8 hours 9.0 ppm1 9 ppm asphyxiant, carbon primarily gasoline-powered monoxide interferes with motor vehicles. the transfer of fresh oxygen to the blood and deprives sensitive tissues of oxygen. Nitrogen 1 hour 0.25 ppm --- Irritating to eyes and Motor vehicles, petroleum Dioxide Annual --- 0.053 ppm respiratory tract. Colors refining operations, industrial atmosphere reddish- sources, aircraft, ships, and brown. railroads. Sulfur 1 hour 0.25 ppm --- Irritates upper respiratory Fuel combustion, chemical Dioxide 3 hours --- 0.5 ppm tract; injurious to lung plants, sulfur recovery plants, 24 hours 0.04 ppm 0.14 ppm tissue. Can yellow the and metal processing. Annual --- 0.03 ppm leaves of plants, destructive to marble, iron, and steel. Limits visibility and reduces sunlight. Respirable 24 hours 50 µg/m3 150 µg/m3 May irritate eyes and Dust and fume-producing Particulate Annual 20 µg/m3 50 µg/m3 respiratory tract. industrial and agricultural Matter Decreases lung capacity. operations, combustion, (PM10) Increased cancer and atmospheric photochemical mortality. Produces haze reactions, and natural and limits visibility. activities (e.g., wind-raised dust and ocean sprays). Fine 24 hours --- 65 µg/m3 Increases respiratory Fuel combustion in motor Particulate Annual 12 µg/m3 15 µg/m3 disease, lung damage, vehicles, equipment and Matter cancer, and premature industrial sources; residential (PM2.5) death. Reduces visibility and agricultural burning; also, and results in surface formed from photochemical soiling. reactions of other pollutants, including nitrogen oxides, sulfur oxides and organics. Lead Monthly 1.5 µg/m3 --- Disturbs gastrointestinal Present source: lead Quarterly --- 1.5 µg/m3 system, and causes smelters, battery anemia, kidney disease manufacturing and recycling and neuromuscular and facilities. Past source: neurologic dysfunction. combustion of leaded gasoline. Notes: ppm = parts per million; µg/m3 = micrograms per cubic meter. 1The state does not allow rounding to an integer value for this standard. A violation would occur if a concentration is 9.1 ppm.

Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit 3-52 DEIR November 2005 Chapter 3: Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures Air Quality

The California Clean Air Act, effective January 1, 1989, provides a planning framework for attainment of California air quality standards. Local APCDs and AQMDs in violation of state ambient air quality standards are required to prepare plans for attaining the state standards.

Attainment/Non-Attainment Designations The proposed project corridor is located within two air basins: the North Coast Air Basin and the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin (See Figure 3.5-1). The North Coast Air Basin encompasses the northern half of Sonoma County (north of Windsor) in addition to Mendocino, Humboldt, Trinity, and Del Norte counties. The Northern Sonoma County Air Pollution Control District (NSCAPCD) regulates emissions in the North Coast Air Basin (including the northern portion of Sonoma County). Air quality in the southern half of Sonoma County and all of Marin County is regulated by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD), which also includes Alameda, Contra Costa, Napa, San Francisco, San Mateo, Santa Clara, and portions of Solano counties.

The San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin is currently designated as a non-attainment area for ozone at both the federal and state levels. However, on April 22, 2004, the EPA declared the San Francisco Bay Area in attainment for the federal one-hour ozone standard. It will not officially be reclassified until the BAAQMD submits a plan for demonstrating how the area will maintain the standard for the next ten years. A draft Ozone Strategy is expected to be available in 2005. On April 15, 2004 the EPA classified the Bay Area as a marginal non-attainment area for the federal ozone eight-hour standard. On January 20, 2005, the Sonoma County portion of the North Coast Air Basin was designated as being in attainment for ozone on the state level. It was already in attainment at the federal level.

Both air basins are designated as non-attainment for PM10 on the state level. The air basins are in attainment or unclassified (i.e., available data does not support a designation of non-attainment or attainment) for all other federal and state ambient air quality standards.

Air Quality Plans The federal Clean Air Act requires non-attainment and maintenance areas to prepare air quality plans that include strategies for attaining and maintaining the federal standards. The California Clean Air Act also requires plans for non-attainment areas (the state PM10 standard is exempt from these plans) that will specify strategies to attain state air quality standards. Thus, an area may have two sets of air quality plans.

Regional air quality plans developed under the federal Clean Air Act are included in an overall program referred to as SIPs. Since the North Coast Air Basin is not a non-attainment or maintenance area for any pollutant other than PM10 on a state level, it is not required to have an air quality plan. The Bay Area Air Basin’s latest federal ozone attainment plan (The Bay Area 2001 Ozone Attainment Plan) included two commitments for further planning: a commitment to conduct a mid-course review of progress toward attaining the federal one-hour ozone standard by December 2003 and a commitment to provide a revised ozone attainment strategy to EPA by April 2004. Since the EPA found in April 2004 that the Bay Area had attained the federal one-hour ozone standard, the previous commitments are no longer required. The region must submit a re-designation request to EPA in order to be reclassified as an attainment area for ozone.

The BAAQMD, in association with MTC and the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG), is currently preparing a Bay Area Ozone Strategy. This document includes a re-designation request to EPA and a maintenance plan to show how the region will continue to meet federal ozone standards.

The California Clean Air Act requires the BAAQMD to update its Clean Air Plan for meeting the State one-hour ozone standard every three years. The most recent update was adopted in December 2000. An update is past due. It is the intent of the BAAQMD to dedicate a portion of the Bay Area Ozone Strategy currently being developed to address the requirements of this triennial update.

Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit 3-53 DEIR November 2005 Chapter 3: Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures Air Quality

FIGURE 3.5-1 PROPOSED PROJECT AREA AIR BASINS

Source: California Air Resources Board, 2005.

Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit 3-54 DEIR November 2005 Chapter 3: Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures Air Quality

An important component of the Bay Area Ozone Strategy is a set of control measures that would further reduce ozone precursor emissions from a wide range of sources. In addition to stationary and area source control measures, measures for on- and off- road mobile sources and transportation are being proposed. Depending on the type of mobile source, the EPA and/or CARB are the only agencies authorized to adopt fuel and emission control system specifications. As such, the BAAQMD can only reduce mobile source emissions by providing grants or incentives to encourage the use of cleaner vehicle and fuels. The Bay Area Ozone Strategy measures will encourage the retirement of older, more- polluting equipment and vehicles, introduction of new, less-polluting equipment, and operational changes such as reduced idling.

Transportation control measures (TCMs) that reduce motor vehicle use are an important part of reducing ozone levels because motor vehicles are the largest source of ozone precursors. The Bay Area Ozone Strategy includes a draft list of twenty TCMs, including such items as voluntary employer based trip reduction programs; improved bus, rail, and ferry service; and expansion of carpool and express bus lanes.

Project Conformity In addition to SIP and Air Quality Plan activities, federal agencies must also make a determination of conformity with the SIP before taking any action on a proposed project located in a non-attainment or maintenance area. In 1993, EPA published the General Conformity Rule that indicates how federal agencies are to make such a determination. A similar rule was created to specifically address conformity issues related to highway or transit projects that receive funding or approval from the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) or the Federal Transit Administration (FTA). In general, transportation projects must not cause or contribute to new violations of air quality standards, worsen existing violations or interfere with timely attainment of standards. Project conformity is evaluated at both the local level (“hot spot” analysis) and the regional level. At the regional level, one aspect of the conformity determination is to confirm that the proposed project is included in currently conforming regional transportation plans as fiscally constrained (i.e., the project would be funded through revenues projected to be reasonably available over the next 25 years). Another aspect is to confirm that the proposed project is included in transportation improvement programs, which list projects and their specific funding sources. This would also result in the proposed project being included in regional air quality analyses.

For the Bay Area, MTC adopted the conformity analysis for the Final Transportation 2030 Plan and the 2005 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) in February 2005. At this time, the proposed project is not included in the RTP’s list of Track 1 projects, one of the requirements of federal conformity. While the proposed project is identified, it is not fully funded, a condition for inclusion on the list. For the proposed project to comply with the Transportation Conformity Rule’s requirements, the proposed project has to have obtained a reliable local funding source, e.g., the proposed ¼ cent sales tax measure. This would allow the project to be included more fully in the region’s planning and conformity efforts. This is a federal requirement and does not have to be met as part of the CEQA process.

Diesel Regulations In January 2001, EPA finalized the Clean Diesel Trucks and Buses Rule that created more stringent standards for new diesel engines and fuels. The rule requires the use of lower sulfur fuels beginning in 2006. These fuels will enable the use of after-treatment technologies for new diesel engines (such as catalyzed diesel particulate filters, selective catalytic reduction systems and NOx adsorbers), which could reduce NOx and PM emissions by 90 percent. In 2007, after-treatment technologies will start to be phased in.

Emission control technologies for diesel engines have advanced substantially since the current locomotive standards were adopted in 1998, so the EPA is currently considering new emission standards, similar to the Clean Diesel Trucks and Buses Rule, for locomotives. EPA expects that similar levels of NOx and PM reductions could be achieved by applying similar technologies to locomotives. The technologies being considered need low sulfur fuel to operate reliably and at high efficiencies. As part of EPA’s non-road diesel fuel program, diesel fuel for locomotives will have sulfur limits of 15 parts per

Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit 3-55 DEIR November 2005 Chapter 3: Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures Air Quality million (ppm) starting in 2012, but it is expected that low sulfur fuel will be widely available before then due to the truck and bus rules. It is expected that a final rule will be adopted in 2006 with implementation as early as 2011. Once adopted by EPA, CARB would also adopt this rule.

In August 1998, CARB identified diesel PM as a toxic air contaminant. CARB developed the Risk Reduction Plan to Reduce Particulate Matter Emissions from Diesel-Fueled Engines and Vehicles in 2000. Since that time, CARB has been evaluating and developing specific statewide regulations designed to further reduce diesel PM emissions from diesel-fueled stationary engines, cars, trucks, buses, off-road vehicles, and equipment. The goal of each regulation is to make diesel engines as clean as technically feasible by establishing state-of-the-art technology requirements or emission standards to reduce diesel PM emissions. CARB expects to reduce diesel PM emissions by 75 percent by 2010 and 85 percent by 2020 (CARB, 2000). It should be noted that CARB does not have authority to regulate emissions from sources such as aircraft, ships, locomotives, and certain farm equipment. EPA has this authority.

3.5.2 Environmental Setting

Air Pollutants of Concern

Ozone (O3) Ozone, otherwise known as smog, is not emitted directly into air. It is formed in the atmosphere by complex chemical reactions between nitrogen and reactive organic gases (ROG) (known as ozone precursors) in the presence of sunlight. Ozone formation is greatest on warm, windless, sunny days. Because of the reaction time involved, peak ozone concentrations can often occur far downwind from where the precursor emissions were generated. Therefore, ozone is a regional pollutant that often impacts a large area. Motor vehicles are the largest source of ozone precursors. However, emission levels of ozone precursors have been trending downward with the implementation of stricter mobile source emission standards as well as stationary source controls. Ozone can irritate the eyes and aggravate respiratory disease, hasten the aging of lung tissue and reduce the resistance to colds and other infections. Ozone can also damage plants and materials such as rubber and fabrics.

Fine Particulate Matter (PM10 and PM2.5)

Particulate matter with a diameter of less than 10 microns (PM10) is of concern because it can enter the body more easily than larger particles and become lodged in the lungs. Fine particulate matter can include a large range of solid and liquid particles, including smoke, dust and aerosols. PM10 includes a subgroup of finer particles with a diameter of less than 2.5 microns (PM2.5). These particles have an even higher likelihood of entering the body and lungs and may be more harmful to humans. Most diesel particulate matter (about 90 percent) falls within this subgroup.

There are many sources of particulate matter, including combustion, industrial processes, grading and construction, agriculture, and natural processes. In addition to combustion, motor vehicles can also emit particulate matter from tire wear, brake wear and travel over dusty roads. Motor vehicles account for about half of the total amount of particulate emissions in the study area (CARB, 2005). Particulate matter emissions have been increasing in the study area. While motor vehicle emissions have been decreasing due to more stringent emission standards, there has been an increase in emissions from area sources such as fireplaces and fugitive dust from unpaved areas.

Exposure to particulate matter can aggravate a number of respiratory illnesses because the particles can be absorbed into the nasal and respiratory tract and lungs. These effects include chronic bronchitis, inflammation and thickening of lung tissue, allergic reactions, and airway constriction. Due to the small size of the particles, some particulate matter from engine exhaust may cling to skin or hair and thereafter be ingested as a consequence of hand-to-mouth activity. Different people have different levels of tolerance or susceptibility. In general, the higher the exposure level, the more likely people are to experience an unpleasant symptom or perhaps a more permanent adverse effect such as

Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit 3-56 DEIR November 2005 Chapter 3: Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures Air Quality hypersensitivity or lung damage. Particulate matter can also contain toxic compounds (see the Toxic Air Contaminants discussion below).

Carbon Monoxide CO is an odorless, colorless gas that is formed by the incomplete combustion of fuels. The largest source of emissions is motor vehicles. Emissions are highest when a vehicle is idling or moving at low speeds. Emissions tend to increase again once a vehicle is moving faster than about 50 miles per hour (mph). CO emissions in the study area have been trending downward and there has not been a violation of ambient air CO standards since 1991. This decrease is attributed to cleaner fuels and new vehicle engine technology that have offset increases in vehicle miles traveled (VMT). When inhaled at high concentrations, CO lowers the amount of oxygen in the blood. CO can cause headaches, dizziness and unconsciousness. It can also aggravate cardiovascular disease.

Toxic Air Contaminants (TACs)

A toxic air contaminant is defined as an air pollutant that may cause or contribute to an increase in mortality or in serious illness, or may pose a present or potential hazard to human health. There are approximately 192 TACs identified in California (CARB, 2005). The ten TACs that pose the greatest health risk are acetaldehyde, benzene, 1,3-butadiene, carbon tetrachloride, hexavalent chromium, para- dichlorobenzene, formaldehyde, methylene chloride, perchloroethylene, and diesel particulate matter. Similar to other pollutants, TACs are emitted from stationary sources, area-wide sources and mobile sources. With the exception of carbon tetrachloride, para-dichlorobenzene, methylene chloride, and perchloroethylene, mobile sources generate the majority of TAC emissions. Health effects of TACs can include cancer, birth defects, neurological damage, and death.

Diesel exhaust is a growing concern throughout California as it poses the greatest health risk of the top ten TACs (CARB, 2005). Particulate matter from diesel fueled vehicles and equipment is of special concern because this type of particulate matter is small enough to be respirable and has many chemicals adsorbed to the surface, including known or suspected mutagens (causing changes in genetic structure) and carcinogens (cancer causing). Diesel emissions are complex mixtures containing thousands of organic and inorganic constituents. After entering the atmosphere, they are transported and transformed according to their distinctive characteristics, undergoing physical and chemical changes that may form secondary pollutants more harmful than their predecessors.

Diesel engines are nearly everywhere, so it becomes a matter of relative frequency of contact, duration of exposure and concentration of the exhaust mixture. Certain occupational environments are more prone to frequent and higher exposures. Occupational groups at risk include railroad workers, truck and bus drivers, bus garage workers, heavy equipment operators, dock workers, and underground miners. However, a person may be exposed to higher than average levels if they spend a notable part of their day near roadway traffic. There are numerous adverse long-term, non-cancer effects associated with exposure to diesel exhaust. The most readily identified short-term effects of diesel exhaust on humans are eye, throat, and bronchial irritations; headaches; lightheadedness; nausea; vomiting; and numbness and tingling of the extremities.

Meteorology and Topography

The primary factors that determine air quality levels are the location of air pollutant sources and the amount of pollutants being emitted. Meteorological and topographical conditions, however, are also important. Atmospheric conditions such as wind speed, wind direction and air temperature determine the movement and dispersal of air pollutants as well as the rate of photochemical reactions in the atmosphere. Another important factor in California is the Pacific Ocean, which moderates temperatures and helps create consistent wind gradients.

Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit 3-57 DEIR November 2005 Chapter 3: Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures Air Quality

Topography The San Francisco Bay Area is characterized by complex terrain consisting of coastal mountain ranges, inland valleys, bays, and associated flatlands. Consequently, the Bay Area is subject to a combination of climatic factors which result in low potential for accumulation of pollutants near the coast and high potential in sheltered inland valleys. The proposed project is located in the northeastern portion of the Bay Area and falls within two air basins (the southern portion of the North Coast Air Basin and the northern portion of the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin). For the most part, the proposed project area is located in semi-sheltered valleys of both air basins with the potential for air pollution accumulation due to the lack of marine air influence. However, the portion of the proposed project in the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin (Petaluma to Larkspur) has the potential for lower air pollution levels due to its closeness to the ocean in southern Marin County and in the Petaluma Valley due to the Petaluma Gap, which allows marine air to travel into the area.

Temperature Vertical temperature gradients influence the vertical stability of the atmosphere and vertical mixing of air pollutants. Unstable atmospheres have more vertical mixing than stable atmospheres. A temperature inversion, which is a layer of warm air above a cooler layer of air, acts as a nearly impenetrable lid. Inversions severely limit vertical mixing of the atmosphere and thus decrease the vertical dilution of near- surface air pollutant emissions. Inversions occur frequently in the Bay Area, typically at heights between ground level and about 490 feet above sea level. Summer inversions usually are caused by the compressional warming of air as it sinks toward the earth's surface under the influence of a semi- permanent high pressure zone known as the "Pacific High." When local or seasonal cooling of the earth's surface occurs, as it does most frequently during the fall and winter, ground-based inversions form. Both types of inversions can occur, however, at any time during the year. The strongest inversions occur during the fall, significantly contributing to high ozone and other air pollutant concentration levels.

Horizontal temperature gradients create wind flows that disperse air pollutants. Horizontal temperature gradients are greater near the coast due to differential heating between land and water surfaces. This effect is diminished inland in proportion to the distance from the ocean. The southern portion of the proposed project area is closer to San Francisco Bay; thus, it experiences larger temperature gradients and better pollutant dispersion than more inland areas, such as Healdsburg and Cloverdale.

Temperature can also play an important role in the production of pollutants. In the winter, the potential for high CO levels is related to minimum temperatures. Motor vehicles, the primary source of CO, run less efficiently and produce more CO when temperatures are lower. The lowest winter temperatures are usually found in the inland sheltered valleys because these areas are protected from the moderating influences of the ocean and bays. The lack of ocean influence also leads to warmer temperatures inland during the summer months. Ozone is produced when ROG and NOx react in the presence of sunlight and warm temperatures. Thus, the inland areas are more prone to ozone formation. Temperatures in the area generally range from highs of about 90°F in the summer to lows of 37°F in the winter (Western Regional Climate Center, 2004). Cloverdale and Healdsburg tend to be warmer by a few degrees in the summer and a few degrees colder in the winter than other locations in the proposed project area. Consequently, their potential for accumulation of air pollutants based on temperature extremes is slightly higher.

Precipitation The summer climate of the California coast is dominated by the Pacific High, located over the eastern Pacific Ocean. The Pacific High generally remains fixed offshore from May through September. Because of this persistent high-pressure cell, storms rarely affect the California coast during summer, and precipitation is negligible. During this time, the long period of dry weather aggravates the problem of wind blown dust, resulting in generation of particulate matter.

In winter, the Pacific High weakens and shifts southward and storms become more frequent. During the rainy winter periods, air pollution potential is very low because pollutants are “washed out” of the

Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit 3-58 DEIR November 2005 Chapter 3: Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures Air Quality atmosphere. When clear conditions dominate during winter, however, surface-based radiative inversions often occur. Under these conditions, winds are light and the potential for air pollution is high.

Precipitation data from monitoring stations in the area show that the rainy season occurs primarily between October and April. Very little rainfall is observed during the rest of the year. The annual average precipitation for the area varies between 25 and 44 inches with Cloverdale and Healdsburg receiving more precipitation than the other locations (Western Regional Climate Center, 2004).

Wind Light winds limit the dilution of air pollutants as they disperse downwind from their source. Air pollutants can accumulate, especially in sheltered valleys, when light winds combine with reversals of wind direction between daytime and nighttime air flows, or when calms persist for extended periods.

The predominant wind direction varies throughout the proposed project area (BAAQMD 1994). In the southern portion of the proposed project area winds are generally from the southwest. In the Petaluma Valley winds are more from the northwest. The northern portion of the proposed project area experiences winds primarily from the south. Winds are fairly calm in the proposed project area. The average wind speed during the year is about 5-7 mph with the fastest wind speeds occurring in the Petaluma Valley due to the marine air coming through the Petaluma Gap. The best pollutant dispersion occurs in the summer with the higher velocity winds. The calmest winds, which lead to pollutant stagnation, occur during the fall months.

Existing Air Quality

CARB compiles ambient air quality data from monitoring stations in the state. The BAAQMD operates full-scale monitoring stations in San Rafael and Santa Rosa, while the NSCAPCD has limited monitoring stations in Healdsburg and Cloverdale. Data collected from the monitoring stations from 2002 through 2004 were used as an estimate of background air quality concentrations (CARB, 2002-2004). Table 3.5- 2 presents the maximum pollutant concentrations found within the proposed project area during the 2002 to 2004 time period and the number of days a standard was exceeded.

There was one violation of the State one-hour standard for ozone in Santa Rosa in 2003, but no violations of the federal standard. The California 24-hour PM10 standard was violated several times in 2002 and 2004. All violations occurred within the Bay Area Air Basin. All other monitored pollutants were below federal and state standards.

The CARB/APCDs/AQMDs do not monitor diesel PM separately from PM10 and PM2.5 because there is no routine method for monitoring ambient concentrations. However, CARB has estimated average diesel PM concentrations for the most populous air basins based on emission inventory information and PM10 monitoring data. Using data available for the year 2000, CARB estimates that the Bay Area Air Basin has an annual average concentration of 1.6 micrograms/cubic meter (CARB, 2000). This is associated with a health risk of 480 excess cancer cases per million people exposed over a 70-year lifetime.

Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit 3-59 DEIR November 2005 Chapter 3: Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures Air Quality

TABLE 3.5-2 SUMMARY OF AIR QUALITY MONITORING DATA FOR THE STUDY AREA, 2002-2004 State Federal

Standard Standard Pollutant Concentration by Year

2002 2003 2004 Ozone Highest 1-hour average, ppm 0.09 0.12 0.080 0.096 0.091 Days over State/Federal Standard 0/0 1/0 0/0

Highest 8-hour average, ppm NA 0.08 0.068 0.080 0.077 Days over Federal Standard 0 0 0 Carbon Monoxide Highest 1-hour average, ppm 20.0 35 4.1 3.8 3.2 Days over State/Federal Standard 0/0 0/0 0/0

Highest 8-hour average, ppm 9.0 9 2.1 2.0 2.0 Days over State/Federal Standard 0/0 0/0 0/0 Nitrogen Dioxide Highest 1-hour average, ppm 0.25 NA 0.06 0.07 0.06 Days over Standard 0 0 0

Highest annual average, ppm NA 0.053 0.017 0.016 0.015 Exceeds Standard No No No

Particulate Matter (PM10) Highest 24-hour average, µg/m3 50 150 72.6/69.6 40.5/31.0 52.3/51.0 Days over State/Federal Standard 3/0 0/0 6/0

Highest annual average, µg/m3 20 50 22.2/21.4 17.6/17.0 18.0/17.4 Exceeds State/Federal Standard Yes/No No/No No/No

Particulate Matter (PM2.5) Highest 24-hour average, µg/m3 65 65 50.7 38.8 26.6 Days over Standard 0 0 0

Highest annual average, µg/m3 12 15 10.5 8.8 8.3 Exceeds State/Federal Standard No/No No/No No/No Source: California Air Resources Board, 2002-2004. Note: Bold values are in excess of applicable standard. NA = Not Applicable or Not Available. Bay Area Air Basin Monitoring Stations: Santa Rosa – ozone, carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide, PM10, and PM2.5 San Rafael – ozone, carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide, and PM10 North Coast Air Basin Monitoring Stations: Cloverdale – PM10 Healdsburg (Matheson Street) – PM10 Healdsburg (Municipal Airport) – ozone

Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit 3-60 DEIR November 2005 Chapter 3: Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures Air Quality

Existing Pollutant Sources

Pollutants are emitted in the study area by a variety of stationary, area and mobile sources. Stationary sources are identified utility, industrial, institutional, and commercial facilities operating at fixed locations. Area sources are activities that individually emit relatively small quantities of air pollutants, but which cumulatively may emit a large amount of emissions. Examples are gasoline service stations, small paint shops, consumer use of solvents, open burning associated with agriculture, and fireplace use.

The greatest sources of emissions in the study area are mobile sources. Mobile sources are considered on-road vehicles such as cars and trucks, airplanes, trains, and off-road vehicles such as construction equipment.

The estimated emissions associated with motor vehicles in both Marin and Sonoma counties under existing conditions in 2000 are presented in Table 3.5-3. For comparative purposes with project alternatives, emissions were calculated for the hours between 5 a.m. to 8 p.m. (which is the time that trains would be in operation with implementation of the proposed project). For a sense of magnitude, motor vehicle emissions in the study area within the Bay Area Air Basin account for 2-4 percent of the region’s overall total for motor vehicle emissions (CARB, 2005).

TABLE 3.5-3 ESTIMATED EXISTING MOTOR VEHICLE EMISSIONS IN THE STUDY AREA IN 2000 (IN POUNDS/DAY) 2000 (Existing Conditions) Bay Area Air Basin 2000 (Existing Condition) North Coast Air Basin

CO ROG NOx PM10 CO2 CO ROG NOx PM10 CO2 171,081 9,754 27,686 6,166 7,870,981 57,027 3,251 9,229 2,055 2,623,660

Air Pollution Sensitive Land Uses

Air quality standards are set at pollutant levels considered to be safe for the public. Of most concern are localized pollutant (CO and PM) impacts because these impacts are greater when members of the public are closer to the source of the emissions. In general, air pollution is a concern wherever the public has access. In the proposed project area, this could include locations such as sidewalks, boarding platforms, parking lots, etc. However, it is unlikely that a member of the public would be at any of these locations for a long period of time and would not have long-term exposure to pollutants generated in the area. Particular attention is paid to locations where people who are more susceptible to respiratory infections and other air quality-related health problems are more likely to spend time. These locations are termed sensitive receptors. Sensitive receptors include schools, hospitals, child care centers, retirement and convalescent homes, parks, and residential communities (BAAQMD, 1999).

The project area is quite large with a variety of land uses. The pattern of development in both Sonoma and Marin counties has centered on a series of towns that are generally located along the Northwestern Pacific Railroad and Highway 101. Sensitive receptors are typically found in these locations. Using Yahoo local maps, a review of sensitive locations (non-residential) within ¼ mile of the rail tracks and station locations indicates several parks and schools and one hospital are within the vicinity of the proposed project (see Table 3.5-4).

Also of concern are residents near the rail tracks or proposed stations who may be home for extended periods of time. These residents may be exposed to pollutants generated by the proposed project. Areas with large residential components near the project alignment are located in San Rafael, Novato, Petaluma, Cotati, Santa Rosa, and Windsor. Distance from the nearest residences to the rail tracks varies from 30 feet to over 100 feet with the majority in the range of 60 to 80 feet.

Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit 3-61 DEIR November 2005 Chapter 3: Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures Air Quality

TABLE 3.5-4 SENSITIVE RECEPTOR LOCATIONS WITHIN ¼ MILE OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT Approximate Distance to the Name City Proposed Project Parks John F McInnis Park San Rafael Adjacent to right-of-way Slade Park Novato Adjacent to right-of-way Sunset Park Petaluma Adjacent to right-of-way Roberts Lake Park Rohnert Park Adjacent to right-of-way Santa Rosa Railroad Park Santa Rosa Adjacent to right-of-way Wilson Ranch Soccer Park Windsor Adjacent to right-of-way Healdsburg Railroad Park Healdsburg Adjacent to right-of-way Cloverdale River Park Cloverdale Adjacent to right-of-way Healdsburg Veterans Memorial Beach Healdsburg 50 feet Novato Skate Park Novato 300 feet Jack Cavanaugh Park Petaluma 400 feet Barbier Park San Rafael 400 feet DeTurk Round Barn Park Santa Rosa 400 feet Los Robles Park Windsor 420 feet Windsor Town Green Windsor 450 feet Plaza Park Healdsburg 550 feet Lady Bug Park Rohnert Park 750 feet Mitchell Park Windsor 750 feet Vintage Oaks Park Windsor 750 feet Sunrise Park Petaluma 800 feet Caterpillar Park Rohnert Park 1,050 feet Benicia Park Rohnert Park 1,140 feet Colegio Vista Park Rohnert Park 1,150 feet Schools Sonoma Country Day School Santa Rosa 150 feet North Bay Christian Academy Novato 400 feet Foss Creek Elementary School Healdsburg 400 feet Windsor Christian Academy Windsor 450 feet Novato Charter School Novato 530 feet Coleman Elementary School San Rafael 700 feet Hamilton Meadow Park School Novato 890 feet Penngrove Elementary Penngrove 890 feet Valley Oaks Elementary Petaluma 900 feet Windsor High School Windsor 900 feet Shady Oaks Elementary School Santa Rosa 950 feet St. John’s Catholic School Healdsburg 1,000 feet Geyersville Elementary Geyersville 1,000 feet San Antonio High School Petaluma 1,050 feet La Fiesta Elementary Rohnert Park 1,070 feet Mountain Shadows Middle School Rohnert Park 1,070 feet Hospitals Novato Community Hospital Novato 500 feet

Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit 3-62 DEIR November 2005 Chapter 3: Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures Air Quality

3.5.3 Significance Criteria

The proposed project would result in a significant impact on air quality if it would: • Exceed a pollutant emission threshold established by the BAAQMD or NSCAPCD. The BAAQMD and NSCAPCD have not developed specific thresholds for construction activities, but have developed thresholds for project operations. For ROG, NOx and PM10, the BAAQMD has an operational threshold of a net increase of 80 pounds per day and 15 tons/year. For CO, there is an initial screening threshold of an increase of 550 pounds per day. If this threshold is exceeded, the project analysis must include further evaluation of potential localized CO impacts to determine if a violation of standards might occur. The NSCAPCD operational thresholds are as follows: Carbon monoxide 100 tons/year (estimated to be 550 pounds/day) Nitrogen oxides 40 tons/year (estimated to be 220 pounds/day)

PM10 15 tons/year (estimated to be 80 pounds/day) Reactive organic gases 40 tons/year (estimated to be 220 pounds/day)

Note: While there are ambient standards for PM2.5, the BAAQMD and NSCAPCD have not developed specific thresholds for PM2.5. Since it is a subgroup within PM10, it is likely that PM2.5 emissions would not be significant if it is found that a project does not exceed PM10 thresholds. • Result in a substantial increase of greenhouse gases (measured as carbon dioxide). • Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan. • Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation (as determined by comparison of significance thresholds for ROG, NOx, and PM10, and a localized analysis for CO). • Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any non-attainment pollutant. • Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations.

In addition to looking at the change in localized pollutant concentrations (CO, PM10, and PM2.5), the potential to expose sensitive receptors to diesel PM, a toxic air contaminant, will be addressed. The BAAQMD and NSCAPCD consider a stationary source project to have a significant impact due to toxic contaminants if the probability of contracting cancer exceeds ten in one million. While not developed to analyze the risks of exposure to mobile sources of diesel PM, this criterion is being used as an indicator to determine if receptors in the vicinity of the proposed project would be exposed to substantial diesel PM concentrations and associated health risks. • Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people.

3.5.4 Impact Assessment Methodology

Construction-Related Impacts

Both the BAAQMD and NSCAPCD recommend a qualitative approach to evaluating construction-phase impacts with the emphasis placed on identifying and implementing an adequate abatement program rather than on quantification of related emissions or ambient air concentrations. The BAAQMD provides a recommended list of measures to minimize emissions during construction activities. The NSCAPCD has adopted the BAAQMD list of measures for projects under their jurisdiction. The BAAQMD/NSCAPCD does not consider construction emissions to be significant if the suggested control measures or similar ones are included in project planning.

Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit 3-63 DEIR November 2005 Chapter 3: Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures Air Quality

Regional Emissions

The analysis and evaluation of long-term air quality impacts of the proposed project are based on the traffic analysis completed for the project (see Section 3.6, Transportation). The analysis evaluated the change in traffic operations and transportation circulation in addition to passenger rail vehicle operations in the year 2025. Emissions analyses were evaluated for the proposed project corridor and have been separated by air basin. The following scenarios were evaluated within the proposed project corridor: • Existing conditions (2000)1, • 2025 No-Project, and • 2025 with the proposed project.

The impacts of the proposed project compared to existing conditions were first identified. In addition, a comparison of future (2025) air quality conditions with and without the project was done, which allows an analysis of the proposed project’s likely impacts given anticipated growth, changes in technology and fuels and changes in traffic operations and transportation circulation when the project is fully implemented. The 2025 No-Project conditions reflect development, growth and infrastructure improvements that have already been accounted for in regional planning documents. The 2025 No- Project conditions were compared to existing conditions to identify any impacts that would still occur if the proposed project were not built. Project-related impacts were then identified based on the net difference in future conditions (i.e., how the proposed project would affect future traffic patterns that already consider regional growth). Assumptions about future traffic conditions are described in detail in Section 3.6, Transportation. The 2025 With Project conditions were compared to 2025 No-Project conditions and the net differences were compared to BAAQMD and NSCAPCD significance thresholds.

Motor Vehicle Emissions

Emissions of CO, NOx, ROG, carbon dioxide (CO2), and PM10 from motor vehicles in the project area in the year 2000 and 2025 were calculated for the period of time from 5 a.m. to 8 p.m. (which is the time that trains would be in operation with implementation of the proposed project) based on VMT in the study area extrapolated from the 4-hour peak period developed by traffic models, an average motor vehicle travel speed of 30 mph2, and emission factors determined by the U.S. EPA-approved emission factor model EMFAC2002.

Diesel Multiple Units (DMUs) Emissions Air pollutant emissions from the proposed passenger rail vehicles (DMUs) were calculated by determining the fuel consumption per day, then multiplying by appropriate emission factors for both diesel and biodiesel fuels. Fuel consumption would vary, but based on the estimated number of train miles traveled (PB, 2003) and a fuel efficiency of two miles per gallon for diesel fuel (Colorado Railcar Manufacturing, LLC, 2003) and 1.96 miles per gallon for biodiesel (EPA, 2002), the amount of fuel that would be consumed per a typical day was estimated.

The diesel emission factors used are those provided by Colorado Railcar (Colorado Railcar Manufacturing, LLC, 2003). The emission factors from Colorado Railcar are in grams of emissions/brake-horsepower-hour of power. In an analysis such as this one, a more useful unit of measurement is grams of emissions per gallon of fuel consumed. The technical memo Emission Factors for Locomotives (EPA, 1997) recommends using a conversion factor of 20.8 brake-horsepower- hour/gallon of fuel, which was used in this analysis.

1 The travel demand model used in the transportation impact analysis included the latest validated and calibrated current transportation scenario, which is the year 2000. Therefore, for purposes of the air quality impact analysis, the existing conditions scenario represents the year 2000 transportation, demographic and land use conditions. 2 Traffic modeling indicated that the average motor vehicle travel speed is 28 mph, but 30 mph was used because the emission factor model only evaluates emissions based on five mile per hour increments.

Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit 3-64 DEIR November 2005 Chapter 3: Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures Air Quality

SMART is considering the use of a biodiesel fuel mixture; therefore, possible changes in air pollutant emissions from using biodiesel fuel have been analyzed. According to Colorado Railcar, no vehicle modifications are required to operate their DMUs using biodiesel blends of 20 percent or less (i.e., a fuel mix with 20 percent or less biodiesel mixed with 80 percent or more petroleum diesel). Documented experience in using biodiesel in rail vehicles, particularly DMUs, is limited. In 2002 the U.S. EPA released a draft technical report that quantifies the effects of various blends of biodiesel. While the data are from heavy-duty highway engines, the emissions effects reported in the study give an indication of what might be expected with biodiesel use in DMUs. Emissions factors from the EPA report for biodiesel blends of 20 percent were used in the air quality calculations for biodiesel fuels.

Estimates of CO2 were made using an emission factor of 0.0788 tons of CO2 per 1 million British Thermal Units (BTUs) consumed, as recommended in the FTA Reporting Instructions for the Section 5309 New Starts Criteria (FTA, 2005).

Localized Impact Analysis

Some pollutants, such as CO and particulate matter, are localized in nature. Their concentrations decrease substantially as the distance from the source of the pollutants increases. Therefore, “hot spots” of pollutant concentrations can occur near the source and have the potential to violate air quality standards. The following localized emissions were evaluated.

Carbon Monoxide As previously stated, CO emissions are mainly a function of mobile sources. A CO analysis was conducted following guidance provided in the Transportation Project-Level Carbon Monoxide Protocol (the Protocol) developed by Caltrans and the Institute of Transportation Studies at the University of California, Davis (December 1997) to assess the impacts from congestion near project related park-and- ride lots and train stations on local CO levels.

Since most of California is in attainment for CO, the Protocol was developed to provide procedures for evaluating potential impacts without having to do dispersion modeling in most cases. It also provides a consistent set of project analysis procedures to be used throughout the state. This Protocol has been approved by EPA Region 9, MTC and other metropolitan planning organizations in California, and local air districts within California for use in air quality analyses. This Protocol was developed primarily for meeting federal conformity requirements, but can also be used to meet National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requirements.

The traffic analysis, and thus this analysis, concentrated on 14 key access roads that would serve the proposed rail stations (See Table 3.6-4 in Section 3.6, Transportation). In addition, seventeen intersections in the vicinity of the San Rafael station were evaluated (See Table 3.6-10 in Section 3.6, Transportation). There were other downtown and urban locations considered such as Santa Rosa and Petaluma, but downtown San Rafael was selected because it provides a worst-case scenario due to its existing geometrics, operations, freeway off-ramp characteristics of Hetherton Avenue, and high traffic demands.

The Protocol includes three potential tests: a qualitative analysis based on decision flowcharts, a quantitative screening analysis and potentially a dispersion modeling analysis. The goal of the qualitative analysis is to show that information that would be used in a CO modeling analysis would not be substantial enough to cause violations of standards without actually running a dispersion model. If results from the first test are not conclusive, then the next test is conducted.

One of the first steps is to determine if the project is likely to worsen air quality compared to a No-Project condition for the same analysis year. This is determined by answering the following questions: • Does the project substantially increase (greater than two percent) the number of vehicles operating in cold start mode (starting a vehicle with a cold engine)?

Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit 3-65 DEIR November 2005 Chapter 3: Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures Air Quality

• Does the project substantially increase traffic volumes (i.e., increases greater than five percent)? • Does the project worsen traffic flow (i.e., any reduction in average travel speed for uninterrupted roadways that operate at speeds lower than 50 mph or increase in average delay for intersections)?

If the answer is yes to at least one of the questions above, further analysis is required to determine if the proposed project impacts signalized intersections that would operate at level of service (LOS) E or F under a future No-Project condition or leads to the worsening of LOS to E or F for a signalized intersection when the proposed project is implemented. Intersections with LOS E or F are of the most concern because they represent the highest potential for a CO standard violation.

If the project impacts signalized intersections, it must be determined if the impacts would likely result in CO concentrations that exceed ambient air quality standards. The Protocol requires that the initial step for doing this is to determine if the project could result in higher CO concentrations than those that currently exist in an attainment/maintenance area. Since both the Bay Area and North Coast air basins currently meet ambient CO standards, no transportation facility operating within them creates a CO violation. The assumption is that if a current intersection in an attainment area were modeled, the results would show concentrations less than ambient standards. If it is determined that a project-affected intersection is no worse than an existing intersection, the proposed project is considered acceptable (i.e., would not violate any CO standard or contribute substantially to any existing or projected CO standard) and no further analysis is needed.

This determination is done by comparing project-affected intersections operating at LOS E or F to an existing intersection in the air basin that represents a location of possible high CO concentrations and is also similar in geometric configuration, climate and CO background levels. The items evaluated in the comparison include: receptor locations, roadway geometry, traffic volumes, meteorology, percentage of motor vehicles in cold start mode, percentage of heavy duty trucks, average delay and queue length, and CO background concentrations. The project-affected intersection must be the same or better than the comparison intersection for each of the items listed in order to pass the comparative test.

Diesel Particulate Matter Since there are health risks associated with long-term exposure to diesel exhaust, the possible impacts from operation of passenger rail and associated shuttle buses were evaluated in relation to cancer risk. In this assessment, the use of catalyzed diesel particulate filters was included as they are part of the proposed project as an environmental compliance measure.

Both the BAAQMD and NSCAPCD have a significance threshold of 10 excess cancer cases per a million people for stationary sources of diesel particulate matter. It should be noted that the use of a standard developed for stationary sources of diesel PM results in a very conservative worst-case analysis, since exposure to mobile sources would be much shorter in duration. The significance threshold was developed based on the assumption that a person would be exposed continually over a 70-year lifetime. An example of this kind of scenario would be a residence near the border of a chemical manufacturing facility that is in operation for numerous hours every day.

A screening health risk assessment was conducted for four scenarios (one train pass by and idling at three stations) that represent the variety of exposure expected during operation of the proposed project. One scenario is exposure to residents that live near the rail tracks. While they would be exposed to diesel exhaust for a very short period of time as a train passes by (approximately 3-6 seconds), their homes may be as close to the rail tracks as 30 feet.

Higher exposures are expected in locations where trains may be idling. This would occur predominantly at the proposed train stations and the maintenance facility. The maintenance facility was not addressed as part of the screening level assessment because sensitive receptors are not located in the vicinity of either of the two proposed alternative locations. There are two types of train idling that are expected to occur. Idling associated with regular passenger stops would be approximately 30 seconds. In some locations, there would be train layovers as long as 1.5 hours. SMART’s proposed operating procedure

Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit 3-66 DEIR November 2005 Chapter 3: Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures Air Quality would only allow up to 15 minutes of idling during these layovers; after 15 minutes, train engines would be switched off.

While train idling at the Windsor station would primarily be limited to passenger stops, the train operations at this station were evaluated because there are residences as close as 75 feet. The Larkspur station was evaluated because it would have the greatest amount of train layovers (12). In addition, this station analysis also included idling from shuttle buses that would be in operation at seven stations from Larkspur to Corona Road in Petaluma. It is assumed that the shuttle buses would be idling at the train station for no more than three minutes as the shuttle buses would have operating schedules timed with the arrival of trains. Because there are no residences within 360 feet of the Larkspur station, another scenario was evaluated at the Healdsburg station. While this station has approximately two- thirds less train layovers compared to the Larkspur station, it has residences as close as 145 feet.

The SCREEN3 program was used to estimate hourly concentrations of diesel PM in µg/m3. This model was developed by EPA to provide an easy to use method of obtaining pollutant concentrations. This model is very conservative in nature and uses default dispersion and weather information. As such, the resulting concentrations are most likely overstated.

The model results were then converted to an annual average concentration by applying a factor of 0.08 as recommended by EPA (EPA, 1992). This factor is based on EPA’s general experience with stationary sources. The factor is only intended as a rough guide for estimating annual average concentrations. A degree of conservatism is incorporated in the factor to provide reasonable assurance that the annual average concentration will not be underestimated.

Potential cancer risk is then calculated by multiplying the annual average concentration by a unit risk factor for diesel PM. The Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment estimated that, based on available studies, the potential cancer risk from 70 years of exposure to a diesel PM concentration of 1 µg/m3 ranged from 130 to 2,400 excess cancer cases per a population of 1 million people. After reviewing this information, CARB recommends using a unit risk factor of 300 excess cancer cases per one million people exposed to 1 µg/m3 of diesel PM (CARB, 2000) in health risk assessment calculations.

3.5.5 Impact Summary

The proposed project would generate dust and other criteria air pollutant emissions during construction. These emissions are expected to be less than significant because standard dust and equipment exhaust control measures will be incorporated into the project.

Implementation of the proposed project overall would benefit air quality as levels of most criteria pollutants and greenhouse gases are reduced. Emissions from motor vehicle traffic are reduced in the study area with implementation of the proposed project by about 0.8 percent compared to the 2025 No- Project condition. This would occur as some members of the public reduce their motor vehicle trips and take the train. Operating the proposed passenger trains will generate some new pollutant emissions as diesel fuel is consumed to operate the trains, and diesel fuel emits more NOx than gasoline-powered motor vehicles as well as diesel particulate matter. However, SMART proposes implementing advanced emission control technology (described below) as part of the proposed project, which would substantially reduce the amount of NOx and diesel particulate matter generated by trains. With the implementation of this environmental compliance measure, emissions from the trains would be offset by the reduction in pollutant emissions that result from a decrease in motor vehicle usage.

The EPA is currently considering new emission standards that could achieve large reductions in NOx and particulate matter emissions from locomotives through the use of advanced emission control technology (catalyzed diesel particulate filters, selective catalytic reduction systems and NOx adsorbers) (Federal Register, 2004). These standards will be based on the application of high-efficiency catalytic after treatments and low sulfur fuel. It is expected that a final rule would be adopted in 2006 with implementation as early as 2011. EPA estimates that NOx and particulate matter emissions could be

Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit 3-67 DEIR November 2005 Chapter 3: Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures Air Quality reduced by 90 percent using the advanced emission control technology they are considering. The technology currently being considered could be used with both diesel and biodiesel fuels.

Whether or not the new EPA standards are in place at the time of project implementation, SMART proposes to implement EPA’s recommended emission control technologies or similar measures to reduce NOx emissions and particulate matter as part of the proposed project.

The use of biodiesel fuel instead of traditional diesel would result in a relatively small change in the amount of pollutants generated by the project. The biggest benefit would be the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions.

The proposed project would not violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation. It would also not conflict with any applicable air quality plan or cause considerable cumulative impacts.

The proposed project would not expose sensitive receptors to a significant amount of additional diesel PM emissions. Results of a screening health risk assessment indicate that the proposed project would cause less than two excess cancer cases out of a population of one million at any one location, well below the ten excess cancer cases considered significant by the BAAQMD and NSCAPCD.

The proposed project would result in a temporary increase in diesel fuel odors during the period of time that a train passes by. This increase would not be considered significant because the emission source is mobile. The diesel odor emitted would quickly dissipate and would not be a constant source of odor. In addition, the BAAQMD has developed a list of the types of facilities known to emit objectionable odors. A passenger rail facility like the proposed project is not on the list. Therefore, it is anticipated that diesel exhaust generated during construction and operation of the proposed project would not create significant odor emissions.

3.5.6 Impacts and Mitigation Measures

Construction-Related Impacts

Impact AQ-1: The proposed project would generate dust and other criteria air pollutant emissions during construction. (Less than significant)

The major emission sources during construction are emissions from diesel-fueled construction equipment, dust generated by mechanical disturbance and wind blown dust from exposed soil. The air pollutant generated in the largest quantity is particulate matter (both PM10 and PM2.5). It is a component of both construction dust and equipment exhaust, and is the primary air pollutant of concern during construction. In addition, ozone precursors (NOx and ROG) are air pollutants of concern because a portion of the project is within the Bay Area Air Basin, which has difficulty maintaining ozone standards.

Dust emissions vary substantially from day-to-day, depending on the level of activity, the specific type of construction operations and the prevailing weather. Pollutant emissions from construction equipment engine exhaust also depend on the level of activity. The impacts from construction activities on nearby residences and other areas where the public has access would depend on the proximity of construction work to these areas. The highest pollutant levels are typically within 200 feet of the construction activity. Since the location of construction will change, some members of the public may experience occasional annoyances when construction activities are closest to them. Standard dust and equipment exhaust control measures have been incorporated into the project and would be implemented during construction to minimize the generation of air pollutant emissions. These measures are described in Chapter 2, Project Description, Section 2.9 (Environmental Compliance Measures). The application of these construction-specific control measures would eliminate many potential annoyances and ensure that this impact is less than significant.

Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit 3-68 DEIR November 2005 Chapter 3: Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures Air Quality

Long-Term Impacts

Impact AQ-2: The proposed project would not exceed any pollutant emission threshold established by the BAAQMD or NSCAPCD. (Less than significant)

Compared to existing conditions, the proposed project would generate less than significant amounts of CO, ROG, NOx, and PM10. Operation of the passenger trains would generate some new pollutant emissions as diesel fuel is consumed to operate the trains. However, with the use of low sulfur fuels and implementation of emissions control technology proposed as environmental compliance measures for the project, NOx and PM10 increases would be greatly reduced and well below the applicable significance thresholds. In addition, further reductions in pollutant emissions would be achieved as a result of a slight decrease in motor vehicle usage as some members of the public reduce their vehicle usage and take the train.

Tables 3.5-5 and 3.5-6 present the estimated total emissions in pounds per day within each air basin from motor vehicles for 2000 (existing conditions) and 2025 No-Project, and from motor vehicles and DMUs for 2025 with Project. Further details regarding the calculations are in Appendix B of the Air Quality Technical Report (Parsons Brinckerhoff, 2005) prepared for this project.

It should be noted that 2025 No-Project emissions for CO, ROG and NOx are less than in 2000 (existing conditions) primarily because the emission factor model assumes that between 2000 and 2025 older motor vehicles will be replaced with cleaner vehicles and approved emission reduction programs will be implemented. These assumptions have less impact on PM10 emission factors of vehicles because vehicles emit PM10 in more ways than just from exhaust; there is also tire wear, brake wear and re- entrained dust from the motor vehicle traveling over dusty roads. Thus, with PM10 emissions from vehicles, the change in VMT is a more critical factor and VMT is expected to increase with population growth in the proposed project study area between 2000 and 2025.

The difference in emissions generated by motor vehicles in the region and DMU operations compared to the 2025 No-Project condition is summarized in Table 3.5-7 for the Bay Area Air Basin and Table 3.5-8 for the North Coast Air Basin. The implementation of the proposed project would not exceed any significance thresholds set by the BAAQMD or NSCAPCD. As seen in Tables 3.5-7 and 3.5-8, emissions from motor vehicle traffic would be reduced in the study area with implementation of the proposed project by about 0.8 percent compared to the 2025 No-Project condition. As mentioned above, this would occur as some members of the public reduce their motor vehicle trips and take the train. Thus, any pollutant increases resulting from DMU operation would be more than offset by a reduction in the amount of emissions from motor vehicles. For example, as shown in Table 3.5-7, the reduction in motor vehicle use would decrease NOx emissions in the Bay Area Air Basin by 33 pounds per day, while the passenger trains would generate only 12 pounds per day with implementation of the proposed environmental compliance measures.

The use of biodiesel 20 percent fuel does not have a substantial effect on criteria pollutants as shown in Tables 3.5-7 and 3.5-8 as compared to use of petroleum diesel. While biodiesel 20 percent does burn slightly cleaner for most pollutants, it is not as fuel efficient. Therefore, more fuel is needed to travel the same distance compared to diesel fuel. The result is that the change in pollutant emissions is small. It is expected that ROG and PM10 emissions would be about the same as for diesel fuel. CO would decrease by about two pounds per day and NOx would increase by about 4-5 pounds per day. However, as with conventional diesel fuel, implementation of the environmental compliance measures would substantially reduce NOx emissions (104 and 19 pounds per air basin, respectively).

Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit 3-69 DEIR November 2005 Chapter 3: Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures Air Quality

TABLE 3.5-5 AIR POLLUTANT EMISSIONS FROM STUDY AREA MOTOR VEHICLE TRAFFIC AND DMUS WITHIN THE BAY AREA AIR BASIN (IN POUNDS/DAY)

2000 (Existing Conditions) 2025 No-Project 2025 with Project

Activity CO ROG NOx PM10 CO ROG NOx PM10 CO ROG NOx PM10 Motor Vehicle 171,081 9,754 27,686 6,166 27,469 1,377 3,951 7,394 27,239 1,365 3,918 7,332 Traffic DMUs 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 19 3 110/11* 2 Total 171,081 9,754 27,686 6,166 27,469 1,377 3,951 7,394 277,258 1,368 4,028/3,929* 7,334

TABLE 3.5-6 AIR POLLUTANT EMISSIONS FROM STUDY AREA MOTOR VEHICLE TRAFFIC AND DMUS WITHIN THE NORTH COAST AIR BASIN (IN POUNDS/DAY)

2000 (Existing Conditions) 2025 No-Project 2025 with Project

Activity CO ROG NOx PM10 CO ROG NOx PM10 CO ROG NOx PM10 Motor Vehicle 57,027 3,251 9,229 2,055 9,156 459 1,317 2,465 9,080 455 1,306 2,444 Traffic DMUs 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 1 21/2* 0 Total 57,027 3,251 9,229 2,055 9,156 459 1,317 2,465 9,083 456 1,327/1,308* 2,444

Note: * The first number indicates the amount of NOx emissions that would be generated by the proposed project if no efforts were taken to control emissions. The second number indicates the amount of NOx emissions if control technologies such as NOx adsorbers are used on the DMUs.

Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit 3-70 DEIR November 2005 Chapter 3: Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures Air Quality

TABLE 3.5-7 NET DIFFERENCE IN AIR POLLUTANT EMISSIONS IN THE BAY AREA AIR BASIN (BASED ON A COMPARISION OF 2025 WITH PROJECT AND 2025 NO-PROJECT) (IN POUNDS/DAY)

Proposed Project – Passenger Proposed Project - Passenger Rail Rail (Diesel) (Biodiesel 20%)

Activity CO ROG NOx PM10 CO ROG NOx PM10 Study Area Motor Vehicle -230 -12 -33 -62 -230 -12 -33 -62 Traffic DMUs 19 3 110/11* 2 17 3 115/12* 2 Total -211 -9 77/-22* -60 -213 -9 82/-21* -60

Significance 550 80 80 80 550 80 80 80 Threshold

Note: * The first number indicates the amount of NOx emissions that would be generated by the proposed project if no efforts were taken to control emissions. The second number indicates the amount of NOx emissions if control technologies such as NOx adsorbers are used on the DMUs.

TABLE 3.5-8 NET DIFFERENCE IN AIR POLLUTANT EMISSIONS IN THE NORTH COAST AIR BASIN (BASED ON A COMPARISION OF 2025 WITH PROJECT AND 2025 NO-PROJECT) (IN POUNDS/DAY)

Proposed Project – Passenger Proposed Project - Passenger Rail Rail (Diesel) (Biodiesel 20%)

Activity CO ROG NOx PM10 CO ROG NOx PM10 Study Area Motor -77 -4 -11 -21 -77 -4 -11 -21 Vehicle Traffic DMUs 3 1 21/2* 0.3 3 1 21/2* 0.3 Total -74 -3 10/-9* -21 -74 -3 10/-9* -21 Significance 550 220 220 80 550 220 220 80 Threshold

Note: * The first number indicates the amount of NOx emissions that would be generated by the proposed project if no efforts were taken to control emissions. The second number indicates the amount of NOx emissions if control technologies such as NOx adsorbers are used on the DMUs.

Impact AQ-3: The proposed project would result in a decrease of greenhouse gases. (Beneficial)

Greenhouse gases absorb infrared radiation and trap the heat in the atmosphere thereby contributing to global warming. Greenhouse gases include CO2, methane and nitrous oxide. Some of the gases occur naturally, while others are exclusively human-made. The majority of human-made gases are from burning fossil fuels. Since 83 percent of the total amount of greenhouse gases is CO2 (Energy Information Administration, 2004), changes to CO2 emissions from the project were used as an indicator of impacts from all greenhouse gases.

CO2 emissions are presented in Table 3.5-9 and 3.5-10 for the Bay Area Air Basin and the North Coast Air Basin, respectively. CO2 emissions are expected to increase between 2000 and 2025 due to an increase in VMT. While motor vehicles are expected to be less polluting in the future, this improvement is not enough to offset the projected increase in VMT.

Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit 3-71 DEIR November 2005 Chapter 3: Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures Air Quality

Typically diesel-fueled engines emit less greenhouse gases than gasoline-fueled engines. This, in addition to a reduction in the amount of motor vehicle use in the study area, results in the proposed project reducing CO2 emissions compared to the 2025 No-Project condition by about 0.8 percent. This is equivalent to a reduction of approximately 79,000 pounds per day of CO2 in the Bay Area Air Basin and 26,000 pounds per day in the North Coast Air Basin.

There is no measurable difference between biodiesel and conventional diesel in terms of CO2 emissions from engine exhaust (EPA, 2002). However, biodiesel does reduce the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere compared to petroleum diesel, due to the fact that biodiesel-producing soybeans (or other vegetables) absorb CO2 as they grow. Thus, although burning biodiesel fuels releases CO2 into the atmosphere, the use of biodiesel fuels results in a net reduction in CO2 compared to the use of fossil fuels. TABLE 3.5-9 CARBON DIOXIDE EMISSIONS FROM STUDY AREA MOTOR VEHICLE TRAFFIC AND DMUS WITHIN THE BAY AREA AIR BASIN (IN POUNDS/DAY)

2000 (Existing Conditions) 2025 No-Project 2025 with Project Motor Vehicle 7,870,981 9,402,860 9,324,150 Traffic DMUs 0 0 68 Total 7,870,981 9,402,860 9,324,218

TABLE 3.5-10 CARBON DIOXIDE EMISSIONS FROM STUDY AREA MOTOR VEHICLE TRAFFIC AND DMUS WITHIN THE NORTH COAST AIR BASIN (IN POUNDS/DAY)

2000 (Existing 2025 with Conditions) 2025 No-Project Project Motor Vehicle 2,623,660 3,134,287 3,108,050 Traffic DMUs 0 0 12 Total 2,623,660 3,134,287 3,108,062

Impact AQ-4: The proposed project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of any applicable air quality plans. (Less than significant)

Since the proposed project does not exceed any significance thresholds, its impacts on criteria pollutants are considered less than significant and as such would not interfere with any applicable air quality plans.

Impact AQ-5: The proposed project would not violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation. (Less than significant)

Ozone. The proposed project would not violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to any possible ozone standard violation that may occur in the region. Implementation of new locomotive standards proposed by EPA to be enacted in 2011 or implementation of similar actions as project environmental compliance measures would substantially reduce the amount of NOx generated by the project DMUs. The small amount of emissions from the DMUs for both ozone precursors (NOx and ROG) would be more than offset by the reduction in vehicle emissions as a result of fewer vehicles on the road, as shown in Tables 3.5-7 and 3.5-8. Therefore, the proposed project would not contribute to ozone production.

Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit 3-72 DEIR November 2005 Chapter 3: Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures Air Quality

PM. The proposed project would reduce overall PM10 emissions (and consequently PM2.5 emissions), but would generate a relatively small amount of additional diesel PM (two pounds per day in the Bay Area Air Basin and less than a pound in the North Coast Air Basin without control measures) (see Impact AQ-6 for discussion of diesel PM and associated effects). Despite the increase in diesel PM, it is unlikely that these emissions would contribute substantially to an existing violation or cause a violation of a PM10 or PM2.5 standard along the railroad tracks or near the proposed stations as emissions would be generated as the train travels through the project area and not concentrated in any one area for an extended period of time. There is no air quality standard just for diesel PM.

Localized CO. Review of the 14 access roads to the proposed rail stations as part of the localized CO analysis indicates that none of the access roads and their intersections would have traffic volume increases of greater than five percent in 2025 compared to the No-Project condition. LOS levels would also not worsen substantially. Therefore, it is unlikely that CO violations would occur at these locations.

Of the 17 intersections evaluated as part of a more detailed analysis in downtown San Rafael (see Section 3.6, Transportation), only one (Mission Avenue and Irwin Street) is expected to operate at LOS E or worse in 2025. It is estimated that in 2025 this intersection will operate at LOS F during both the a.m. and p.m. peak hours. Implementation of the proposed project does not substantially increase traffic volumes at this intersection (increases of 0.4 and 0.2 percent for a.m. and p.m., respectively) nor does it worsen the LOS. However, the small increase in traffic volumes due to the proposed project does increase average intersection delay by two seconds in the a.m. peak hour and four seconds in the p.m. peak hour compared to a No-Build scenario at this intersection. Thus, the project worsens traffic flow and fails one of the initial criteria for determining if the project may worsen air quality per the procedures in the Transportation Project-Level Carbon Monoxide Protocol (see Section 3.5.4, Impact Assessment Methodology for more details regarding the tests applied to the project).

As required by the Protocol, a comparative analysis was conducted by comparing the Mission Avenue and Irwin Street intersection in San Rafael to another intersection in the region (the intersection of Route 116 and Route 12 in Sebastopol). This comparison was conducted to determine the likelihood that the affected intersection would have CO concentrations higher than ambient CO standards. Additional details regarding this comparison are in the Air Quality Technical Report (Parsons Brinckerhoff, 2005) prepared for this project. The Route 116/Route 12 intersection was chosen because it is similar in geometry, climate, CO background levels, and existing peak hour traffic counts were readily available from the Traffic and Vehicle Data Systems Unit portion of Caltrans’ website. The results of the comparative analysis indicate that localized CO impacts at the Mission/Irwin intersection would not be significant because the proposed project passes the comparative intersection test outlined in the Protocol. The Mission/Irwin intersection was found to be the same as the Route 116/Route 12 intersection for roadway geometry, meteorology, average delay and queuing, and background CO concentrations. Receptor locations near the Mission/Irwin intersection are slightly further away from the roadway compared to the Route 116/Route 12 intersection, which would lead to lower concentrations. Traffic volumes, cold-start percentage and heavy duty truck percentage are also expected to be lower at the Mission/Irwin intersection.

Evaluation of the access road and intersections in accordance with the Transportation Project-Level Carbon Monoxide Protocol indicate that the proposed project would not violate any CO standard or contribute substantially to any existing or projected CO standard violation.

Impact AQ-6: The proposed project would expose sensitive receptors to some additional pollutant concentrations. (Less than significant)

There are numerous residences and eight parks directly adjacent to the railroad tracks. In addition, there are 15 more parks, 16 schools and one hospital within ¼ mile of the proposed project, but outside the likely area of influence of the proposed rail stations, where trains would be idling for a few minutes.

It is unlikely that emissions of localized pollutants (CO, PM10 and PM2.5) would lead to substantial pollutant concentrations at these locations. The localized CO analysis discussed in Impact AQ-5 found

Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit 3-73 DEIR November 2005 Chapter 3: Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures Air Quality that the proposed project would not cause or contribute to CO standard violations. Operation of the DMUs would emit additional PM emissions (both PM10 and PM2.5) along the rail tracks. These emissions would be generated throughout the project area and not concentrated in any one area for an extended period of time, so it is highly unlikely that any sensitive receptors would be exposed to substantial additional PM concentrations.

Due to the possible health risks from diesel PM, however, a screening health risk assessment was conducted. See Section 3.5.4, Impact Assessment Methodology for details regarding how the assessment was conducted. Results of this assessment (predicted annual average diesel PM concentrations and associated cancer risk) are shown in Table 3.5-11 for the four scenarios evaluated (exposure near the rail tracks and exposure near three proposed train stations). If the BAAQMD and NSCAPCD stationary source significance threshold of 10 excess cancer cases per one million people is applied, results of the screening health risk assessment indicate that the proposed project could not cause a significant cancer risk when environmental compliance measures, such as the use of catalyzed diesel particulate filters and limiting idling to 15 minutes during train layover, are included in the proposed project. Concentrations and risk were calculated for the nearest residence in each scenario. There are no schools closer to the proposed stations than the closest residence, so there would also not be any significant impact to schools in the project area. There are three parks (Jack Cavanaugh Park, Roberts Lake Park and the Santa Rosa Railroad Park) adjacent to proposed stations, but members of the public would not be there every day over a 70-year period, as assumed by the health risk assessment guidelines, which were developed for stationary sources. Therefore, the health risk at these locations would be even lower than at the locations included in the health risk assessment, and the impacts would be less than significant.

TABLE 3.5-11 PROPOSED PROJECT DIESEL PM CONCENTRATIONS AND CANCER RISK Annual Average Diesel PM Location/Modeling Concentration Number of Excess Cancer Scenario (µg/m3) Cases per Million People Train Idling at a Station Scenario Closest residence to any rail station, 75 feet from the 0.005 1.5 Windsor station Most Idling (trains and shuttle buses), Larkspur 0.002 0.5 station, closest residence 360 feet from the station Healdsburg station, closest 0.003 0.8 residence 145 feet Train Traveling Scenario 30 feet from the rail tracks 0.002 0.6 Source: Parsons Brinckerhoff Quade & Douglas, Inc., 2005.

Impact AQ-7: The proposed project would not result in a cumulatively considerable net increase in pollutant emissions. (Less than significant)

Generally, if a project results in an increase of a pollutant above a significance threshold, then it would also be considered to contribute substantially to the significant cumulative effect. The proposed project does not exceed BAAQMD and NSCAPCD significance thresholds for criteria pollutants.

Project emissions of criteria pollutants that do not exceed thresholds could be cumulatively considerable when compounded with other cumulative emissions. However, in the case of the proposed project, all planned development and growth has been included in the assumptions used to generate the traffic data

Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit 3-74 DEIR November 2005 Chapter 3: Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures Air Quality for the proposed project. Consequently, cumulative development is implicitly included in the air quality analysis because it made direct use of traffic volume data and assessed air emissions based on cumulative future traffic conditions.

The proposed project does emit new emissions of diesel PM related to operation of the DMUs. While these new emissions would not lead to violations of PM10 and PM2.5 ambient standards, the proposed project is expected to result in higher diesel PM concentrations near the proposed stations and rail tracks. However, cumulative impacts due to diesel PM are not expected to be an issue as numerous regulations that will dramatically decrease diesel PM emissions have been passed or are anticipated to be passed in the near future. The EPA’s Clean Diesel Trucks and Buses Rule and CARB’s efforts to reduce diesel PM emissions from a variety of sources should substantially reduce diesel PM levels by the time the proposed project is implemented. The goal of CARB is to reduce diesel PM emissions and associated cancer risk by 75 percent by 2010 and 85 percent by 2020. The EPA also plans to have new standards in place for locomotives and marine vessels by 2011 that would reduce diesel emissions from these sources by approximately 90 percent. Since the proposed project already includes the restriction that the best available emission control technologies be used on the DMUs, the proposed project would be consistent with the EPA’s and CARB goals, and the project would not make a cumulatively considerable contribution to cumulative diesel PM emissions.

Impact AQ-8: The proposed project would not create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people. (Less than significant)

The proposed project would result in a temporary increase in diesel fuel odors during the period of time that a train passes by. Biodiesel fuel may have slightly more odor than conventional diesel. Any increase in odor would not be considered significant because the emission source is mobile. The diesel odor emitted would quickly dissipate and would not be a constant source of odor.

In addition, the BAAQMD has developed a list of facilities known to emit objectionable odors. A project like the proposed project is not on the list. Therefore, it is anticipated that diesel exhaust generated during construction and operation of the proposed project would not create significant odor emissions.

Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit 3-75 DEIR November 2005 Chapter 3: Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures Transportation

3.6 TRANSPORTATION

This section describes the existing transportation and circulation conditions in the corridor study area and identifies potential traffic, transit, circulation, pedestrian, bicycle and parking impacts of the proposed project. Supplemental data is provided in Appendix I, Travel Demand Forecasting Report (Parsons Brinckerhoff, 2005).

3.6.1 Regulatory Setting

The proposed project falls under the following regulatory planning documents: the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP), the Marin County Congestion Management Program (CMP), the Marin County and Sonoma County transportation plans, and city/town General Plans. These plans have been developed in compliance with CEQA, the State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP), and the Regional Transportation Improvement Program (RTIP).

Metropolitan Transportation Commission Regional Transportation Plan (RTP)

The Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) is the transportation planning authority for the nine county San Francisco Bay Area. The MTC serves as the state designated regional transportation planning agency and the federally designated metropolitan planning organization (MPO). MTC provides oversight on all transportation projects in the region and is responsible for preparing the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP). The current RTP, Transportation 2030, was finalized in February 2005 and updates the previous 2001 RTP. The 2030 Plan sets forth regional transportation policy and provides capital program planning for all regional, state and federally funded projects. In addition, the 2030 Plan provides strategic investment recommendations to improve regional transportation system performance over the next 25 years. Investments in regional highway, transit, local roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian projects are set forth in the 2030 Plan. These projects have been identified through regional and local transportation planning processes. Project recommendations are premised upon factors related to existing infrastructure maintenance, increased transportation system efficiencies, improved traffic and transit operations, and strategic expansions of the regional transportation system.

The 2030 Plan includes programs and projects which provide or contribute to a safe and well maintained transportation system, a reliable commute, access to mobility, livable communities, clean air, and efficient freight travel. A key element of the Transportation 2030 Plan is the coordination of land use and transportation planning, both at a regional and local level. Further, this plan element calls for an emphasis on “smart growth” development patterns via infill development in existing urban and suburban areas adjacent to accessible multimodal transportation options.

The Transportation 2030 plan prepared by MTC also recommends that existing transportation infrastructure be utilized efficiently while new investment is coordinated regionally. This includes new public transit service supporting existing transit centers and densification of development around existing transit infrastructure. In the current 2030 Plan’s list of regional/multi-county projects, the proposed SMART passenger rail project is identified as a Strategic Expansion project.

Level of Service Criteria

The Marin County CMP and local General Plans include level of service (LOS) standards for roadways and/or intersections located within the proposed project corridor. LOS is a qualitative measure of the effect of several factors, including speed and travel time, traffic interruptions, freedom to maneuver, safety, and driving comfort and convenience. Levels of service are designated by grades of “A” (optimal) through “F” (worst) representing traffic conditions that are experienced by motorists or traffic conditions that might occur. See Table 3.6-1 for LOS descriptions and corresponding volume-to-capacity (V/C)

Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit 3-76 DEIR November 2005 Chapter 3: Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures Transportation ratios for roadway segments. The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) endeavors to maintain a target LOS on state highways at the transition between LOS C and D where feasible.1

TABLE 3.6-1 LEVEL OF SERVICE CRITERIA FOR ROADWAY SEGMENTS Volume-to- Level of Capacity Service Range Description

0.00-0.60 Low volumes: primarily free-flow operations. Vehicle density is very low and A drivers can freely maneuver within the traffic stream. Drivers can maintain their desired speeds with little or no delay.

0.61-0.70 Stable flow with potential for some restriction of operating speeds due to traffic B conditions. Maneuvering is only slightly restricted and travel delays very small with vehicle density remaining low.

Stable operations; however, the ability to maneuver is more restricted by the 0.71 - 0.80 increase in traffic volumes. Relatively satisfactory operating speeds prevail, C but adverse roadway conditions or demand increases result in some travel delay.

Approaching unstable traffic flow, where small increases in volume could 0.81 - 0.90 cause noticeable travel delays. Most drivers are restricted in their ability to D maneuver and in their selection of travel speeds. Comfort and convenience are low but tolerable.

0.91 - 0.99 Operations characterized by significant travel delays and average travel E speeds substantially below the free-flow speeds. Traffic continues to move but at slow speeds with some intermittent stoppage.

Varies (≥1.00) Forced flow operations with long delays at critical areas such as roadway F bottlenecks or merging/diverging sections. Speeds are reduced substantially to stop and go speeds with vehicle queues forming. Source: Highway Capacity Manual Special Report 209, Transportation Research Board, 2000. Note: Volume-to-Capacity ratio represents the average traffic volume divided by the theoretical roadway capacity.

Table 3.6-2 summarizes the LOS descriptions for signalized intersections, based on the Transportation Research Board’s Special Report 209, Highway Capacity Manual, 2000, a standard accepted by Caltrans. The Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) methodology calculates the average delay per vehicle at an intersection and assigns a level of service designation based upon the delay. The average delay is calculated based on the usable roadway capacities, traffic demands for each intersection movement, available green time and red time for each movement, and other factors such as pedestrian activity (walk times).

1 "Guide for the Preparation of Traffic Impact Studies," California Department of Transportation, December 2002, page 1 and Appendix C-3.

Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit 3-77 DEIR November 2005 Chapter 3: Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures Transportation

TABLE 3.6-2 LEVEL OF SERVICE CRITERIA FOR SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS Level of Control Delay Service Per Vehicle (LOS) (seconds) Description

Very low control delay. Occurs when progression is extremely favorable and A < 10.0 most vehicles arrive during the green phase. Most vehicles do not stop at all. Short cycle lengths may also contribute to low delay.

> 10.0 and Generally occurs with good progression, short cycle lengths, or both. More B < 20.0 vehicles stop than with LOS “A,” causing higher levels of average delay.

These higher delays may result from fair progression, longer cycle lengths, or > 20.0 and both. Individual cycle failures1 may begin to appear at this level. The number of C < 35.0 vehicles stopping is significant at this level, though many still pass through the intersection without stopping.

The influence of congestion becomes more noticeable. Longer delays may > 35.0 and result from some combination of unfavorable progression, long cycle lengths or D < 55.0 high v/c ratios. Many vehicles stop, and the proportion of vehicles not stopping declines. Individual cycle failures are noticeable.

> 55.0 and These high delay values generally indicate poor progression, long cycle lengths E < 80.0 and high v/c ratios. Individual cycle failures are frequent occurrences.

This level, considered to be unacceptable to most drivers, often occurs with over saturation, that is, when arrival flow rates exceed the capacity of the intersection. F > 80.0 It may also occur at high v/c ratios below 1.0 with many individual cycle failures. Poor progression and long cycle lengths may also be major contributing causes to such delay levels.

Source: Highway Capacity Manual Special Report 209, Transportation Research Board, 2000. 1 Cycle failure occurs when a given green phase does not serve queued vehicles, and overflow occurs.

Marin County Transportation Planning

The Marin County transportation plan, entitled Moving Forward: A 25-Year Transportation Vision for Marin County, (Transportation Vision Plan) was completed in February 2003 by the Marin County Congestion Management Agency (CMA), in collaboration with the Marin County Board of Supervisors, Marin County Transit and local citizens. As a blueprint for the County’s transportation future, the Transportation Vision Plan calls for enhanced local bus transit, more pedestrian and bike options, improved local streets and interchanges, the SMART passenger rail project, increased express bus and ferry service, transit centers as important multimodal hubs, and completion of the Highway 101 High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) lanes.

The project corridor falls entirely within the “U.S. 101 Corridor” sub-area of the Transportation Vision Plan. For this corridor, the Plan calls for a variety of improvements including SMART passenger rail, express bus service, a north-south bikeway, HOV additions and ferry service expansion. It notes that if planned correctly, passenger rail service and express bus service could be complementary and serve different markets. The Plan notes that ”the preferred strategy of the express buses is a network of routes that directly link residential areas with Marin and Sonoma employment sites that are not directly connected by rail.” The Plan evaluates proposed County projects in a “Project Benefits Matrix.” The SMART passenger rail system is among those projects rated “HIGH”, the top category, due to its ability to maximize alternatives to the single occupant auto and the general appeal of rail service based on its speed, frequency and route simplicity.

The Transportation Vision Plan outlines the importance of the North-South Bikeway project stating that “both the commuter rail and the North-South Bikeway projects are important parts of the overall vision for improving transportation for County residents.” The Vision Plan calls for the bikeway to generally share

Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit 3-78 DEIR November 2005 Chapter 3: Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures Transportation the NWP right-of-way and acknowledges that SMART is playing a lead role in planning for this bicycle and pedestrian route and integrating it with local train stations and existing bicycle facilities.

The proposed project is also referenced in sub-sections of the Plan that recommend improvements for specific portions of the County. The “Northern Marin” section calls for commuter rail stations at the Bel Marin Keys and Fireman’s Fund employment areas, coordination between rail and a planned transit center in Novato, local shuttle service, and the Novato Bikeway Connector project. In “Central Marin,” the Plan calls for commuter rail stations at Civic Center and downtown San Rafael, a rail/ferry connection at Larkspur, and local feeder bus service to SMART rail stations. The Transportation Vision Plan also encourages “smart growth” land-use planning to focus development near existing downtowns and transit nodes in order to protect open space and prevent “sprawl”.

In January 2004, the Marin County CMA released its 2003 Congestion Management Program (CMP) update. The document mentions that the “CMA also continues to support the development of the Northwestern Pacific rail right-of-way. This right-of-way will enable Marin to use the corridor to provide an alternative transportation route to the congested highway, U.S. 101.” The CMP calls for Level of Service (LOS) standard D for Urban and Suburban Arterials and LOS E for Freeways and Rural Expressways (including Highway 101, Interstate 580, and State Route 37). The currently adopted Marin Countywide Plan, the general plan for unincorporated areas of Marin County, was first adopted in 1973, revised in 1982, updated in 1994, and is again currently being updated. The 1994 Update cites a standard LOS D or better as the goal for all unincorporated streets. The county adopted all LOS standards shown in the CMP, as adopted by all local jurisdictions, as interim performance standards. The Revised Public Review Draft of the Marin Countywide Plan (Marin County Community Development Agency Planning Division, 2005) is also consistent with the aforementioned CMP LOS requirements. This plan cites the CMP for roadway LOS requirements and identifies “grandfathered” segments with lower LOS.

Sonoma County Transportation Planning

The Sonoma County Transportation Authority (SCTA) released its most recent Countywide Transportation Plan (CTP) in June 2004. One of the major goals of the CTP is to “design, implement and operate an effective, efficient and convenient passenger and freight rail system.” It views the Highway 101/NWP corridor as a primary backbone of the County’s transportation network.

The proposed SMART passenger rail project is described in the 2004 CTP’s section on Transit. The vision for the rail system includes passenger rail service for commuters, with increased pedestrian and bike connectivity. Overall objectives for the rail line include seeking funds for grade separation projects, accommodating goods movement, ensuring consistent rail station design, and creating functional access to rail stations. The CTP also calls for improved bus service, more bicycle and pedestrian facilities, and seamless connections between rail and other transportation modes.

Increased bicycle use is a key component of the 2004 CTP. Its “Bicycle and Pedestrian Vision” calls for “A linkage from bike paths to rail stations and bus stops; and a path that follows the Northwestern Pacific rail-right-of-way, creating a north-south linkage.” The County’s “Land Use Vision” includes “encouragement of projects that incorporate the principles of pedestrian or transit-oriented development (TOD) which connect housing to important activities of daily life such as: work, school, daycare, shopping, community events; communities that are walkable and pedestrian friendly; local General Plans that focus on city-centered growth; and a transportation system that supports mixed-use developments.”

As there is no officially designated CMA for Sonoma County, the SCTA produces the Countywide Transportation Plan in lieu of a formal CMP. The document does not address LOS issues; rather, it is the planning document that serves as the source of the County’s input to MTC for the RTP.

The current general plan of Sonoma County, which applies to unincorporated lands in Sonoma County, is the Sonoma County General Plan. According to this plan, LOS C or better is required on roadway segments, unless a lower LOS has been specifically adopted. Currently, the plan is being updated.

Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit 3-79 DEIR November 2005 Chapter 3: Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures Transportation

Similar to the existing plan, according to the Draft Sonoma County General Plan 2020, LOS C or better is required on designated arterial and collector roadways in the unincorporated area unless a lower LOS has been designated in the general plan, a lower LOS is deemed acceptable due to environmental or community values, or the project that would cause the lower LOS has an overriding public benefit that outweighs the increased congestion. While LOS C is the roadway standard, for areas where LOS F exists on certain roadways, acceptable LOS shall be determined by the V/C ratio from the General Plan traffic model “project” scenario. “If the V/C (ratio) is between 1.0 and 1.2, then 1.2 is the desired goal. If the V/C (ratio) is greater than 1.2, then the specific V/C (ratio) is the desired goal.” Also according to the General Plan update, LOS D or better is required at all roadway intersections.

City/Town Transportation Planning

Due to historic urban development patterns along the proposed project corridor and around existing station sites, the NWP rail alignment proceeds through the city centers of most of the cities and towns along the alignment. Each city or town has a General Plan that includes a Transportation Element, which addresses future transportation conditions and improvements. The General Plans of each city or town along the corridor contain language supporting the use of the NWP right-of-way as a future passenger railway.

In addition, each city or town’s General Plan has its own LOS traffic standards. In several jurisdictions only intersection LOS, and not roadway segment LOS, is addressed. The following list summarizes local General Plan LOS standards: • Cloverdale calls for LOS C/D for signalized intersections and roadways and LOS D for minor movements at unsignalized intersections. • Healdsburg calls for LOS D during peak hour traffic flow at critical intersections and LOS C at all other times. This includes critical intersections, arterials and collector streets. • Windsor calls for a minimum acceptable LOS D for freeways, boulevards, and signalized intersections. • Santa Rosa calls for LOS D or better along all major corridors with exceptions in downtown, when significant environmental degradation would otherwise occur, when topography makes it impossible or when it would ensure loss of an area’s unique character. • Rohnert Park calls for LOS C for all arterial and collector roadway segments and intersections except in places with LOS standards otherwise established, or if LOS D or lower exists at the time of application. These locations must maintain existing LOS without further deterioration. • Cotati calls for LOS D for all signalized and controlled intersections. LOS E is acceptable for un- signalized intersections. • Petaluma calls for LOS to be maintained without deteriorating below the existing level, which varies by location. • Novato calls for LOS D at controlled intersections and on Highway 101, SR 37, Bel Marin Keys Boulevard from Highway 191 to Commercial Boulevard, South Novato Boulevard from Diablo Avenue to Highway 101, Rowland Boulevard from South Novato to Highway 101, and Novato Boulevard from Sutro Avenue to Diablo Avenue. LOS E is the standard for Highway 101. Areas with LOS below D are grandfathered at their existing lower levels. • San Rafael calls for LOS C as a goal for peak hour, with LOS E acceptable in downtown, LOS D for highway interchanges and arterial intersections, LOS D for Second and Third Street, and LOS F at the Mission Avenue/Irwin Street Intersection. • Larkspur calls for LOS D as a peak period minimum with the exception of some intersections on Sir Francis Drake Boulevard, which operate at LOS E. LOS C is the minimum acceptable LOS at unsignalized intersections during the peak period.

Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit 3-80 DEIR November 2005 Chapter 3: Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures Transportation

Bicycle and Pedestrian Planning

Both Marin and Sonoma counties have bicycle and pedestrian plans: the Marin County Unincorporated Area Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan (2001) (for areas of Marin County without an applicable city General Plan) and the SCTA Countywide Bicycle Plan (2003). Another plan applicable to the proposed project corridor is the North-South Bikeway Plan, prepared by the Marin County Bicycle Coalition. The North-South Bikeway Plan proposes a North-South Greenway or bicycle/pedestrian pathway in a linear park along the NWP railroad right-of-way.

The Association of Bay Area Governments’ Bay Trail Plan proposes a regional hiking and bicycling plan around the perimeter of the San Francisco and San Pablo Bays. The MTC 2001 Regional Bicycle Plan recommends expanding local bicycle routes that connect to a regional network while advancing multi- modal connections.

Local planning documents, such as the transportation/mobility elements of the General Plan for each city/town along the proposed project corridor, include information on existing bicycle and pedestrian facilities, as well as local plans for future improvements. The following is a brief overview of local bicycle/pedestrian-related plans along the proposed project corridor: • The Cloverdale General Plan calls for the promotion of pedestrian and bicycle transportation, although existing conditions are not discussed. When right-of-way is available, bicycle lanes are to be installed. The development of a city-wide plan to integrate bicycle facilities with regional transit stops is proposed, along with the requirement that all new developments include bicycle parking. According to the Parklands and Recreation Element of the General Plan, the city will work in conjunction with Caltrans to designate a bicycle/pedestrian trail along the North Western Pacific Railroad right-of-way. • The existing Healdsburg bicycle network consists primarily of Class III routes, with traffic calming devices in some locations. The October 2002 General Plan Update on Transportation recommends the use of alternative transportation systems modes, the repair of the existing pedestrian and bicycle system and the construction of infill pathway segments. A major priority is the construction of a bicycle/pedestrian pathway project along the NWP, referred to as the Foss Creek bicycle/pedestrian pathway in the plan. • The Town of Windsor General Plan seeks to implement pedestrian friendly and bicycle friendly infrastructure, but existing conditions are not included. The Townwide Trail and Bikeways Plan of Windsor states that railway trails are a high priority. Various bikeways exist including Class II facilities on Hembree Lane, Los Amigos Road, Old Redwood Highway, and Brooks Road. Existing Class I facilities include Windsor Creek, East Windsor, and Pool Creek. The SMART right-of-way is mentioned as a proposed trail consistent with SMART objectives. • The Santa Rosa 2020: General Plan designates 33 miles of Class III bikeways, 25 miles as Class II, and 12 miles as Class I. The plan calls for a citywide system of designated bikeways to serve commuter, recreational, and local trips, interagency cooperation and phased implementation of the plan tied to available funding. The Class 1 NWP bicycle/pedestrian pathway is a designated priority of the plan. • The City of Rohnert Park General Plan describes existing pedestrian facilities as “good” within neighborhoods, although connections to activity centers are lacking. Proposed bikeway projects should connect activity centers to promote bicycle use for recreation and transportation purposes and adequate bicycle parking should be made available. Engineering standards for pedestrian and bike friendly sidewalks, additional Class I, II, and III bikeways, and a continuous and interconnected bikeway system are recommended. The General Plan also calls for infrastructure amenities such as bicycle traffic lights and activated signals to minimize conflicts with pedestrians and automobile traffic. • Cotati’s Citywide Traffic Plan calls for new bicycle facilities, the development of a continuous bicycle/pedestrian pathway system, and enhanced pedestrian facilities in the downtown. The plan

Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit 3-81 DEIR November 2005 Chapter 3: Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures Transportation

supports the development of rural pedestrian pathways, enhanced pedestrian crossings, bulb outs, pedestrian warning lights, and striping along designated city streets. • According to the Petaluma General Plan 2025, Petaluma’s bicycle routes are “disjointed and routes to major destinations such as Downtown, parks, and schools are limited or non-existent.” The plan cites the NWP right-of-way as a potential multimodal opportunity with linkages to cross town locations. The plan also calls for improved pedestrian actuated signals, pedestrian linkages to activity centers and transit and the implementation of a multi-modal alternative that includes pedestrian comfort and bicycle connectivity. • The City of Novato General Plan calls for a continuous network of bicycle and pedestrian safe facilities and the integration of pathway infrastructure in all new development and roadway projects. Related policies include: completion of a Comprehensive Bicycle Path System; provision of bicycle parking at public sites; and provision, promotion, and maintenance of a safe and convenient pedestrian system including sidewalks and traffic control systems. • According to San Rafael’s Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan, the City has approximately 2.7 miles of existing bikeways and 3.9 miles of existing bike lanes. This plan calls for the establishment of a complete bikeway network with appropriate bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure, street design and bicycle parking. • The City of Larkspur General Plan calls for multi-purpose pathways for bicyclists and pedestrians, development of a comprehensive pathway system that fills in existing gaps in the network, the shared use of the NWP right of way, and the development of new bicycle/pedestrian bridges. The plan also recommends minimizing automobile trips, while increasing bicycle and pedestrian trips, particularly to neighborhood retail areas. Elements of the plan include the development of a coordinated system of roads, bike paths, foot paths, increased public transit, and Transportation Demand Management (TDM) programs.

3.6.2 Environmental Setting

This section describes existing transportation facilities and services provided within the proposed project corridor. The discussion is organized into the following subheadings: • Roadway Network; • Transit Operations; • Ferry Service; and • Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities.

Roadway Network

Highway 101 The proposed project corridor is located adjacent to Highway 101, which is the only continuous north- south thoroughfare serving the major urban areas in Marin and Sonoma counties. Within the proposed project corridor, Highway 101 extends from the Sir Francis Drake Boulevard interchange in Larkspur north to the Citrus Fair Drive interchange in Cloverdale. This segment of Highway 101 is approximately 70 miles long. Highway 101 maintains a minimum of four lanes (two in each direction) for the entire study corridor from Cloverdale to Larkspur. Starting from the north and going south, two mixed flow lanes exist in both the northbound and southbound directions on Highway 101 from Cloverdale to State Route 37. Here, three mixed flow lanes in each direction continue to the south to North San Pedro Road in San Rafael. At this point, four mixed flow lanes for both northbound and southbound exist all the way to the Golden Gate Bridge (and Larkspur).

Highway 101 has two locations with northbound and southbound high occupancy vehicle (HOV) lanes. Southbound and northbound HOV lanes extend for approximately five miles between State Route 12 in Santa Rosa and Wilfred Avenue in Rohnert Park. The HOV lanes operate in both directions from 7:00

Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit 3-82 DEIR November 2005 Chapter 3: Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures Transportation a.m. to 9:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. to 6:30 p.m. Between State Route 37 and North San Pedro Road (Novato), about six miles of an HOV lane operates southbound from 6:30 a.m. to 8:30 a.m. and northbound from 4:30 p.m. to 7:00 p.m.

The minimum occupancy requirement for both Highway 101 HOV segments is two persons. According to the Caltrans District 4 Year 2004 Annual HOV Lane Report, the HOV lane occupancy rates in the morning on Highway 101 are 2.4 persons per vehicle southbound in Marin County, 2.0 persons per vehicle southbound in Sonoma County, and 2.4 persons per vehicle northbound in Sonoma County. The same report shows afternoon HOV lane occupancy rates to be 2.9 persons per vehicle northbound in Marin County, 2.2 persons per vehicle southbound in Sonoma County, and 2.1 persons per vehicle northbound in Sonoma County.

During commute hours and throughout the day, various segments of Highway 101 experience congestion due to directional peaking and limited roadway capacity. On a typical weekday, the peak commute direction on Highway 101 is southbound toward San Francisco and the Peninsula in the morning and northbound in the afternoon (Parsons Brinckerhoff, 2001). The a.m. and p.m. peak commute periods vary along the Highway 101 corridor. Based on traffic operations analysis for project study reports (PSR’s) conducted for widening various segments of Highway 101, the peak traffic demand periods are becoming longer throughout the corridor.2 During the morning peak, southbound traffic demand has increased, resulting in a longer a.m. peak commute period that often extends past 9:00 a.m. The evening peak experiences similar traffic demand patterns, as northbound traffic levels have increased resulting in the p.m. commute becoming longer.

Currently, the southbound morning commute along Highway 101 between north of State Route 37 in Novato and I-580 (Richmond-San Rafael Bridge) in San Rafael is rated as the seventh most congested location among Bay Area freeways (MTC, 2005). With the continuing increase in the number of residents and employment centers in central Sonoma County, a reverse commute is developing along the corridor and congestion has also begun to occur in the northbound direction during the morning peak period. In addition, Highway 101 serves a substantial amount of recreational or non-commute travel, as the corridor has heavy travel demands on Thursday and Friday evenings in the northbound direction and on Sunday afternoons in the southbound direction. This corridor is the major access route for recreational areas in the North Bay and is often used to access northern coastal areas.

For this DEIR, Highway 101 in the study area has been divided into nine segments (Figure 3.6-1). Table 3.6-3 shows existing traffic volumes, volume to capacity ratio and levels of service on Highway 101 (Year 2000) within the proposed project study area. The evaluation of mixed flow lanes on Highway 101 indicates that nearly all segments of Highway 101 along the project corridor currently operate at LOS E or F in the southbound direction during the a.m. peak hour and in the northbound direction during the p.m. peak hour. Portions of Highway 101, near Rohnert Park Expressway in Rohnert Park and Corona Road in Petaluma, also experience LOS E or F in the non-peak direction during the a.m. and p.m. peak hours. Based on county and city/town LOS guidelines, the mixed flow lanes on Highway 101 would have a total of five southbound segments and one northbound segment that operate at unacceptable service levels during the a.m. peak and a total of five northbound segments that operate at unacceptable service levels during the p.m. peak. The HOV lanes in the northbound and southbound directions currently operate at acceptable levels of service (LOS D or better) during both a.m. and p.m. peak hours.

2 Previous studies include the PSR for the Highway 101 widening from Steele Lane in the City of Santa Rosa to Windsor River Road in the Town of Windsor (Caltrans, 2001), and the PSR for the Highway 101 widening from Old Redwood Highway in Petaluma to the Rohnert Park Expressway in Rohnert Park (Parsons Brinckerhoff, 2001).

Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit 3-83 DEIR November 2005 Chapter 3: Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures Transportation

FIGURE 3.6-1 HIGHWAY 101 LOS ANALYSIS SEGMENTS

Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit 3-84 DEIR November 2005 Chapter 3: Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures

Transportation

TABLE 3.6-3 EXISTING HIGHWAY 101 LEVELS OF SERVICE (2000)

Mixed Flow Lanes Existing (2000) Number of #Segment Direction Capacity A.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour lanes Volume V/C LOS Volume V/C LOS 1 Citrus Fair Drive (Cloverdale) to Windsor River Road (Windsor) NB 2 4,000 1,656 0.41 A 4,188 1.05 F 2 Windsor River Road (Windsor) to Third Street (Downtown Santa Rosa) NB 2 4,000 3,273 0.82 D 4,526 1.13 F 3 Third Street (Downtown Santa Rosa) to Rohnert Park Expressway (Rohnert Park) NB 2 4,000 4,185 1.05 F 3,925 0.98 E 4 Rohnert Park Expressway (Rohnert Park) to Corona Road (Petaluma) NB 2 4,000 3,830 0.96 E 3,676 0.92 E 5 Corona Road (Petaluma) to State Route 116 (South Petaluma) NB 2 4,000 3,367 0.84 D 3,784 0.95 E 6 State Route 116 (South Petaluma) to Atherton Avenue (Novato Narrows) NB 2 4,000 3,452 0.86 D 4,397 1.10 F 7 Atherton Avenue (Novato Narrows) to State Route 37 Interchange (Novato) NB 3 6,000 4,279 0.71 C 5,430 0.91 E 8 State Route 37 Interchange (Novato) to North San Pedro Road (San Rafael) NB 4 8,000 6,075 0.76 C 7,532 0.94 E 9 North San Pedro Road (San Rafael) to Sir Francis Drake Boulevard (Larkspur) NB 4 8,000 6,075 0.76 C 7,901 0.99 E

1 Citrus Fair Drive (Cloverdale) to Windsor River Road (Windsor) SB 2 4,000 4,140 1.04 F 1,996 0.50 A 2 Windsor River Road (Windsor) to Third Street (Downtown Santa Rosa) SB 2 4,000 3,528 0.88 D 2,831 0.71 C 3 Third Street (Downtown Santa Rosa) to Rohnert Park Expressway (Rohnert Park) SB 2 4,000 3,925 0.98 E 3,927 0.98 E 4 Rohnert Park Expressway (Rohnert Park) to Corona Road (Petaluma) SB 2 4,000 3,883 0.97 E 3,582 0.90 D 5 Corona Road (Petaluma) to State Route 116 (South Petaluma) SB 2 4,000 3,853 0.96 E 3,452 0.86 D 6 State Route 116 (South Petaluma) to Atherton Avenue (Novato Narrows) SB 2 4,000 4,441 1.11 F 3,452 0.86 D 7 Atherton Avenue (Novato Narrows) to State Route 37 Interchange (Novato) SB 3 6,000 5,507 0.92 E 4,583 0.76 C 8 State Route 37 Interchange (Novato) to North San Pedro Road (San Rafael) SB 4 8,000 7,436 0.93 E 5,258 0.66 B 9 North San Pedro Road (San Rafael) to Sir Francis Drake Boulevard (Larkspur) SB 4 8,000 7,901 0.99 E 4,117 0.51 A

HOV Lanes Existing (2000) Number of #Segment Direction Capacity A.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour lanes Volume V/C LOS Volume V/C LOS 1 Citrus Fair Drive (Cloverdale) to Shiloh Road (Windsor) NB 0 ------2 Shiloh Road (Windsor) to State Route 12 (Santa Rosa) NB 0 ------3 State Route 12 (Santa Rosa) to Rohnert Park Expressway (Rohnert Park) NB 1 1,750 596 0.34 A 1,172 0.67 B 4 Rohnert Park Expressway (Rohnert Park) to Corona Road (Petaluma) NB 0 ------5 Corona Road (Petaluma) to State Route 116 (South Petaluma) NB 0 ------6 State Route 116 (South Petaluma) to Altherton Avenue (Novato Narrows) NB 0 ------7 Altherton Avenue (Novato Narrows) to State Route 37 Interchange (Novato) NB 0 ------8 State Route 37 Interchange (Novato) to North San Pedro Road (San Rafael) NB 1 1,750 542 0.31 A 1,039 0.59 A 9 North San Pedro Road (San Rafael) to Sir Francis Drake Boulevard (Larkspur) NB 0 ------

1 Citrus Fair Drive (Cloverdale) to Shiloh Road (Windsor) SB 0 ------2 Shiloh Road (Windsor) to State Route 12 (Santa Rosa) SB 0 ------3 State Route 12 (Santa Rosa) to Rohnert Park Expressway (Rohnert Park) SB 1 1,750 1,570 0.90 D 615 0.35 A 4 Rohnert Park Expressway (Rohnert Park) to Corona Road (Petaluma) SB 0 ------5 Corona Road (Petaluma) to State Route 116 (South Petaluma) SB 0 ------6 State Route 116 (South Petaluma) to Altherton Avenue (Novato Narrows) SB 0 ------7 Altherton Avenue (Novato Narrows) to State Route 37 Interchange (Novato) SB 0 ------8 State Route 37 Interchange (Novato) to North San Pedro Road (San Rafael) SB 1 1,750 1,449 0.83 D 674 0.39 A 9 North San Pedro Road (San Rafael) to Sir Francis Drake Boulevard (Larkspur) SB 0 ------Note: Volumes shown are highest in each segment. (1) Mixed-flow traffic volumes include HOV traffic that do not use HOV lanes. (2) Volumes represent HOV vehicles using HOV lanes.

Source: Parsons Brinckerhoff, MTC 2001 RTP, based on forecasted horizon year 2025 (August 2005)

Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit 3-85 DEIR November 2005 Chapter 3: Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures

Transportation

Other Regional and Local Roadways Several east-west state routes provide access to Highway 101. These include Sir Francis Drake Boulevard/Interstate 580 (I-580), State Route 37, State Route 12, State Route 116, and State Route 128. Principal roadways that would provide access to the proposed stations are shown with existing levels of service in Table 3.6-4. These roadways include the primary access routes for the 14 proposed passenger rail stations. The principal station access roadways and existing (Year 2000) a.m. and p.m. peak V/C ratios were determined based on the travel demand model. As shown in the table, all roadway segments currently operate at acceptable levels of service, except westbound Third Street (Downtown San Rafael) during the a.m. peak, northbound Healdsburg Avenue (Healdsburg) and eastbound Second Street (Downtown San Rafael) during the p.m. peak.

TABLE 3.6-4 PRINCIPAL STATION ACCESS ROADWAYS EXISTING (2000) LEVELS OF SERVICE

Existing (2000) Proposed Station: Roadway Direction A.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour V/C LOS V/C LOS Cloverdale: Citrus Fair Drive EB 0.16 C 0.03 A WB 0.03 A 0.16 A Healdsburg: Healdsburg Avenue NB 0.90 D 0.95 E SB 0.77 C 0.67 B Windsor: Windsor Road NB 0.01 A 0.01 A SB 0.01 A 0.01 A Santa Rosa: North Dutton Avenue NB 0.46 A 0.74 C SB 0.51 A 0.43 A Santa Rosa Railroad Square: Wilson Street NB 0.52 A 0.61 B SB 0.53 A 0.53 A Rohnert Park: Golf Course Drive EB 0.19 A 0.43 A WB 0.45 A 0.21 A Cotati: East Cotati Avenue EB 0.22 A 0.35 A WB 0.69 B 0.42 A Petaluma: North McDowell Boulevard NB 0.17 A 0.24 A SB 0.20 A 0.15 A Downtown Petaluma: Washington Street EB 0.26 A 0.36 A WB 0.39 A 0.29 A Novato North: Atherton Avenue EB 0.33 A 0.27 A WB 0.21 A 0.18 A Novato South: Nave Drive NB 0.26 A 0.56 A SB 0.08 A 0.32 A Marin County Civic Center: Civic Center Drive NB 0.20 A 0.38 A SB 0.86 D 0.44 A Downtown San Rafael: Second (EB) & Third (WB) Streets EB 0.50 A 1.01 F WB 1.01 F 0.82 D Larkspur Ferry Station: Sir Francis Drake Boulevard EB 0.46 A 0.33 A WB 0.49 A 0.62 B

Source: Parsons Brinckerhoff travel demand forecasting model, Year 2000 (August 2005). Note: LOS measured from major adjacent street providing primary station access.

Transit Operations

Existing transit service in Marin and Sonoma counties consists of bus and paratransit (defined as curb- to-curb public transportation available to disabled persons who meet eligibility requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act [ADA]). Service is summarized below. Tables 3.6-5A and 3.6-5B list relevant fixed-route bus and shuttle service in the study area.

Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit 3-86 DEIR November 2005 Chapter 3: Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures

Transportation

Bus Service from Marin and Sonoma Counties to San Francisco and East Bay Golden Gate Transit (GGT), operated by the Golden Gate Bridge, Highway and Transportation District (GGBHTD), provides basic and commuter bus service from Marin and Sonoma counties to San Francisco and the East Bay. Table 3.6-5A describes the GGT bus routes. Basic bus service operates daily between Marin, San Francisco, Sonoma, and Contra Costa counties. Commuter bus routes operate Monday thru Friday – except holidays – between these counties.

There are 18 commuter bus routes operating along the proposed project corridor to and from San Francisco. Three of these bus routes serve Santa Rosa; two serve San Marin; three serve Petaluma; two serve Novato; two serve San Rafael; two serve San Anselmo; and one or more lines serve other cities along the corridor: Tiburon, Mill Valley, Fairfax, Lagunitas, Sleepy Hollow, Terra Linda, Lucas Valley, Ignacio, and Santa Venetia. Average peak period transbay patronage for GGT bus routes (a.m. and p.m.) for the fiscal year 2004 was 10,030. For the same year, average weekday patronage on all lines was 26,863 including local GGBHTD lines discussed in the following subsection (Golden Gate Transit, 2005).

In addition to these primary bus services, GGT operates four additional services that are not included in the basic transit network: recreational service, ferry feeder service, special service, and club bus. Club bus services are subscription bus services provided as a supplement to GGT.

Bus Service in Marin and Sonoma Counties Bus service in Marin and Sonoma counties is a combination of services by various transit operators. A total of 23 GGBHTD Marin County local bus routes operate mainly on weekdays, with limited weekend service. Thirteen local fixed routes operated by GGBHTD under contract to Marin County Transit District (MCTD) provide weekday and limited weekend service. Ten fixed local routes operated by GGBHTD under contract to MCTD or school districts provide additional limited service on school days only. MCTD is currently in the process of preparing its own short-range transit plan (SRTP), and held public meetings during the summer of 2005.

Aside from local fixed route bus service, paratransit service exists. Paratransit service is curb-to-curb public transportation available to disabled persons who meet eligibility requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Whistlestop Wheels operates paratransit service in Marin County with ten are zones. In addition, a County Shuttle Connection serves San Rafael Transit Center and North Redwood Drive. The semi-fixed-route West Marin Stagecoach operates between Point Reyes Station/Inverness and San Anselmo and between Bolinas and Marin City, with route deviation up to three-quarters of a mile for paratransit-eligible riders.

Transit service to and from the Sausalito Ferry Terminal Landing includes the Sausalito Shuttle and four Golden Gate Transit-operated bus lines. The Golden Gate Transit bus lines include two commuter lines, one local Marin County line, and one basic service line. The local line operates weekdays with limited weekend service contracted by MCTD and the basic service line operates daily with daytime and evening hours. The Larkspur Ferry Terminal is served by the private Marin Airporter service and two Golden Gate Transit bus lines (one local in Marin County and the other a commuter line).

In Sonoma County, local fixed route services operate within the cities of Cloverdale, Healdsburg, Petaluma, Santa Rosa (and unincorporated Roseland), Rohnert Park, Cotati, Sebastopol, Sonoma and Windsor (SCTA, 2001). Primarily, bus service within Sonoma County is operated by Sonoma County Transit. It operates fifteen lines with basic service on weekdays and limited weekend service. Three express lines operate weekdays and five local lines operate weekdays or weekdays plus Saturday. One weekend line operates during the summer only, serving the coast. Local transit operators include Cloverdale Transit, Healdsburg In-City Transit, Petaluma Transit, and Santa Rosa CityBus. Cloverdale Transit operates weekday service. Healdsburg In-City Transit and Petaluma Transit provide weekday and limited weekend service. Santa Rosa CityBus operates 17 lines with weekday and limited weekend service. Paratransit in Sonoma County is operated by Whistlestop Wheels, Petaluma People Services, MV Transportation, and Volunteer Wheels (Sonoma County Paratransit).

Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit 3-87 DEIR November 2005 Chapter 3: Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures

Transportation

TABLE 3.6-5A GOLDEN GATE TRANSIT BUS SERVICE FOR MARIN AND SONOMA COUNTIES

Trips/Day Route Service Type Description Hours of Operation, Weekdays/Weekends M-F* S/S/H** 10 Basic Strawberry/Mill Valley/San Francisco 5:00 AM - 11:00 PM / 7:00 AM - 11:00 PM 33 30 40/42 Basic Del Norte BART/Richmond BART/San Rafael 5:30 - 12:30 AM / 7:00 - 12:00 AM 67 34 70/80 Basic Santa Rosa/Novato/San Francisco 4:00 - 12:45 AM / 4:00 - 12:45 AM 68 68 2 Commute Marin Headlands/San Francisco 6:30 - 8:00 AM and 4:20 - 6:00 PM / N/A 9 4 Commute Mill Valley/San Francisco 5:00 - 8:30 AM and 3:00 - 7:00 PM / N/A 36 8 Commute Tiburon/San Francisco 6:45 - 7:50 AM and 5:00 - 5:30 PM / N/A 5 18 Commute College of Marin/San Francisco 6:00 - 8:15 AM and 3:40 - 6:30 PM / N/A 16 24 Commute Fairfax/San Anselmo/San Francisco/Lagunitas 4:40 - 8:00 AM and 3:00 - 7:00 PM N/A 33 26/27 Commute Sleepy Hollow/San Anselmo/San Francisco 6:00 - 8:00 AM and 3:30 - 6:30 PM / N/A 14 38 Commute Terra Linda/San Francisco 6:00 - 8:00 AM and 4:00 - 5:30 PM / N/A 10 44 Commute Lucas Valley/San Francisco 5:30 - 7:30 AM and 4:00 - 6:00 PM / N/A 8 54 Commute San Marin/San Francisco 4:45 - 7:15 AM and 2:30 - 7:00 PM / N/A 22 56 Commute San Marin/Novato/San Francisco 5:00 - 7:00 AM and 3:30 - 6:00 PM / N/A 14 58 Commute Novato/Ignacio/San Francisco 5:45 - 7:00 AM and 4:30 - 5:30 PM / N/A 6 60 Commute San Rafael/SF Financial District (Limited Service) 9:00 - 10:00 AM and 1:30 - 2:45 PM / N/A 6 72 Commute Santa Rosa/San Francisco (Financial District) 4:00 - 7:00 AM and 2:00 - 6:00 PM / N/A 27 73 Commute Santa Rosa/Petaluma/San Francisco (Civic Center) 5:30 - 7:45 AM and 3:00 - 5:00 PM / N/A 9 74 Commute Petaluma/San Francisco 4:45 - 7:45 AM and 4:00 - 6:30 PM / N/A 13 75 Commute Santa Rosa/Marin Civic Center/San Rafael 5:00 - 6:30 AM and 3:00 - 5:00 PM / N/A 8 76 Commute East Petaluma/San Francisco 5:00 - 7:00 AM and 3:00 - 7:00 PM / N/A 20 97 Commute Larkspur Ferry Terminal/San Francisco 5:30 AM / N/A 1 9 Comm. Shuttle Strawberry/Tiburon Ferry 5:30 - 8:00 AM and 5:15 - 6:45 PM / N/A 7 32 Comm. Shuttle Peacock Gap/San Rafael Transit Center 6:00 - 7:15 AM and 5:00 - 7:00 PM / N/A 12 34 Comm. Shuttle Santa Venetia/San Rafael Transit Center 5:45 - 7:00 AM and 5:45 - 7:00 PM / N/A 7 93 Comm. Shuttle Golden Gate Toll Plaza/San Francisco 7:00 - 8:00 AM and 4:00 PM / N/A 4 15 Local Tiburon/Marin City 6:00 AM - 10:00 PM / 8:00 AM - 10:00 PM 34 30 21 Local College of Marin/Strawberry 8:00 AM - 4:30 PM / N/A 18 22 Local San Anselmo/Sausalito 7:00 AM - 12:00 AM / 7:00 AM - 12:00 AM 32 33 23 Local Fairfax/Manor/San Anselmo/San Rafael 4:40 AM - 11:00 PM / 6:00 AM - 11:00 PM 102 34 29 Local San Rafael/College of Marin/San Anselmo 6:40 AM - 11:00 PM / 7:10 AM - 11:00 PM Sat. only 59 32 33 Local Santa Venetia/San Rafael 8:00 AM - 5:00 PM / N/A 19 35/36 Local San Rafael/Canal/Marin City 6:00 AM - 1:00 AM / 5:30 AM - 1:00 AM 95 99 53 Local San Marin/Novato 7:20 AM - 9:45 PM / N/A 30 55 Local Novato (Redwood & Grant)/IVC/Ignacio 7:00 AM - 9:30 PM / N/A 30 57/59 Local Novato/San Rafael via Nave Drive/Marinwood 5:30 AM - 12:30 AM / 5:30 AM - 12:30 AM, 57 only 56 34 63 Local Marin City/Stinson Beach N/A / 8:30 AM - 6:00 PM 10 71 Local Novato/Ignacio/Marinwood/San Rafael/Marin City 5:45 AM - 8:15 PM / 6:45 - 9:15 AM and 7:00 - 7:15 PM 19 4 107 Local Sausalito/Tamalpais HS & St. Hillary's School 7:10 - 7:30 AM and 3:10 PM, Schooldays / N/A 4 113 Local Redwood High/Paradise Cay 7:30 AM and 3:30 PM, Schooldays / N/A 2 115 Local Redwood High/Tiburon 7:15 AM and 1:40 - 3:30 PM Schooldays / N/A 4 117 Local Neil Cummins & Hall MS/East Corte Madera 8:00 - 8:30 AM and 3:00 - 3:30 PM Schooldays / N/A 6 123 Local Drake HS, White Hill, Lagunitas Schools 7:20 - 8:20 AM and 2:40 - 4:00 PM Schooldays / N/A 13 125 Local San Anselmo/Lagunitas 2:52-3:32 AM and 2:10-3:05 PM Shooldays / N/A 2 126 Local To/From Brookside Schools 7:40 - 8:15 AM and 1:50 - 3:50 PM Schooldays / N/A 11 127 Local To White Hill School/From White Hill School 7:10 - 8:15 AM and 2:15 - 3:20 PM Schooldays / N/A 10 131 Local Santa Venetia/Marin Civic Center/San Rafael 7:29 AM Schooldays / N/A 1 132 Local San Rafael/San Rafael High School 3:50 and 4:20 PM Schooldays / N/A 2 139 Local Terra Linda/Lucas Valley 2:20 and 3:20 PM Schooldays / N/A 2 143 Local Sausalito/Tamalpais High School 2:50 and 3:30 PM Schooldays / N/A 4 153 Local San Marin/San Marin High School/Novato 8:00 AM and 2:30 PM Schooldays / N/A 4 No. of Trips/day Subtotals No. of Routes M-F* S/S/H** Local^ 27 552 276^ Basic 3 168 132 Commute 18 256 Commute Shuttle 4 30 All Bus Routes 52 1006 264 Source: Golden Gate Transit Short Range Transit Plan (GGBHTD), November 2003 and updates from www.goldengate.com, October 2005. *M-F: Monday through Friday **S/S/H: Saturday/Sunday/Holiday ^Local Service operates 276 trips on Saturdays, 243 trips on Sundays/holidays.

Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit 3-88 DEIR November 2005 Chapter 3: Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures

Transportation

TABLE 3.6-5B LOCAL BUS SERVICE FOR SONOMA COUNTY

Trips/Day Route Description Hours of Operation, Weekdays Hours of Operation, Saturday/Sunday M-F* S/S/H** Sonoma County Transit 10 Cotati/Rohnert Park/Sonoma State Univ. 6:05 AM - 5:47 PM 9:50 AM - 5:19 PM 16 8 12-14 Rohnert Park 6:00 AM - 5:57 PM 9:00 AM - 6:16 PM 25 12 20 Santa Rosa/Occidental 5:05 AM - 10:07 PM 8:00 AM - 7:26 PM 24 16 22 Santa Rosa/Sebastopol 6:53 AM - 5:30 PM N/A 7 24 Sebastopol Area Local Service 10:00 AM - 3:55 PM 10:00 AM - 3:55 PM / N/A 10 10 26 Sebastopol/Rohnert Park/Sonoma State Univ. 6:56 AM - 5:48 PM N/A 9 28 Rio Nido/Guerneville/Monte Rio 9:23 AM - 3:22 PM N/A 4 29 Santa Rosa/Sonoma Coast/Rio Nido N/A Summer Weekends only 30 Santa Rosa/Sonoma Valley 5:55 AM - 9:43 PM 7:25 AM - 8:00 PM 22 8 32 Sonoma Valley Local Service 7:45 AM - 4:55 PM 8:35 AM - 4:55 PM / N/A 27 12 34 Sonoma Valley Local Commute 6:37 - 7:52 AM and 5:30 - 6:48 PM N/A 2 36 Telemec Area Local Service 9:15 AM - 3:56 PM 9:15 AM - 2:42 PM / N/A 6 5 38 Sonoma Valley/San Rafael 5:50 - 8:21 AM and 5:28 - 7:44 PM N/A 2 40 Sonoma Valley/Petaluma 6:35 AM - 6:50 PM N/A 15 42 Industry West Park/Downtown Santa Rosa 6:20 AM - 7:05 PM N/A 21 44-48 Petaluma/Santa Rosa 5:20 AM - 11:00 PM 6:12 AM - 11:00 PM 41 34 46 Express Rohnert Park/Santa Rosa 7:20 AM - 6:22 PM N/A 11 50 Sebastopol/Rohnert Park 5:06 - 8:04 AM and 4:21 - 7:19 PM N/A 6 60 Cloverdale/Healdsburg/Windsor/Santa Rosa 5:00 AM - 11:13 PM 8:45 AM - 9:21 PM 39 32 62-64 Santa Rosa/Sonoma Co. Airport 6:45 AM - 5:35 PM N/A 8 66 Windsor Area Local Service 8:20 AM - 5:07 PM 8:20 AM - 5:00 PM 6 12 68 Cloverdale Local No Information No Information

Santa Rosa CityBus 1 Mendocino Avenue 6:30 AM - 8:10 PM 8:30 AM - 5:10 PM / 11:30 AM - 4:10 PM 27 12 2 Bennett Valley 6:00 AM - 8:10 PM 6:00 AM - 7:40 PM / 10:00 AM - 4:40 PM 28 21 3 West Ninth Street 6:15 AM - 8:10 PM 9:15 AM - 5:40 PM / 10:15 AM - 4:40 PM 14 16 4R Rincon Valley 6:00 AM - 7:55 PM N/A / N/A 14 4 Rincon Valley 6:30 AM - 8:25 PM 8:30 AM - 8:25 PM / 10:30 - 5:25 PM 14 19 5 South Park 6:15 AM - 8:25 PM 6:45 AM - 7:25 PM / 10:45 AM - 5:25 PM 18 20 6 West Third Street 6:00 AM - 7:55 PM 7:00 AM - 7:25 PM / 10:00 AM - 4:25 PM 14 20 8 Sonoma Avenue 6:15 AM - 8:25 PM 7:30 AM - 6:55 PM / 10:30 AM - 4:55 PM 28 19 9 Sebastopol Road 6:00 AM - 8:10 PM 7:45 AM - 6:25 PM / 10:03 AM - 4:25 PM 28 18 10 Piner Road 6:12 AM - 8:05 PM 6:30 AM - 6:55 PM / 10:30 AM - 4:55 PM 28 20 11 Fulton Road 6:15 AM - 8:08 PM 8:00 AM - 6:23 PM / 10:00 AM - 4:23 PM 28 18 12 Roseland 6:00 AM - 7:55 PM 7:30 AM - 6:55 PM / 10:30 AM - 4:55 PM 28 19 14 County Center 6:29 AM - 8:25 PM 7:45 AM - 6:45 PM / 9:45 AM - 4:45 PM 28 20 15 Stony Point Road 6:10 AM - 8:35 PM 8:10 AM - 5:42 PM / N/A 28 9 17 Downtown/Coddingtown 6:10 AM - 8:10 PM 6:15 AM - 7:15 PM / 10:15 AM - 5:15 PM 28 22 18 Southeast Circulator 6:50 AM - 6:45 PM 9:50 AM - 4:45 PM / 9:50 AM - 4:45 PM 12 12

Petaluma Transit 1 (Red) Cherry Valley 6:35 AM - 5:22 PM 10:35 AM - 3:35 PM / N/A 11 5 2 (Yellow) South McDowell 6:35 AM - 5:35 PM 9:57 AM - 4:07 PM / N/A 11 4 2 (Green) North McDowell 6:43 AM - 6:05 PM 10:35 - 3:35 PM / N/A 12 3 3 (Orange) Ely 6:56 AM - 5:58 PM 10:35 AM - 4:33 PM / N/A 22 6

Healdsburg In-City Transit

Town Center/Hospital/Rec. Park/Plaza 8:30 AM - 4:20 PM 8:30 AM - 4:20 PM / N/A 8 8

Cloverdale Transit City Hall/Cloverdale Blvd./Brookside Dr. 8:15 AM - 3:25 PM N/A / N/A 7

No. of Trips/day^ Subtotals No. of Routes M-F* S/S/H** Local^ 43 737 440 Source: www.511.org, October 2005. *M-F: Monday through Friday **S/S/H: Saturday/Sunday/Holiday ^Local Service operates 287 trips on Saturdays, 161 trips on Sundays/holidays.

Park-and-Ride Lots

Table 3.6-5C summarizes existing park-and-ride lots along the proposed project corridor in Marin and Sonoma counties. As shown in the table, there are 15 park-and-ride lots in Sonoma County and 13 lots in Marin County located along the corridor. Most of the park-and-ride lots are served by GGT, with Sonoma County Transit (SCT) also serving lots in Sonoma County.

Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit 3-89 DEIR November 2005 Chapter 3: Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures

Transportation

TABLE 3.6-5C PARK-AND-RIDE LOTS ALONG PROPOSED PROJECT CORRIDOR IN MARIN AND SONOMA COUNTIES

Sonoma County City Location GGT1 SCT2 SRCB3 PT4 Spaces Bikes Lighting Cloverdale Asti Road/Citrus Fair Drive 60 90 Yes Healdsburg Healdsburg Ave./Grant Avenue 60 70 Yes Windsor Old Redwood Highway/Starr Road 60, 66 40 Yes Fulton River Road/Hwy. 101 20, 62 20 No Santa Rosa Golden Gate Bus Terminal at Piner Road and Industrial 72, 73, 74, 75, 80 20, 30, 44, 48 10, 15 214 Yes Yes Santa Rosa Highway 12 at Brookwood Avenue (County Fairgrounds) 72, 73, 75 34, 60 18 216 Yes Yes Rohnert Park Highway 101 at Rohnert Park Expressway 72, 73, 74, 75, 80 12, 14, 26, 48 150 Yes Yes Rohnert Park Roberts Lake Road at Golf Course Drive 72, 73, 74, 75 14, 44, 48 170 No Yes Petaluma South Petaluma Blvd at Hwy 101 72, 74, 80 40 No Yes Petaluma Highway 101/Route 116 at Lakeville Highway 76 40, 48 133 Yes Yes Petaluma North Petaluma Blvd at Gossage Avenue 73, 74, 80 48 22 No No Petaluma Petaluma Fairgrounds 75 44 150 No Yes St. Joseph Way at Highway 116 & Highway 101 (Old Cotati 75, 80 10, 11 186 No Yes Redwood Highway)

Marin County City Location GGT1 SCT2 SRCB3 PT4 Spaces Bikes Lighting Novato Hwy 101 at Atherton Ave 56 63 Yes Yes Novato Hwy 101 at Rowland Blvd 56, 70, 80 248 Yes Yes Ignacio Hwy 101 at Alameda del Prado 54, 57, 58, 59, 70, 75, 80 106 No Yes San Rafael Hwy 101 at Smith Ranch Road 44, 54, 58, 70, 75, 80 212 Yes Yes 22, 23, 26, 27, 29, 32, 33, San Rafael 3rd & Hetherton St 34, 35, 36, 40, 42, 57, 59, 193 No Yes 60, 70, 75, 80 San Rafael Lincoln Ave at Wilson 34, 57, 59 47 No Yes San Rafael Andersen Drive at GGT Yard 22, 29, 35, 36, 75 106 No Yes Sir Francis Drake Blvd at La Cuesta Drive/Bon Air Shopping Greenbrae 24, 29 71 Yes Yes Center Greenbrae Sir Francis Drake at Drakes Landing Office Park 24, 29 50 No Yes

Notes: If a route is shown in bold above, not all schedules serve this location. 1. GGT represents Golden Gate Transit 2. SCT represents Sonomca County Transit 3. SRCB represents Santa Rosa CityBus 4. PT represents Petaluma Transit

Source: Golden Gate Transit, http://goldengatetransit.org/services/parkride.php, accessed November 2005; Sonoma County Transit, http://www.sctransit.com/parkride.htm, accessed November 2005 (for lots served exclusively by Sonoma County Transit)

Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit 3-90 DEIR November 2005 Chapter 3: Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures

Transportation

Ferry Service

Golden Gate Ferry (GGF, a division of GGBHTD) operates two ferry routes from Marin County to San Francisco: Larkspur and Sausalito. These ferry routes operate on weekdays and weekends providing the primary commute service to the San Francisco Ferry Terminal with varying intervals of 15 to 120 minutes. From Larkspur to San Francisco, GGF operates twenty ferry runs on weekdays in each direction and one early morning bus to San Francisco. From Sausalito, GGF operates nine ferry runs on weekdays to San Francisco. In 2003-2004, total annual patronage for the Larkspur and Sausalito ferry lines was 1.66 million passengers, with about three-quarters of those passengers using the Larkspur Terminal (Golden Gate Ferry, 2005). The average GGF daily ridership for Larkspur to San Francisco varies by month and is approximately over 4,000. The Larkspur Ferry Terminal is a major intermodal facility for bus and ferry service (MTC, 2001). The Golden Gate Ferry also provides ferry service during special events such as SBC Park sporting events and other special events in San Francisco generally during the off-peak time periods and weekends. This includes ferry service provided to San Francisco Giants home games and to the Bay to Breakers Race.

Additional daily ferry service operated by the Blue and Gold Fleet provides two ferry routes connecting Sausalito and Tiburon with San Francisco. In 2000-2001, the Sausalito ferry served 322,161 passengers annually, while the Tiburon ferry served 348,137 passengers annually (San Francisco Bay Area Water Transit Authority (WTA), 2002).

The Angel Island – Tiburon Ferry also operates from Tiburon to Angel Island daily, except Thanksgiving and Christmas Day. In 2000-2001, the Angel Island Ferry served 296,000 passengers annually (WTA, 2002).

Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities

Both Marin and Sonoma counties have an extensive network of bicycle and pedestrian facilities, which vary within the proposed project corridor between Class 13 bicycle and pedestrian facilities to improvised paths and routes. Unincorporated areas of Marin County have 3.5 miles of bicycle/pedestrian pathways, 2.25 miles of bicycle lanes, and 3 miles of signed bicycle routes or other informal routes, totaling 8.75 miles of bikeways. The total Marin County system has approximately 68.4 miles of bikeways, including 22.7 miles of bicycle/pedestrian pathways, 36.1 miles of bicycle lanes, and 10 miles of signed bicycle routes or other informal routes (Alta Transportation Consulting, 2001). Within Marin County, a substantial amount of the bikeways are concentrated in Novato, with 30 miles of bicycle lanes. In Sonoma County, there are 33 miles of Class 1 bicycle/pedestrian paths and 64 miles of Class 2 bicycle lanes. Most of the Sonoma County bikeways are south of Windsor.

Although plans are in place for a regional bicycle and pedestrian network providing connectivity between Marin and Sonoma counties, as well as the regional Bay Trail Plan, a full North Bay regional bicycle/pedestrian network does not currently exist. Both counties have their own plans, as described in Section 3.6.1.

Rail Service

As noted in the project description, there is no current passenger or freight rail service in the study area. Freight service on a portion of the proposed project corridor (north of Ignacio Wye) operated until 2001.

3 Class I Bikeway (Bike Path): Provides a completely separated right-of-way for the exclusive use of bicycles and pedestrians with crossflow minimized. Class II Bikeway (Bike Lane): Provides a striped lane for one-way bike travel on a street or highway. Class III Bikeway (Bike Route): Provides for shared use with pedestrian or motor vehicle traffic.

Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit 3-91 DEIR November 2005 Chapter 3: Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures

Transportation

3.6.3 Significance Criteria, Methodology and Projected Ridership

Impact Significance Criteria

Based on CEQA guidelines and relevant local planning documents (Section 3.6.1), project-related effects on traffic and transportation are considered significant if these impacts would result in the following conditions: • Cause a substantial increase in traffic and transportation, such that proposed project traffic conditions exceed either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways or established by general plan standards and measures for local jurisdictions. In areas where the level of service is already below the established standard, a project-related impact is considered significant if it results in a lower level of service, a substantial increase in V/C ratio for roadway segments, or a substantial increase in delay for intersections. • Cause a substantial increase in motorist delay at at-grade railroad crossings, based on the frequency of grade crossing delays and duration of the delays; • Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment); • Result in inadequate parking capacity; • Conflict with adopted policies, plans or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks); and/or • Cause a substantial project-specific or cumulative increase in transit demand that cannot be accommodated by existing or proposed transit capacity, resulting in unacceptable levels of transit service.

Methodology

This study assesses the potential transportation and circulation impacts resulting from the implementation of the SMART passenger rail on the regional corridor. The following scenarios were evaluated within the proposed project corridor:

• Existing conditions (2000), • 2025 Future Baseline (No-Project), and • 2025 with the proposed passenger rail project.

In addition, the year 2010, which represents the estimated project start-up year, was qualitatively assessed as an interim period when not all of the projected regional transportation improvements would be in place. The 2010 analysis examined impacts to the existing bus system and road way traffic in light of conditions assumed to be in place in that year.

Traffic Model To estimate and assess existing and future traffic volumes and transportation network operations in the project corridor, an enhanced version of the MTC regional travel demand model was used (see Travel Demand Forecasting Report, Appendix I). The MTC regional travel demand model encompasses the nine-county San Francisco Bay Area and is the model used to develop the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) and prepare travel forecasts for major regional corridor studies. The enhanced MTC travel demand model was recalibrated to base year 2000 conditions under guidance provided by the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) at the time the SMART transportation analysis began. The model was also previously used by the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) to project commuter rail ridership and was updated and calibrated with on-board survey data obtained from the Caltrain corridor

Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit 3-92 DEIR November 2005 Chapter 3: Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures

Transportation and approved by FTA. This model was the latest model available in the region when the SMART transportation analysis began in 2002, and is consistent with MTC’s 2001 RTP, which was the current RTP at the time.4 An updated travel demand model with a more recent base year, based on the latest RTP (Transportation 2030), was not yet available.

Forecast Year 2025 The Year 2025 was used to assess and evaluate future travel demands and anticipated growth and circulation patterns, consistent with the 2001 RTP planning horizon year. The Year 2025 “No Project” scenario in the travel demand model includes approved and programmed changes in the transportation network and transit systems documented in the 2001 RTP. The travel demand model uses population and employment forecasts for the period 2000-2025, prepared by the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG). A detailed discussion and comprehensive summaries of the travel demand model assumptions, data, and processes are contained in the Travel Demand Forecasting Report in Appendix I.

The 2025 No-Project conditions, which represent future baseline conditions in Year 2025 travel without the proposed project, were compared to existing conditions to identify any impacts that would occur if the proposed project were not built. Potential transportation and circulation impacts under the 2025 proposed project conditions were also identified by comparing the proposed project to existing conditions. The proposed project related impacts were identified as those impacts due to changes other than identified under the 2025 No-Project conditions.

CEQA requires comparison of the proposed project to existing conditions. However, for a regional transportation facility such as the proposed project that would be implemented in the future, it is also important to assess its impacts relative to future conditions without the project, or the “future baseline” condition which is equivalent to the No-Project Alternative. This approach provides an assessment of the project’s impacts in the context of regional growth, traffic demand, and planned highway and roadway improvements that would be in place when the project is operational and that influence the overall impacts of the proposed project.

Roadway Analysis Results of the travel demand forecast were utilized to determine traffic conditions along the Highway 101 corridor and on local transportation networks adjacent to proposed stations. The methods used to identify the impacts of the proposed project include calculating and evaluating travel times within the Highway 101 travel corridor, assessing traffic operations by comparing available roadway capacity to the anticipated travel demands (V/C), and evaluating potentially affected intersection operations on a local level. From this analysis, information was generated regarding total VMT and VHT, Highway 101 LOS, selected roadway LOS, and selected downtown intersection LOS. Supporting technical information regarding the transportation calculations is available in the reference document - Transportation Technical Data (Parsons Brinckerhoff, 2005).

A principal gauge for measuring the impact of a transit project is its effect on overall Vehicle-Miles- Traveled (VMT) and Vehicle-Hours-Traveled (VHT). VMT and VHT are estimated from the travel demand model for the base and future conditions scenarios. VMT represents the product of the highway traffic volumes or demand and the vehicle miles traveled for all trips within the proposed project corridor. Similarly, VHT represents the product of the highway traffic volumes or demand and vehicle travel times or congestion and vehicle delay.

4 When the Notice of Preparation for this DEIR was published in November 2002, the 2001 RTP was the approved regional transportation plan for the Bay Area and accordingly served as the basis for project analysis. Specifically, the travel demand model used in the analysis of the proposed project and the alternatives includes programmed changes in the transportation network, transit systems, land use, employment intensities, and background growth documented in the 2001 RTP.

Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit 3-93 DEIR November 2005 Chapter 3: Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures

Transportation

Detailed assessment of local roadways was conducted on those principal roadways that serve proposed station locations. This “screen line” analysis included roadway segments that were considered to be representative of the access network to each proposed station site. The screen lines were typically located on arterial links and represented the most impacted access routes to the proposed station site in the travel demand model. The conditions represented by these locations reflect the nature of the area (such as urban, suburban or rural) and the number of travel lanes on the roadway. Highway 101 and key local roadway segments were evaluated by analyzing V/C ratios and LOS for existing and future conditions (see Table 3.6-1 in Section 3.6.1 for roadway LOS definitions).

In addition, a detailed intersection operations analysis was performed on downtown San Rafael intersections that would potentially be affected by the proposed project. Vehicle delay and LOS were analyzed at each intersection to evaluate existing and future traffic operations (see Table 3.6-2 in Section 3.6.1 for intersection LOS definitions). The downtown San Rafael street network is a sensitive network that currently operates at near capacity. The San Rafael station is bounded by one-way couplets, high travel demands, significant vehicle and pedestrian movements, and closely spaced intersections. Due to many factors, including Highway 101 access points (Hetherton Avenue and Irwin Street), high traffic demands, circulation patterns, the volume of bus movement at the Bettini Transit Center, access to The Whistlestop Transportation facility, and pedestrian circulation, incidents on the street network have a substantial impact on the existing access and circulation around this station. This is particularly true, given the volumes of peak period traffic on Second and Third Streets. It is noted that while there are other downtown and urban stations such as Santa Rosa Railroad Square and Downtown Petaluma stations, the circulation network in downtown San Rafael is more constrained. Therefore, the analysis for the Downtown San Rafael Station is a “worst-case” analysis of the impacts of the proposed project on an urban traffic street network (particularly intersection operations).

Proposed Project Assumptions

The proposed passenger rail project includes the following components, which are described in detail in Chapter 2, Project Description and included in the modeling analysis: • Provision of passenger rail service on the existing Northwestern Pacific Railroad (NWP) corridor. The existing rail corridor extends 70 miles from Cloverdale in Sonoma County south to Larkspur in Marin County. • Construction includes upgrades to existing rail tracks, tunnel rehabilitation, road-crossing improvements, bridge upgrades, rail signal system upgrades, and a maintenance facility. • Initial rail service would provide four daily passenger rail round trips between Cloverdale and Larkspur, two daily round trips between Healdsburg and Larkspur, three daily round trips between Windsor and Larkspur, two daily round trips between Petaluma and Larkspur, and two daily round trips between Healdsburg and Petaluma. • The passenger rail would serve fourteen stations. Three multimodal stations (Healdsburg, Windsor and Cotati) are currently being implemented by others and will receive rail facility enhancements prior to rail start-up. One rail station, Cloverdale, has already been constructed and will require only minor rail amenities prior to start-up. Two historic stations, Santa Rosa and Petaluma have been renovated and will serve as the sites of the new railroad platforms and passenger amenities. The remaining 8 stations would be constructed as part of the proposed project. • Implementation of a local shuttle system comprised of nine routes serving the proposed stations of Petaluma – Corona Road, Downtown Petaluma, Novato North, Novato South, Marin Civic Center, Downtown San Rafael, and Larkspur Ferry Terminal. The purpose of the free shuttles is to enhance mobility for riders who would not have access to an automobile and supplement those areas where commuter feeder service may not be readily available. • An integrated signal system in downtown San Rafael would be in place to minimize at-grade crossing delays. Signal progression would be coordinated in Downtown Petaluma and Santa Rosa to address potential at-grade crossing delays.

Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit 3-94 DEIR November 2005 Chapter 3: Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures

Transportation

• A bicycle/pedestrian pathway would be constructed, generally paralleling the NWP right-of-way and providing access to stations. Pathway improvements would include approximately 53 miles of Class I and approximately 17 miles of Class II pathway improvements. As noted in Chapter 2, portions of the bicycle/pedestrian pathway would be constructed by other agencies (e.g., the Novato Narrows segment).

In addition to these project components, assumptions regarding transit and ferry service were necessary to provide inputs to the modeling analysis. As part of this environmental analysis a 15 percent increase in intracounty bus transit service within Sonoma and Marin Counties by the year 2025 (compared to the 2001 baseline) was assumed for the proposed project (and for all build alternatives). Absent any detailed 2025 transit plans, this increase is based on a planning assumption that recent declines in bus transit service in both counties would not be expected to continue over a 25 year period. At the time the travel forecasting model was developed, there were no adopted transit service plans that outlined a specific bus service expansion plan for the year 2025 in Sonoma and Marin counties. However, the subsequent passage of local transportation sales tax measures, which have funding planned for increases in transit service, supports this planning assumption. Bus service to San Francisco and the East Bay and between the two counties via Golden Gate Transit is assumed to remain consistent with what was in place in 2001. Larkspur Ferry service would be expected to remain at year 2000 levels.

Projected Rail Ridership and Modeling

Based on implementation of the proposed project features summarized above, in addition to planned improvements under the 2025 future baseline conditions, the proposed passenger rail project is forecasted to serve approximately 4,800 daily riders for the horizon year of 2025 according to the travel demand model. The projected ridership provides the primary basis for determining the level of proposed rail service and assessing travel demand on roadways and transit systems. Projected rail ridership for the proposed project was developed through use of the travel forecasting model identified above. The travel forecasting model used for this DEIR is based on four basic travel analysis steps: trip generation, trip distribution, mode choice, and trip assignment.

The travel forecast results for both the transit and highway modes were obtained from the MTC RTP Year 2025 model run (MTC, 2001). This model is a traditional “four-step” model and is based on the socio-economic data prepared independently by ABAG for each travel analysis zone. The four steps are: 1. Generate the number of trips for each zone, based on the socio-economic characteristics of the zone (population, number of jobs). This initial step geographically determines the amount of travel activity that the socioeconomic data will generate, i.e., employment centers versus residential neighborhoods. 2. Distribute the trips from each zone to every other zone, resulting in a table of person-trips between each and every zone. This second step, trip distribution, links and disperses the generated travel by identifying origin and destination points. These person-trips are by all motorized modes of travel. 3. Apply a mode choice model, which is based on the relative travel time and travel cost of a trip by the available modes, as well as socio-economic characteristics of the traveler. Mode choice is the link in the travel demand chain, as this step estimates the share of travel on each available mode. 4. Assign the trips to the transit and highway networks. The transit assignments consider the relative frequency and trip travel time. The highway network assignment will consider the shortest travel time, as well as congestion; trips are routed to alternative highways when parts of the highway network become very congested. This final step, trip assignment assigns demand to the transportation system facilities and modes, including the proposed rail project.

The model considers population, households, employment, income, and auto ownership, as well as highway network characteristics (e.g., link capacities and speeds, HOV facilities, etc.) and transit system characteristics (i.e., bus and rail routes, stations, and frequency). These major inputs into the travel demand model are discussed in detail in Appendix I, Travel Demand Forecasting Report.

Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit 3-95 DEIR November 2005 Chapter 3: Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures

Transportation

3.6.4 Future Baseline (No-Project) Transportation Conditions and Assumptions

In order to determine future baseline or background transportation conditions (without the proposed project), planned and approved infrastructure or transportation improvements and activities other than the proposed project were identified. In addition to the existing roadway infrastructure, there are transportation improvements that are planned and funded and therefore anticipated to be implemented within the travel forecast period that were factored into the analysis, consistent with the 2001 RTP.

Future Roadway Network

For both Marin and Sonoma counties, it is assumed 2025 baseline conditions will include new roadway improvements identified in the MTC 2001 RTP, which takes into account plans developed by the two counties and local jurisdictions at the time the MTC 2001 RTP was adopted. More specifically, projects within the fiscally constrained element of the RTP, that is, those designated as “Committed Funding” and “Track 1,” are assumed to be implemented. “Committed Funding” projects include those projects that have local, state or federal funds available for project implementation while “Track 1” projects includes those projects that will be funded by discretionary state and federal funds which are anticipated to be available over the long term of the RTP (by 2025). Projects that cannot be funded with either programmed revenues or discretionary funds that are expected to become available over the term of the RTP are not assumed.

Roadway improvements included in the travel demand model for 2025 baseline (No Project) conditions are listed below and shown in Figure 3.6-2. These improvements, which are identified in the 2001 RTP, are located within the Highway 101 corridor and are listed from north to south.

Sonoma County 1. Highway 101/Arata Lane interchange improvements in Windsor, including two southbound ramps and two northbound off-ramps. 2. Highway 101 northbound and southbound HOV lanes from Steele Lane in Santa Rosa to River Road in Windsor, including ramp improvements and northbound and southbound auxiliary lanes. 3. Highway 101 northbound and southbound HOV lanes from Route 12 to Steele Lane in Santa Rosa, including interchange modifications at Steele Lane, Mendocino Avenue and College Avenue. 4. Highway 101 northbound and southbound HOV lanes from Rohnert Park Expressway through the Wilfred Avenue interchange, including reconstruction of Wilfred Avenue interchange and reconfiguring local streets. 5. Highway 101 and Route 116 separation, including improvements to Route 116 onramp to southbound Highway 101. 6. Highway 101 southbound auxiliary lane between Route 116 to East Washington. 7. Highway 101 northbound and southbound HOV lanes from Old Redwood Highway in Petaluma to Rohnert Park Expressway. 8. Highway 101 and Route 116 separation, including replacement of bridge over separation and improvements to on-ramp to Highway 101. 9. Highway 101 northbound and southbound HOV lanes from the Marin County line to Old Redwood Highway in Petaluma, including converting some portions from expressway to freeway.

Marin County 10. Highway 101 northbound and southbound widening with HOV lanes from Route 37 to the Sonoma County line and converting some portions from expressway to freeway. 11. Highway 101/Atherton interchange improvements. 12. Highway 101/Lucas Valley Road interchange improvements.

Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit 3-96 DEIR November 2005 Chapter 3: Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures

Transportation

13. Highway 101 northbound and southbound HOV lanes from North San Pedro Road to Lucky Drive in San Rafael. 14. Freeway-to-freeway interchange improvements, including a new bridge from west I-580 to south Highway 101 and new lane from west I-580 to north Highway 101 to 2nd Avenue. 15. Highway 101/Sir Francis Drake improvements. 16. Highway 101/Tamalpais interchange improvements. 17. Highway 101/Tiburon Boulevard interchange improvements and widening southbound off-ramp.

It should be noted that portions of these improvements have been partly or wholly completed between 2000 and 2005. As indicated in the list above, Caltrans, in cooperation with Marin and Sonoma counties, has plans to implement additional HOV lanes on Highway 101 in both counties. The program of improvements will provide continuous HOV lanes in both directions from Larkspur to Windsor by filling in the HOV lane gaps along the corridor.

Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities

The Marin Countywide Plan 2004 and the General Plan of Marin County call for implementation of bikeways throughout the county, as well as through two railroad tunnels. The Alto Hill Tunnel would connect Mill Valley and Corte Madera, and is not part of the proposed project. The renovation of the Cal Park Hill Railroad Tunnel will provide bicycle/pedestrian access between San Rafael and the Larkspur Ferry Terminal, while preserving the tunnel alignment for single track passenger rail service. In 2002, a final report, Cal Park Hill Tunnel and Bicycle/Pedestrian Pathway Study, was released on a bicycle/pedestrian pathway and single track use of the tunnel (Nelson/Nygaard Consulting Associates, 2002). On-going planning work with Marin County and SMART has concluded that the railroad tunnel can accommodate a parallel bicycle/pedestrian pathway with the construction of a dividing wall and ventilation. The new railroad tunnel design allows phased construction of both the bicycle/pedestrian and rail improvements without requiring the demolition of any bikeway improvements when rail is implemented.

Bus Transit Operation Assumptions for Travel Forecasting

The MTC 2001RTP describes proposed regional transportation improvements, including enhancement to transit operations. At a more local level, the County and City transit plans also provide a framework for transit improvements in the project corridor. Despite recent reductions in bus service, it is anticipated that service will increase during the next 20 years. As a conservative assumption for travel forecasting for future baseline (No Project) conditions, it was assumed that transit service levels would return to 2001 levels over the next 20 years. This assumption is based on the MTC 2001 RTP, which identifies improvements for the year 2025. Unlike the proposed project and the “build” alternatives, the No Project Alternative does not assume a 15 percent increase in service levels.5 Future transit services to be funded by recent sales tax measures in the two counties were not modeled in the year 2025, because they were not included specifically in the MTC 2001 RTP.

5 As part of alternatives development for this environmental analysis, a 15 percent increase in intracounty bus transit service by the year 2025 was assumed for the proposed project, Express Bus, and Minimum Operating Segment. See proposed project assumptions in Section 3.6.3.

Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit 3-97 DEIR November 2005 Chapter 3: Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures

Transportation

FIGURE 3.6-2 SIGNIFICANT TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAMMED FOR IMPLEMENTATION BY 2025 IN THE PROJECT CORRIDOR

Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit 3-98 DEIR November 2005 Chapter 3: Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures

Transportation

Ferry Service

Larkspur Ferry service currently has the highest ridership of any ferry service in the San Francisco area. The model assumes that San Francisco Bay ferry service would remain at existing, year 2000, levels. Projected growth in peak hour ferry passenger service is currently constrained by landside parking limitations at the Larkspur Ferry Terminal (GGBHTD, 2005).

3.6.5 Impact Summary

The expected travel demand for both Year 2025 No-Project and Year 2025 proposed project conditions were evaluated and compared to existing conditions as part of the transportation and circulation impact analysis. It is necessary to determine future conditions without the project in order to provide a basis for identifying future impacts due directly to the proposed project. Simply comparing the proposed project to existing conditions would not account for the many changes that are reasonably foreseeable in the near future, such as continued growth and associated vehicle traffic, new roadway improvements (planned and funded) and other changes to the transportation network that will occur with or without the project.

Between existing conditions (Year 2000) and the 2025 analysis horizon year, population and employment is forecasted to grow throughout Sonoma and Marin counties. In the twenty-five year period to Year 2025, Marin and Sonoma County are forecasted to have approximately 23 percent growth in population and approximately 45 percent growth in employment (ABAG Projections 2000)6. Peak period directional travel demand along Highway 101 is expected to have a more balanced distribution, compared to the current directional peak travel demand in the corridor. The morning southbound commute and evening northbound commute along Highway 101 would still be the peak directions, but the imbalance between northbound and southbound travel demand during the morning and evening commute periods would be less prominent. However, this correlates to more people traveling in the corridor and the worsening of the traffic conditions for the reverse peak direction commutes, rather than a decrease in the peak directional demand.

While the changes in population, employment and land use intensification would result in growth and changes in traffic circulation and congestion, approved and programmed highway modifications in the corridor, included as part of 2025 No-Project conditions, are anticipated to improve traffic operations and circulation relative to existing conditions at some locations. As shown in Tables 3.6-7A through 3.6-8B, Highway 101 segments currently operating between LOS D and F are shown to improve whereas the other segments currently operating at LOS C or better show a decrease in LOS in year 2025. This exemplifies the expected changes of travel demands throughout the corridor in 2025 especially in the current off-peak directions along Highway 101. To determine potential impacts due specifically to the proposed project, 2025 proposed project conditions were compared to existing conditions and changes beyond the 2025 baseline conditions were identified.

Potential project impacts were analyzed on Highway 101, local roadways and intersections, station area parking, bicycle and pedestrian access, and at-grade crossings. Based on this analysis, the proposed project would not result in any significant unavoidable impacts on the regional transportation network, parking facilities, and bicycle and pedestrian circulation. The proposed project would result in improved volume to capacity ratios on the majority of Highway 101 segments, compared to No-Project conditions, particularly during the p.m. peak period. However, increased traffic demand impacts on local roadways providing access to station sites may be significant and unavoidable, if identified mitigation is determined to be infeasible.

Implementation of the proposed project would be consistent with regional and local policies, plans and or programs to reduce the dependency on the automobile and support alternative modes of transportation.

6 Information was developed before the U.S. Census data was released; the estimates are very close to each other. ABAG did a special set of forecasts that extended the horizon year of Projections 2000 from 2020 to 2025.

Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit 3-99 DEIR November 2005 Chapter 3: Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures

Transportation

The proposed project in itself provides a transportation mode other than driving personal automobiles and the proposed bicycle/pedestrian pathway would support the increased use of non-motorized modes of transportation. Results of the impact analysis, which focused on potential long-term project impacts, are summarized below. Tables 3.6-6 through 3.6-10 provide comparisons of existing conditions, future (Year 2025) baseline (No Project) conditions, and proposed project (Year 2025) conditions. The detailed analysis of each transportation factor is provided in Section 3.6.6 and summarized here.

Roadway Network

Highway 101 VMT and VHT. Table 3.6-6 summarizes estimated VMT and VHT in Sonoma and Marin counties under existing (Year 2000), 2025 No-Project, and 2025 proposed project conditions. As shown in the table, VMT and VHT would increase from existing conditions to 2025 conditions during both a.m. and p.m. peak hours due to projected growth and increased number of vehicles on the highway. Under 2025 proposed project conditions, the total VMT and VHT in Sonoma and Marin counties are anticipated to be higher than under existing conditions but the increases would be lower than under 2025 No-Project conditions, indicating overall reductions in automobile travel and congestion in both counties if the project is implemented.

TABLE 3.6-6 ESTIMATED VEHICLE MILES TRAVELED (VMT) AND VEHICLE HOURS TRAVELED (VHT) FOR SONOMA AND MARIN COUNTIES

AM Peak Hour AM Peak AM Peak Scenario Year Hour VMT Hour VHT

Existing Conditions 2000 1,197,500 42,800 Future Baseline (No-Project) 2025 1,607,500 80,000 Proposed Passenger Rail Project 2025 1,599,800 78,200

PM Peak Hour PM Peak PM Peak Scenario Year Hour VMT Hour VHT

Existing Conditions 2000 1,202,500 42,000 Future Baseline (No-Project) 2025 1,554,800 65,900

Proposed Passenger Rail Project 2025 1,547,500 64,600

Source: Parsons Brinckerhoff, MTC travel demand forecasting model, August 2005

Level of Service – A.M. Peak. Figure 3.6-1 shows Highway 101 LOS analysis segments by number, which are referenced in subsequent tables. Tables 3.6-7A through 3.6-7B summarize levels of service on Highway 101 within the study corridor under existing (Year 2000), 2025 No-Project and 2025 proposed project conditions for the a.m. peak hour. The 2025 No-Project results for the mixed flow lanes indicate that one of the nine segments along the corridor (Citrus Fair Drive to Windsor River Road) would operate at LOS E in the southbound (peak) direction during the a.m. peak hour, compared to eight segments at LOS E or F under existing conditions. In the northbound direction during the a.m. peak hour, none of the mixed flow lane segments would operate at LOS E or F under 2025 No-Project conditions compared to two segments under existing conditions. Similar to the future baseline or No- Project scenario, the proposed project conditions show improved operations on most highway segments, relative to existing conditions. In fact, none of the mixed flow segments of Highway 101 would operate at

Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit 3-100 DEIR November 2005 Chapter 3: Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures

Transportation unacceptable levels of service (per county and city/town LOS guidelines) under either the 2025 No- Project or proposed project conditions. Overall, the proposed project conditions would result in service levels that are the same as under No-Project conditions, with variations in vehicle demand along some segments of Highway 101.

The 2025 No-Project results for the HOV lanes indicate that two of the nine segments (State Route 37 Interchange to North San Pedro Road and North San Pedro Road to Sir Francis Drake Boulevard) would operate at LOS E or F in the southbound (peak) direction during the a.m. peak hour, compared to no segments at LOS E or F under existing conditions. Therefore, these two southbound segments of HOV lanes on Highway 101 would operate at unacceptable service levels. In the northbound direction during the a.m. peak hour, none of the HOV lane segments would operate at LOS E or F under 2025 No-Project conditions, similar to existing conditions. Comparing the 2025 proposed project conditions to existing conditions, similar changes would occur as under 2025 No-Project conditions. HOV facilities with the proposed project would operate at similar levels during the a.m. peak hour in 2025 as under the 2025 No-Project conditions. Although the same two southbound HOV segments would operate at unacceptable service levels, the proposed project is not anticipated to cause a deterioration in V/C ratios or service levels

Level of Service – P.M. Peak. The p.m. peak hour service levels for the Year 2025 are summarized in Tables 3.6-8A and 3.6-8B. Compared to existing conditions, both the proposed project and future baseline (No-Project) conditions would improve for the mixed flow lanes such that all segments would operate at acceptable service levels. The 2025 No-Project results for the mixed flow lanes indicate that none of the nine segments along the corridor would operate at LOS E or F in the northbound (peak) direction in the p.m. peak hour, compared to eight segments at LOS E or F under existing conditions. In the southbound direction during the p.m. peak hour, none of the mixed flow lane segments would operate at LOS E or F under 2025 No-Project conditions compared to one segment under existing conditions. Changes in vehicle demand for mixed flow lanes along the corridor are also anticipated under proposed project conditions, resulting in service levels along the corridor that are similar to future baseline conditions. Only the southbound Highway 101 segments in downtown Santa Rosa and Larkspur for mixed flow traffic is anticipated to have changes in service level, but the new service level is still within an acceptable range.

The 2025 No-Project results for the HOV lanes indicate that all segments in both directions would operate at acceptable levels during the p.m. peak hour, similar to existing conditions. With the proposed project, all HOV lanes along Highway 101 during the p.m. peak hour are also expected to operate at similar acceptable levels of service as the 2025 No-Project conditions during the p.m. peak hour.

Local Roadway and Arterial Operations A screen line analysis was conducted on key access roads that serve the proposed rail stations. Tables 3.6-9A and 3.6-9B summarize the changes in V/C ratios and level of service at screen line segments for existing (Year 2000), 2025 No-Project, and 2025 proposed project conditions. The V/C ratios and levels of service were based on travel demand forecast model output. The model evaluated each roadway segment by comparing the forecasted volume to an estimated capacity of the roadway segment based on the type of facility (arterial, rural highway, etc.) and number of lanes. This estimated roadway capacity is generally conservative, since it does not take into account other factors such as traffic controls and intersection geometrics, which may allow for greater roadway capacities.

Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit 3-101 DEIR November 2005 Chapter 3: Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures

Transportation

TABLE 3.6-7A YEAR 2025 HIGHWAY 101 LEVEL OF SERVICE SUMMARY AM PEAK HOUR MIXED FLOW LANES

2000 A.M. Peak Hour 2025 A.M. Peak Hour #SegmentDirectionNumber of Existing Number of No-Project Rail Project Capacity Capacity lanes Volume V/C LOS lanes Volume V/C LOS Volume V/C LOS Citrus Fair Drive (Cloverdale) to Windsor River 1 NB 2 4,000 1,700 0.43 A 2 4,000 1,900 0.48 A 1,900 0.48 A Road (Windsor) Windsor River Road (Windsor) to Third Street 2 NB 2 4,000 3,300 0.83 D 3 5,200 4,000 0.77 C 4,000 0.77 C (Downtown Santa Rosa) * Third Street (Downtown Santa Rosa) to Rohnert 3 NB 2 4,000 4,200 1.05 F 2 4,000 3,600 0.90 D 3,500 0.88 D Park Expressway (Rohnert Park) Rohnert Park Expressway (Rohnert Park) to 4 NB 2 4,000 3,800 0.95 E 3 5,200 4,600 0.88 D 4,700 0.90 D Corona Road (Petaluma) * Corona Road (Petaluma) to State Route 116 5 NB 2 4,000 3,400 0.85 D 2 4,000 3,600 0.90 D 3,600 0.90 D (South Petaluma) State Route 116 (South Petaluma) to Atherton 6 NB 2 4,000 3,500 0.88 D 3 6,000 3,400 0.57 A 3,500 0.58 A Avenue (Novato Narrows) Atherton Avenue (Novato Narrows) to State 7 NB 3 6,000 4,300 0.72 C 3 6,000 5,200 0.87 D 5,100 0.85 D Route 37 Interchange (Novato) State Route 37 Interchange (Novato) to North 8 NB 4 8,000 6,100 0.76 C 5 10,000 6,500 0.65 B 6,400 0.64 B San Pedro Road (San Rafael) North San Pedro Road (San Rafael) to Sir 9 NB 4 8,000 6,100 0.76 C 4 8,000 4,400 0.55 A 4,600 0.58 A Francis Drake Boulevard (Larkspur)

Citrus Fair Drive (Cloverdale) to Windsor River 1 SB 2 4,000 4,100 1.03 F 2 4,000 3,800 0.95 E 3,800 0.95 E Road (Windsor) Windsor River Road (Windsor) to Third Street 2 SB 2 4,000 3,500 0.88 D 3 5,200 3,900 0.75 C 3,900 0.75 C (Downtown Santa Rosa) Third Street (Downtown Santa Rosa) to Rohnert 3 SB 2 4,000 3,900 0.98 E 2 4,000 2,900 0.73 C 2,900 0.73 C Park Expressway (Rohnert Park) Rohnert Park Expressway (Rohnert Park) to 4 SB 2 4,000 3,900 0.98 E 3 5,200 3,800 0.73 C 3,800 0.73 C Corona Road (Petaluma) Corona Road (Petaluma) to State Route 116 5 SB 2 4,000 3,900 0.98 E 2 4,000 2,800 0.70 B 2,800 0.70 B (South Petaluma) State Route 116 (South Petaluma) to Atherton 6 SB 2 4,000 4,400 1.10 F 3 6,000 3,200 0.53 A 3,300 0.55 A Avenue (Novato Narrows) Atherton Avenue (Novato Narrows) to State 7 SB 3 6,000 5,500 0.92 E 3 6,000 4,300 0.72 C 4,400 0.73 C Route 37 Interchange (Novato) State Route 37 Interchange (Novato) to North 8 SB 4 8,000 7,400 0.93 E 5 10,000 7,500 0.75 C 7,400 0.74 C San Pedro Road (San Rafael) North San Pedro Road (San Rafael) to Sir 9 SB 4 8,000 7,900 0.99 E 4 8,000 5,600 0.70 B 5,600 0.70 B Francis Drake Boulevard (Larkspur) * Third lane is an auxiliary lane between ramps; capacity adjusted to include auxiliary lane facilty Source: Parsons Brinckerhoff, MTC 2001 RTP, based on forecasted horizon year 2025 (August 2005).

Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit 3-102 DEIR November 2005 Chapter 3: Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures

Transportation

TABLE 3.6-7B YEAR 2025 HIGHWAY 101 LEVEL OF SERVICE SUMMARY AM PEAK HOUR HOV LANES

2000 A.M. Peak Hour 2025 A.M. Peak Hour # Segment Direction Number of Existing Number of No-Project Rail Project Capacity Capacity lanes Volume V/C LOSlanes Volume V/C LOS Volume V/C LOS Citrus Fair Drive (Cloverdale) to Shiloh Road 1 NB 0 - - - - 1 1,750 300 0.17 A 300 0.17 A (Windsor) Shiloh Road (Windsor) to State Route 12 (Santa 2 NB 0 - - - - 1 1,750 500 0.29 A 500 0.29 A Rosa) State Route 12 (Santa Rosa) to Rohnert Park 3 NB 1 1,750 600 0.34 A 1 1,750 900 0.51 A 900 0.51 A Expressway (Rohnert Park) Rohnert Park Expressway (Rohnert Park) to 4 NB 0 - - - - 1 1,750 1,000 0.57 A 1,000 0.57 A Corona Road (Petaluma) Corona Road (Petaluma) to State Route 116 5 NB 0 - - - - 1 1,750 900 0.51 A 900 0.51 A (South Petaluma) State Route 116 (South Petaluma) to Altherton 6 NB 0 - - - - 1 1,750 700 0.40 A 700 0.40 A Avenue (Novato Narrows) Altherton Avenue (Novato Narrows) to State 7 NB 0 - - - - 1 1,750 1,100 0.63 B 1,100 0.63 B Route 37 Interchange (Novato) State Route 37 Interchange (Novato) to North 8 NB 1 1,750 500 0.29 A 1 1,750 1,200 0.69 B 1,100 0.63 B San Pedro Road (San Rafael) North San Pedro Road (San Rafael) to Sir 9 NB 0 - - - - 1 1,750 600 0.34 A 500 0.29 A Francis Drake Boulevard (Larkspur)

Citrus Fair Drive (Cloverdale) to Shiloh Road 1 SB 0 - - - - 1 1,750 1100 0.63 B 1100 0.63 B (Windsor) Shiloh Road (Windsor) to State Route 12 (Santa 2 SB 0 - - - - 1 1,750 900 0.51 A 900 0.51 A Rosa) State Route 12 (Santa Rosa) to Rohnert Park 3 SB 1 1,750 1,500 0.86 D 1 1,750 700 0.40 A 700 0.40 A Expressway (Rohnert Park) Rohnert Park Expressway (Rohnert Park) to 4 SB 0 - - - - 1 1,750 900 0.51 A 900 0.51 A Corona Road (Petaluma) Corona Road (Petaluma) to State Route 116 5 SB 0 - - - - 1 1,750 800 0.46 A 800 0.46 A (South Petaluma) State Route 116 (South Petaluma) to Altherton 6 SB 0 - - - - 1 1,750 1,000 0.57 A 1,000 0.57 A Avenue (Novato Narrows) Altherton Avenue (Novato Narrows) to State 7 SB 0 - - - - 1 1,750 1,400 0.80 C 1,300 0.74 C Route 37 Interchange (Novato) State Route 37 Interchange (Novato) to North 8 SB 1 1,750 1,500 0.86 D 1 1,750 1,800 1.03 F 1,800 1.03 F San Pedro Road (San Rafael) North San Pedro Road (San Rafael) to Sir 9 SB 0 - - - - 1 1,750 1,600 0.91 E 1,600 0.91 E Francis Drake Boulevard (Larkspur) Source: Parsons Brinckerhoff, MTC 2001 RTP, based on forecasted horizon year 2025 (August 2005).

Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit 3-103 DEIR November 2005 Chapter 3: Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures

Transportation

TABLE 3.6-8A YEAR 2025 HIGHWAY 101 LEVEL OF SERVICE SUMMARY PM PEAK HOUR MIXED FLOW LANES

2000 P.M. Peak Hour 2025 P.M. Peak Hour # Segment Direction Number of Existing Number of No Project Rail Project Capacity Capacity lanes Volume V/C LOSlanes Volume V/C LOS Volume V/C LOS Citrus Fair Drive (Cloverdale) to Windsor River 1 NB 2 4,000 4,200 1.05 F 2 4,000 3,600 0.90 D 3,600 0.90 D Road (Windsor) Windsor River Road (Windsor) to Third Street 2 NB 2 4,000 4,500 1.13 F 3 5,200 3,500 0.67 B 3,400 0.65 B (Downtown Santa Rosa) * Third Street (Downtown Santa Rosa) to Rohnert 3 NB 2 4,000 3,900 0.98 E 2 4,000 3,200 0.80 C 3,100 0.78 C Park Expressway (Rohnert Park) Rohnert Park Expressway (Rohnert Park) to 4 NB 2 4,000 3,700 0.93 E 3 5,200 3,900 0.75 C 3,900 0.75 C Corona Road (Petaluma) * Corona Road (Petaluma) to State Route 116 5 NB 2 4,000 3,800 0.95 E 2 4,000 2,900 0.73 C 2,900 0.73 C (South Petaluma) State Route 116 (South Petaluma) to Atherton 6 NB 2 4,000 4,400 1.10 F 3 6,000 3,300 0.55 A 3300 0.55 A Avenue (Novato Narrows) Atherton Avenue (Novato Narrows) to State 7 NB 3 6,000 5,400 0.90 D 3 6,000 5,000 0.83 D 5,000 0.83 D Route 37 Interchange (Novato) State Route 37 Interchange (Novato) to North 8 NB 4 8,000 7,500 0.94 E 5 10,000 7,500 0.75 C 7,300 0.73 C San Pedro Road (San Rafael) North San Pedro Road (San Rafael) to Sir 9 NB 4 8,000 7,900 0.99 E 4 8,000 4,900 0.61 B 4,900 0.61 B Francis Drake Boulevard (Larkspur)

Citrus Fair Drive (Cloverdale) to Windsor River 1 SB 2 4,000 2,000 0.50 A 2 4,000 2,200 0.55 A 2,200 0.55 A Road (Windsor) Windsor River Road (Windsor) to Third Street 2 SB 2 4,000 2,800 0.70 B 3 5,200 3,600 0.69 B 3,800 0.73 C (Downtown Santa Rosa) Third Street (Downtown Santa Rosa) to Rohnert 3 SB 2 4,000 3,900 0.98 E 2 4,000 3,600 0.90 D 3,500 0.88 D Park Expressway (Rohnert Park) Rohnert Park Expressway (Rohnert Park) to 4 SB 2 4,000 3,600 0.90 D 3 5,200 4,400 0.85 D 4,300 0.83 D Corona Road (Petaluma) Corona Road (Petaluma) to State Route 116 5 SB 2 4,000 3,500 0.88 D 2 4,000 3,600 0.90 D 3,600 0.90 D (South Petaluma) State Route 116 (South Petaluma) to Atherton 6 SB 2 4,000 3,500 0.88 D 3 6,000 3,600 0.60 A 3,600 0.60 A Avenue (Novato Narrows) Atherton Avenue (Novato Narrows) to State 7 SB 3 6,000 4,600 0.77 C 3 6,000 5,100 0.85 D 5,000 0.83 D Route 37 Interchange (Novato) State State Route 37 Interchange (Novato) to 8 SB 4 8,000 5,300 0.66 B 5 10,000 6,600 0.66 B 6,700 0.67 B North San Pedro Road (San Rafael) North San Pedro Road (San Rafael) to Sir 9 SB 4 8,000 4,100 0.51 A 4 8,000 5,600 0.70 B 5,700 0.71 C Francis Drake Boulevard (Larkspur) * Third lane is an auxiliary lane between ramps; capacity adjusted to include auxiliary lane facilty Source: Parsons Brinckerhoff, MTC 2001 RTP, based on forecasted horizon year 2025 (August 2005).

Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit 3-104 DEIR November 2005 Chapter 3: Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures

Transportation

TABLE 3.6-8B YEAR 2025 HIGHWAY 101 LEVEL OF SERVICE SUMMARY PM PEAK HOUR HOV LANES

2000 P.M. Peak Hour 2025 P.M. Peak Hour #SegmentDirectionNumber of Existing Number of No Project Rail Project Capacity Capacity lanes Volume V/C LOS lanes Volume V/C LOS Volume V/C LOS Citrus Fair Drive (Cloverdale) to Shiloh Road 1 NB 0 - - - - 1 1,750 800 0.46 A 700 0.40 A (Windsor) Shiloh Road (Windsor) to State Route 12 (Santa 2 NB 0 - - - - 1 1,750 500 0.29 A 500 0.29 A Rosa) State Route 12 (Santa Rosa) to Rohnert Park 3 NB 1 1,750 1,200 0.69 B 1 1,750 600 0.34 A 600 0.34 A Expressway (Rohnert Park) Rohnert Park Expressway (Rohnert Park) to 4 NB 0 - - - - 1 1,750 700 0.40 A 700 0.40 A Corona Road (Petaluma) Corona Road (Petaluma) to State Route 116 5 NB 0 - - - - 1 1,750 600 0.34 A 600 0.34 A (South Petaluma) State Route 116 (South Petaluma) to Altherton 6 NB 0 - - - - 1 1,750 700 0.40 A 700 0.40 A Avenue (Novato Narrows) Altherton Avenue (Novato Narrows) to State 7 NB 0 - - - - 1 1,750 900 0.51 A 900 0.51 A Route 37 Interchange (Novato) State Route 37 Interchange (Novato) to North 8 NB 1 1,750 1,000 0.57 A 1 1,750 1,300 0.74 C 1,200 0.69 B San Pedro Road (San Rafael) North San Pedro Road (San Rafael) to Sir 9 NB 0 - - - - 1 1,750 800 0.46 A 700 0.40 A Francis Drake Boulevard (Larkspur)

Citrus Fair Drive (Cloverdale) to Shiloh Road 1 SB 0 - - - - 1 1,750 400 0.23 A 400 0.23 A (Windsor) Shiloh Road (Windsor) to State Route 12 (Santa 2 SB 0 - - - - 1 1,750 600 0.34 A 600 0.34 A Rosa) State Route 12 (Santa Rosa) to Rohnert Park 3 SB 1 1,750 600 0.34 A 1 1,750 600 0.34 A 600 0.34 A Expressway (Rohnert Park) Rohnert Park Expressway (Rohnert Park) to 4 SB 0 - - - - 1 1,750 800 0.46 A 800 0.46 A Corona Road (Petaluma) Corona Road (Petaluma) to State Route 116 5 SB 0 - - - - 1 1,750 600 0.34 A 600 0.34 A (South Petaluma) State Route 116 (South Petaluma) to Altherton 6 SB 0 - - - - 1 1,750 700 0.40 A 700 0.40 A Avenue (Novato Narrows) Altherton Avenue (Novato Narrows) to State 7 SB 0 - - - - 1 1,750 900 0.51 A 900 0.51 A Route 37 Interchange (Novato) State Route 37 Interchange (Novato) to North 8 SB 1 1,750 700 0.40 A 1 1,750 1,200 0.69 B 1,100 0.63 B San Pedro Road (San Rafael) North San Pedro Road (San Rafael) to Sir 9 SB 0 - - - - 1 1,750 1,000 0.57 A 1,000 0.57 A Francis Drake Boulevard (Larkspur) Source: Parsons Brinckerhoff, MTC 2001 RTP, based on forecasted horizon year 2025 (August 2005).

Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit 3-105 DEIR November 2005 Chapter 3: Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures

Transportation

TABLE 3.6-9A 2025 SCREEN LINE LEVEL OF SERVICE COMPARISON – A.M. PEAK

2000 A.M. Peak Hour 2025 A.M. Peak Hour

Rail Station: Roadway Direction Existing No-Project Rail Project V/C LOS V/C LOS V/C LOS Cloverdale: Citrus Fair Drive EB 0.16 A 0.17 A 0.17 A WB 0.03 A 0.03 A 0.03 A Healdsburg: Healdsburg Avenue NB 0.90 D 1.01 F 1.00 F SB 0.77 C 0.95 E 1.01 F Windsor: Windsor Road NB 0.01 A 0.05 A 0.07 A SB 0.01 A 0.20 A 0.20 A Santa Rosa: North Dutton Avenue NB 0.46 A 0.96 E 0.96 E SB 0.51 A 0.79 C 0.78 C Santa Rosa Railroad Square: Wilson Street NB 0.52 A 0.78 C 0.81 D SB 0.53 A 0.77 C 0.78 C Rohnert Park: Golf Course Drive EB 0.19 A 0.40 A 0.46 A WB 0.45 A 0.52 A 0.55 A Cotati: East Cotati Avenue EB 0.22 A 0.45 A 0.46 A WB 0.69 B 0.96 E 0.95 E Petaluma: North McDowell Boulevard NB 0.17 A 0.20 A 0.21 A SB 0.20 A 0.16 A 0.17 A Downtown Petaluma: Washington Street EB 0.26 A 0.23 A 0.23 A WB 0.39 A 0.17 A 0.17 A Novato North: Atherton Avenue EB 0.33 A 0.46 A 0.46 A WB 0.21 A 0.44 A 0.44 A Novato South: Nave Drive NB 0.26 A 0.69 B 0.68 B SB 0.08 A 0.30 A 0.29 A Marin County Civic Center: Civic Center Drive NB 0.20 A 0.32 A 0.32 A SB 0.86 D 0.97 E 1.00 F Downtown San Rafael: Second (EB) & Third (WB) Streets EB 0.50 A 0.78 C 0.74 C WB 1.01 F 1.01 F 0.95 E Larkspur Ferry Station: Sir Francis Drake Boulevard EB 0.46 A 0.90 D 0.80 C WB 0.49 A 1.05 F 0.96 E

Source: Parsons Brinckerhoff travel demand forecasting model, Year 2025 RTP (August 2005).

Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit 3-106 DEIR November 2005 Chapter 3: Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures

Transportation

TABLE 3.6-9B 2025 SCREEN LINE LEVEL OF SERVICE COMPARISON – P.M. PEAK

2000 P.M. Peak Hour 2025 P.M. Peak Hour

Rail Station: Roadway Direction Existing No-Project Rail Project V/C LOS V/C LOS V/C LOS Cloverdale: Citrus Fair Drive EB 0.03 A 0.03 A 0.03 A WB 0.16 A 0.17 A 0.16 A Healdsburg: Healdsburg Avenue NB 0.95 E 1.07 F 1.04 F SB 0.67 B 0.90 D 0.84 D Windsor: Windsor Road NB 0.00 A 0.04 A 0.06 A SB 0.01 A 0.01 A 0.01 A Santa Rosa: North Dutton Avenue NB 0.74 C 1.00 F 1.00 F SB 0.43 A 0.76 C 0.77 C Santa Rosa Railroad Square: Wilson Street NB 0.61 B 0.92 E 0.90 D SB 0.53 A 0.67 B 0.67 B Rohnert Park: Golf Course Drive EB 0.43 A 0.56 A 0.57 A WB 0.21 A 0.29 A 0.30 A Cotati: East Cotati Avenue EB 0.35 A 0.43 A 0.42 A WB 0.42 A 0.94 E 0.94 E Petaluma: North McDowell Boulevard NB 0.24 A 0.17 A 0.17 A SB 0.15 A 0.19 A 0.19 A Downtown Petaluma: Washington Street EB 0.36 A 0.27 A 0.28 A WB 0.29 A 0.24 A 0.23 A Novato North: Atherton Avenue EB 0.27 A 0.20 A 0.20 A WB 0.18 A 0.39 A 0.39 A Novato South: Nave Drive NB 0.56 A 0.75 C 0.75 C SB 0.32 A 0.31 A 0.37 A Marin County Civic Center: Civic Center Drive NB 0.38 A 0.61 B 0.59 A SB 0.44 A 0.64 B 0.65 B Downtown San Rafael: Second (EB) & Third (WB) Streets EB 1.01 F 1.01 F 0.91 E WB 0.82 D 0.94 E 0.89 D Larkspur Ferry Station: Sir Francis Drake Boulevard EB 0.33 A 0.72 C 0.58 A WB 0.62 B 1.09 F 1.00 F

Source: Parsons Brinckerhoff travel demand forecasting model, Year 2025 RTP (August 2005).

Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit 3-107 DEIR November 2005 Chapter 3: Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures

Transportation

As shown in Tables 3.6-9A and 3.6-9B, the screen line analysis for the a.m. peak hour indicates that traffic operations under 2025 No-Project would result in seven locations with LOS E or F, compared to one location for the existing (2000) conditions. Service levels for a total of six of these locations would be considered unacceptable. During the p.m. peak, the 2025 No-Project conditions would result in seven locations with LOS E or F (considered unacceptable for all these segments), compared to two locations under existing conditions. Under the 2025 proposed project conditions, six locations would also be considered unacceptable during the a.m. peak, while five locations would be considered unacceptable during the p.m. peak. In general, results for the 2025 No-Project and 2025 proposed project conditions would be similar, except service levels for three roadway segments (at the Downtown San Rafael and Larkspur Ferry Stations) would improve, while service levels for three roadway segments (at the Healdsburg, Santa Rosa Railroad Square, and Marin County Civic Center Stations) would decline without mitigation. Mitigation is identified for these segments to prevent a decline in service level. During the p.m. peak hour, the service levels for five roadway segments (at the Santa Rosa Railroad Square, Marin Civic Center, Downtown San Rafael, and Larkspur Ferry Stations) would improve under the proposed project, while service levels for the remaining roadway segments would remain the same.

Potential Traffic Hazards Between the Downtown San Rafael and Larkspur Stations, the proposed project alignment currently intersects Andersen Drive at an acute angle. This sharp angle would create a potential traffic operational and safety issue if trains were operating, due to inadequate sight distance, required stopping distance and traffic operations along Andersen Drive. To improve operations and safety and comply with the Public Utilities Commission (PUC) regulations, the road would be realigned to meet at-grade crossing standards. With this modification, no adverse traffic hazard would occur.

At-Grade Crossings and Operations The proposed passenger rail service would be scheduled to operate every 30 minutes with trains in each direction during weekday peak periods at an average speed of 46 miles per hour, although speeds in urban areas would generally be lower. In addition, a mid-day train would make a roundtrip through the corridor. For areas where the tracks cross roadways at-grade, trains and traffic would be controlled by bells, flashing gates, and in some locations, traffic signals at intersections. In urban areas, the average gate “down time” for the proposed project would be approximately 40 seconds. In general, the train approaches would be coordinated to allow the train to proceed through a signalized intersection during the green cycle of the traffic moving in the same direction along the adjacent roadway to minimize delay where possible. The majority of the at-grade crossings in rural areas are two-lane, two-way roadways. Warning bells and flashing gates would provide advance notice of on-coming trains. Significant motorist delays are not expected at these crossings due to the minimum crossing times (shorter crossing length of the existing roadway width) and expected low vehicle demands, resulting in shorter queue lengths. Travel delays in rural areas from the proposed project are expected to be lower than 40 seconds, depending on traffic demands at the crossing locations. Delays are generally lower in rural areas as crossing gates may not be required at private crossings.

Downtown Street Network Operations Table 3.6-10 summarizes the existing and future (2025) traffic operations in downtown San Rafael for the No-Project and the proposed project. The 2025 traffic scenarios were adjusted from the City of San Rafael, 2020 General Plan Update analysis to represent the Year 2025 for consistency with other transportation impact analyses that incorporate a 25 year horizon. A growth factor was calculated from the travel demand model and applied to the City of San Rafael projected 2020 conditions to develop a representative Year 2025 forecast scenario. For purposes of this analysis, the existing conditions scenario represents year 2003 volumes. In addition, the proposed project conditions scenario included the adjusted projected volumes and the proposed project related traffic to fully represent the proposed project (i.e., SMART traffic demand was added to the City’s forecast volumes).

According to the San Rafael General Plan 2020, major land use changes and transportation infrastructure improvements are planned throughout the City that will substantially change the traffic

Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit 3-108 DEIR November 2005 Chapter 3: Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures

Transportation circulation patterns, especially in the downtown area. The overall net effect on the street network adjacent to the proposed Downtown San Rafael Station would be improved peak period traffic operations from existing conditions. Land use modifications include densification of the downtown area west of Highway 101 and south of the proposed project site, west of Andersen Drive. Several surrounding roadways will receive modifications such as Lincoln Avenue, Second Street, Grand Avenue; and traffic signalization and modifications will be implemented at various intersections including the Mission Avenue and Lincoln Avenue intersection. The following list describes the major changes adjacent to the proposed project as documented in the City of San Rafael General Plan 2020: • Grand Avenue - Widen to add a lane in the north- and southbound directions; • Lincoln Avenue from 2nd Street to southbound Highway 101 ramps - Restrict peak period on-street parking and provide for additional travel lanes; • Second Street east of A Street to E Street - Add right-turn lanes and through-right turn lanes; • Mission Avenue and Lincoln Avenue intersection - Provide additional northbound and westbound lanes and traffic signal upgrades; • Pedestrian bridge structure (grade separation) at 3rd Street and Hetherton Street; and • Installation of traffic signals in and near the Downtown area.

By 2020 and into 2025, the traffic operations adjacent to the Downtown San Rafael Station are anticipated to improve with almost all intersections operating at LOS D or better (Table 3.6-10). Operations along Lincoln Avenue and Fourth Street show large improvements over their current levels of service. The planned transportation network improvements that would provide the largest benefit include the Lincoln and Second Street roadway improvements, the Mission Avenue and Lincoln Avenue intersection improvements, and the future pedestrian crossing structure at 3rd Street and Hetherton Street. The combination of these transportation infrastructure improvements and the densification and changes of land uses are expected to improve operations surrounding the proposed Downtown San Rafael Station. The land use changes are proposed near transportation facilities that can serve the added demand or are proposed to be improved to serve growth in vehicle trips.

The 2025 No-Project conditions would result in no intersections operating at unacceptable service levels during the morning or evening peak hours, similar to existing conditions. The intersection of Mission Avenue and Irwin Street/Northbound Highway 101 ramps would operate at LOS F from its current LOS C during the morning peak; however, the traffic operations would still be considered acceptable per City guidelines. As noted in Section 3.6.1 Regulatory Setting, the City of San Rafael General Plan 2020 designates LOS E as acceptable in the downtown area and LOS F as acceptable at the intersection of Mission Avenue and Irwin Street/Highway 101 on-ramp. The 2025 proposed project scenario shows increases in delay at some intersections compared to existing conditions, but all intersections would operate at acceptable service levels.

An important aspect of the proposed project on the downtown San Rafael traffic signal system is the before and after recovery time (or impacts) of the proposed trains. The before and after impacts of the passenger rail service incorporates the time the traffic would be stopped in advance with the lowering of the at-grade gates and the amount of time after the gates are lifted when traffic actually starts moving again. In other words, this measures the time for the traffic system to recover to conditions prior to the proposed project influence. The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) requires a minimum of 25 seconds of advance warning of an on-coming train (including gate down time) then passing of the train, after which the gates would go up and traffic would be allow to proceed. An estimate of the amount of time that traffic would actually be stopped in downtown San Rafael would be approximately 40 total seconds. This estimate assumes 25 second advance warning, approximately 5 seconds for the train to pass and another 10 seconds to clear time and the gates to go up. A component of the proposed project is the incorporation of a constant warning device in downtown areas where the advance detection of an on-coming train would be integrated with the surrounding traffic signals to minimize the delays and pre- empt the conflict movements and provide progression (on-going flow) to the non-conflicting traffic movements.

Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit 3-109 DEIR November 2005 Chapter 3: Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures

Transportation

TABLE 3.6-10 EXISTING AND 2025 INTERSECTION LEVELS OF SERVICE FOR DOWNTOWN SAN RAFAEL EXISTING CONDITIONS, NO-PROJECT AND PROPOSED PROJECT

AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour 2025 No- 2025 with 2025 with Existing Project Proposed project Existing 2025 No-Project Proposed project Delay Delay Delay Delay Delay Delay Intersection (sec) LOS (sec) LOS (sec) LOS (sec) LOS (sec) LOS (sec) LOS 1) Mission Ave and Lincoln Ave 34.5 C 35.9 D 35.9 D 47.7 D 54.1 D 56.6 E 2) Mission Ave and Hetherton St 21.6 C 22.8 C 25.5 C 22.1 C 21.2 C 24.6 C 3) Mission Ave and Irwin St/NB 29.7 C 80.3 F 89.4 F 98.9 F 118.4 F 122.4 F 101 4) 5th St and Lincoln Ave 27.7 C 11.4 B 11.5 B 11.6 B 14.0 B 14.4 B 5) 5th St and Hetherton St 8.1 A 8.4 A 8.5 A 19.3 B 13.2 B 14.0 B 6) 5th St and Irwin St 43.4 D 28.1 C 28.0 C 30.9 C 30.5 C 32.6 C 7) 4th St and Lincoln Ave 47.3 D 16.2 B 16.5 B 14.8 B 15.4 B 15.9 B 8) 4th St and Hetherton St 7.3 A 9.8 A 9.8 A 5.8 A 9.7 A 10.1 B 9) 4th St and Irwin St 28.8 C 10.7 B 10.7 B 15.7 B 13.3 B 13.7 B 10) 3rd St and Lincoln Ave 43.0 D 9.3 A 13.9 B 20.5 C 12.3 B 14.0 B 11) 3rd St and Tamalpais Ave 12.2 B 14.1 B 17.4 B 11.5 B 39.6 D 43.2 D 61.6 E 58.2 E 12) 3rd St and Hetherton St 38.7 D 50.9 D 33.5 C 49.6 D 30.5* C* 31.7* C* 13) 3rd St and Irwin St 35.1 D 34.8 C 37.9 D 41.5 D 36.4 D 41.8 D 14) 2nd St and Lincoln Ave 23.2 C 19.2 B 20.6 C 25.4 C 19.1 B 21.8 C 15) 2nd St and Tamalpais Ave 10.0 B 22.1 C 28.8 C 13.2 B 15.4 B 21.1 C 16) 2nd St and Hetherton St 33.5 C 43.7 D 50.8 D 30.1 C 28.5 C 31.1 C 17) 2nd St and Irwin St 18.3 B 38.3 D 38.2 D 28.4 C 36.9 D 38.9 D Source: Parsons Brinckerhoff, City of San Rafael, July 2005. * Assumes removal of the Citibank Building allowing for two southbound right turn lanes on Hetherton Street.

Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit 3-110 DEIR November 2005 Chapter 3: Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures

Transportation

Other downtown areas such as Petaluma and Santa Rosa would also experience impacts, but to a lesser extent than those expected with the downtown San Rafael transportation network. The city blocks adjacent to the Downtown Petaluma Station are longer with less restrictive roadway geometrics and the expected traffic demand would be less than that anticipated in Downtown San Rafael. In downtown Petaluma, operations along East Washington, East D and Copeland Streets may be affected; however, coordination and signal progression would improve green light time and minimize delays. Downtown Santa Rosa also has a closely spaced street network similar to San Rafael, but the traffic demands, transit operations and pedestrian activity are far less. Unlike San Rafael, where the adjacent transit center causes high pedestrian use and bus circulation, the Santa Rosa Station is not adjacent to the transit center. Optimizing green light progression and coordinating through-movements would minimize any traffic delays along Wilson, 6th and 3rd Streets. In summary, it is anticipated that the potential adverse impacts associated with the Downtown Petaluma and Santa Rosa Stations would be less than the proposed project impacts in the Downtown San Rafael Station.

The majority of the vehicles likely to access the Downtown San Rafael Station would be “kiss-and-ride” drop-offs that would use 3rd Street. The intersections of 3rd Street and Hetherton Street and Mission Avenue and Lincoln Avenue would benefit from locating additional rail passenger loading areas for the kiss-and-ride activities from 3rd Street. Two such potential loading areas include westbound 4th Street between Hetherton Street and Tamalpais Avenue and shared access of the reconstructed Whistlestop loading area during rail commuter peak periods. As part of the proposed project, a redesigned passenger and Whistlestop patron loading area would be provided at the northern end of The Whistlestop Transportation building. The shared use of this loading area could be accommodated given the different peaking times of the two operations: rail related passenger drop-offs would generally take place between 7a.m. – 9a.m., with pick ups between 5 and 7p.m. The Whistlestop vans generally provide drop off and pick up service between 10:00 a.m. and 4 p.m.

Bus and Ferry Transit

As described elsewhere in this document, GGT operates regional bus and ferry services in the study area, primarily focusing on inter-county and transbay trips. GGT also operates local services in Marin County under contract to the County. SCT operates inter-city bus services within Sonoma County, and also provides local services in selected areas of the County. They are the two transit operators most likely to be affected by the proposed project. The cities of Petaluma, Healdsburg, and Santa Rosa also operate their own municipal bus systems, but are not likely to be affected by SMART ridership to a significant degree.

Most of the information in this section has been based on discussions with the planning staffs of GGT and SCT, and from results of the travel forecasting model runs. The ridership impact on these other operators can be predicted, but the institutional response (adding or curtailing services) is less predictable, since it involves impacts up to 25 years in the future, when the bus operators’ financial situation is difficult to predict. Neither operator has an official transit plan that extends beyond 2010. Additional rail riders connecting from the bus operators’ services could result in increased fare revenues to that operator. Because passenger fares do not fully cover the cost of any transit operator’s expenses, it is possible that a curtailment in service could result in cost savings to that operator. Conversely, bus service additions could potentially result in additional costs to bus operators, if new services were required to accommodate the demands of new SMART riders.

Impacts on Golden Gate Transit GGT generally operates two types of bus services: basic and commuter. Commuter services operate on workdays only, during the peak hours and in the peak direction (i.e., southbound in the morning and northbound in the evening). These are “express” type services that often run a considerable portion of their length on freeways with widely spaced stops. Basic services typically run all day (and sometimes evenings), seven days a week, with relatively more frequent stops and less freeway running.

Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit 3-111 DEIR November 2005 Chapter 3: Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures

Transportation

Because the proposed project would most closely resemble a commuter-type service, it is likely that the impact would be greatest on the commuter routes. GGT bus routes could be used for access to or distribution from rail stations; however, the current bus fares are not amenable to this (the current single zone fare is $2.70, which is high for the relatively short trips that rail riders would be making).

The dedicated shuttle system proposed as part of the project is intended to serve SMART rail riders, primarily at the “work” (activity) end of their trip. The shuttles would be smaller vehicles that would be timed to meet arriving and departing trains, and would be free to rail riders. The shuttles would tend to minimize any transferring passenger impacts on the GGT and SCT bus systems.

The greatest impact of the proposed project is expected to be on Route 75, a commuter route that closely parallels the proposed project from Santa Rosa to the Marin Civic Center. In 2001, this service operated four one-way bus trips during commute periods; southbound in the morning peak and northbound in the evening peak.

Because GGT Route 75 so closely parallels the service that would be provided by the project, GGT planning staff have indicated that it would probably be cancelled as a result of SMART, yielding some cost savings to GGT.7 The comparative travel time advantages of rail over bus travel in the corridor would also contribute to this action. Route 75 currently has four scheduled runs between downtown Santa Rosa and downtown San Rafael that average over 100 minutes in the peak period.

Other routes, e.g., transbay bus services, are not likely to be affected. Although transfers would be relatively easy at downtown San Rafael, most bus riders using existing transbay routes would find it easier to continue their present travel habits. Improvements to the headways on Route 70/80 would also provide more opportunities for someone using SMART to travel one way during commute hours to return by bus during off-peak hours (or vice versa).

Although GGBHTD and SMART would coordinate schedules for rail and ferry services at Larkspur, the number of ferry trips is not expected to change as a result of the proposed project. GGT staff has indicated that sufficient capacity exists on most ferry trips to accommodate the projected ridership of the proposed project. The rail system would provide an additional feeder service to the Larkspur ferries, where there is currently a shortage of parking but space available on most ferry departures. This is expected to be a beneficial impact. As discussed in the WTA Final Implementation and Operations Plan, passenger rail service to Larkspur could provide alternative transportation access, thereby potentially increasing ferry patronage without the need to add additional parking (WTA, 2003). In addition, rail access could mitigate existing traffic congestion around the terminal by providing alternative access opportunities.

Impacts on Sonoma County Transit SCT currently operates bus routes near all but two proposed rail stations in Sonoma County, as shown in Table 3.6-11.

Route 48 currently serves the Petaluma Transit Depot at 4th and C Streets, but could be re-routed to terminate near the proposed Petaluma Depot (Copeland Avenue near E. Washington Street). SCT’s preference is that buses stay on major streets, rather than have to circulate within transfer centers, because of the additional time required to make turns into and out of transfer stations.

Currently SCT typically schedules buses at irregular headways, which makes coordination with rail services difficult. For example, the morning trips on Route 11 (Cotati/Rohnert Park local service) leave the Cotati Hub at 6:12, 6:59, and 7:29 a.m. Another issue is that some SCT bus services are minimal or non-existent in the early morning hours when SMART passengers would need to arrive at rail stations. Most routes do not have service before 6 a.m. and some do not begin service until after 8 a.m.

7 Meeting with Alan Zahradnik, Director Planning and Policy Analysis, Golden Gate Transit, November 1, 2005.

Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit 3-112 DEIR November 2005 Chapter 3: Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures

Transportation

However, SCT staff has indicated a willingness to consider alterations to routes and schedules to make better connections with rail services, and that no service curtailments would be required because the SCT buses serve different markets than the proposed rail services.8

TABLE 3.6-11 SONOMA COUNTY TRANSIT BUS ROUTES PRESENTLY SERVING PROPOSED RAIL STATION SITES

Inter-city Bus Route Proposed Rail Station Numbers Local Bus Route Numbers Cloverdale 60* 62 Healdsburg None None Windsor 60 66 Jennings Avenue None None Santa Rosa Railroad Square None 42** Rohnert Park 44, 48 None Cotati 44, 48 10, 11 Corona Road 44* None Downtown Petaluma 40, 44 None Notes: “None” means no services within easy transfer distance (generally, one block or less). *Only certain bus trips deviate from the regular route to serve the site of the proposed rail station. Route 44 normally operates on N. McDowell Boulevard; route deviations are in the afternoon and early evening. Route 60 normally terminates near Cloverdale City Hall, on Cloverdale Boulevard, with eight bus trips per weekday serving Cloverdale Depot. ** Stops on West Third Street, approximately one and a half blocks south of station.

Current single-ride adult fares on most SCT buses are $1.30 for a single-ride inter-city bus, and $1.10 for local buses, which is reasonable for bus access trips to rail stations. A fare discount might be negotiated for the regular riders (e.g., with a special monthly pass sticker) to make the bus access trip more attractive. SCT currently offers modest discounts (10-25 cents) for riders presenting a valid transfer from another bus system in its territory.

In summary, the impacts of the proposed project on other transit services are: • A drop in bus system ridership, primarily on GGT routes between Marin and Sonoma County. This decrease may result in the elimination of Route 75 as the travel times on the train will be more attractive to former bus riders (travel time between Santa Rosa and San Rafael on Route 75 is currently approximately 100 minutes as compared to 55 minutes on the train). • A small increase in Larkspur Ferry ridership, not necessitating any increase in ferry service. This is a small beneficial impact, as it would generate new fare revenue for the ferries, and would help alleviate parking constraints that hamper the existing ferry terminal at Larkspur. • A small, favorable impact on Marin County Transit service, as local buses feed the Marin rail stations. This is likely to be no more than a few passengers per bus trip, and is a beneficial impact. No new MCT service is required because of the proposed project. • A small increase in certain SCT routes serving SMART stations, namely, routes 40, 44, 48, and 60. To the extent this adds passenger trips (and thus fare revenue) to SCT, it represents a beneficial impact. SCT may choose to adjust its bus schedules to meet SMART train times, but no additional service is expected to be necessary if this change is made.

8 Meeting with Bryan Albee, Manager, Sonoma County Transit, November 1, 2005.

Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit 3-113 DEIR November 2005 Chapter 3: Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures

Transportation

Bicycle and Pedestrian Circulation

The construction of the proposed bicycle/pedestrian pathway adjacent to the rail alignment would enhance and improve bicycle and pedestrian mobility within and throughout the corridor. The proposed bicycle/pedestrian pathway is ancillary to rail operations, providing access to rail stations along the corridor. In so doing, the proposed bicycle/pedestrian pathway would also provide both regional and local access to areas of interest, and linkages between towns and cities along the alignment. The majority of the proposed bicycle/pedestrian pathway would be a Class 1 pathway, with a safety structure placed between tracks and pathway in most areas. At several locations the pathway would have at- grade crossings with the corridor rail alignment, which could create potential conflicts with trains and non-uniform grades (tracks and ballast). Therefore, warning signage and pavement markings would be used to indicate a train crossing at these locations. The proposed bicycle/pedestrian pathway is anticipated to have minimal areas of potential conflicts with automobiles or trucks because most of it will be off-road within the railroad right-of-way and in other areas where it is on public roads, appropriate signage and striping would be provided. Proposed station sites also have been developed to include bicycle and pedestrian facilities. The new pathway would interconnect with existing bicycle/pedestrian facilities along the corridor. All bicycle/pedestrian improvements, as well as station facilities, would meet Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) standards and provide transfer opportunities between modes.

Forecasted Parking Demands

At the corridor level, the projected Year 2025 daily parking demand at the proposed rail stations would be approximately 1,110 spaces. This demand is based on the Travel Demand Model. Table 3.6-12 summarizes the parking demand that would be generated at each station site and compares it to the proposed parking supply. The proposed parking supply includes existing, planned and funded, and new project-related parking spaces (2,308 spaces total). It is anticipated that there would be adequate parking supply at each station site, with an overall parking surplus of approximately 1,200 spaces for the entire corridor. TABLE 3.6-12 ESTIMATED PARKING USE AT PROPOSED STATIONS

Estimated Available / Proposed Net Station Parking Capacity Surplus Demand Cloverdale 80 150 70 Healdsburg 45 76 31 Windsor 185 400 215 Santa Rosa - Jennings Avenue 225 630 405 Santa Rosa Railroad Square 0 0 0 Rohnert Park 95 197 102 Cotati 135 177 42 Petaluma - Corona Road 145 350 205 Downtown Petaluma 30 30 0 Novato North 65 66 1 Novato South 55 102 47 Marin County Civic Center 50 130 80 Downtown San Rafael 0 0 0 Larkspur Ferry Station 0 0 0 Total 1,110 2,308 1,198

Source: Parsons Brinckerhoff, Model Run, July 27, 2005. Notes: ƒ Windsor: A 400 space park-and-ride lot is proposed near the Windsor Station. ƒ The Santa Rosa Railroad Square, Downtown San Rafael and Larkspur Ferry stations would not provide parking with the proposed project. ƒ Downtown Petaluma: SMART expects to set aside a small amount of spaces for park-and-ride during site development. The number of spaces provided is expected to be approximately 30.

Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit 3-114 DEIR November 2005 Chapter 3: Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures

Transportation

Year 2010 (Interim) Impact Summary

Although 2025 is the analysis horizon year, transportation conditions associated with the anticipated year of initial service for the proposed project were also considered for comparison purposes. A qualitative evaluation of key transportation and circulation issues was conducted for 2010 proposed project conditions. This interim year would differ from the horizon year of 2025 in that some of the forecasted changes in land use, demographics, employment, and highway network modifications would not occur in the Year 2010. For instance, growth within the corridor in 2010 would not be near the levels of Year 2025 and most of the major improvement projects along Highway 101 that would be in place by 2025 would not be implemented by 2010.

Traffic conditions in year 2010 are anticipated to worsen from existing conditions (Year 2000) in the proposed project corridor. Near-term regional growth and intensification of land use would bring greater travel demands to the corridor while highway infrastructure improvements would not be fully constructed. Along Highway 101, relatively few of the major capacity increasing projects are scheduled for completion by 2010, such as adding HOV lanes from Highway 12 to Steele Lane in Santa Rosa, and from Terra Linda (San Rafael) to Sir Francis Drake Boulevard in Marin County (the so-called ‘gap closure’ project) and the Novato Narrows project. As traffic demand on Highway 101 increases, with only minimal improvements to capacity, the duration of congestion (number of hours per day of congested operation) would also increase, as would the duration of the morning and evening peak periods. The anticipated 2010 conditions include travel demand shifts that would increase the reverse commute.

The growth in the reverse commute occurs as a result of both Marin and Sonoma counties experiencing faster job growth than population growth. Marin’s total number of jobs is expected to increase by nearly 11 percent between 2000 and 2010, but population will grow by seven percent, and Sonoma County’s jobs will increase by more than 22 percent in that period, but population by only 16 percent (ABAG, 2000).

By 2010, Highway 101 segments that are currently below LOS D or at a borderline LOS D would likely worsen to LOS E or F. Many more segments along Highway 101 are anticipated to operate at LOS F with congestion, low travel speeds and long delays. During the morning peak period the northbound direction along Highway 101 would have substantially more demand. During the evening peak period, the peak direction would continue to be northbound, but the southbound direction would also have low levels of service along some segments. These worsening conditions along Highway 101 would also affect regional bus service along the Highway 101 corridor in 2010. Since the Highway 101 corridor would have more congestion and the planned HOV lane facilities would not yet be in place, travel along the corridor would be slower for all modes utilizing the highway, including bus service.

The proposed project would provide an alternative to commuting on the Highway 101 corridor and relief to the expanding peak periods of congestion in 2010. The proposed project would enhance the movement of people along the corridor and provide an alternative that avoids the highway construction delays anticipated during the implementation of the regional HOV system. Although substantial improvement in service levels within the Highway 101 corridor are not anticipated, the proposed project would provide some relief to the traffic congestion along Highway 101 by providing an alternative mode of transportation to commuters and residents in both counties.

Project-related impacts on local roadways that provide access to rail stations are not anticipated to be substantial since the changes and growth in land use, demographics, and employment would be more limited for the interim horizon year and the majority of the travel demand increases resulting from these changes would not occur until later years. In the near-term or 2010 scenario, it is likely that a higher percentage of rail riders would have to drive or use transit to stations than would be the case in 2025 due to the fact that less transit-oriented development will be in place around the stations. However, traffic- related impacts of the project on local roadways providing access to stations are not anticipated to be any more significant in 2010 than in 2025, since the total number of park-and-ride users is modest in relation to the traffic volumes on surrounding streets.

Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit 3-115 DEIR November 2005 Chapter 3: Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures

Transportation

3.6.6 Impacts and Mitigations Measures

Construction-Related Impacts

The estimated construction timeframe for the proposed project is approximately two years depending on any near-term changes to existing conditions and other concurrent construction activities in the study area. Construction of the proposed project includes track improvements, new and upgraded rail bridge structures and bicycle/pedestrian structures, new and rehabilitated rail stations, a new maintenance facility, new and upgraded traffic controls, a bicycle/pedestrian pathway consisting primarily of a Class I facility with segments as a Class II facility, and other infrastructure support facilities such as drainage culverts and a new rail signaling system. Major bridge structures include structures over the Gallinas Creek, Petaluma River, and Russian River. For a detailed discussion of the proposed construction see Chapter 2, Project Description.

Impact T-1: Construction activities may generate increased traffic demand on Highway 101 and local streets and may affect circulation at station sites. (Less than significant)

Temporary or short-term impacts would occur on Highway 101, local roadways and circulation at station sites (e.g., potential increase in traffic delays and roadway closures). Heavy equipment and materials would be required to be transported to and from each construction site. Workers driving to the construction site would also add traffic to the local and regional street network. Twelve project staging areas, owned by SMART and located within the proposed project right-of-way, have been designated within the corridor. The average duration a staging site would be used depends on the construction sequencing and type of construction.

SMART proposes a construction phasing/sequencing and traffic management plan that will be developed and implemented by the contractor to minimize impacts during construction. This plan would define each construction operation, approximate duration and the necessary traffic controls to maintain access for vehicles. The plan will require the movement of heavy equipment and transport materials during off- peak travel demand periods. In areas where parking supply is minimal, the plan will encourage workers to carpool and use public transit. To address safety issues, clearly defined access for non-motorized modes will be maintained during construction. Staging areas will be fenced and signed. Where roadways and sidewalks are impassable for bicycles and pedestrians, safe alternate routes and pathways will be signed and maintained during construction. This plan will be coordinated with Marin and Sonoma counties, local jurisdictions, fire and police departments, and transit providers.

Construction is planned to be completed by 2010; therefore, the construction related impacts would likely take place between the years 2008 and 2010. The construction related impacts are not expected to be significant since the impacts would occur for a short period of time and occur during the low traffic demand periods of the day. Generally, construction work would start before the morning peak and end before the evening peak period. On occasions where roadway facilities must be closed, the closures would generally occur during the night-time or low vehicle demand hours.

Long-Term Impacts

As discussed in the Impact Summary section (3.6.5), the proposed project would not result in any significant unavoidable impacts on the regional transportation network, parking facilities, and bicycle and pedestrian circulation. However, increased traffic demand impacts on roadways providing access to station sites may be significant and unavoidable. At non-urban station locations, the adjacent roadways generally have low traffic demands and/or the proposed project-related increases do not exceed the designated jurisdictional thresholds. Implementation of the SMART shuttle system, as described in Chapter 2, Project Description, would increase mobility for the station areas of Petaluma, Novato, Marin Civic Center, Downtown San Rafael, and Larkspur.

Impact T-2: Forecasted VMT and VHT would decrease with the proposed project relative to the No-Project scenario in the year 2025. (Beneficial)

Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit 3-116 DEIR November 2005 Chapter 3: Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures

Transportation

Although VMT and VHT would increase from existing conditions during the next 20 years due to regional growth, the project itself would not contribute to increased VMT or VHT. As shown in Table 3.6-6, both VMT and VHT would decrease with implementation of the proposed project, relative to the future baseline or No-Project condition. Based on the travel demand forecasting model, a.m. peak hour VMT would be approximately 1,599,800 under 2025 proposed project conditions compared to approximately 1,607,500 under 2025 No-Project conditions. Similarly, p.m. peak hour VMT would be approximately 1,547,500 with the project and approximately 1,554,800 without the project. The model results also show decreases in VHT under 2025 proposed project conditions compared to 2025 No-Project conditions. VHT would be approximately 78,200 with the project versus 80,000 without the project during the a.m. peak hour and approximately 64,600 with the project versus 65,900 without the project during the p.m. peak hour.

It is anticipated that 2010 (interim year) conditions with the proposed project would show higher total VMT and VHT in the project corridor compared to existing conditions, but the increases would be lower than 2010 conditions without the proposed project.

Impact T-3: The proposed project would decrease peak hour travel demands along various segments of the Highway 101 corridor. (Beneficial)

As shown in Tables 3.6-7A and 3.6-8A, travel demand forecasts indicate that various segments of the Highway 101 corridor would experience improved operations under the proposed project compared to existing conditions, as well as decreases in travel demand compared to the Year 2025 No-Project conditions. Although the reduction in travel demands may not show substantial improvements in highway operation (i.e., the level of service still remains the same), the proposed project offers an alternative to driving the congested roadway during weekday commute peak periods. Highway 101 segments that would have lower traffic demands relative to 2025 No-Project conditions during the a.m. peak period, include Third Street to Rohnert Park Expressway (northbound), Atherton Avenue to State Route 37 Interchange (northbound), and State Route 37 Interchange to North San Pedro Road (both directions). In the p.m. peak, Highway 101 segments with lower traffic demands relative to 2025 No- Project conditions include Windsor River Road to Third Street (northbound), Third Street to Rohnert Park Expressway (both directions), Rohnert Park Expressway to Corona Road (southbound), and Atherton Avenue to State Route 37 Interchange (southbound).

By 2010 traffic congestion is expected to increase along the Highway 101 corridor in both the northbound and southbound directions as a result of growth in the corridor before the completion of the full HOV system and the growth of the reverse commute. The proposed project would offer an alternative to driving and result in a modest reduction in congestion along some segments of the highway.

Impact T-4: The proposed project would increase peak hour travel demands along some segments of the Highway 101 corridor. (Less than significant)

As shown in Tables 3.6-7A and 3.6-8A, travel demand forecasts indicate that with the proposed project some segments of the Highway 101 corridor would experience increases in travel demand relative to existing conditions and the Year 2025 No-Project conditions. These increases in travel demands are associated with vehicles using Highway 101 to access the station locations. However, the travel demand increases are anticipated to be small and result in slight increases in V/C ratios. These changes are not anticipated to result in the worsening of any of the a.m. and p.m. peak hour service levels beyond the forecasted 2025 No-Project conditions. Although the southbound mixed flow lanes from Windsor River Road to Third Street and from North San Pedro Road to Sir Francis Drake Boulevard (p.m. peak) show a slight decline in level of service, neither segment declines to a level that is unacceptable under the significance criteria.

Similar to 2025 conditions, in areas where using Highway 101 would be the most direct and shortest path to proposed project stations, the travel demands along these segments may increase in the year 2010. These vehicles would only be on the highway for a short trip and not associated with regional Highway 101 travel.

Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit 3-117 DEIR November 2005 Chapter 3: Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures

Transportation

Impact T-5: Implementation of the proposed project may lower the service levels on several local streets. (Significant unavoidable)

As shown in Tables 3.6-9A and 3.6-9B, traffic operations under 2025 proposed project conditions would worsen on various local roadways that serve as primary access routes to proposed stations compared to existing conditions. However, only three of the local roadways analyzed would have a decrease in service operations (worsening) during the a.m. peak under the proposed project relative to 2025 No- Project conditions: southbound Healdsburg Avenue (Old Redwood Highway) in Healdsburg; northbound Wilson Street near the Santa Rosa Railroad Square; and southbound Civic Center Drive near the Marin Civic Center. Under 2025 conditions, Wilson Street near the Santa Rosa Railroad Square is shown to operate at a LOS D during the a.m. peak in the northbound direction with the proposed project compared to LOS C without the project. The decrease in service level for Wilson Street near the Santa Rosa Railroad Square is less than significant since the level of service without the proposed project is a borderline LOS C. The proposed project only adds a three percent increase in V/C ratio when compared to the 2025 No-Project conditions, which induces an LOS D on this roadway, but it is still within the level of service guidelines for the City of Santa Rosa. The a.m. peak hour screen line results also indicate that the two roadway segments of southbound Healdsburg Avenue in Healdsburg and southbound Civic Center Drive near the Marin Civic Center would operate at LOS F worsening from LOS E in the future No-Project conditions. Southbound Healdsburg Avenue (Old Redwood Highway) is one of the principal north-south thoroughfares in Healdsburg and, to access the proposed station, traffic would be required to travel through a complicated five-legged intersection (intersection of Vine Street, Healdsburg Avenue, and Mill Street). Traffic demands would eventually redistribute or balance to other less traveled, north- south routes, such as Center Street thereby reducing demand and improving the operations and V/C ratio along Healdsburg Avenue. However, for purposes of this analysis the impact is identified as potentially significant.

Mitigation Measure T-1: Mitigation at appropriate locations shall include restriping of existing roadways and traffic control improvements such as signal timing and phasing modifications, where appropriate. Southbound Civic Center Drive would require mitigations such as traffic signal modifications at Merrydale Road and Civic Center Drive, and possibly a short exclusive right turn lane for the drop off traffic into the site from southbound Civic Center Drive at the intersection of McInnis Parkway.

These traffic operation improvements would provide improvement to expected operations with the proposed project and would maintain the traffic circulation within the project vicinity. Because the degree of improvement cannot be quantified until detailed studies are completed during the final engineering design phase of the project, the effectiveness of this mitigation measure cannot be determined. If implementation of the mitigation measure would not improve LOS conditions to acceptable standards, the potential impact would be significant and unavoidable.

In 2010, development and changes in employment throughout the corridor would not yet reach the levels in 2025 and travel demands in 2010 should be served by the available capacity on local roadways. Therefore, project-related impacts in 2010 are anticipated to be less than significant.

Impact T-6: Implementation of the proposed project may improve the service levels on several local streets. (Beneficial)

Several roadway segments are shown to improve with the proposed project relative to the 2025 No- Project conditions. The a.m. peak analysis results indicate that V/C ratios would decrease allowing Third Street in San Rafael to improve one service level from LOS F to LOS E and eastbound and westbound Sir Francis Drake Boulevard to improve one service level from LOS F to LOS E and from LOS D to LOS C, respectively. During the p.m. peak hour, V/C ratios would decrease enough to improve service levels for five roadway segments: northbound Wilson Street near Santa Rosa Railroad Square (LOS E to LOS D); northbound Civic Center Drive to the Marin County Civic Center Station (LOS B to LOS A);

Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit 3-118 DEIR November 2005 Chapter 3: Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures

Transportation eastbound 2nd Street (LOS F to LOS E) and westbound 3rd Street (LOS E to LOS D) to the Downtown San Rafael Station; and eastbound Sir Francis Drake Boulevard (LOS C to LOS A). A principal reason for these improvements at the station locations of Santa Rosa Railroad Square, Marin Civic Center, Downtown San Rafael, and Larkspur Ferry is the implementation of the SMART shuttle system. The SMART shuttle system would provide an alternative mode for accessing the proposed stations, and thus would provide additional mobility and reduce automobile dependency and parking demand within the areas served.

In the 2010 scenario, it is not expected that service levels would improve on many local streets, if any. Because many of these local streets would have adjacent land uses that are either undeveloped or have not reached build-out conditions, travel demands would be low and associated service levels generally be high. There would be no beneficial impact on these local streets expected in 2010.

Impact T-7: The proposed bicycle/pedestrian pathway would provide regional mobility and enhance local access for non-motorized modes of travel. (Beneficial)

In February 2004, the SMART Board adopted an implementation strategy that allows for rail and trail use of the right-of-way to be co-developed. The bicycle/pedestrian pathway proposed by SMART along the NWP right-of-way would be implemented as specified in the Marin County master plan as a major primary bikeway in the system. This includes the portion through the Cal Park Hill Tunnel, addressed in greater detail in Section 3.6.4 of this document.

The proposed bicycle/pedestrian pathway would provide another mode of regional transportation in the project corridor and could possibly ease the demand on local streets for vehicle and non-motorized use. The majority of the bicycle/pedestrian pathway would be separated from vehicle traffic, enhancing safety and recreation of this bicycle/pedestrian pathway. This facility would also link existing local pathways to the regional pathway system.

Other benefits of the proposed pathway include providing linkages between transit facilities and between the two counties, as well as providing implementation of portions of numerous county and local bicycle trail plans, as described in Section 3.6.1. The proposed pathway would help implement the North-South Bikeway Plan, the SCTA Countywide Bicycle Plan, the MTC Regional Bicycle Plan and portions of ABAG’s Bay Trail Plan (ABAG, 1989). The proposed bicycle/pedestrian pathway along the SMART corridor implements a portion of the Bay Trail Plan by linking two of the nine Bay Area counties. The MTC Regional Bicycle Plan recommends expanding local bicycle routes that connect to a regional network while advancing multi-modal connections. The proposed bicycle/pedestrian pathway would connect to existing and planned bus and ferry facilities, while also linking to the North Bay urban bicycle network.

It is anticipated that the proposed bicycle/pedestrian pathway would be implemented by 2010, along with the proposed passenger rail service; therefore, benefits of the bicycle/pedestrian pathway discussed above would apply to both 2010 and 2025 proposed project conditions.

Impact T-8: Traffic operations and level of service would decline at three intersections during the a.m. peak hour and four intersections during the p.m. peak hour near the Downtown San Rafael Station. (Significant mitigable)

The 2025 proposed project conditions would result in increases in traffic volumes and delay at intersections near the proposed Downtown San Rafael Station, compared to existing conditions; however, service levels would remain acceptable. The additional forecasted vehicle demands related to the proposed project indicate a potential worsening of service levels at several intersections at the Downtown San Rafael Station site, relative to the future 2025 No Project conditions. This decline in LOS is attributable to local traffic accessing the station. During the a.m. peak hour the intersections of 3rd Street and Lincoln Avenue (LOS A to LOS B), 3rd Street and Irwin Street (LOS C to LOS D), 2nd Street and Lincoln Avenue (LOS B to LOS C) would worsen in service level; however, the expected service levels would still be within the acceptable range set forth by the City of San Rafael. During the p.m. peak

Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit 3-119 DEIR November 2005 Chapter 3: Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures

Transportation period, the intersections of 2nd and Tamalpais Avenue (LOS B to LOS C), 2nd and Lincoln Avenue (LOS B to LOS C), 4th Street and Hetherton (LOS A to LOS B), and Mission Avenue and Lincoln Avenue (LOS D to LOS E) would have service levels worsening in Year 2025 with the proposed project. These lower service levels are still within the City of San Rafael minimum level of service criteria for downtown intersections.

Within the Downtown San Rafael station site, there are two proposed station layouts. One station layout would leave the Citi-Bank complex intact at the corner of 3rd Street and Hetherton whereas the other plan includes demolition of the Citi-Bank complex for additional transit usage. With the demolition of the Citi- Bank complex, additional right-of-way would be provided to allow for dual right-turn lanes from southbound Hetherton Street to westbound 3rd Street. This additional southbound right-turn capacity would substantially improve the operations of this intersection, improving the service level to LOS C for both the morning and evening peak hour. If the Citi-Bank complex remained, the intersection of 3rd Street and Hetherton Street is expected to operate at an LOS E for during both peak hours, which is below the minimum level of service threshold for the City of San Rafael. The relocation of the bank and provision of added right-of-way to provide dual southbound right-turns would result in an improvement to LOS C at the 3rd Street and Hetherton Street intersection for both peak periods.

Due to the unique configuration of downtown San Rafael, the operational analysis of the downtown San Rafael street network assumes the implementation of an interconnected and adaptive traffic signal system that would allow faster recovery of the system after a passenger rail train has passed. This would be part of the project since it would need to be coordinated with gate and advance warning bells and whistles for train operations. This traffic signal system improvement would allow the intersections to communicate and allowing the traffic signals to better serve the heavy traffic demands with improved operations even with the proposed project. In addition to faster traffic system recovery, the installation of a traffic signal system allows more effective signal preemption and flexible signal phasing, resulting in minimal delays and vehicle queues at at-grade crossings. The potential for vehicle conflicts would also be reduced by implementing signal preemption before and after a passenger train approaches to allow the streets to clear before the closing of the crossing gates. This would be an adaptive system that would also benefit traffic operations during periods when no passenger rail trains are present.

The downtown station areas in Santa Rosa (Railroad Square) and Petaluma may experience similar impacts but not to the extent and magnitude of the downtown San Rafael Station. The downtown station locations proposed at Santa Rosa and Petaluma do not have the closely spaced street network and as high traffic demands as downtown San Rafael. Compared to the 2025 No-Project conditions, Wilson, 6th and 3rd Streets in downtown Santa Rosa and East Washington, East D, and Copeland Streets in downtown Petaluma are anticipated to have increases in traffic demands during the peak hours. Traffic signal optimization and progression would reduce these impacts. The signaling for the at-grade crossings on 6th and 3rd Streets in downtown Santa Rosa should be coordinated with traffic movements along Wilson Street to provide traffic progression and eliminate unnecessary traffic delays. In downtown Petaluma, the at-grade crossings on East Washington and East D Streets should be coordinated with the parallels streets such as Copeland Street, reducing delays and queues.

Mitigation Measure T-2: The implementation of the proposed project signaling and communication system shall include coordination and integration with the adjacent traffic signals to allow for progression of other non-conflicting traffic movements. Coordination and integration with the adjacent traffic signals in downtown Santa Rosa and Petaluma would minimize traffic impacts and reduce unnecessary delays and queues to less than significant.

Traffic operations are expected to improve in downtown San Rafael with the improvements and changes documented in the City’s General Plan 2020. Implementation of the integrated traffic signal system identified above and proposed as part of the project will ensure that project-related impacts to the downtown San Rafael street network in 2010 will be less than significant. Similarly, impacts to the street networks around the downtown Petaluma and Santa Rosa stations in 2010 will be mitigated with implementation of Mitigation Measure T-2.

Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit 3-120 DEIR November 2005 Chapter 3: Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures

Transportation

Impact T-9: Travel time and queues may increase for vehicles approaching at-grade crossings when a passenger rail train is present. (Less than significant)

Travel times would increase on routes with at-grade crossings due to the passing of the passenger rail trains. The average gate down time at urban at-grade crossings would be approximately 40 seconds. Vehicle queues would form along the more heavily used routes. This impact may result in changes in peak hour circulation patterns to roadways that have at-grade crossings but it is highly unlikely that a substantial change in travel patterns would occur given the existing and proposed signal systems in developed areas. Traffic signal coordination in urban areas, proposed as part of the project, will reduce any increase in travel times and vehicle queues to a less than significant level. In rural areas, the average wait times at the crossings would be under 40 seconds depending on traffic demands and existing vehicles queues; this would be a less than significant impact.

The potential traffic impacts at at-grade crossings due to the proposed project in 2010 would be less than expected in 2025. The travel demands at the local at-grade crossings are not expected to be as high in 2010 and the delays will be less than anticipated in 2025; therefore, the impact in 2010 would also be less than significant.

Cumulative Impacts

Evaluation of cumulative impacts involves identifying potential impacts generated by the proposed project in combination with other projects in the area that have been completed over the last four years, are under construction, approved for implementation or are reasonably foreseeable in the future, such as the highway and interchange improvements in the Highway 101 corridor.

By its nature, the transportation analysis of the proposed project represents a cumulative impact evaluation that incorporates other regional projects and transportation improvements. The travel demand model used to evaluate the impacts of the proposed project incorporated future planned transportation projects, among them the Marin Gap HOV project (Highway 101), Novato Narrows HOV Project (Highway 101), widening of Highway 101 segments in Sonoma County, Highway 101 interchange improvements at Tamalpais, Tiburon Boulevard, Lucas Valley Road, and Atherton, and roadway improvements along Sir Francis Drake Boulevard. These approved and planned transportation improvements are included in the model for each future scenario for a consistent comparison of the conditions with and without the proposed passenger rail project.

In addition to these transportation improvements, the transportation model incorporates regional population and employment growth projections. Therefore, most of the cumulative projects listed in Section 3.1 are part of the cumulative growth already factored into the model.

Other transportation improvements not included in the model may be implemented as a result of the recently passed transportation sales tax measures, Measure A in Marin County and Measure M in Sonoma County. However, these improvements are not yet fully funded, making analysis of the cumulative impacts of specific projects speculative. Generally, implementation of these projects would serve to reduce overall traffic congestion rather than combine with the proposed project to create adverse cumulative effects. For informational purposes, the projects identified in the expenditure plans for the sales tax measures are listed below.

According to the Marin County Transportation Sales Tax Expenditure Plan (2004), priority projects in Marin County include:

Provide transit service every 15 minutes in the following corridors: • Highway 101 corridor connecting all communities in the corridor with San Francisco • San Rafael to College of Marin via Andersen Drive/Sir Francis Drake • San Rafael to San Anselmo via Red Hill/4th Street

Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit 3-121 DEIR November 2005 Chapter 3: Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures

Transportation

• San Rafael Transit Center to Civic Center and Northgate Mall

Provide transit service at least every 30 minutes in the following corridors: • Sausalito to Marin City and the Toll Plaza via Bridgeway • Mill Valley on Miller Avenue and East Blithedale • Corte Madera and Larkspur via Tamalpais/Magnolia and Sir Francis Drake • San Anselmo to Fairfax via Sir Francis Drake and Red Hill Road • San Rafael via Lincoln to Civic Center, Merrydale and on to Kaiser Hospital • Novato service in the Hamilton area, in the Ignacio area east of Palmer and South Novato Boulevard. • Novato service from neighborhoods to Vintage Oaks Shopping Center • Corridor service from Novato to San Rafael transit center with connections to College of Marin.

Provide accessible neighborhood scaled shuttles using small buses in the following communities: • Novato, building on the EZ Rider Shuttle and serving the proposed transit hub • Mill Valley, implementing the "Millie" shuttle designed locally • Sausalito, building on the "Sally" shuttle developed by the City of Sausalito • Belvedere and Tiburon, providing ferry connector and flexible service to lower density hilly areas • San Rafael, connecting local employment centers with downtown and the transit center • Ross Valley, connecting the local communities in the valley • Maintain and expand the West Marin Stagecoach • Restore night service as demand requires • Restore ferry connector shuttles to communities with high demand • Flexible services for hillier or less populated areas with transit demand

In Sonoma County, the 2005 Measure M Strategic Plan includes approximately $89 million (or 19 percent of the sales tax revenue) for restoring and enhancing local bus service, supporting the development of the SMART project and providing safe bicycle and pedestrian routes. Of this total, approximately $47 million (or 10 percent of the sales tax revenue) is dedicated to transit improvements and would be distributed to local transit operators to provide express bus service, later evening service, enhanced service for the elderly and disabled and other transit opportunities that may arise. Local transit operators that would receive funding include Sonoma County Transit (approximately $25 million), Santa Rosa CityBus (approximately $15.4 million), Petaluma Transit (approximately $5.5 million), and Healdsburg Transit (approximately $1.1 million).

Potential developments or projects within the corridor that were not included in the modeling for the proposed project include the Graton Rancheria’s plans for a casino/hotel development in the vicinity of Rohnert Park and possible future freight service on the project right-of-way. Since these projects are still in the initial planning phases (not approved and/or programmed), they were not included in regional land use growth projections or in the travel demand model.

The Graton Rancheria’s proposed casino/hotel development is likely to result in traffic related impacts during the peak hours, especially in the Rohnert Park area where the majority of access would be via the Wilfred Avenue and Highway 101 Interchange. A substantial amount of p.m. peak hour traffic is projected to be attracted to the casino development and may cause traffic congestion and delays along the Highway 101 ramps and local streets such as Commerce Boulevard in Rohnert Park. The proposed

Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit 3-122 DEIR November 2005 Chapter 3: Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures

Transportation passenger rail project would ease traffic congestion in the area and on Highway 101 in the vicinity of Rohnert Park and not contribute to the cumulative impacts related to the casino development.

The North Coast Railroad Authority (NCRA) has plans to operate freight service within the proposed project corridor right-of-way between Cloverdale and Novato at some point in the future. SMART’s enabling legislation, AB2224, specifies that freight service on the NWP would be governed by an Operating Agreement between SMART and NCRA, which will be re-negotiated in advance of passenger rail service startup and will specify operating assumptions for freight. Freight service generally operates at slower speeds and with longer trains than passenger rail service, resulting in longer delays or gate “down time” for motorists at at-grade crossings when a freight train is passing. However, freight service typically operates during off-peak periods to avoid the daily morning and evening traffic demand peaks, while the proposed project will operate primarily during these peak travel demand periods. In addition, freight service will not operate at all in the project corridor south of the Ignacio Wye near Highway 37 in Novato. Therefore, freight service is not likely to combine with passenger rail service to create a significant cumulative increase in travel times and queues at at-grade crossings.

Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit 3-123 DEIR November 2005 Chapter 3: Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures Noise and Vibration

3.7 NOISE AND VIBRATION

This section describes the existing noise levels found within the study area and evaluates the effects of the proposed project on the noise environment. The analysis of noise impacts in the proposed project area is based on a comparison of the noise caused by the proposed project relative to the existing noise levels. Mitigation measures are discussed, where necessary and appropriate, to avoid or reduce potential noise impacts. Detailed information can be found in the Noise Study (Parsons Brinckerhoff, 2004) prepared for this project.

3.7.1 Background and Characteristics of Noise

Sound is created when objects vibrate, resulting in a minute variation in surrounding atmospheric pressure called sound pressure. The human response to sound depends on the magnitude of a sound (how loud) as a function of its frequency (pitch) and time pattern (duration). Magnitude measures the physical sound energy in the air. The range of magnitude from the faintest to the loudest sound the ear can hear is so large that sound pressure is expressed on a logarithmic scale in units called decibels (dB). Loudness, compared to physical sound measurement, refers to how people subjectively judge a sound and varies from person to person. Magnitudes of typical sound levels are presented in Table 3.7-1. Noise is defined as unwanted sound.

Humans respond to a sound's frequency or pitch. The human ear is very effective at perceiving sounds with a frequency between approximately 1,000 and 5,000 cycles per second, or Hertz (Hz), with the efficiency decreasing outside this range. Environmental noise is composed of many frequencies, each occurring simultaneously at its own sound pressure level. Frequency weighting, which is applied electronically by a sound level meter, combines the overall sound frequency into one sound level that simulates how an average person hears sounds. The commonly used frequency weighting for environmental noise is an A-weighted decibel (dBA), which is most similar to how humans perceive sounds of low to moderate magnitude. The faintest sound a person with good hearing can perceive is approximately 0 dBA in a silent environment. Even short exposure to levels greater than 120 or 130 dBA is painful and will result in temporary ringing in the ear.

Because of the logarithmic decibel scale, a doubling of the number of noise sources, such as the number of buses operating within a specified area, increases noise levels by 3 dBA. A tenfold increase in the number of noise sources will add 10 dBA. As a result, a noise source emitting a noise level of 60 dBA combined with another noise source of 60 dBA yields a combined noise level of 63 dBA, not 120 dBA.

Noise levels from traffic and transit sources depend on volume, speed and the type of vehicle. Generally, an increase in volume, speed or vehicle size increases traffic noise levels. Vehicular noise is a combination of noises from the engine, exhaust, and tires or wheels. Among conditions affecting traffic noise are defective mufflers, steep grades, terrain, vegetation, distance from the roadway, and shielding by barriers and buildings.

Noise levels decrease with distance from the noise source. For a line source such as a roadway, noise levels decrease 3 dBA over hard ground (concrete, pavement) or 4.5 dBA over soft ground (grass) for every doubling of distance between the source and the receptor, such as going from 50 to 100 feet from the source. For a point source such as a transit center, noise levels will decrease between 6 and 7.5 dBA for every doubling of distance from the source.

Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit 3-124 DEIR November 2005 Chapter 3: Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures Noise and Vibration

TABLE 3.7-1 TYPICAL NOISE LEVELS Noise Level (dBA) Description Transportation Sources Other Sources 130 Painfully loud 120 Jet takeoff (200 feet) 110 Maximum vocal effort Car horn (3 feet) 100 Shout (.5 feet) 90 Very annoying; loss of Heavy truck (50 feet) Jack hammer (50 feet) hearing with Home shop tools (3 feet) prolonged exposure 85 Freight train on a structure Backhoe (50 feet) (50 feet) 80 Annoying City bus (50 feet) Bulldozer (50 feet) Vacuum cleaner (3 feet) 75 Freight train (50 feet) Blender (3 feet) City bus at stop (50 feet) 70 Freeway traffic (50 feet) Lawn mower (50 feet) Large office 65 Intrusive Freight train in station (50 Washing machine (3 feet) feet) 60 TV (10 feet) 55 Light traffic (50 feet) Talking (10 feet) 50 Quiet Light traffic (100 feet) 45 Refrigerator (3 feet) 40 Library 30 Very quiet Soft whisper (15 feet) Sources: FTA, 1995; U.S. EPA, 1971; U.S. EPA, 1974.

Noise Level Descriptors

A widely used descriptor for environmental noise is the equivalent sound level (Leq). The Leq can be considered a measure of the average noise level during a specified period of time. It places more emphasis on occasional high noise levels that accompany general background noise levels. Leq measured over a one-hour period is the hourly Leq (Leq(h)), which is used for highway noise impact and abatement analyses and transit noise analysis in non-residential areas. For residential areas, a descriptor called day/night level (Ldn) is used to assess transit noise impacts. It is a daily averaged noise level that ranks noise that occurs during the evening or night more heavily. The Ldn adds 10 dBA to noise levels that occur between 10 p.m. and 7 a.m. Ldn is used for transit in noise impact and abatement analyses for residential uses. In California, the Cnel is often reported for aircraft and community noise impacts, which is an Ldn with an additional noise penalty of 5 dBA between 7 pm and 10 pm. The Cnel is generally within 1 dBA of the Ldn.

Short-term noise levels, such as those from a single bus pass-by, can be described by either the total noise energy or the highest instantaneous noise level that occurs during the event. The sound exposure level (SEL) is a measure of total sound energy from an event and is useful in determining what the Leq would be over a period in time when several noise events occur. The maximum noise level (Lmax) is the highest short-duration noise level that occurs during an event.

Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit 3-125 DEIR November 2005 Chapter 3: Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures Noise and Vibration

Effects of Noise

Environmental noise at high intensities directly affects human health by causing the disease of hearing loss. Although scientific evidence currently is not conclusive, noise is suspected of causing or aggravating other diseases. Environmental noise indirectly affects human welfare by interfering with sleep, thought and conversation.

3.7.2 Regulatory Setting

Applicable noise regulations and guidelines provide a basis for evaluating potential noise impacts. Federal regulations pertaining to environmental impacts, including noise, from transit systems are codified in 23 Code of Federal Regulations 771. The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) has developed guidelines and criteria to assess noise impacts from transit systems under the regulations established in 23 Code of Federal Regulations 771.

Federal Criteria

Proposed rail lines, transit stations and park-and-ride facilities are evaluated for impact using the FTA project noise exposure impact criteria (Figure 3.7-1), while express bus service or other transit sources operating on public highways is evaluated using the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) noise impact criteria (Table 3.7-2).

For federally funded or approved transit projects there are two sets of criteria depending on the nature of the project. For fixed guideway projects, such as passenger rail, noise impacts occur when predicted noise levels caused by the project increase the overall noise more than a certain amount, which ranges between 1 and 10 dBA, depending on the land use and existing noise level (FTA, 1995). The project noise exposure levels that define impacts from transit facilities are presented in Figure 3.7-1. For example, if a project is located in a residential area with an average Ldn of 50 dBA, the project can generate up to 54 dBA Ldn without causing any impact and up to 59 dBA Ldn without causing a severe impact. For daytime noise sensitive areas, impacts are determined by peak hour Leq, so if the average Leq is 50 dBA, the project can generate up to 59 dBA Leq without causing any impact and up to 64 dBA Leq without causing a severe impact. Daytime noise sensitive uses include parks, school, libraries and noise sensitive commercial uses.

For highway transit sources, such as bus rapid transit, FTA has adopted the FHWA’s noise abatement criteria (NAC) (see Table 3.7-2) to define impact. Under the FHWA criteria, an impact occurs when predicted Leq(h) noise levels approach or exceed NAC, or substantially exceed existing noise levels (23 CFR 772). These criteria are used to assess the Express Bus Alternative in Chapter 4. The FHWA NAC specifies exterior Leq(h) noise levels for various land activity categories. For residences, parks, schools, churches, and similar areas, the noise criterion is 67 dBA. For other developed lands, the noise criterion is 72 dBA. For projects that add roadway capacity or substantially change the roadway alignment (FHWA Type 1 projects), the NAC defines levels that if approached (within 1 dBA) or exceeded mitigation needs to be considered.

The Federal Rail Administration (FRA) has adopted the FTA noise impact criteria and developed additional guidance on assessment of rail horn noise. FRA has developed a horn-noise assessment model to determine the distance around each grade crossing where the noise exposure from train horns would exceed the impact and severe impact criteria (Figure 3.7-1). The code of federal regulations mandates that audible warning devices shall be activated in accordance with railroad rules regarding the approach to both public and private roadway grade crossings. Standard practice is to begin sounding the horn 0.25 miles before the crossing in a long-long-short-long pattern and continue sounding until the train reaches the crossing.

Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit 3-126 DEIR November 2005 Chapter 3: Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures Noise and Vibration

FIGURE 3.7-1 PROJECT NOISE EXPOSURE IMPACT CRITERIA FOR TRANSIT PROJECTS

80 85

75 80 SEVERE 70 IMPACT 75

) 65 70 dn )

60 65 eq (L

Level (L Level IMPACT 55 60

50 55 NO IMPACT Residential Land Use Noise Impact Impact Noise Use Land Residential 45 50 Daytime Land Use Noise Impact Level Level Impact Noise Use Land Daytime

40 45 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 Existing Noise Level (dBA)

Source: FTA, 1995. Note: Project noise exposure levels that fall within the impact area are less than significant impacts, while levels that fall in the severe impact area are significant.

TABLE 3.7-2 FHWA NOISE ABATEMENT CRITERIA

Activity Category Leq(h) [dBA] Description of Activity Category A 57 (exterior) Lands on which serenity and quiet are of extraordinary significance and serve an important public need and where the preservation of those qualities is essential if the area is to continue to serve its intended purpose. B 67 (exterior) Picnic areas, recreation areas, playgrounds, active sports areas, parks, residences, motels, hotels, schools, churches, libraries, and hospitals. C 72 (exterior) Developed lands, properties, or activities not included in Categories A or B above. D - Undeveloped lands. E 52 (interior) Residences, motels, hotels, public meeting rooms, schools, churches, libraries, hospitals, and auditoriums. Source: U.S. Department of Transportation, 1973.

Local Regulations

In California, local plans establish exterior noise levels that are compatible with residential development. The general plans for each city and county along the project corridor have adopted state guidelines for residential noise compatibility. With the exception of Cotati, each jurisdiction considers exterior noise levels of 60 dBA Ldn acceptable for outdoor uses in residential areas. Cotati establishes a level of 65

Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit 3-127 DEIR November 2005 Chapter 3: Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures Noise and Vibration dBA Ldn as acceptable in Chapter 17.30 of its municipal code. Generally, the plans state than an exterior noise level greater than 70 dBA Ldn is unacceptable for residential development and new development is required to include acoustic insulation or other means of noise reduction. The noise levels established in local plans are not a limit or criteria on noise generated by transportation sources, but a designation of what areas are appropriate for residential development, based on the noise environment. A number of local jurisdictions also establish maximum noise levels that may be generated in residential areas; however, transportation noise sources operating on a public right of way are exempt form all maximum noise level standards because the regulation of noise sources such as traffic on public roadways, railroad line operations and aircraft in flight is preempted by federal and/or state regulations. Allowable noise emissions from individual vehicles are regulated by the California Vehicle Code.

3.7.3 Environmental Setting

The pattern of development in both Sonoma and Marin counties has centered on a series of cities and towns that are generally located along the Northwestern Pacific Railroad (NWP) and Highway 101; the few exceptions include the cities of Sonoma, Sebastopol, Tiburon, and other small towns and unincorporated settlements in both counties (Calthorpe Associates, 1997). The developed urban centers along Highway 101 are generally well defined with large expanses of agricultural lands and open space separating them. The proposed project area is quite large with a variety of land uses. Areas with large residential components near the project alignment are located in San Rafael, Novato, Petaluma, Cotati, Santa Rosa, and Windsor. Distance from the nearest residences to the rail tracks varies from 30 feet to over 100 feet with the majority in the range of 60 to 80 feet.

Some land uses are more sensitive to noise and vibration levels than others. Residences, motels and hotels, schools, libraries, churches, hospitals, nursing homes, auditoriums, and parks and other outdoor recreation areas generally are more sensitive to noise and vibration than are commercial (other than lodging facilities) and industrial land uses. The proposed project’s effects were estimated for sensitive uses adjacent to the corridor.

Existing noise levels along the proposed project corridor are generally typical of a suburban environment, while the portion of the corridor north of Healdsburg is more typical of a rural environment. Traffic is currently the dominant noise source throughout the corridor. Traffic noise ranges from very noticeable near Highway 101 to a minor background sound in more remote locations. Other noise sources include aircraft, general neighborhood sounds, and natural sources, such as wind and birds.

Existing Sound Levels

Twenty-four hour noise measurements were taken at 23 sites (see Table 3.7-3 and Figure 3.7-2) along the project corridor to describe the existing acoustical environment. The selected sites represent the noise sensitive land uses closest to the corridor and were selected to be representative of the acoustical environment surrounding each site. The Ldn for the 23 sites ranged between 48 and 71 dBA, with the lowest sound levels occurring at Smith Ranch Road at Gallinas Creek in San Rafael and the highest dBA occurring at Whitewood Drive at Hearn Avenue in Santa Rosa.

Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit 3-128 DEIR November 2005 Chapter 3: Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures Noise and Vibration

TABLE 3.7-3 EXISTING MEASURED Ldn NOISE LEVELS

Location Ldn 1 Pacheco Street at Stevens Place (San Rafael) 62 2 Las Gallinas Avenue at Corrillo Drive (San Rafael) 53 3 Smith Ranch Road at Gallinas Creek (San Rafael) 48 4 Roblar Drive and Nave Drive (Novato) 58 5 Railroad Avenue and West Orange Avenue (Novato) 64 6 Payran Street (Petaluma) 53 7 North McDowell Boulevard (Petaluma) 66 8 Oak Street at East Street (Penngrove) 67 9 Lacrosse Park (Rohnert Park) 58 10 Windmill Farms Drive (Cotati) 59 11 Seed Farm Road (Rohnert Park) 58 12 Anteeo Way (Santa Rosa) 65 13 Whitewood Drive at Hearn Avenue (Santa Rosa) 71 14 Cleveland Avenue between 10th and 11th Streets (Santa Rosa) 67 15 Barnes Road at Hopper Avenue (Santa Rosa) 55 16 Eagle Drive at 13th Hole Drive (Windsor) 49 17 Park Glen at Windsor Drive (Windsor) 52 18 Bell Road (Windsor) 58 19 University Street (Healdsburg) 51 20 Grove Street at Healdsburg Avenue (Healdsburg) 55 21 Healdsburg Avenue at Lytton Springs Road (Lytton) 51 22 Railroad Avenue at Merril Street (Geyserville) 59 23 McCray Road (Cloverdale) 50 Source: Parsons Brinckerhoff Quade & Douglas, Inc., 2003.

Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit 3-129 DEIR November 2005 Chapter 3: Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures Noise and Vibration

FIGURE 3.7-2 NOISE MEASUREMENT LOCATIONS

Source: Parsons Brinckerhoff Quade & Douglas Inc., 2004.

Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit 3-130 DEIR November 2005 Chapter 3: Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures Noise and Vibration

3.7.4 Significance Criteria

Generally, project-related noise effects are considered significant under the following conditions: • Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of applicable standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies. • Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels. FTA has established a vibration impact criterion of 0.01 inches per second RMS vibration velocity. This vibration velocity is perceptible to humans, but is generally not considered bothersome. Vibration damage to even fragile structures does not occur unless vibration levels are much greater than the levels found bothersome by most people. A vibration velocity less than 0.12 inches per second peak particle velocity (approximately 0.03 inches per second RMS vibration velocity) would not cause damage to even fragile historic buildings. • A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels. For transit noise sources, significant adverse impacts occur when the project generates noise exposures above the FTA Severe Noise Impact Criteria (Figure 3.7-1). Noise exposure levels caused by the project that exceed the FTA Severe Noise Impact Criteria result in a permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity. Project noise exposures above the impact level, but below the severe criteria, result in minor impacts (less than significant). The FTA criteria are widely recognized as the appropriate criteria for assessing transit noise impacts. For roadway noise sources, Caltrans has defined a substantial increase of 12 dBA or greater compared to existing conditions that result from a roadway project as a significant impact under CEQA. Exceeding the noise abatement criteria (Table 3.7-2), without also causing a substantial increase, results in a minor impact. • A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project. • 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 in the project area to excessive noise levels; or • For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people in the project area to excessive noise levels.

3.7.5 Impact Assessment Methodology

Ambient noise levels were measured at several locations near the proposed project area to characterize the daily environmental noise environment. Noise measurements were taken according to Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) guidelines (1996). Noise measurement locations (Figure 3.7-2) represent a variety of noise conditions and are representative of the various types of receptors near the proposed project. An area extending 1,000 feet from the proposed rail alignment, stations, park-and-ride lots, and maintenance facilities was reviewed for potential impacts.

Project noise exposure levels, along with the quantity of noise that would result from the proposed project, were modeled along the project corridor. Noise exposure was modeled at various distances from the proposed alignment to evaluate project effects at sensitive receptors that potentially would be affected by the proposed project. FTANOISE, the FTA Transit Noise Assessment Spreadsheet Model (HMMH, 1995), was used to calculate noise levels generated by train operations, transit centers and supporting operations that would occur as a result of the proposed project.

Predicted noise levels were based on projected daily transit operations for the forecast year 2025. Operating noise data for diesel multiple unit (DMU) vehicles was provided by Colorado Railcar Manufacturing (Table 3.7-4). Using FTA procedures, the SEL Reference Level was calculated at 82.9 a- weighted decibels (dBA) for 50 mph (throttle notch 5) at 50 feet.

Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit 3-131 DEIR November 2005 Chapter 3: Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures Noise and Vibration

TABLE 3.7-4 MEASURED NOISE LEVELS FOR DMU VEHICLES AND A TYPICAL LOCOMOTIVE

Lmax (dBA) for a DMU Lmax DMU Lmax Typical Diesel (dBA) at 50 (dBA) at 100 Locomotive at 50 Operating Condition feet feet feet Stationary -- generator only 64.5 63.1 - Stationary -- all engines idling 72.0 65.5 80 Accelerating from stop at full throttle 82.5 75.5 - 50 mph pass by forward in coast* 76.0 70.8 - 50 mph pass by reverse in coast 76.8 70.1 - 50 mph pass by forward in notch 5* 78.8 73.3 88 50 mph pass by reverse in notch 5 80.2 74.1 88 50 mph pass by forward in notch 8* 80.2 74.8 92 50 mph pass by reverse in notch 8 80.3 75.6 92 Source: Colorado Railcar, 2003, FTA, 1995. Note: * Locomotives have throttle settings that range from notch 1 for lowest power to notch 8, full throttle. At coast, no traction power is being applied.

Train horn noise was estimated using the FRA train horn noise model. An Lmax of 100 dBA measured 100 feet in front of the train was used as a typical horn noise level. A worst-case exposure was assumed with horns being used for 0.25 miles as the train approaches each grade crossing.

3.7.6 Impact Summary

Only grade crossing horn noise impacts would be potentially significant. The FTA noise impact criteria (Figure 3.7-1) are a measure of substantial long-term noise increase. Several residences in the vicinity of grade crossings would experience train horn noise exposures that would exceed the FTA Severe Noise Impact Criteria. If the train horn noise is not mitigated by designating the areas Quiet Zones and eliminating the need to sound the train horns, these residents would experience significant adverse noise impacts.

Under CEQA, other noise impacts would not be significant because:

• The general plans state that noise levels less than 60 dBA Ldn are acceptable for outdoor uses in residential areas. Except in the vicinity of grade crossings, the noise exposure would not exceed 60 dBA Ldn at a distance greater than 25 feet from the tracks. • Groundborne noise and vibration levels at distances greater than approximately 100 feet from the tracks, would be lower than the level generally perceptible to humans. At distances between 20 feet and 100 feet from the tracks, vibration levels may be perceptible; however, they are expected to be less than the applicable FTA impact significance criteria of 0.01 inches per second RMS vibration velocity. • Temporary noise increases would occur during construction; however, the increases would be of limited duration and would be shorter than the proposed project’s overall construction period in any single location.

There are five airports located within two miles of the corridor: Marin County Airport – Gnoss Field, Petaluma Municipal Airport, Sonoma County Airport, Healdsburg Municipal Airport, and Cloverdale Municipal Airport. The proposed project would not substantially increase noise levels in the vicinity of these airports; therefore, it would not expose people to excessive noise levels in the vicinity of the identified airports. No private airstrips have been identified within two miles of the proposed project corridor. If there are any airstrips in the vicinity, the proposed project would still not result in excessive noise levels near the airstrips for the same reasons discussed for the five known airports.

Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit 3-132 DEIR November 2005 Chapter 3: Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures Noise and Vibration

3.7.7 Impacts and Mitigation Measures

Construction-Related Impacts

Impact N-1: The proposed project would temporarily cause increased noise levels associated with construction equipment and activities. (Less than significant)

Construction activities for the proposed project would include replacement and reconstruction of track and siding, improvements to or construction of stations and support facilities and construction of park- and-ride lots. While construction would occur along the entire length of the corridor, at most locations construction activities would be minor and of limited duration. Construction noise would be intermittent over the duration of the proposed project, varying with the time of day and stage of construction. Construction noise impacts would depend on the type, amount, location, and duration of construction activities.

The construction noise impacts would be limited to the immediate vicinity of these improvements. The most prevalent noise source at the construction sites would be the internal combustion engine. Engine- powered equipment includes earth-moving equipment, material-handling equipment and stationary equipment. Mobile equipment operates in a cyclic fashion, while stationary equipment, such as generators and compressors, operates at sound levels fairly constant over time. Since trucks would be present during most phases and would not be confined to the proposed project site, noise from trucks could affect more receptors. Other noise sources would include impact equipment and tools such as jackhammers and pile drivers. Impact tools could be pneumatically powered, hydraulic or electric. Maximum noise levels of construction equipment would be similar to typical maximum construction equipment noise levels presented in Figure 3.7-3.

The contractor would be required to comply with applicable local sound control and noise level rules, regulations and ordinances. Because of the localized and temporary nature of these impacts, as well as required compliance with relevant local sound control regulations, the impact would be less than significant. Even though the impact would be less than significant, the following mitigation measure is recommended to further minimize potential noise effects.

Mitigation Measure N-1: In order to reduce construction noise at nearby receptors, the following noise abatement measures shall be implemented for construction contracts: • When practical, construction operations shall not occur between 7:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. or on weekends or holidays in residential areas. • Each internal combustion engine shall be equipped with a muffler of a type recommended by the manufacturer.

Other measures to reduce noise levels that may be implemented where appropriate include: • Turning off construction equipment during prolonged periods of non-use. • Requiring contractors to maintain all equipment and train their equipment operators to increase efficiency of operation. • Locating stationary noise-generating equipment away from noise-sensitive receptors such as residences.

Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit 3-133 DEIR November 2005 Chapter 3: Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures Noise and Vibration

FIGURE 3.7-3 CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMANT NOISE RANGES

Noise Level (dBA) at 15 meters (50 ft.) 60 70 80 90 100 110

Compactors (rollers)

Front-end loaders

Backhoes Tractors

Scrapers, graders Earth Moving Pav er s

Trucks

Concrete mixers Conc r ete pumps

Cranes (movable) Cranes (derrick) Materials Handling Pumps Equipment Type Generators

Stationary Compr es s or s

Pneumatic w renches

Jack hammers, rock drills

Impact Pile drivers (peaks)

Vibrator

Other Saw s Source: EPA, 1971 and WSDOT, 1991.

Long-Term Impacts

Noise impacts on nearby noise sensitive uses could result from train operations, operations at rail stations, operations at support facilities and from new park-and-ride lots.

DMUs are the proposed vehicles for the rail system. Because they are self-propelled, DMUs do not require large locomotive engines. DMUs are rail cars which contain both passenger accommodations and propulsion (diesel engines located below the passenger compartment). Noise measurements indicate that DMUs generate noise levels approximately 10 dBA less than diesel locomotives (Table 3.7- 4). To most people, a DMU would sound about one-half as loud as a diesel locomotive.

The noise evaluation was based on a maximum train travel speed of 80 mph north of Novato North Station. From the North Novato Station to San Rafael, an average travel of 50 mph was evaluated. An average travel speed of 25 mph was evaluated for downtown Petaluma, Santa Rosa and Healdsburg. There would be few noise impacts from operation of the train because of the limited schedule of twelve round-trips per day in the most-traveled portion of the corridor; all trips would occur between 5:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m.; and train speeds would be low in developed areas. Maximum noise levels during train

Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit 3-134 DEIR November 2005 Chapter 3: Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures Noise and Vibration pass-bys could be bothersome to residents near the alignment, however they would be limited to twenty- four occurrences (twelve round trips) or fewer and generally occur during daytime hours.

The predicted daily noise exposure from passenger rail operations away from grade crossings is shown in Figure 3.7-4. As shown in the future, daily noise exposure would be between 47 and 54 dBA Ldn at 50 feet and between 43 and 49 dBA Ldn at 100 feet, depending on where in the corridor the noise is being evaluated. The values in Figure 3.7-4 do not include the effects of train horns, which are used near railroad grade crossings. Noise exposure from the proposed passenger rail operations at distances greater than 25 feet from the tracks would be less than 60 dBA Ldn, the level considered normally acceptable for outdoor use in residential areas. Noise levels would be greatest north of Novato North because speeds would be highest in that area.

FIGURE 3.7-4 PROPOSED PASSENGER RAIL NOISE EXPOSURE

70

65 North of Novato North

San Rafael to Novato North 60 Dow ntow n Petaluma, San Rafael, and Healdsburg

55

50

45

Ldn Noise Exposure Level (dBA) Level Exposure Ldn Noise 40

35

30 0 25 50 75 100 125 150 175 200 Distance from Tracks (feet)

Note: Ldn is a measure of the daily sound level that includes a penalty for sound that occurs during the night.

While proposed passenger rail operations would not cause any significant adverse impacts along sections of the corridor without grade crossings, individual train pass-bys would be noticeable and potentially bothersome to nearby residents. Lmax noise levels for DMU vehicles are similar to levels from heavy trucks or buses (between approximately 70 and 75 dBA at 100 feet from the tracks) but less than freight locomotives. Typical maximum noise levels experienced 50 feet from the pass-by of various types of vehicles are shown in Figure 3.7-5.

As part of the Caltrans project to widen Highway 101 in the San Rafael area, the current soundwall along Highway 101 would be relocated. SMART has recommended that the relocated soundwall be placed to the west of the rail corridor between approximately 500 feet north of Pacheco Street to the vicinity of the Prospect Drive Interchange. Caltrans proposed relocating the soundwall to between the widened Highway 101 and the train tracks. In this proposed Caltrans design, Highway 101 would be located east of the soundwall, while the railroad tracks and residences will be west of the wall. The soundwall would

Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit 3-135 DEIR November 2005 Chapter 3: Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures Noise and Vibration provide the same level of traffic noise reduction for traffic on Highway 101 whether it is placed between the highway and the train tracks or between the tracks and the neighborhood. Train noise impacts in this area would be less than significant whether or not the soundwall is located between the tracks and the freeway or between the tracks and the neighborhood. However, by placing the wall between the tracks and the neighborhood, the noise impacts on nearby residences from individual train pass-bys would be reduced. Because the distance between the soundwalls on opposite sides of Highway 101 would be greater if the wall is placed between the tracks and the neighborhood, the potential for traffic noise reflections off of the parallel barriers would be less with the wall located between tracks and the neighborhood than the Caltrans design. The proposed bicycle/pedestrian pathway may be located on either side of the Caltrans designed soundwall.

FIGURE 3.7-5 MAXIMUM NOISE LEVELS 50 FEET FROM VARIOUS VEHICLE TYPES

Diesel Locamotive

DMU

Truck

Vehicle Type Bus

Automobile

60 70 80 90 100 110 Lmax (dBA) Noise Level at 50 feet

In addition to train pass-bys, noise from train horns would be experienced near grade crossings. Train horns are required to sound at between 96 and 110 dBA measured 100 feet in front of the locomotive. Within 0.25 miles of each grade crossing, the noise exposure from train horns would be substantially greater than the exposure from passenger train pass-bys. Within 0.25 miles of each grade crossing, noise impacts would extend for a distance of between 40 and 600 feet from the tracks, depending on location along the proposed project alignment and nearness to the grade crossing (Figure 3.7-6).

Several parks are located adjacent to the corridor. Because parks have a daytime use, they are evaluated against the daytime use criteria shown in Figure 3.7-1. The highest daytime Leq(h) noise exposure that would be caused by train pass-bys would be less than 60 dBA at a distance of 50 feet from the tracks. Existing Daytime Leq(h) noise levels measured throughout the corridor are generally above 55 dBA, and were above 40 dBA in every instance; therefore, there would be no severe noise impacts to parks and few if any less than severe noise impacts to parks along the corridor. Parks within 0.25 miles of a grade crossing would experience similar impacts from train horns as residences within that distance.

Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit 3-136 DEIR November 2005 Chapter 3: Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures Noise and Vibration

FIGURE 3.7-6 TYPICAL TRAIN HORN NOISE IMPACT DISTANCE FROM GRADE CROSSING

KEY Impact Severe Impact

Impact N-2: Train operations would cause a permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity. (Less than significant)

Approximately 15 residences in the vicinity of Pacheco Boulevard in San Rafael would experience noise impacts from passing trains, but no residences would experience severe noise impacts under the FTA transit noise impact criteria. Therefore, the impact would be less than significant. These residences would experience impacts because they are very close (within 30 feet) to the rail line and up to five trains per day would pass-by before 7:00 a.m. Although not required, the following mitigation measure would further reduce noise impacts.

Mitigation Measure N-2: Limiting train speed between the San Rafael Station and Linden Lane to 25 mph would eliminate the only noise impacts predicted from the operation of DMU vehicles away from grade crossings. This measure would be implemented only if it does not restrict normal train operations.

Impact N-3: The Windsor Station operations may cause a permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity. (Less than significant)

Noise impacts from park-and-ride facilities associated with the proposed rail stations were predicted for only the Windsor Station, where residences would be directly adjacent to parking facilities. Between two and five residences within 50 feet of the proposed Windsor Station park-an-ride lot would experience noise impacts as a result of park-and-ride lot operations under the FTA transit noise impact criteria. Ldn noise exposure experienced at this location would be approximately 54 dBA. The impact would be less than significant because it does not exceed FTA criteria for severe impact. However, the following mitigation measure would further reduce noise impacts.

Mitigation Measure N-3: Install a solid barrier at the Windsor Station to separate the park-and- ride lot from residential uses.

Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit 3-137 DEIR November 2005 Chapter 3: Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures Noise and Vibration

Impact N-4: The proposed maintenance facility would cause a permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity. (Less than significant)

Of the two options for proposed maintenance facilities, the Windsor facility would not be located near sensitive receptors and therefore would not cause noise impacts on surrounding land uses. However, four residences on McCray Road are located approximately 200 feet from the vehicle lay-up tracks at the proposed Cloverdale maintenance facility at the north end of the proposed project corridor and could experience noise impacts as a result of vehicle maintenance operations under the FTA transit noise impact criteria. The impact would be less than significant because it does not exceed FTA criteria for severe impact. Although not required, the following mitigation measure would further reduce noise at these residences.

Mitigation Measure N-4: Construct a noise barrier or enclosure of the vehicle lay-up area at the Cloverdale Maintenance Facility.

Impact N-5: Train horns would cause a substantial increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity. (Significant unavoidable)

While noise from train horns and warning devices are not regulated by local ordinance because they are safety-warning devices, the noise can be disturbing to residents near at-grade crossings. Noise exposure levels would exceed the FTA noise impact criteria (Figure 3.7-1) near several grade crossings along the corridor. The number of residences that would experience train horn noise exposures greater than the FTA impact criteria thresholds is listed in Table 3.7-5. Approximately 250 residences and apartments would experience severe noise impacts, and an additional approximately 500 would experience noise impacts that are less than severe as a result of train horns being used at grade crossings. It should be noted that the train horn noise would be temporary and periodic and would be limited to the hours between 5:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m.

Mitigation Measure N-5: Limit the use of train horns and other audible warning devices by installing crossing controls that meet FRA requirements and obtain Quiet Zone designations for crossings along the corridor. Local jurisdictions may apply to the FRA for designation as a Quiet Zone, where audible warning devices are not required. The application must be a joint application between the local jurisdiction and the rail operator and must include supplementary safety measures to ensure that safety is not compromised by eliminating the sounding of the train horns.

Because FRA has final jurisdiction over Quiet Zone applications, SMART cannot commit to Quiet Zone implementation. SMART has committed to work with any local jurisdictions wishing to be designated Quiet Zones to cooperatively meet the requirements for designation. If Quiet Zones are designated in each of the communities where significant train horn impacts are predicted, no severe noise impacts would remain after mitigation.

Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit 3-138 DEIR November 2005 Chapter 3: Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures Noise and Vibration

TABLE 3.7-5 TRAIN HORN IMPACTS AT GRADE CROSSINGS Residences Experiencing Residences Experiencing Grade Crossing Impacts Severe Impacts San Rafael, 4th Street to Linden Lane 10 Apartment 10 Apartment Buildings and Buildings and 50 Residences 50 Residences San Rafael, North San Pedro Road 8 31 Units San Rafael, Civic Center 15 0 San Rafael, Smith Ranch Road 56 40 Novato, Roblar Drive 33 12 Novato, Grant Avenue 3 13 Novato, Olive Avenue 10 1 Petaluma, West Payran Street 13 0 Petaluma, North McDowell Boulevard 25 16 Petaluma, Corona Road 0 1 Petaluma, Ely Road 0 5 Penngrove, Main Street 8 0 Cotati, Cotati Avenue 10 2 Cotati, Southwest Boulevard 39 5 Rohnert Park Expressway 25 0 Santa Rosa, Bellevue Avenue 7 0 Santa Rosa, Barham Avenue 23 0 Santa Rosa, North Guerneville Rd. 15 11 Santa Rosa, Steele Lane 8 0 Santa Rosa, San Migel Avenue 35 1 Fulton, River Road 6 0 Windsor, Airport Road 3 0 Windsor, Wilson Lane 3 0 Windsor, Windsor River Road 8 0 Windsor, Starr Road 21 4 Healdsburg, Front Street 3 0 Geyserville, Walden Avenue to Woods Lane 19 1 Cloverdale, Airport Road 2 0 Cloverdale, First Street 2 0

Cumulative Impacts

The FTA noise impact criteria were developed to consider the cumulative effect of a proposed project on the acoustical environment. For locations with low background levels, the proposed project may contribute noticeable additional noise to the total environment without causing a significant impact. For locations with higher background levels, the amount of additional noise that a project is allowed to contribute decreases (Figure 3.7-1). While the proposed project would add to the total environmental noise level along the project corridor, it would create severe impacts under the FTA criteria only in the vicinity of grade crossings where trains would be required to sound their horns. The cumulative noise level at grade crossings could increase by a significant amount. This impact would be eliminated at any locations that are designated quiet zones. Mitigation Measure N-5, if it can be implemented, would eliminate the only significant noise impact predicted to occur with the SMART project.

Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit 3-139 DEIR November 2005 Chapter 3: Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures Noise and Vibration

Ambient noise from freight traffic was not considered in the impact analysis for the proposed project because no freight service is currently operating on the corridor. In the future, up to four freight trains in each direction per day are expected to operate north of the Ignacio Wye (south of Novato) independent of the proposed project. Assuming eight train pass-bys per day consisting of one locomotive and 15 rail cars and operating between 7:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. at a speed of 60 mph, the freight operations would create an estimated noise exposure of approximately 58 dBA Ldn at 50 feet from the tracks and 53 dBA Ldn at 100 feet from the tracks. In the section of track where freight trains are anticipated to resume operation, the freight operations are expected to generate substantially more daily noise than the passenger rail operations. Train horn noise would be similar for freight and passenger trains in the vicinity or grade crossings.

In areas where both passenger rail and freight rail would be operating, the cumulative daily noise exposure from all rail operations, based on the above assumptions for freight operations, would be approximately 59 dBA Ldn at 50 feet and 54 dBA Ldn at 100 feet from the tracks. Cumulative noise exposure from passenger and freight rail operations at distances greater than 50 feet from the tracks would be less than 60 dBA Ldn, the level considered normally acceptable for outdoor use in residential areas.

Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit 3-140 DEIR November 2005 Chapter 3: Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures Energy

3.8 ENERGY

Energy is consumed during the construction and operation of transportation projects. This section assesses the impact of the proposed project on transportation-related energy consumption in the study corridor. The analysis considers both direct (operational) and indirect energy requirements.

3.8.1 Regulatory Setting

Federal and state agencies regulate energy consumption through various policies and programs. Federal agencies, such as the U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT), U.S. Department of Energy (USDOE) and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) affect energy consumption in the transportation sector through fuel economy standards, funding for transportation infrastructure and funding for energy related research and development projects. At the state level, the California Energy Commission (CEC) collects and analyzes energy-related data, prepares state-wide energy policy recommendations and plans, promotes and funds energy efficiency programs, and regulates the power plant siting process. California is preempted under federal law from setting state fuel economy standards for new on-road motor vehicles.

Federal Regulations

Energy Policy and Conservation Act The Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975 required that all vehicles sold in the U.S. meet certain fuel economy goals. The Act gave the National Highway Traffic and Safety Administration (NHTSA, part of USDOT) authority to establish additional vehicle standards and revise existing standards. NHTSA set the fuel economy standard for new passenger cars at 27.5 miles per gallon (mpg) in 1990, and 20.7 mpg for new light trucks in 1996. Heavy-duty vehicles (i.e., vehicles and trucks over 8,500 pounds gross vehicle weight) are not currently subject to fuel economy standards. The Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) program, administered by the EPA, was created to determine vehicle manufacturers' compliance with the fuel economy standards. The EPA calculates a value for each manufacturer based on city and highway fuel economy test results and vehicle sales. Based on the information generated under the CAFE program, the USDOT is authorized to assess penalties for noncompliance.

Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA) In 1991, Congress established ISTEA to promote the development of intermodal transportation systems, maximize mobility and address national and local interests in air quality and energy. To meet the new ISTEA requirements, Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs) had to adopt social, economic, energy, and environmental policies to guide transportation decisions in the region. MPOs must also consider the consistency of transportation planning with federal, state and local energy goals. This requirement was designed to make energy consumption a decision criterion in determining the best transportation solution.

State Regulations

California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Appendix F of the CEQA Guidelines describes the energy conservation information and analyses that should be included in an EIR. Energy conservation is defined in terms of decreased reliance on natural gas and oil, decreased per capita energy consumption and increased reliance on renewable energy sources. An EIR should include a discussion of potentially significant energy impacts of the proposed project, with emphasis on avoiding or reducing inefficient, wasteful and unnecessary consumption of energy.

Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit 3-141 DEIR November 2005 Chapter 3: Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures Energy

State of California Energy Plan The CEC identifies emerging trends in energy supply, demand, conservation, public health and safety, and the maintenance of a healthy economy in the State Energy Plan. The plan calls upon the state to reduce congestion and increase the efficient use of fuel supplies. The plan also encourages urban designs that reduce vehicle miles traveled and accommodate pedestrian and bicycle access (SCAG, 2001).

3.8.2 Environmental Setting

This section discusses the existing energy use characteristics at the state and local level. Detailed information about energy use in the project area is limited; therefore, state-level trends are relied upon to characterize energy consumption at the local level.

Petroleum products supply approximately 39 percent of the energy demand in the U.S. (MTC, 2005). Coal and natural gas each supply approximately 23 percent of national demand, and renewable and nuclear resources supply the remaining demand.

In California, petroleum use accounts for approximately 42 percent of all energy consumption (USDOE, 2004). Approximately 53 percent of petroleum use is for motor vehicle fuel. In 2000, total statewide energy consumption was 8,500 Tera BTUs (USDOE, 2003).1 Motor vehicle fuel use accounted for 22 percent of total use, or 1,872 Tera BTUs (54.5 billion liters or 14.4 billion gallons of fuel). Figure 3.8-1 illustrates California’s annual fuel consumption trends over the last three decades.

Gasoline consumption for Sonoma and Marin counties during the last three years is shown in Table 3.8- 1. Motor vehicle fuel consumption increased approximately one percent in Marin County and almost five percent in Sonoma County. In the last three years, fuel consumption in the entire project corridor increased two percent.

TABLE 3.8-1 GASOLINE CONSUMPTION IN SONOMA AND MARIN COUNTIES, 2000-2002 Change County 2000 2001 2002 2000-2002 Marin 132,634 131,394 133,873 1% Sonoma 211,209 211,971 221,054 5% Total Bay Area 3,358,234 3,399,020 3,426,669 2% Source: Metropolitan Transportation Commission, 2005.

1 A Tera BTU is equivalent to one trillion BTUs.

Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit 3-142 DEIR November 2005 Chapter 3: Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures Energy

FIGURE 3.8-1 STATE OF CALIFORNIA FUEL CONSUMPTION TREND 16,000

n 14,000 12,000 10,000 8,000 6,000

(million gallons) 4,000

Annual Fuel Consumptio 2,000 0 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 Year

Source: U.S. Department of Energy, 2004.

While long-term fuel consumption data is not available for Sonoma and Marin counties, trends in vehicle miles traveled (VMT) growth suggest that the two counties have followed statewide annual fuel consumption trends. In the 1990s, combined VMT for Sonoma and Marin counties increased by 16.6 percent, or approximately 1.7 percent annually. Statewide VMT growth during the same period was 18.3 percent, or approximately 1.8 percent annually (Caltrans, 2003).

3.8.3 Significance Criteria

Based on the CEQA Guidelines, Appendix F, energy impacts would be considered significant if implementation of the proposed project would result in: • Wasteful, inefficient, and unnecessary usage of energy; or • Placement of a significant demand on regional energy supply or requirement for substantial additional capacity.

3.8.4 Impact Assessment Methodology

In this report, the energy consumption of the proposed project is compared to existing conditions as well as to No-Project conditions in 2025. For purposes of comparing the proposed project in 2025 to No- Project conditions in 2025, the same roadway improvements to the transportation system and growth in annual VMT are assumed for both. This comparison generally allows for an analysis of the relative impact of the proposed project on energy consumption based on like assumptions about technology, fuels and vehicles. However, the transportation analysis assumed a 15 percent increase in intracounty bus transit service for the proposed project (although the project itself does not include increased bus transit service), so the comparison of bus energy consumption between the No-Project and proposed project scenarios reflects this 15 percent increase only for the proposed project (see Section 3.6, Transportation for details on transportation assumptions).

Direct Energy

Direct energy consumption includes the fuel required for the operation of passenger vehicles (automobiles, vans and light trucks), transit buses and passenger rail vehicles. The method used to estimate direct energy consumption under each of the alternatives is outlined in FTA’s Reporting Instructions for the Section 5309 New Starts Criteria (USDOT, 2002). The direct energy analysis for

Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit 3-143 DEIR November 2005 Chapter 3: Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures Energy each alternative was based on modeled year 2025 corridor traffic VMT, as documented in Section 3.6, Transportation. The daily VMT was then adjusted using a factor of 290 days per year to provide annual VMT for passenger vehicles, transit buses and passenger rail (Caltrans, 1983).

The factors in Table 3.8-2 reflect the variable rates at which different modes consume energy. Annual VMT values were adjusted using these factors to provide the direct energy consumption under each alternative.

TABLE 3.8-2 OPERATIONAL ENERGY CONSUMPTION RATES

Vehicle Type Energy Consumption/Vehicle Mile Passenger Vehicles (auto, van, light truck) 6,233 BTU1/Vehicle Mile Transit Bus (all vehicle types) 41,655 BTU/Vehicle Mile Proposed Passenger Rail Vehicle (DMU) 75,000 BTU/Vehicle Mile Traditional Passenger Rail Vehicle (diesel) 100,000 BTU/Vehicle Mile Source: U.S. Department of Energy, 1996; Source for the Diesel Multiple Units is Colorado Railcar Company, LLC, 2003. Note 1 One BTU is the quantity of energy necessary to raise the temperature of one pound of water by one degree Fahrenheit.

The proposed project would rely on diesel multiple units (DMUs) for the passenger rail cars. Therefore, operational energy calculations for passenger rail in this report rely on the DMU energy consumption factor. DMUs use 25 percent fewer BTUs per vehicle mile than traditional passenger rail vehicles.

In addition, SMART is considering operating the DMUs on a biodiesel fuel mixture. Biodiesel blends of 20 percent or less can be used in DMU vehicles without requiring any modifications to the vehicles. Fuel efficiency is expected to be slightly less than DMUs operated on conventional diesel—two miles per gallon for diesel fuel (Colorado Railcar Manufacturing, LLC, 2003) and 1.96 miles per gallon for biodiesel (EPA, 2002). A biodiesel consumption rate is not currently available.

SMART is also considering the use of hybrid engines for the proposed project. Hybrid diesel engines are currently in development by several rail car manufacturers. A prototype hybrid DMU, however, has not yet been developed. Energy consumption rates are therefore not available for this analysis.

Indirect Energy

Indirect energy consumption includes three components: (a) the initial energy investment required to build the project; (b) the initial energy required to manufacture the operating vehicles; and (c) the energy required for the annual maintenance or periodic rehabilitation of the infrastructure. The indirect energy analysis was conducted using the Input-Output Method. This method converts VMT, lane-miles or construction dollars into energy consumption based on existing data from other rail projects in the United States. The indirect energy consumption rates in Table 3.8-3 reflect the amount of energy that is consumed in the construction of the rail guideway and the manufacturing and maintenance of passenger vehicles, transit buses and passenger rail cars.

Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit 3-144 DEIR November 2005 Chapter 3: Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures Energy

TABLE 3.8-3 INDIRECT ENERGY CONSUMPTION RATES

Activity Energy Consumption Rate Manufacturing Passenger Vehicles 1,410 BTU/VMT Transit Buses 3,470 BTU/VMT Passenger Rail1 2,108 BTU/VMT Rail Guideway2 12,200 BTU/VMT Maintenance Passenger Vehicles 1,400 BTU/VMT Transit Buses 13,142 BTU/VMT Passenger Rail 7,060 BTU/VMT Sources: Caltrans, 1983. Rail Guideway information is from Congress of the United States, 1977. Notes: 1 Passenger Rail consumption rates are based on traditional passenger rail cars. An indirect energy consumption rate is not currently available for DMUs. Energy consumption associated with maintenance and manufacturing of DMUs is expected to be similar to traditional rail cars. 2 Rail guideway consumption includes only construction of the permanent way (e.g., rails and ties). Consumption associated with constructing stations is not included.

3.8.5 Impact Summary

Implementation of the proposed project would not result in the wasteful, inefficient or unnecessary consumption of energy, nor would it place a significant demand on regional energy supplies. DMUs, which are the preferred rail vehicle for the proposed project, would consume 25 percent less energy than a traditional diesel-powered rail vehicle. Although energy would be consumed for the manufacture, maintenance and operation of the proposed passenger rail project, the consumption of energy by other modes would be reduced as a result of diverting automobile travel to passenger rail service. In addition, implementation of the proposed project would result in a slight decrease in both indirect and direct energy consumption compared to the No-Project Alternative. Therefore, energy impacts are not considered significant and no energy mitigation measures are required.

3.8.6 Impacts and Mitigation Measures

Construction-Related Impacts

Indirect energy is the energy required to construct and maintain the proposed project. Indirect energy construction estimates for the proposed project are provided in Table 3.8-4. This table also shows the barrels of crude oil that would be consumed under each alternative. The energy consumption estimates for construction and maintenance represent a one-time expenditure of energy.

Impact E-1: Construction and maintenance of the proposed project would require indirect energy consumption. (Less than significant)

Energy consumption for project construction and maintenance is calculated based on projected VMT, listed in Table 3.8-5, and adjusted using the energy consumption rates in Table 3.8-3. Energy consumption related to vehicle manufacture and maintenance is based on the amount of energy necessary to produce material, create component parts and assemble the vehicles. The results of this analysis are in Table 3.8-4.

Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit 3-145 DEIR November 2005 Chapter 3: Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures Energy

TABLE 3.8-4 ESTIMATES OF INDIRECT ENERGY CONSUMPTION

2025 2025 No-Project Proposed Project Construction (in billion BTUs) Passenger Vehicle Manufacturing 7,947 7,910 Transit Bus Manufacturing 43 491 Passenger Rail Manufacturing 0 0.849 Rail Guideway 0 4.91 Total Construction 7,990 7,964 Total Construction in Barrels of Oil (in thousands)2 1,378 1,373 Change in Barrels of Oil from No-Project Alternative (445) Maintenance (in billion BTUs) Passenger Vehicle 7,891 7,854 Transit Bus 164 1851 Passenger Rail 0 3 Total Maintenance 8,055 8,042 Total Maintenance in Barrels of Oil (in thousands) 1,389 1,387 Change in Barrels of Oil from No-Project Alternative - (2,237) Summary Total Indirect Energy Consumption (in billions of BTUs) 16,045 16,006 Total Indirect Energy Consumption (in thousands of Barrels Of Oil) 2,766 2,760 Source: Parsons Brinckerhoff Quade & Douglas, Inc., June 2004. Note 1 The travel demand model demonstrated that intracounty trips to and from proposed rail stations via transit bus would increase 15 percent under the proposed project. As trips increase, it is conservatively assumed that the number of transit buses manufactured and maintained would also increase. 2 The Energy Information Administration estimates that there are approximately 5.8 million BTUs per barrel of crude oil.

This energy use represents an initial consumption amount, rather than an annual operational consumption rate. Energy consumption related to the proposed project’s construction and manufacturing would necessarily represent an increase in energy use over existing conditions, as it would require the manufacturing and maintenance of new rail vehicles and rail facilities. A more meaningful way to assess this indirect energy use is to compare it to future conditions without the project (No-Project scenario). As shown in Table 3.8-4, the manufacturing of vehicles and construction associated with the proposed project, in addition to manufacturing of passenger and other non-rail vehicles that would be in service in the year 2025, would consume approximately 1.4 million barrels of oil (7,964 billion BTUs). The proposed project’s indirect energy consumption represents a decrease of 0.32 percent compared to the No-Project Alternative. This decrease is due to lower passenger auto manufacturing and maintenance energy use, which offsets the increase in energy use for the rail vehicle manufacturing and assumed increased bus service. Maintenance under the proposed project combined with maintenance of passenger and other non-rail vehicles would require approximately 1.4 million barrels of oil (8,042 billion BTUs) through 2025. Energy consumption due to maintenance would decrease 0.16 percent compared to the No-Project Alternative. Therefore, the proposed project’s indirect energy consumption would not represent a wasteful or inefficient use of energy. This one-time energy use would not place a significant demand on regional energy supplies. Although the proposed project would not cause a significant increase of indirect energy consumption, measures could be implemented that further reduce energy demand during the construction period.

Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit 3-146 DEIR November 2005 Chapter 3: Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures Energy

Mitigation Measure E-1: Implement energy conservation measures during construction such as: • Using energy efficient measures at rail stations, such as solar panels; • Reducing idling of trucks delivering construction material; • Consolidating material delivery; and • Scheduling material delivery during off-peak hours, to allow trucks to travel without traffic and at fuel-efficient speeds (45 – 55 mph).

Long-Term Impacts

Impact E-2: Operation of the proposed project would require energy use. (Less than significant)

The preferred rail vehicle for the proposed project is the DMU, which consumes 25 percent less energy (BTU/VMT) than a traditional diesel rail vehicle. In addition, the proposed project would slightly reduce the amount of energy consumed by automobiles in the region by diverting some automobile users to passenger rail service. Overall energy consumption would be slightly less with the proposed project in 2025 compared to the No-Project Alternative in 2025.

Projected annual operational energy consumption of the proposed project is compared to the No-Project Alternative and the existing condition in Table 3.8-5, and is discussed below.

TABLE 3.8-5 ESTIMATES OF DIRECT ENERGY CONSUMPTION

2025 2025 2000 No-Project Proposed (Existing) Project Vehicles miles traveled (in millions) Daily Passenger Vehicle 15.03 19.43 19.34 Annual Passenger Vehicle 4,359 5,636 5,610 Daily Transit Bus 0.0430 0.0431 0.0487 Annual Transit Bus 12.5 12.5 14.1 Daily Passenger Rail 0 0 0.0014 Annual Passenger Rail 0 0 0.4028 Estimated BTUs (in billions) Passenger Vehicle 27,170 35,130 34,966 Transit Bus 519.3 520.5 588.7 Passenger Rail 0 0 30.21 Summary Total BTUs (in billions) 27,690 35,650 35,585 Total Barrels of Oil (in thousands) 4,774 6,146 6,135 Change in Barrels of Oil from No-Project (11,000) Source: Parsons Brinckerhoff Quade & Douglas, Inc., June 2004.

Under the proposed project, annual VMT within the project corridor is forecast to be 5.6 billion miles for passenger vehicles, 14.1 million miles for transit buses and 402,800 miles for passenger rail in 2025. All vehicles operating within the corridor are anticipated to consume approximately 6.1 million barrels of oil (35,585 billion BTUs), an 11 thousand barrel decrease in direct energy consumption as compared to the No-Project Alternative.

Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit 3-147 DEIR November 2005 Chapter 3: Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures Energy

When compared to the existing condition, the difference between the proposed project and the No- Project Alternative is minimal. Both scenarios result in an increase in energy use due to projected regional growth and associated increased vehicle travel. By 2025, annual passenger VMT will increase 29 percent under the No-Project Alternative. With implementation of the proposed project, annual passenger VMT would be slightly less, increasing 28 percent during the same time period. This small energy savings under the proposed project, however, would be partially offset by an increase in transit bus and passenger rail vehicle miles.

The proposed project would result in a 0.2 percent decrease in total energy consumption compared to the No-Project Alternative. Relative to future conditions without the proposed project, this is a beneficial effect. Implementation of the proposed project would not result in wasteful, inefficient or unnecessary usage of energy. Because the proposed project would consume fewer barrels of oil than the No-Project Alternative, it would not place a significant demand on regional energy supply or require substantial additional capacity.

Cumulative Impacts

The above analysis takes into consideration many of the expected changes to the transportation system that will take place between 2000 and 2025. Expected development in the region is incorporated into the model. These assumptions are made in order to accurately compare the No-Project Alternative to the proposed project in 2025. Accordingly, the analysis is cumulative in nature. The proposed project would result in an overall decrease in total energy consumption compared to future conditions without the project, and would not contribute to cumulative energy impacts in the region.

Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit 3-148 DEIR November 2005 Chapter 3: Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures Parks and Recreation

3.10 PARKS AND RECREATION

This section assesses impacts on the existing park and recreation areas found within the study area, which is defined as those communities located along the proposed project corridor from Cloverdale in Sonoma County to Larkspur in Marin County. It provides a summary of study methods and offers a discussion of plans and policies governing parks and recreation.

3.10.1 Regulatory Setting

Numerous plans and policies serve as the guides for the protection of existing recreational features and future development of recreational facilities in Sonoma and Marin counties.

Sonoma County

Sonoma County General Plan (1998) The Sonoma County General Plan includes two goals pertaining to recreational resources in the County: • Goal OS-7: Establish a countywide park and trail system which meets future recreational needs of the county's residents while protecting agricultural uses. The emphasis of the trail system should be near urban areas and on public lands. • Goal OS-8: Establish a Bikeways Network that provides a safe and supportive environment for bicyclists in Sonoma County, recognizing that bicycling is a viable mode of transportation and popular form of recreation.

Draft Sonoma County Outdoor Recreation Plan (2003) The Draft Sonoma County Outdoor Recreation Plan includes several recommended goals and advisory policies aimed at providing outdoor recreation for the public: • Goal 1: Develop a long-range strategy for acquisition and development of new parks, preserves, trails, public access, and related outdoor recreation facilities. Develop this strategy in a manner that is consistent with the County’s overall commitment to agricultural preservation and its long-term viability, and the County’s respect for private property rights. Ensure that the strategy provides for a balance of recreational opportunities, and recognizes the importance of trails. • Goal 2: Plan new outdoor recreation facilities to accommodate public recreation needs, while recognizing the rights of private property owners, the need for safety and the requirements of environmental protection. • Goal 3: Ensure coordination and cooperative efforts among public agencies, such as the Bureau of Land Management, State Parks, Sonoma County Agricultural Preservation and Open Space District, Sonoma County Water Agency, and cities involved in public access to and recreational use of public lands. • Goal 4: Encourage private non-profit organizations to provide regular public access to, and recreational use of, lands acquired with public funds. • Goal 5: Develop local funding mechanisms for maintenance and management of park facilities.

Sonoma County Transportation Authority (SCTA) Countywide Bicycle Plan (2003 Update) The SCTA Countywide Bicycle Plan is based on a compilation of policies pertaining to bicycle and pedestrian facilities from the various jurisdictions in Sonoma County. The overall goal of the plan is to “create a countywide non-motorized transportation system, which provides safe and efficient opportunities for bicyclists to access school, work, shopping centers, professional services, and transportation to recreation areas. These facilities may also serve as recreational paths in and of themselves” (SCTA, 2003).

Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit 3-188 DEIR November 2005 Chapter 3: Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures Parks and Recreation

Marin County

Marin Countywide Plan (2004) The Marin Countywide Plan includes several implementation programs to achieve the goal of a high- quality park and recreation system (Goal PK-1). Implementation programs include actions such as offering assistance to cities, special districts and other public agencies in their park and recreation planning efforts, conducting a detailed inventory of recreation resources, and preparing an acquisition plan for all proposed new park sites.

Marin County Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan (2001) The long-term vision and foundation of the Marin County Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan are provided in goals listed below. The plan also includes a set of objectives and policies which provide the recommended measures to realize the goals. • Goal 1: Make the bicycle an integral part of daily life in Marin County, particularly for trips of less than five miles, by implementing and maintaining a bikeway network, providing end-of-trip facilities, improving bicycle/transit integration, encouraging bicycle use, and making bicycling safer. • Goal 2: Pedestrian Transportation: Encourage walking as a daily form of transportation in Marin County, by completing a pedestrian network that services short trips and transit, improving the quality of the pedestrian environment, improving the health of all citizens, and increasing pedestrian safety and convenience. • Goal 3: Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation: Make Marin County a model community for alternative transportation. Aim for a 20 percent mode share of all utilitarian trips to be made by bicycling and walking by the year 2020.

Bay Trail Plan (1989) The Bay Trail Plan was prepared by the Association of Bay Area Governments pursuant to Senate Bill 100. Although never officially adopted, the Plan proposes the development of a regional hiking and bicycling trail around the perimeter of San Francisco and San Pablo Bays. The Plan mandated that the Bay Trail: • Provide connections to existing park and recreation, • Create links to existing and proposed transportation facilities, and • Be planned in such a way as to avoid adverse effects on environmentally sensitive areas.

The Bay Trail Plan includes five general categories of policies to guide the selections of the trail route and implementation of the trail system: • Trail alignment policies reflect the goals of the Bay Trail program and the desire to develop a continuous trail. • Trail design policies highlight the importance of creating a trail which is accessible to the widest possible range of users and is designed to respect natural and built environments. • Environmental protection policies define the relationship of the proposed trial to sensitive natural environments. • Transportation access policies reflect the need for bicycle and pedestrian access on Bay Area toll bridges. • Implementation policies define the structure of implementation of the trail.

Marin County North-South Bikeway Feasibility Study (1994) The Marin County North-South Bikeway Feasibility Study examined the development of a safe and efficient north-south bikeway from the Golden Gate Bridge to the Sonoma County line. The study

Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit 3-189 DEIR November 2005 Chapter 3: Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures Parks and Recreation recommended that the bikeway generally following the old NWP right-of-way through the County. It also included a short-term alignment that would run mostly along existing streets and paths due to the possible difficulties of cost, rebuilding tunnels and potential transit use associated with the NWP right-of- way. The study was never officially adopted.

City General Plans The General Plans of each city along the proposed project corridor include policies and provisions for recreational uses and bicycle path development. See Section 3.6, Transportation for a summary of each city’s existing and planned bicycle path network.

3.10.2 Environmental Setting There are abundant recreational resources in Sonoma and Marin counties which host a variety of recreational activities. Park and recreation areas range from small community parks to large region-wide park facilities. Recreational facilities are also found at schools and various community centers, which offer recreational programs for the local population.

Parkland can generally be divided into several categories based on size. The smallest parks are neighborhood and community parks which are generally less than 25 acres in size and usually contain playgrounds and equipment, playing fields and paved areas for court games such as tennis and basketball. Regional recreation areas are larger (+/- 200 acres) and can support active or passive activities. Parks supporting active uses generally include patron facilities such as picnic areas, play areas, food concessions, restrooms, and camping facilities. Those parks that primarily support passive recreation such as hiking, mountain biking, horseback riding and picnicking are generally managed in their natural condition and support recreation activities which have minimal impact on the environment. There are other parklands of varying sizes that generally protect areas with national or statewide significance including areas of scenic beauty, significant natural or cultural features or special habitat areas and are managed by State or federal agencies (Sonoma County Regional Parks Department, 2003).

Sonoma County

There are approximately 52,800 total acres of publicly accessible land in Sonoma County (Sonoma County Regional Parks Department, 2003). These lands are owned and operated by state, county, city, park districts, and other local agencies and range from small community and neighborhood parks to regional preserves and state and federal parks. There are 13 State-operated parks in Sonoma County. The Sonoma County Agricultural Preservation and Open Space District was formed under Government Code Section 6552 and Section 5500 et seq. of the California Public Resources Code with the intent of furthering the preservation of open space within Sonoma County. As of 2002, the Sonoma County Agricultural Preservation and Open Space District has protected 108 open space properties in Sonoma County for a total of 56,200 acres. These lands include agricultural grasslands and working farmland, scenic and coastal lands, riparian corridors, greenbelts, forests, and parks. Sonoma County Regional Parks Department operates 36 recreational features including various parks, trails and community centers.

Sonoma County contains over 33 miles of Class I bicycle paths and 64 miles of Class II bicycle lanes (SCTA, 2003). Class I bicycle pathways are pathways that are physically separated from motorized vehicular traffic by an open space or barrier. These are pathways that are reserved exclusively for bicyclists and pedestrians. Class II bicycle lanes are designated lanes on roadway shoulders with striping, signs, and pavement markings for preferential use by bicyclists. Class III bicycle routes include roads and streets which provide for shared use with motor vehicle traffic as identified only by signing.

Marin County

Recreation and open space facilities are managed by various entities in Marin County from the federal government to the local cities and towns. Within Marin County there are three federally operated parks,

Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit 3-190 DEIR November 2005 Chapter 3: Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures Parks and Recreation the Golden Gate National Recreation Area (Marin Headlands), Muir Woods National Monument, and Point Reyes National Seashore and seven state parks. The Marin County Open Space District is the local public agency responsible for preserving public open space lands in the County. It controls 33 open space preserves covering more than 14,000 acres. The Marin County Department of Parks, Open Space and Cultural Services manages 20 parks and several multi-purpose paths on approximately 830 acres (Marin County Community Development Agency, 2004).

Recreational opportunities for bicyclists, joggers, and others are available on the portions of the Bay Trail that run through Marin County. The Bay Trail is currently 240 miles of recreation corridor throughout the Bay Area. When it is complete, the Bay Trail will be a continuous 400-mile corridor that would circle the entire Bay Area and link the shorelines of all nine Bay Area counties and 47 cities (ABAG, 2004). The Bay Trail is made up of several trail types including: off street, shared-use paved or gravel paths, on street bicycle lanes and sidewalks, off street narrow paths and/or rough surfaces, on street without bicycle lanes and/or no sidewalks, and other paved or gravel paths connecting to the Bay Trail.

Recreational Areas Adjacent to the Proposed Project Corridor

Several parks are located adjacent to the proposed project corridor. They are listed below: • Cloverdale – River Park, located at along the Russian River from McCray Road to East First Street/Crocker Road (located north of Cloverdale Station and just south of the proposed maintenance facility site). • Healdsburg – 0.6-acre Railroad Park in Healdsburg located on the western bank of the Russian River at Front Street and Healdsburg Avenue and on the eastern bank of the river is the.11-acre Healdsburg Veteran’s Memorial Beach Park. • Windsor – 10-acre Windsor Ranch Soccer Park, located east of the railroad right-of-way on Cameron Drive. • Santa Rosa – 0.5-acre Railroad Park, located between 4th and 5th Streets on Wilson Street. • Rohnert Park - The South Rohnert Park Municipal Golf Course is located along the eastern side of the right-of-way between Golf Course Drive and Rohnert Park Expressway while the small neighborhood park, Lacrosse Park, is located adjacent to the western side of the tracks at Lacrosse Court and Lancaster Drive. • Petaluma - Sunset Park on Lakeville Street and portions of the Petaluma River, which are adjacent to and crossed by the railroad. • Novato - Slade Park is located on Manuel Drive and sits adjacent to the east side of the railroad. The Rush Creek Open Space Reserve and Petaluma Marsh Wildlife Area – Novato Creek Unit are located along the eastern side of the railroad. • San Rafael – 441-acre John McInnis Park, located on the east side of the railroad at Smith Ranch Road.

Table 3.10-1 lists all major recreational facilities found within ¼ mile of the proposed project alignment and provides the approximate location along the project corridor based on the railroad milepost.

Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit 3-191 DEIR November 2005 Chapter 3: Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures Parks and Recreation

TABLE 3.10-1 PARK AND RECREATIONAL FACILITIES WITHIN 1/4 MILE OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT ALIGNMENT Approximate Park Location Milepost Cloverdale River Park Cloverdale 86.6 Class II bike lane on Asti Road adjacent to the railroad right- 85.5 – 84.0 Cloverdale of-way (First Street to Santana Drive) Plaza Park Healdsburg 68.4 Railroad Park Healdsburg 67.8 Healdsburg Veteran’s Memorial Beach Park Healdsburg 67.7 Class II bike lanes on Grove Street adjacent to the railroad 70.2 – 69.5 Healdsburg right-of-way (Healdsburg Avenue to Dry Creek Road) Class II bike lanes on Healdsburg Avenue adjacent to the 68.8 – 66.5 Healdsburg railroad right-of-way (Front Street to Highway 101) Class III bike lanes on Healdsburg Avenue (Parkland Farms 70.3 – 69.5 Healdsburg Blvd to March Avenue) Class III bike lanes on Front Street (Matheson Street to Crosses railroad at Healdsburg Healdsburg Avenue) 67.8 Los Robles Park Windsor 63.7 Windsor Town Green Windsor 63.1 Windsor Ranch Soccer Park Windsor 61.8 Vintage Oaks Park Windsor 61.7 Mitchell Park Windsor 61.6 Windsor Golf Club Windsor 61.5 Class I bike lane adjacent to railroad right-of-way (Trione 61.8 – 61.3 Windsor Circle to just south of 18th Hole Drive) DeTurk Round Barn Park Santa Rosa 54.1 Railroad Park Santa Rosa 53.7 Class II bike lane on Airport Road (Skyline Boulevard to Old Crosses railroad at Santa Rosa Redwood Highway) 59.9 Class II bike lane on Fulton Road (Old Redwood Highway to Crosses railroad at Santa Rosa Highway 12) 58.5 Class II bike lane on Guerneville Road (Fulton Road to Range Crosses railroad at Santa Rosa Avenue) 55.3 South Rohnert Park Municipal Golf Course and Roberts Lake 48.0 Rohnert Park Park Colegio Vista Park Rohnert Park 46.8 Caterpillar Park Rohnert Park 46.7 Benicia Park Rohnert Park 46.6 Lady Bug Park Rohnert Park 45.6 Lacrosse Park Rohnert Park 45.3 Class III bike lane on Rohnert Park Expressway (Commerce Crosses railroad at Boulevard to Snyder Lane), Copeland Creek, Southwest Rohnert Park 47.4 Boulevard, and East Cotati Avenue Class I bike lane on Copeland Creek (Commercial Boulevard Crosses railroad at Rohnert Park to Sonoma State University) 47.0 Class I bike lane on Southwest Boulevard (Commercial Crosses railroad at Rohnert Park Boulevard to Sonoma State University) 46.8

Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit 3-192 DEIR November 2005 Chapter 3: Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures Parks and Recreation

Approximate Park Location Milepost Class II bike lane on East Cotati Avenue (Old Redwood Crosses railroad at Rohnert Park Highway to Petaluma Hill Road) 46.2 Sunrise Park Petaluma 40.3 Jack Cavanaugh Park Petaluma 38.5 Sunset Park Petaluma 38.3 Class II bike lane on McDowell Boulevard (Petaluma Crosses railroad at Petaluma Boulevard to East Washington Street) 40.7 Slade Park Novato 27.3 Novato Skate Park Novato 24.1 Shared-use path adjacent the railroad right-of-way between 25.9 – 25.2 Novato Hanna Ranch Road and Digital Drive Rush Creek Open Space Preserve Novato 29.4 Petaluma Marsh Wildlife Area – Novato Creek Unit Novato 26.6 John McInnis Park San Rafael 21.1 Bay Trail on Smith Ranch Road, McInnis Parkway, and Crosses railroad at San Rafael Andersen Drive 21.0 Crosses railroad at Bay Trail on McInnis Parkway to Civic Center Drive San Rafael 19.7 Crosses railroad at Bay Trail on Andersen Drive San Rafael 16.0 Bay Trail at Sir Francis Drake and Ferry Terminal Larkspur 14.8 Source: Parsons Brinckerhoff Quade & Douglas, Inc., 2004.

3.10.3 Significance Criteria

Project-related effects on park and recreation resources are considered significant if they would result in the following conditions: • Loss of a recreational facility or disruption to long-term function of the facility; or • Increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated.

CEQA Guidelines Appendix G includes an additional criterion: “include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment.” This criterion generally applies to the impacts of a recreational facility on other resources rather than the impacts on recreation. The impacts of the recreational components of the proposed project on environmental resources are addressed throughout the other sections of this DEIR. This section focuses solely on impacts of the project on parks and recreation.

3.10.4 Impact Assessment Methodology

Park and recreation facilities have been identified through review of available mapping, previous studies, community planning documents and field review. Impacts were assessed based on proximity of the recreational resource (¼ mile) to the existing railroad right-of-way and a determination of any direct impacts (e.g., acquisition of land, limiting access) or indirect impacts (e.g., increased noise). A ¼ mile distance was determined to be the maximum distance at which potential impacts associated with noise, vibration or air quality would occur. The analysis also examined the potential for the proposed project to lead to the physical deterioration of existing facilities and the need for new recreational facilities.

Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit 3-193 DEIR November 2005 Chapter 3: Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures Parks and Recreation

3.10.5 Impact Summary

Short-term adverse, but not significant impacts may occur at recreational uses adjacent to the proposed project corridor in areas where construction would take place, due to potential increases in noise and dust. However, all parks could remain open and be accessible during the construction period.

No recreational facilities would incur direct long-term impacts from the implementation of the proposed project. No park lands would be physically disturbed or converted to non-parkland use, nor would the proposed operation of passenger rail service disrupt the function of existing recreational facilities.

The implementation of passenger rail would improve access to some recreational facilities near stations, while the proposed bicycle/pedestrian pathway would provide additional recreation facilities and connections to existing facilities. The improved access and connectivity provided by both the passenger and bicycle/pedestrian pathway is considered a beneficial impact of the proposed project. The improved access is not expected to lead to an increase in the use of existing park and recreational facilities to a point that substantial physical deterioration of the facilities would occur or be accelerated. Access provided by the passenger rail would be limited to the weekdays, while primary use of recreational facilities occurs during the weekends. The additional bicycle/pedestrian pathway constructed as part of the proposed project would not result in an adverse physical effect on the environment. It would provide more area for bicyclists and pedestrians to recreate and lessen the burden on the existing facilities.

The proposed project and implementation of the proposed bicycle/pedestrian pathway would be consistent with the various recreational plans described in Section 3.10.1.

3.10.6 Impacts and Mitigation Measures

Construction-Related Impacts

Impact PR-1: Construction activities may cause indirect short-term impacts on recreational facilities adjacent to the proposed project corridor. (Less than significant)

Construction-related impacts are those impacts that would occur for a short-term period during the construction of the proposed project. There would be no direct impacts on parks or recreational facilities as no construction activities are planned within the boundaries of these facilities and parks would remain open and accessible during construction activities. However, facilities described in Section 3.10.2 and listed in Table 3.10-1 may experience temporary indirect impacts as a result of increased noise, dust and possible detours associated with construction activities. The construction period for the entire project is expected to last approximately two to three years but construction activities would occur at specific locations for a much shorter time period as work progresses along the tracks. The average construction period would last several weeks at any one point. Work associated with major bridges would last for several continuous months. Hours of construction and noise levels would be limited by local sound control and noise level rules, regulations and ordinances. Implementation of Best Management Practices and other environmental compliance measures (see Section 2.9) and Mitigation Measure N-1 (see Section 3.7.4) would further reduce potential construction disturbances. These short-term disturbances would not lead to long-term deterioration or disruption of park facilities. See Sections 3.5, Air Quality and 3.7, Noise and Vibration for more detail regarding noise and air quality.

Long-Term Impacts

As described in the impact summary, no significant adverse long-term impacts on recreational facilities would occur with implementation of the proposed project. The implementation of the proposed project would provide a transportation option which would help improve mobility and access to various features throughout the region. The improved access in the region is not expected to lead to overuse of existing recreational facilities. Operation of the passenger rail service would be during weekdays, while the majority of recreation facility use is on the weekends.

Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit 3-194 DEIR November 2005 Chapter 3: Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures Parks and Recreation

Impact PR-2: The proposed project would provide recreational benefits to both Sonoma and Marin counties with the addition of the bicycle/pedestrian pathway. (Beneficial)

The proposed bicycle/pedestrian pathway would provide improved connectivity to existing recreational facilities and between the communities along the alignment. The proposed bicycle/pedestrian pathway would provide an increase in the amount of recreational facilities available and opportunities for use of those facilities in the region. Access to the parks and connections with the existing bicycle pathways listed in Table 3.10-1 would improve with the implementation of the proposed project. Direct connections from the proposed bicycle/pedestrian pathway located in the railroad right-of-way and extensions of existing bicycle paths on city roads would occur at: • Beachwood Drive to the Joe Rodota Trail in Santa Rosa; • Petaluma Boulevard South in Petaluma; • North Hamilton Parkway, Nave Drive, Bel Marin Keys Boulevard, Redwood Boulevard and the Bay Trail at Hamilton Drive and Franklin Avenue in Novato; and • Andersen Drive, Lincoln Avenue, Los Ranchitos Road, and McInnis Parkway in San Rafael.

The additional bicycle/pedestrian pathway would provide expanded opportunities for recreation within Sonoma and Marin counties. The proposed project is consistent with the local and regional recreational policies and their goals of expanding recreational opportunities throughout the region. The proposed project would include the construction of a Class I path for the project rights-of-way depending on physical and environmental constraints and available right-of-way width. Where a Class I path could not be constructed on the railroad right-of-way without further design and analysis due to physical and environmental constraints, a Class II path is proposed to maintain the corridor with a continuous bicycle/pedestrian route. The proposed bicycle/pedestrian pathway would be within the project right-of- way for approximately 50 miles or 70 percent of the corridor.

Cumulative Impacts

A review of past, present and reasonably foreseeable projects has identified numerous residential and commercial developments in close proximity to the proposed project corridor, including nine projects adjacent to the rail corridor. None of the projects identified would directly impact recreational resources although there is the potential that the increased population associated with the residential development could result in the increased use of existing recreational facilities. However, the proposed project’s contribution to cumulative increased use of existing facilities would be very minor. The recreational benefits of the proposed project along with other planned and current recreational facility improvements and conservation efforts of both Sonoma and Marin counties would help offset the expected increase in demand for recreational resources that would be associated with the projected population growth in the region.

Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit 3-195 DEIR November 2005 Chapter 3: Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures

Biological Resources

3.9 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES

This section evaluates potential impacts on the existing biological resources including wetlands, vegetation and wildlife found within the proposed project area. It provides a summary of study methods and discussion of federal and state regulations governing the protection of biological resources. Further details are contained in the Biological Technical Report for the SMART Passenger Rail Project (Garcia and Associates, 2005) and the Wetlands Report (Appendix H).

Throughout this section, the term project corridor or study area refers to the entire railroad right-of-way from Cloverdale to Larkspur plus segments of the proposed bicycle/pedestrian pathway that are adjacent to the right-of-way. The proposed project study area also includes those areas outside the right-of-way where sensitive biological resources could potentially be affected.

3.9.1 Regulatory Setting

Numerous federal, state and local agencies and regulations work to protect biological resources. Listed below are those agencies and regulations that protect wetlands, watercourses, vegetation, and wildlife resources.

Wetlands and Watercourses

The following federal and state laws and regulations pertain to wetlands and waters. Wetland resources are regulated by several agencies within Sonoma and Marin counties; however, the scope and jurisdiction of each agency varies.

Federal Regulations Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA) and Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act. Under Section 404 of the CWA, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE) regulates the discharge of dredged or fill material into "Waters of the United States" including wetlands. Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act specifically regulates construction activities in “navigable waters” including tidal waters.

Section 401 of the Clean Water Act. This section of the CWA requires a water quality certification from the state for all nationwide or individual permits issued by the ACOE under Section 404 of the CWA. The Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) is the state agency in charge of issuing Section 401 water quality certification of waiver.

State/Regional Regulations McAteer-Petris Act. This act established the Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC) to regulate construction activities within the San Francisco Bay. BCDC jurisdiction generally extends to all areas of the Bay that are subject to tidal action, including sloughs and marshlands, salt ponds, and managed wetlands. Areas of the project corridor subject to BCDC jurisdiction include crossings of tidal channels.

California Fish and Game Code (CFGC) Section 1600 et seq. The California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) regulates activities that would substantially alter the channel, bed, or bank of, a lake, river, or stream. Section 1602 of the CFGC requires notification to the CDFG for stream alteration activities, and may require a streambed alteration agreement with attached conditions to protect water quality and biological resources.

Porter-Cologne Water Quality Act. Section 13263 of this act authorizes the RWQCB to regulate discharges of waste and fill material to waters of the state, including “isolated” waters and wetlands, through the issuance of waste discharge requirements.

Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit 3-149 DEIR November 2005 Chapter 3: Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures

Biological Resources

Vegetation and Wildlife

The following federal, state, and local laws, regulations, and policies apply to vegetation and wildlife resources within the project area.

Federal Regulations Federal Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA), as Amended (Public Law 93-295). The ESA establishes protection for species that are listed as endangered or threatened by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). Sections 9 and 4(d) of the ESA prohibit "take" of endangered and threatened animal species. The USFWS has jurisdiction over wildlife and resident fish; the National Marine Fisheries Service (NOAA Fisheries) has jurisdiction over anadromous fish. For plants, the ESA prohibits the removal or destruction of any endangered plant on federal land as well as destruction of an endangered plant species in non-federal areas in knowing violation of any state law. Section 7 of the ESA mandates that all federal agencies consult with the USFWS to ensure that federal agencies’ actions do not jeopardize the continued existence of a listed species or adversely modify critical habitat for listed species. Critical habitat is present within the project corridor for the following species: • Central California Coast coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch) - Federal Threatened (Proposed Endangered), State Endangered. Coho salmon within the Central California Coast Evolutionarily Significant Unit (ESU) are federally listed as threatened. This ESU encompasses all naturally- spawned populations in rivers and tributaries from the San Lorenzo River in Santa Cruz County north to Punta Gorda in Mendocino County. Critical habitat is designated for this ESU throughout its geographic range. The corresponding state-designated “Northern California population” of coho salmon is state-listed as endangered from San Francisco Bay north to Punta Gorda. In the vicinity of the proposed project corridor, coho salmon are limited to very small runs that migrate through the Russian River to spawning and rearing grounds in some of its tributaries. • California Coastal chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) – Federal Threatened. The California Coastal ESU of chinook salmon includes all naturally spawned populations from the Russian River watershed north to Redwood Creek in Humboldt County. Critical habitat is designated for this ESU in all occupied stream reaches in its geographic range, including the proposed project study area. • Central California Coast steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss) – Federal Threatened. The Central California Coast ESU of steelhead is a federally listed threatened species. This ESU includes all naturally spawned populations of steelhead in coastal drainages from the Russian River basin south to Santa Cruz County, and in the San Francisco/San Pablo Bay basin as far east as the Napa River. Critical habitat is designated for this ESU in all occupied stream reaches in its geographic range, including those within the proposed project corridor. • California tiger salamander (CTS) (Ambystoma californiense) – Federal Threatened, California Species of Special Concern. The Sonoma County population of CTS is an isolated and genetically distinct population of this species that occurs only in the Santa Rosa Plain. Critical habitat has been proposed for CTS within Sonoma County (Federal Register/ Vol. 70, No. 147, August 2, 2005, Proposed Rules). Proposed Critical Habitat includes the project corridor from Skillman Lane (northwest of Petaluma) to Windsor Creek. Details of CTS habitat within the corridor, including maps, are included in the Follow-up Site Assessment (Garcia and Associates, 2004), which is an appendix to the Biological Technical Report.

Federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA). The MBTA prohibits take of most species of birds and their active nests, eggs, and nestlings, without a permit from the USFWS. Activities that cause abandonment of a nest are also considered non-permitted take, prohibited by the MBTA.

State Regulations California Endangered Species Act of 1984 (CESA) (Sections 2050-2098 of the California Fish and Game Code). The CESA prohibits the take of state-listed endangered and threatened species unless specifically authorized by the CDFG. The CDFG administers the CESA and authorizes take through

Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit 3-150 DEIR November 2005 Chapter 3: Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures

Biological Resources permits or memorandums of understanding issued under Section 2081of the CFGC. Section 2090 of CFGC requires state agencies to comply with threatened and endangered species protection and recovery and to promote conservation of these species.

California Fish and Game Code Sections 3511, 4700, 5050, and 5515 (Fully Protected Species). The CFGC designates certain animal species as "fully protected" under sections 3511 (birds), 4700 (mammals), 5050 (reptiles and amphibians), and 5515 (fish). Fully protected species may not be taken or possessed at any time and no permits may be issued for incidental take of these species.

California Fish and Game Code Bird Protections. Section 3503 of the CFGC prohibits taking, possession or destruction of the nest or eggs of most bird species unless authorized by the CDFG. Section 3503.5 prohibits the taking of any birds of prey, their nests or eggs.

Sections 1602 of the California Fish and Game Code. Under Section 1602 of the CFGC, the CDFG determines whether proposed stream alteration activities could adversely affect fish or wildlife resources, and may require a streambed alteration agreement with attached conditions to protect fish and wildlife species and associated aquatic and riparian habitats.

Native Plant Protection Act of 1973 (NPPA) (Sections 1900-1913 of the California Fish and Game Code). The NPPA includes provisions that prohibit the taking of endangered or rare native plants from the wild and a salvage requirement for landowners. The CDFG administers the NPPA and generally regards as “rare” many plant species included on lists 1A, 1B and 2 of the California Native Plant Society (CNPS) Inventory of Rare and Endangered Vascular Plants of California (CNPS, 2001).

CEQA Oak Woodlands Bill (Senate Bill 1334). This bill amended CEQA, effective January 1, 2005, to require counties to determine whether a project subject to CEQA may lead to a significant environmental impact as a result of the conversion of oak woodlands. If there may be a significant effect, mitigation measures must be employed to reduce the impact and promote oak woodland conservation.

County Regulations and Policies Sonoma County General Plan. The Resource Conservation Element (Part 6, Section 5) of the Sonoma County General Plan sets forth policies to promote and maintain the county's natural biotic resources. These include objectives to encourage protection of important woodland resources, identify and protect valley oak habitat areas, reduce the spread of exotic plant species, protect important wildlife habitats, identify and protect rare and endangered species, and mitigate any adverse impacts on these species. Part 6, Section 6 includes policies to protect and conserve freshwater fishery resources.

Sonoma County Tree Ordinances. Chapter 26, Article 67 of the Sonoma County Code, Valley Oak Habitat Combining District, provides for the protection and enhancement of valley oaks and valley oak woodlands and establishes guidelines for compensating for the removal of valley oaks. Sonoma County Code Chapter 26D, Heritage or Landmark Trees, provides for protection of individual trees that qualify for heritage or landmark status.

Sonoma County Zoning Code Article 88, section 26-88-010(m) Tree Protection Ordinance. This ordinance requires projects to be designed to minimize the destruction of protected trees that meet size criteria specified in the ordinance. Protected trees are Big Leaf Maple (Acer macrophyllum), Black Oak (Quercus kelloggii), Blue Oak (Quercus douglasii), Coast Live Oak (Quercus agrifolia), Interior Live Oak (Quercus wislizenii), Madrone (Arbutus menziesii), Oracle Oak (Quercus morehus), Oregon Oak (Quercus garryana), Redwood (Sequoia sempervirens), Valley Oak (Quercus lobata), California Bay (Umbellularia California), and their hybrids.

Marin Countywide Plan 2004. The Environmental Quality Element of the Marin Countywide Plan 2004 sets forth general policies to protect the county's biological resources including plant and wildlife species and habitats (Policy EQ-2.87) stream habitats (Policy EQ-2.13), and special-status species (Policy EQ- 2.88).

Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit 3-151 DEIR November 2005 Chapter 3: Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures

Biological Resources

Marin County Tree Ordinance. Chapter 22.27 of the Marin County Code establishes regulations for the preservation and protection of native trees. A tree removal permit is required from Marin County for removal of native trees that meet size criteria specified in the ordinance. Compensation for removal of native trees generally requires planting of replacement trees of appropriate, using native species.

Cloverdale General Plan Policy and Program Document. Cloverdale’s General Plan establishes as a goal (Goal B) preservation and enhancement of Cloverdale's natural environment. Under this goal, the City will implement a tree conservation ordinance to both preserve and protect the area's existing trees and also guide future landscaping and restoration. The ordinance shall provide for the replacement of all trees removed that are deemed significant (e.g. oaks greater than 10-inches in diameter at breast height (DBH) or conifers greater than 15 inches DBH).

City of Healdsburg General Plan Policy Document. Goal E sets a goal protecting Healdsburg’s natural vegetation and diverse wildlife. As a policy, the City will continue to implement and enforce its Heritage Tree Ordinance. The City protects so-called heritage trees, defined in the City’s Zoning Ordinance as any tree with a diameter of 30” measured two feet above ground level. The provisions of the Zoning Ordinance pertaining to heritage trees regulate the removal of such trees by requiring the approval of permits prior to removal or encroachment in areas immediately surrounding such trees.

Town of Windsor General Plan. Windsor has plans and policies (Policy D.1) which “protect unique and sensitive biotic features such as rare and endangered plants, dense oak woodlands, and vernal pools, and encourage sensitive design in these areas.” Policy D.1.6 further focuses on tree preservation: “the Town should encourage the preservation of oak woodlands and significant stands of oaks and heritage trees”. Chapter 27.36, Tree Preservation and Protection, of the Windsor Zoning Ordinance implements these policies.

Santa Rosa 2020: General Plan. The plan has thee relevant policies: • OSC-D: Conserve wetlands, vernal pools, wildlife ecosystems, rare plant habitats and waterways. • OSC-E-1 Preserve trees and other vegetation, including wildflowers, both as individual specimens and as parts of larger plant communities. • OSC-E-2 Preserve and regenerate native oak trees.

City of Rohnert Park General Plan. Rohnert Park through its goals and policies (EC-B) protects “special status species and supporting habitats within Rohnert Park, including species that are State or federally listed as Endangered, Threatened, or Rare”. EC-D sets as a goal “to maintain existing native vegetation and encourage planting of native plants and trees”. Policy EC-12 also calls for the establishment of a Heritage Tree Preservation Ordinance.

City of Cotati General Plan. Within the City of Cotati, the focus is on conservation through its Land Use Code, which includes provisions for tree preservation and protection and wetland protection and restoration.

City of Petaluma General Plan. The City of Petaluma General Plan also focuses on conservation, with goals to retain waterways and adjacent land in their natural state and to Protect and preserve natural resources in the Petaluma Planning Referral Area. Petaluma also has a Heritage Tree Ordinance, which requires a permit to remove trees in the public right-of-way (usually trees in the planter strip between the curb and sidewalk).

City of Novato General Plan. The City of Novato General Plan has goals to conserve and where appropriate restore the natural environmental and strive for high quality in the built environment that complements the natural environment. The plan includes specific programs to protect wetlands (EN Program 10.1, 10.2), native plant and animal species (EN Program 10.2) and trees (EN Program 23.1, 24.1, 25.3).

Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit 3-152 DEIR November 2005 Chapter 3: Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures

Biological Resources

San Rafael General Plan 2020. The plan provides for protection of environmental resources (CON-1), such as ridgelines, wetlands, diked baylands, creeks and drainage ways, shorelines and habitat for threatened and endangered species. CON-9 sets a goal to protect habitats that are sensitive, rare, declining, unique or represent a valuable biological resource.

City of Larkspur General Plan 1990 – 2010. Policy b calls for preservation of the desirable features of the built environment as well as the remaining natural environment - trees, marshes, creeks, hillsides - as components of Larkspur's community character and identity. Through the Larkspur Zoning Ordinance – Title 12, the City protects the environment by restricting and regulating the removal and/or excessive pruning of mature or “heritage” trees.

3.9.2 Study Methods

Wetlands

Wetland resources were delineated using the routine wetland determination methods described in the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual (ACOE, 1987). These methods include a preliminary review of available information from the project area to characterize the vegetation, soils, and hydrology of the area, followed by field reconnaissance to map wetland resources within the project corridor. Field surveys were conducted from March to July 2003 in concert with the plant community mapping, and additional areas were surveyed in April 2004 and April 2005. Wetland areas were identified based on vegetation, soils, and hydrology. Unvegetated waters including ponds, rivers, and streams were mapped as Waters of the U.S. Further details of the wetland study methods are included in Appendix H.

Vegetation

Field surveys were conducted during 2003 and 2004 to characterize vegetation and assess the potential for occurrence of special-status plant species within the proposed project study area. These studies included plant community mapping and a special-status plant survey. Plant communities were mapped in the field, digitized, and analyzed with geographic information systems (GIS) to determine their extent within the project corridor. The communities were classified based on Holland (1986) and Sawyer and Keeler-Wolf (1995). Areas covered in the plant community survey included the entire proposed project corridor from Cloverdale to Larkspur, proposed new station and maintenance facility sites, and off-right- of-way portions of the proposed bicycle/pedestrian pathway.

A focused field survey for special-status plants was conducted from May to July 2003. The survey area was the existing railroad right-of-way, which varies in width but averages approximately 60 feet wide. Surveys also included the proposed improvement locations outside of the project right-of-way. The surveys were conducted following protocol developed by James Nelson for the CDFG (2000). Plants were identified to the lowest taxonomic level (genus or species) necessary for rare plant identification. The scientific nomenclature follows the Jepson Manual (Hickman, 1993). As of 2005, one season of special-status plant surveys (consisting of one visit) has been performed along portions of the proposed project corridor noted above. Under the Guidelines for Conducting and Reporting Botanical Inventories for Federally Listed Plants on the Santa Rosa Plain (USFWS, 1996), a minimum of two years (three visits each year) of negative data is required to establish absence of federally listed plant species in this area. Pursuant to recommended mitigation (see Section 3.9.7), protocol surveys would be required prior to implementation of the project.

Wildlife

Prior to conducting field surveys, biological databases and literature sources were reviewed concerning the habitats, geographic ranges and documented occurrences of special-status wildlife taxa in the vicinity of the project corridor. A list of special-status fish and wildlife species with potential to occur in the study area was compiled from the USFWS species list for the project area, review of the California Natural

Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit 3-153 DEIR November 2005 Chapter 3: Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures

Biological Resources

Diversity Database (CNDDB) (CDFG, 2003), conversations with NOAA Fisheries and CDFG biologists, and other relevant sources.

General wildlife habitat surveys were conducted by walking the entire railroad right-of-way from May to June 2003 and in February and April 2004. Their purpose was to characterize terrestrial and aquatic wildlife habitats, evaluate habitat suitability for special-status species, and assess other important wildlife resources such as potential nesting sites and migration corridors. The surveys were focused in a corridor extending approximately 100 feet on both sides of the railroad tracks. Surveys for bats and bat habitat, which focused on existing bridges, trestles, overpasses, abandoned buildings, and proposed station sites, were conducted in June 2003. Wildlife species observed in the study area are listed in Appendix G.

Following direction from the USFWS (C. Brown, personal communication, 2004), additional field studies were performed for the California red-legged frog (CRLF) (Rana aurora draytonii) and California tiger salamander (CTS) (Ambystoma californiense) along segments of the project corridor where these species could occur. For CRLF, a detailed habitat evaluation was performed in February and April 2004 and protocol surveys were conducted in June 2004 at Miller Creek (milepost [MP] 22.1). For CTS, a detailed habitat study was performed in March 2004 along non-urban segments of the project corridor between southern Windsor and northern Petaluma. Its purpose was to characterize and map suitable breeding, upland, and dispersal habitats for CTS along and adjacent to the corridor.

3.9.3 Environmental Setting

The proposed project corridor extends approximately 70 miles from Cloverdale in Sonoma County to the Larkspur Ferry Terminal in Marin County. This area encompasses a wide range of biological and physical conditions, and supports many different land uses. Natural communities include coastal wetlands, oak woodlands, riparian communities, mixed scrub and annual grasslands. The proposed project corridor is primarily located within valleys and lowlands that are bounded to the west by the outer Coast Ranges and to the east by the inner Coast Ranges (north of Petaluma) and the San Francisco Bay (south of Petaluma).

The northern section of the proposed project corridor, from Cloverdale to Windsor, is hotter and drier than the areas to the south. Where natural communities are found along the corridor, they tend to be dry oak woodlands and scrub, with some areas of non-native grassland.

The region between Windsor and Petaluma (Coastal Plain-Santa Rosa Plain) is a broad northwest- southeast-oriented valley. This area is a combination of developed urban centers, suburban neighborhoods and rural areas, some of which are currently undergoing development at a rapid rate. Scattered natural plant communities found along the corridor are primarily non-native grassland, oak woodland, scrub, freshwater marshes and seasonal wetlands. Vernal pools also occur within and adjacent to the project corridor in this region. In Petaluma, the corridor approaches the northern reach of the tidal marshlands of San Pablo Bay.

From the southern end of Petaluma to Marin County Civic Center, the corridor crosses an area that is less developed and primarily dominated by coastal salt marsh and brackish marsh. This entire region (San Pablo Bay Flats) is within ten feet of mean sea level on a broad plain north and west of San Pablo Bay. It is strongly influenced by tides and generally has cooler, moister air than the surrounding uplands.

From northern San Rafael to Larkspur, the project corridor passes through hills and valleys that are primarily urban and suburban. Small, scattered patches of oak woodland, often with a narrow band of freshwater seasonal wetland beneath them, are found along the railroad corridor through this section. Coastal influences are present but mitigated by hills that separate the railroad from San Pablo Bay.

Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit 3-154 DEIR November 2005 Chapter 3: Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures

Biological Resources

Plant Communities and Wildlife Habitats

Eighteen plant community types were identified and mapped within the proposed project corridor. These include six wetland types, three types of aquatic habitats (waters), two riparian types, and seven upland plant communities. The extent (acres) of each of these communities in the project corridor is shown in Table 3.9-1. Table 3.9-2 shows estimated acreages of plant communities for portions of new station and maintenance facility sites located outside the proposed project right-of-way.

The classification of wildlife habitats generally corresponds to that used for plant communities in this section. In some cases, a wildlife habitat type includes more than one plant community where those communities provide similar habitat characteristics and support a similar assemblage of wildlife species. Plant communities and associated wildlife habitats are described briefly below; a complete list of plant communities found within the project corridor is included in Appendix F.

TABLE 3.9-1 TYPE AND EXTENT OF PLANT COMMUNITIES WITHIN THE PROJECT CORRIDOR1 Cloverdale to Larkspur Plant Community (acres) Coastal Salt Marsh 12.3 Coastal Brackish Marsh 6.4 Coastal Freshwater Marsh 9.3 Coastal Freshwater Seasonal Wetland 38.3 Vernal Pool 0.9 Blackberry Wetland 0.7 Total Wetlands 67.9 Perennial Watercourse 3.2 Seasonal Watercourse 1.9 Open Water 1.9 Total Waters 7.0 Riparian Scrub 6.1 Riparian Woodland 5.1 Total Riparian 11.2 Oak Woodland 26.0 Blackberry Scrub 6.1 Mixed Scrub 15.2 Non-native Grassland 16.6 Vineyard 2.0 Ruderal 464.1 Developed/Landscaped 18.6 Total Upland 548.6 Grand Total 634.7 Note: 1 Includes the railroad right-of-way, station sites that are within the right-of-way, and proposed bicycle/pedestrian pathway within and adjacent to the right-of- way.

Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit 3-155 DEIR November 2005 Chapter 3: Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures

Biological Resources

TABLE 3.9-2 EXTENT OF PLANT COMMUNITIES AT NEW STATION AND MAINTENANCE FACILITY SITES1 New Stations Cloverdale Windsor (Outside Right-of- Maintenance Facility Maintenance Facility Way)2,3 Plant Community (acres) (acres) (acres) Coastal Salt Marsh - - - Coastal Brackish Marsh - - - Coastal Freshwater Marsh < 0.1 - - Coastal Freshwater Seasonal 0.5 - - Wetland Vernal Pool - - - Blackberry Wetland - - - Total Wetlands 0.5 0 0 Perennial Watercourse 0.1 - Seasonal Watercourse - - 0.2 Open Water - - 0.2 Total Waters 0.1 0 0.4 Riparian Scrub - - 0.6 Riparian Woodland - - - Total Riparian 0 0 0.6 Oak Woodland - - - Blackberry Scrub - - - Mixed Scrub - - - Non-native Grassland 2.6 - - Vineyard - - - Ruderal 3.1 - - Developed/Landscaped 1.5 39.5 27.7 Total Upland 7.2 39.5 27.7 Grand Totals 7.8 39.5 28.7 Note: 1 Acreages were calculated from estimated facility footprints based on conceptual plans of October 2003 and Working Paper #5: Detailed Project Design Options (Parsons Brinckerhoff Quade & Douglas, Inc., 2003) which reflected a worst case scenario. Actual acreages may be less than listed above, due to refinement of project design. 2 Acreages for the portions of these sites within the existing railroad right-of-way are included in Table 3.9-1. 3 Includes nine proposed new station sites at Windsor, Santa Rosa-Jennings Avenue, Rohnert Park, Cotati, Petaluma-Corona Road, North Novato, South Novato, Marin County Civic Center, and Larkspur.

Coastal Salt Marsh Coastal salt marsh is found along the shores of bays and estuaries and is influenced by ocean tides. Most salt marshes include some meandering tidal channels (Holland, 1986). The salt marshes around the San Francisco Bay are typically divided into three zones: a regularly inundated lower margin dominated by cord grass (Spartina spp.); a mid-elevation section covered with pickleweed (Salicornia virginica) and saltgrass (Distichlis spicata); and an upland interface with more diverse vegetation. Coastal salt marsh in the project corridor occurs frequently between southern Petaluma and northern San Rafael. Salt marshes are valuable and productive habitats for wildlife. They are used as nurseries for many species of marine and estuarine fishes and provide important roosting and feeding grounds for many birds.

Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit 3-156 DEIR November 2005 Chapter 3: Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures

Biological Resources

Coastal Brackish Marsh Coastal brackish marsh is similar to coastal salt marsh in structure and species composition, but is more variable due to freshwater inflows. These marshes are generally inundated seasonally and can be influenced by ocean tides. Salinity in a brackish marsh can vary considerably throughout the year. Brackish marshes support a combination of plant species found in freshwater and saline marshes and seasonal wetlands. Examples include saltgrass, pickleweed, sedges (Carex spp.), cattails (Typha spp.), and salt marsh bulrush (Scirpus maritimus). Along the project corridor, brackish marshes often occur adjacent to salt marshes near freshwater inputs from rivers such as the Petaluma River. Brackish marshes provide high habitat value for wildlife and tend to support similar species as salt or freshwater marshes, depending on salinity and vegetation.

Coastal Freshwater Marsh Coastal freshwater marshes occur where fresh water creates inundated or saturated soil conditions for most or all of the year. These marshes are generally composed of stands of perennial emergent plants such as cattails, bulrushes (Scirpus spp.), rushes (Juncus spp.) and sedges. Within the project corridor, coastal freshwater marshes occur extensively in lowlands under natural conditions, and to a more limited extent along ditches, drains, and channels. Coastal freshwater marshes are among the most productive wildlife habitats in California. They are essential habitats for amphibians, aquatic reptiles, waterfowl, wading birds, and some songbirds. Many wildlife species depend on freshwater marshes for their entire life cycles; others use them as temporary refuges or migratory stopover areas.

Coastal Freshwater Seasonal Wetland Coastal freshwater seasonal wetlands occur in low-lying areas that are inundated or saturated for a portion of the growing season. Soil conditions are generally dry from late summer through fall and vegetation can be highly variable. Common plant species include ryegrass (Lolium spp.), Harding grass (Phalaris aquatica), nutsedges (Cyperus spp.), rushes, and a variety of herbaceous plants. In the project corridor, these seasonal wetlands often occur in a narrow band along either side of the railroad bed which can extend for miles in some areas. These wetlands support wildlife species adapted to seasonally fluctuating wet and dry conditions. When water is present, these habitats can support an abundance of aquatic invertebrates and provide breeding sites for frogs, toads, and salamanders. In winter and spring, seasonal wetlands also provide foraging habitat for a variety of resident and migratory birds.

Vernal Pool Vernal pools are seasonally inundated depressions in relatively impermeable soils that support a distinct flora of endemic species. Characteristic plant species include goldfields (Lasthenia spp.), downingias (Downingia spp.), popcorn flowers (Plagiobothrys spp.), meadowfoams (Limnanthes spp.) and button- celeries (Eryngium spp.). Vernal pools occur on the Santa Rosa Plain in association with annual grassland communities. Within the project corridor, a single vernal pool occurs south of Windsor between Shiloh Road and Aviation Boulevard (MP 60.7) and several pools occur north of Santa Rosa between Fulton Road and Dennis Lane (MP 57.6-57.9). Vernal pools provide similar habitat values to wildlife as other types of seasonal wetlands.

Blackberry Wetland Dense thickets of blackberries are common throughout the project corridor, usually dominated by the non-native Himalayan blackberry (Rubus discolor). Blackberry wetlands occur along ditches and streams, and are common along the right-of-way between Cloverdale and Novato. The vining nature of blackberry enables them to extend well beyond a wetland area. Blackberry thickets provide moderate value for wildlife. They offer cover for small mammals and are used by a variety of birds for perching, foraging, and nesting sites.

Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit 3-157 DEIR November 2005 Chapter 3: Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures

Biological Resources

Perennial and Seasonal Watercourse The project corridor crosses numerous rivers, creeks, and minor watercourses between Cloverdale and Larkspur. Seasonal and perennial watercourses include both high gradient streams flowing over course substrates and low gradient streams with fine silt substrates. Along the project corridor, these watercourses usually occur in association with riparian woodland, riparian scrub and blackberry scrub. Rivers and creeks in the proposed project area provide essential habitat for fishes, amphibians, and numerous aquatic invertebrates. Most of the watercourses in the project area harbor resident fish populations and several of the larger streams support runs of salmonid fish, which use the stream reaches within the corridor as migratory linkages to and from upstream spawning areas.

Open Water Open water areas include unvegetated standing waters with the proposed project corridor, usually associated with ponds and creeks bisected by the right-of-way. Generally, the depth of water precludes establishment of emergent vegetation. Open waters integrate with coastal freshwater marsh, coastal salt marsh, and coastal brackish marsh. Ponds and other still water bodies provide habitat for amphibians, aquatic reptiles, and a variety of water birds. Open water areas also provide drinking water and refuge sites for numerous terrestrial wildlife species.

Riparian Scrub Riparian scrub is a shrub-dominated community that grows along the banks of watercourses and in some other areas with high water tables. Willow (Salix spp.) shrubs generally dominate riparian scrub; other occasional species include big-leaf maple (Acer macrophyllum), California buckeye (Aesculus californica), and California bay (Umbellularia californica). Within the proposed project corridor, riparian scrub is limited to streams and drainage ditches and is often well developed under railroad trestles and bridges. Riparian plant communities provide high habitat value for wildlife. They can provide important nesting habitat for birds, offer cover and refuge sites for amphibians, reptiles and small mammals, and serve as important movement corridors for wildlife. Riparian vegetation also provides beneficial shading and instream cover for fishes and other aquatic species.

Riparian Woodland Riparian woodland occurs along the banks of perennial and seasonal watercourses. It is similar to riparian scrub, but includes a tree canopy over the associated watercourse. Characteristic tree species include mature willows, big-leaf maple, California buckeye, California bay, box elder (Acer negundo var. californicum), and cottonwoods (Populus spp.). Riparian woodland can also include a variety of oak trees. Within the proposed project corridor, the highest quality riparian woodlands occur between Cloverdale and Santa Rosa along perennial watercourses such as Mark West Creek. Riparian woodlands have similar habitat values for wildlife as riparian scrub, and the larger tree canopy can provide valuable nesting and foraging sites for raptors and other birds.

Oak Woodland Oak woodlands occur on floodplains and steep slopes bordering the right-of-way. These woodlands are composed of monotypic or mixed stands of oaks including coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia), Oregon white oak (Q. garryana), and other oak species. Oak woodlands occur in the proposed project corridor between Windsor and Santa Rosa, where they are interspersed with riparian woodland and other communities. Within the right-of-way, tree canopies are managed by SMART to avoid interference with the rail line Oak woodlands provide high value for wildlife. They offer nesting and perching sites for birds, an abundant food source in acorns, and cover for larger mammals. Although there are not extensive forests along the project corridor, oak trees growing next to the train tracks provide islands of habitat where surrounding lands have been converted to pastures and vineyards.

Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit 3-158 DEIR November 2005 Chapter 3: Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures

Biological Resources

Blackberry Scrub The blackberry scrub habitat includes all the areas that are dominated by Himalayan blackberry shrubs not occurring in wetlands. Blackberry scrub and blackberry wetland provide similar habitat characteristics and values for wildlife.

Mixed Scrub Mixed scrub occurs throughout the proposed project corridor and has a variable composition. Characteristic species include coyote brush (Baccharis pilularis), California coffeeberry (Rhamnus californica), and toyon (Heteromeles arbutifolia). Some mixed scrub areas have heavy concentrations of exotic invasive shrubs. Mixed scrub is commonly found on berms and other raised areas along the length of the project corridor. These communities provide moderate value for wildlife. Native shrubs provide foraging, perching and nesting sites for some birds and cover for small mammals.

Non-native Grassland This common and widespread plant community is composed of mixtures of non-native and native annual grasses and herbs. Non-native grassland is common in the vicinity of the proposed project corridor, but is limited in extent within the right-of-way due to previous ground disturbance. Non-native grasslands generally provide moderate value for wildlife. They can support a variety of small mammals and provide foraging habitat for raptors and other birds. Rodent burrows in grasslands can also be important refuge sites for some amphibians and reptiles.

Vineyard The proposed project corridor runs through or adjacent to vineyards in many areas, particularly in the Alexander Valley north of Healdsburg. In most of this area, the actual corridor has not been planted; however, there are small sections in which the vineyards encroach into the right-of-way. Vineyards have relatively low habitat value for wildlife compared with surrounding natural habitats.

Ruderal Ruderal vegetation is characterized by weedy species that readily colonize disturbed areas such as railroad berms, vacant lots, roadsides, and vineyard edges. Species composition is variable but consists mostly of non-native, annual grasses and herbs. This is the dominant vegetation type throughout most of the proposed project corridor. Ruderal areas are generally low value habitats for wildlife. However, some of these areas can provide marginal wildlife habitat depending on the vegetation and other habitat features present.

Developed/Landscaped This community type includes all paved areas such as parking lots and roads crossed by the right-of- way, city parks, schools, landscaped areas, and residential lawns and backyards. Vegetation in these areas includes a wide variety of trees and shrubs planted and maintained as landscaping. Areas with landscaping vegetation can provide moderate value for wildlife. Planted trees, shrubs and lawns can provide habitat for a variety of backyard birds and other animal species that can coexist with humans.

Wildlife Corridors

Wildlife corridors connect two or more areas of wildlife habitat. They facilitate animal movement between different sections of a landscape and are essential for maintaining connectivity in an ecoregion. The California Wilderness Coalition (CWC) (2001) lists highways and roads, urbanization, habitat gaps, and agriculture/ranching as the primary barriers to wildlife movement statewide. These barriers have separated large areas of habitat into smaller fragments, resulting in reduced connectivity for native plant and animal populations. Within the project corridor, existing or potential barriers to habitat connectivity include Highway 101 and other roads, urbanization, agriculture (predominantly vineyards), grazing, invasive species, diminished water quality, and fencing. Highway 101 runs roughly parallel to the railroad alignment along the entire length of the corridor, crossing it nine times between Cloverdale and

Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit 3-159 DEIR November 2005 Chapter 3: Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures

Biological Resources the Larkspur Ferry Terminal. It is a primary barrier to animal movement in the project vicinity, with only its under- and overpasses providing narrow passageways for animals migrating in an east-west direction.

The CWC (2001) has identified three existing corridors or linkages that facilitate animal movement within and around the project corridor. They are the Russian River watershed, Sonoma Mountains – Burdell Mountain linkage, and the Bay Wetlands linkage. The Russian River is adjacent to the right-of-way between Cloverdale and Lytton and passes under the rail line south of Healdsburg. Tributaries to the Russian River extend as far south as Cotati. The Sonoma Mountains – Burdell Mountain linkage crosses the project corridor between Petaluma and Novato. The Bay Wetlands linkage is located mostly to the east of the project corridor around the San Francisco/San Pablo Bay, but approaches it in some locations in central and northern Marin County.

Sensitive Natural Communities in the Study Area

Wetlands and Waters Wetlands are among the most productive ecosystems in the world. An immense variety of species of microbes, plants, insects, amphibians, reptiles, birds, fish, and mammals can be part of a wetland ecosystem. Many species of birds and mammals rely on wetlands for food, water, and shelter, especially during migration and breeding.

Wetlands are defined based on federal regulations as “those areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or ground water at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions” (ACOE, 1987). Swamps, marshes and bogs are classified as wetlands, as are seasonally saturated or inundated areas such as seeps, springs and vernal pools. Wetlands are identified using three parameters: vegetation, soils and hydrology. In most cases, jurisdictional wetlands are dominated by hydrophytic (i.e., wetland) vegetation, occur on hydric soils, and are supported by wetland hydrology.

As used in this report, “waters” includes both navigable waters and other non-wetland Waters of the United States. These are unvegetated areas composed of open water for a portion of the year and that meet the following criteria as described in 33CFR328.3 of the Code of Federal Regulations: • All navigable waters which are currently used, or were used in the past, or may be susceptible to use in interstate or foreign commerce, including all waters which are subject to the ebb and flow of the tide; • All other waters such as intrastate lakes, rivers, streams (including intermittent streams), mudflats, sandflats, sloughs, playa lakes, or natural ponds, the use, degradation or destruction of which could affect interstate or foreign commerce including any such waters; • All impoundments of navigable waters otherwise defined as waters of the United States; and • Tributaries of waters described above.

Six types of wetland plant communities totaling 67.9 acres were identified within the proposed project corridor (Table 3.9-1). These wetland types include coastal salt marsh, coastal brackish marsh, coastal freshwater marsh, coastal seasonal wetland, vernal pool, and blackberry wetland. An additional 0.5 acre of wetlands was identified at portions of proposed station sites outside the project corridor (Table 3.9-2).

Three categories of non-wetland waters totaling 7.0 acres were identified within the proposed project corridor (Table 3.9-1) and 0.1 acre at station sites outside the right-of-way (Table 3.9-2). These include seasonal watercourses, perennial watercourses and open water. Watercourses in the study area range from small, ephemeral creeks and ditches to high-order perennial streams, most notably the Russian River and Petaluma River. In addition, several watercourses in the southern portion of the project corridor receive tidal inflow, including Gallinas Creek, Novato Creek and the Petaluma River and its lower tributaries. Watercourses within the project corridor are identified and described in more detail in the Wetlands Report (Appendix H).

Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit 3-160 DEIR November 2005 Chapter 3: Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures

Biological Resources

Other Sensitive Communities Other sensitive biological communities in the project corridor include riparian scrub, riparian woodland and oak woodlands. Riparian plant communities are considered sensitive by the resource agencies because of their high value to wildlife, importance to stream bank stability and water quality, and because of the substantial loss and degradation of these communities statewide. Oak woodlands are considered sensitive by the CDFG because of their wildlife habitat value and the ongoing decline of these communities due to both habitat conversion and disease.

Special Status Species Potentially Present in the Study Area

The determination of whether a species is special-status is established by the USFWS and CDFG. Special-status classifications include species that are: • Listed, proposed, or candidates for listing as threatened or endangered under the federal Endangered Species Act; • Listed or candidates for listing as threatened or endangered under the California Endangered Species Act; • Designated as rare by the State of California under the Native Plant Protection Act; • Designated as “Special Concern” or “Fully Protected” species by the CDFG; • Considered “species of concern” by the USFWS

In addition to the classifications above, protection of other species is provided through determination of special-status by the California Native Plant Society (CNPS), CEQA, or by specific ordinance. • Included on lists 1a, 1b or 2 of the CNPS Inventory of Rare and Endangered Vascular Plants of California (CNPS, 2001); • Considered sufficiently rare to qualify for consideration under CEQA (CEQA Guidelines Section 15380); or • Protected by other applicable federal, state or local ordinances.

The following section summarizes special-status plant and animal species that could occur within the proposed project corridor; complete lists of plant and wildlife species observed in the project corridor are provided in Appendices F and G. Special status species with potential to occur in the project area and vicinity are listed in Tables 3.9-3 and 3.9-4 for plants and animals, respectively.

Special Status Plants Of the species included in Table 3.9-3, the focused botanical survey identified potential habitat only for those species detailed in the following text. Potential habitat for vernal pool species was located on railroad margins within the Santa Rosa Plain (MP 46.8 - 65.1). Vernal pools surveyed were determined to have suitable habitat for Sonoma sunshine, dwarf downingia (Downingia pusilla), Burke’s goldfields (Lasthenia burkei), legenere (Legenere limosa), Sebastopol meadowfoam (Limnathes vinculans), Baker’s navarretia (Navarretia leucocephala ssp. bakeri), many-flowered navarretia (Navarretia leucocephala ssp. plieantha), and marsh microseris (Microseris paludosa). However, despite a seasonally appropriate survey of suitable habitats, none of the special-status vernal pool species were found. Two populations of Burke’s goldfields were located near MP 60.1, just north of Windsor, approximately 100 feet outside the proposed project corridor.

Potential habitat for Pt. Reyes bird’s beak (Cordylanthus maritimus ssp. palustris), soft bird’s beak (Cordylanthus mollis ssp. mollis) and California cord grass (Spartina foliosa) was identified in salt marsh located between Petaluma and Novato. Surveys of salt marsh habitats were conducted at the seasonally appropriate time, but no populations of sensitive salt marsh species were located. Suitable outcrop and oak woodlands, considered potential habitat for Clara Hunt’s milkvetch (Astragalus clarianus) and Colusa layia (Layia septentrionalis), were surveyed, but no populations were found.

Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit 3-161 DEIR November 2005 Chapter 3: Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures Biological Resources

TABLE 3.9-3 SPECIAL STATUS PLANT SPECIES WITH POTENTIAL TO OCCUR3 IN THE PROJECT AREA Status1,2 (Fed./State/ Potential to Common Name Scientific Name CNPS) Habitat Occur Franciscan onion Allium peninsulare var. SLC/–/1B Dry, wooded hillsides near Petaluma. Low franciscanum Bent-flowered fiddleneck Amsinckia lunaris SLC/–/1B Foothill grasslands and oak woodlands. Very Low Clara Hunt’s milkvetch Astragalus clarianus FE/ST/1B Foothill woodlands and chaparral; endemic Medium to Napa and Sonoma counties Alkali milk-vetch Astragalus tener var. tener FSC/–/1B Grassy, alkali flats near Petaluma. Low Big-scale balsamroot Balsamorhiza macrolepis FSC/–/1B Open grassy slopes and woodlands. Low var. macrolepis Sonoma sunshine Blennosperma bakeri FE/SE/1B Vernal pools. Reported from two locations High (= Baker’s stickyseed) in the Santa Rosa Plain within 100 m of the study area, south of Windsor (MP 57.5, 57.7) Narrow-anthered California Brodiaea californica var. SLC/–/1B Open forests and chaparral, often on Medium brodiaea leptandra serpentine. Collections known near Windsor and Healdsburg. Bolander’s reed grass Calamagrostis bolanderi SLC/–/4 Marshes, seeps and bogs. Known from Low marshes near Sebastopol. Thurber’s reed grass Calamagrostis crassiglumis FSC/–/2 Coastal scrub, marshes and swamps. Low Sonoma Co. in the Pitkin Marsh. Swamp harebell Campanula californica FSC/–/1B Coastal forest, marshes and swamps. Low Sonoma Co. in the Pitkin Marsh. White sedge Carex albida FE/SE/1B Interior marshes and swamps. Sonoma Low Co. in the Pitkin Marsh only, other populations believed extirpated. Deceiving sedge Carex saliniformis SLC/–/1B Coastal prairie, meadows, marshes, and Low swamps. Reported from Laguna de Santa Rosa. Coast Indian paintbrush Castilleja affinis ssp. affinis SLC/–/– Chaparral, coastal scrub and wooded Low slopes. Reported near Santa Rosa and Healdsburg.

Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit 3-162 DEIR November 2005 Chapter 3: Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures Biological Resources

Status1,2 (Fed./State/ Potential to Common Name Scientific Name CNPS) Habitat Occur Point Reyes bird’s beak Cordylanthus maritimus FSC/–/1B Coastal salt marsh. Reported from San High ssp. palustris Quentin, San Rafael, Novato Creek and Petaluma River salt marshes. Soft bird’s beak Cordylanthus mollis ssp. FE/SR/1B Coastal salt marsh. Scattered populations Low mollis from north San Francisco Bay. Believed extirpated in Petaluma River salt marsh. Dwarf downingia Downingia pusilla –/–/2 Mesic grassland and vernal pools. High Numerous populations known in Santa Rosa Plain from Sebastopol to Windsor. Round-leaved filaree Erodium macrophyllum –/–/2 Grassland and valley woodlands. Low Questionable if occurs in Sonoma Co. Fragrant fritillary Fritillaria liliacea FSC/–/1B Coastal prairie, grasslands, heavy Low soils/serpentine. Known from Santa Rosa and Petaluma River quads with extirpated population in Cotati quad. Diablo helianthella Helianthella castanea FSC/–/1B Chaparral, oak woodlands, grasslands. Low Population from San Rafael quad extirpated, not known from Sonoma Co. Thin-lobed horkelia Horkelia tenuiloba SLC/–/1B Oak woodlands, grasslands, sandy soils. Low Recorded in the Laguna de Santa Rosa in Sebastopol, Guerneville and Healdsburg quads. Burke’s goldfields Lasthenia burkei FE/SE/1B Meadows, seeps, vernal pools, especially High in the Santa Rosa Plain. Populations within 200 feet of the study area near Windsor. Colusa layia Layia septentrionalis FSC/–/1B Dry, rocky, open woodlands, chaparral or High grasslands, often on serpentine soils Legenere Legenere limosa FSC/–/1B Vernal pools. A population known from Medium Sebastopol quad, not known from Marin Co. Sebastopol meadowfoam Limnanthes vinculans FE/SE/1B Meadows, seeps and vernal pools. Small High scattered populations in the Santa Rosa Plain

Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit 3-163 DEIR November 2005 Chapter 3: Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures Biological Resources

Status1,2 (Fed./State/ Potential to Common Name Scientific Name CNPS) Habitat Occur Marsh microseris Microseris paludosa SLC/–/1B Grasslands and vernal pools. Known Medium populations near Windsor and one in the Laguna de Santa Rosa. Baker’s navarretia Navarretia leucocephala FSC/–/1B Vernal pools. Numerous populations near Medium ssp. bakeri Windsor and through the Santa Rosa Plain. Many-flowered navarretia Navarretia leucocephala FE/SE/1B Vernal pools. Known populations near Low ssp. plieantha Windsor and one in Laguna de Santa Rosa. White-rayed pentachaeta Pentachaeta bellidiflora FE/SE/1B Grasslands, often serpentine. Extirpated Very low from Marin Co. Not known from Sonoma Co. Hairless popcorn-flower Plagiobothrys glaber FSC/–/1A Alkali meadows/seeps, salt marsh. Very low Extirpated from Marin Co. Not known from Sonoma Co. Petaluma popcorn-flower Plagiobothrys mollis var. FSC/–/1A Unknown habitat, possibly salt marsh. One Very low vestitus collection known from Sonoma Co. Considered extinct. North Coast semaphore Pleuropogon hooverianus FSC/ST/1B Freshwater marsh, meadows, vernal pools, Low grass woodlands. One population known from the Santa Rosa Plains. Hickman’s cinquefoil Potentilla hickmanii FE/SE/1B Freshwater marsh, meadows, vernal pools, Low woodlands. One population south of Sebastopol thought to be extinct. California beaked rush Rhynchospora californica FSC/–/1B Freshwater marsh, meadows, vernal pools, Low woodlands. Scattered populations in the Santa Rosa Plain. Round-headed beaked rush Rhynchospora globularis –/–/2 Freshwater swamps. Scattered Low var. globularis populations in the Santa Rosa Plain. Possibly only western North America populations. California cord grass Spartina foliosa SLC/–/– Salt marsh. Populations reported from San Medium Rafael, Black Point, and Petaluma River estuary.

Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit 3-164 DEIR November 2005 Chapter 3: Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures Biological Resources

Status1,2 (Fed./State/ Potential to Common Name Scientific Name CNPS) Habitat Occur Santa Cruz microseris Stebbinsoseris decipiens FSC/–/1B Oak woodland, grassland, chaparral. One Low population known from the San Rafael quad. Showy Indian clover Trifolium amoenum FE/–/1B Coastal bluff, grassland, chaparral, Low serpentine soils. One population known from Marin Co. Rediscovered in Sonoma Co. Saline clover Trifolium depauperatum FSC/–/1B Salt marsh, open alkali areas, vernal pools. Very Low var. hydrophilium Santa Rosa quad, possibly extirpated in many areas. Note: 1 Status Definitions: FE Listed as Endangered under the federal Endangered Species Act FT Listed as Threatened under the federal Endangered Species Act FSC USFWS “species of concern” SE Listed as Endangered under the California Endangered Species Act ST Listed as Threatened under the California Endangered Species Act SC Candidate for listing as Endangered or Threatened under the California Endangered Species Act SR Designated as Rare under the California Native Plant Protection Act SLC Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office “species of local concern” 2 Status designations based on USFWS species list for the project area (Ref. no. 1-1-03-SP-1758) and CDFG Special Plants List (October 2003). 3 Based on the species identified in the CNDDB records, the range of habitats present, and the geographical range of these species, a determination was made as to which special-status species could occur in the project corridor.

Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit 3-165 DEIR November 2005 Chapter 3: Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures Biological Resources

TABLE 3.9-4 SPECIAL STATUS ANIMAL SPECIES WITH POTENTIAL TO OCCUR3 IN THE PROJECT AREA Status1,2 Potential Common Name Scientific Name (Fed./State) Habitat to Occur Invertebrates California linderiella Linderiella occidentalis FSC/– Moderately clear vernal pools, ephemeral ponds and lakes. High

California freshwater Syncaris pacifica FE/SE Low-elevation, low-gradient perennial streams with undercut Low shrimp banks, exposed roots, and overhanging woody debris or vegetation. Endemic to Marin, Napa, and Sonoma Co. Myrtle’s silverspot butterfly Speyeria zerene myrtleae FE/– Coastal prairie or dune habitats sheltered from wind within 3 Very Low miles of the coast. Host plants are violets, typically Viola adunca. Fishes Coho salmon – Central Oncorhynchus kisutch FT/SE Anadromous; migrates through and spawns in coastal rivers High California ESU/ Northern and streams from Santa Cruz to Mendocino County California population Chinook salmon Oncorhynchus tshawytscha FT/– Anadromous; coastal rivers and streams of northern High California Coastal ESU California from Russian River to Redwood Creek Sacramento River Winter- FE/SE Anadromous; migrates through San Francisco Bay and Low run ESU " Delta, spawns in upper Sacramento River. Central Valley FT/ST Anadromous; migrates through SF Bay and Delta, spawns Low Spring-run ESU " in upper Sacramento River and its tributaries. Central Valley Fall/ Late FC/CSC Anadromous; migrates through SF Bay and Delta, spawns Low Fall-run ESU " in upper Sacramento and San Joaquin rivers and their major tributaries Steelhead – Central Oncorhynchus mykiss FT/– Anadromous; coastal rivers, streams and creeks from Santa High; California Coast ESU Cruz County north to Russian River basin. observed in survey Tidewater goby Eucyclogobius newberryi FE/CSC Shallow coastal lagoons, brackish marshes and lower Very Low stream reaches with still water; ranges from San Diego to Humboldt County Pacific lamprey Lampetra tridentata FSC/– Anadromous adults enter freshwater streams in spring and High summer to spawn. Young remain in gravel of stream bottom for several years before migrating to the ocean.

Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit 3-166 DEIR November 2005 Chapter 3: Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures Biological Resources

Status1,2 Potential Common Name Scientific Name (Fed./State) Habitat to Occur Russian River tule perch Hysterocarpus traskii pomo FSC/– Russian River and its tributaries in Sonoma County. Clear, Moderate flowing water and abundant cover, submerged tree branches, and overhanging vegetation. Longfin smelt Spirinchus thaleichthys FSC/– Bays, estuaries, sloughs, and streams near the sea. Low Occurs along the northern and eastern San Pablo Bay. Sacramento splittail Pogonichthys FSC/CSC Slow-moving sections of rivers and sloughs, flooded Moderate macrolepidotus vegetation Amphibians California tiger Ambystoma californiense FT/CSC Breeds in seasonal ponds and pools. Spends most of the High salamander year in rodent burrows or other subterranean refuges in grassland and oak savanna habitats. California red-legged frog Rana aurora draytonii FT/CSC Ponds, pools of streams, freshwater marshes with Moderate submerged and emergent vegetation. May move through and take temporary refuge in upland habitats near aquatic sites. Foothill yellow-legged frog Rana boylii FSC/CSC Found in or near rocky streams in a variety of habitats Low including valley foothill riparian, conifer forests, mixed chaparral, coastal scrub, and wet meadows. Reptiles Northwestern pond turtle Emys [= Clemmys] FSC/CSC Freshwater ponds, marshes, rivers, streams, and irrigation High: marmorata marmorata ditches. observed in survey California horned lizard Phrynosoma coronatum FSC/– Scrubland, grassland, coniferous forests, and broadleaf Low frontale woodlands. Birds American bittern Botaurus lentiginosus FSC/– Freshwater and brackish marshes. Usually nests in tall Moderate emergent vegetation. Cooper’s hawk Accipiter cooperi –/CSC Woodlands, forests and streamside groves. Nests in broad- Moderate leafed riparian trees, mature oaks and conifers. Sharp-shinned hawk Accipiter striatus –/CSC Mixed woodlands and forests. Nests in conifers or Low deciduous trees in dense woodlands or mountain forests. Golden eagle Aquila chrysaetos –/CSC, CFP Hilly terrain, open country. Usually nests on a cliff ledge, Low but also in large trees. Needs open areas such as grasslands for hunting. Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit 3-167 DEIR November 2005 Chapter 3: Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures Biological Resources

Status1,2 Potential Common Name Scientific Name (Fed./State) Habitat to Occur Ferruginous hawk Buteo regalis FSC/– Semi-arid, open habitats such as prairies and grasslands. Low (wintering) Usually nests in conifers, but will also use cliffs, banks, or buttes. Northern harrier Circus cyaneus –/CSC Open fields, marshes, grasslands and savannas. Nests on High elevated ground or in thick vegetation near ground. White-tailed kite Elanus leucurus FSC/CFP Forages in grassland, marshes and open fields with High deciduous trees. Nests in trees. Osprey Pandion haliaetus –/CSC Coasts and inland lakes and rivers. Low Nests in tall snags, dead-topped trees, cliffs, or human- made structures. Peregrine falcon Falco peregrinus anatum FD/SE Nests on cliff ledges in open habitats, from seacoasts to Low (nesting), high mountains. Sometimes uses ledges of tall buildings CFP and bridges. California black rail Laterallus jamaicensis FSC/ST, Saline, brackish, and freshwater marshes. Requires dense High CFP emergent vegetation where it can conceal its nest above ground. California clapper rail Rallus longirostris FE/SE, CFP Coastal salt and brackish marshes and tidal sloughs. Nests Moderate obsoletus in cordgrass, pickleweed, gumplant and salt grass in tidal marshes. Long-billed curlew Numenius americanus FSC/– Summers on grasslands, winters on mudflats and flooded Moderate fields. Nests in dry grassy meadows or prairies. Short-eared owl Asio flammeus –/CSC Grasslands, meadows, emergent wetlands, and open areas. Moderate Nests require low concealing vegetation. Western burrowing owl Athene cunicularia FSC/CSC Open arid and semi-arid habitats, including grasslands, Low hypugaea deserts, agricultural fields, ruderal areas and open landscaped areas. May be nearly extirpated from Sonoma and Marin counties Allen’s hummingbird Selasphorus sasin FSC/– Summer resident and migrant along most of the California Moderate (nesting) coast. Breeds in coastal scrub, valley foothill hardwood and riparian habitats, but also found in pine-cypress, redwood forests and urban landscapes. Lewis’ woodpecker Melanerpes lewis FSC/– Oak savannas and other open deciduous and coniferous Moderate (nesting) woodlands. Often nests in a tree cavity, snag, or pole or at orchard edges.

Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit 3-168 DEIR November 2005 Chapter 3: Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures Biological Resources

Status1,2 Potential Common Name Scientific Name (Fed./State) Habitat to Occur Loggerhead shrike Lanius ludoviciana FSC/CSC Semi-open country with trees, scrub, brushy areas. Often High nests in open fields with a few trees, or in open woodlands or scrub. California horned lark Eremophila alpestris actia –/CSC Grassland, open areas with low, sparse vegetative cover. Moderate Nests in a depression in ground lined with grasses. Yellow warbler Dendroica petechia –/CSC Nests in riparian woodlands (especially willows) and Moderate brewsteri streamside thickets. Saltmarsh common Geothlypis trichas sinuosa FSC/CSC Emergent wetlands; low, dense vegetation near water. High yellowthroat Nests in shrubs 1-2 feet above ground. San Pablo song sparrow Melospiza melodia FSC/CSC Streamside thickets, brush, marshes. Nests on the ground Moderate samuelis or in a shrub or weeds 1-4 feet high. Occurs in the Petaluma River marsh and margins of San Pablo Bay. Oak titmouse Baeolophus inornatus SLC/– Primarily associated with sparse oak woodlands. Roosts in Moderate the cavity of a tree or snag. Nests in natural cavities, abandoned woodpecker holes, and birdhouses. Tricolored blackbird Agelaius tricolor FSC/CSC Fresh emergent wetlands, grasslands, croplands. Nests in Low (nesting colony) reeds above the surface or on ground. Breeding populations are very much localized and are not within the project area. Mammals Suisun ornate shrew Sorex ornatus sinuosus FSC/CSC Tidal marshes on the north shores of San Pablo and Suisun Low bays and adjacent uplands. Uses stumps, logs and litter for cover and nests in wood, shrubs, and burrows. Pallid bat Antrozous pallidus –/CSC Grasslands, shrublands, woodlands, open/ dry habitats, High rocky outcrops, cliffs, crevices. Townsend’s western big- Corynorhinus townsendii FSC/CSC Mesic habitats. Roosts in caves, tunnels, buildings and Moderate eared bat townsendii other human-made structures. Long-eared myotis bat Myotis evotis FSC/– Variety of habitats from sage to high altitude forests; mostly Low found in forested regions. Sometimes roosts in buildings. Fringed myotis bat Myotis thysanodes FSC/– Oaks, pinyon, and juniper forests. Roosts in caves, mines, Low buildings, and other protected locations. Long-legged myotis bat Myotis volans FSC/– Mainly coniferous forests. In summer roosts in trees, Low crevices, or buildings.

Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit 3-169 DEIR November 2005 Chapter 3: Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures Biological Resources

Status1,2 Potential Common Name Scientific Name (Fed./State) Habitat to Occur Yuma myotis bat Myotis yumanensis FSC/– Open woodlands; typically forages over water. Roosts in High buildings, mines, caves, crevices, swallow nests, and under bridges. Salt-marsh harvest mouse Reithrodontomys FE/SE, CFP Saline emergent wetlands and brackish marshes dominated Moderate raviventris by pickleweed. Note: 1 Status Definitions: Federal State ESU Evolutionarily Significant Unit CFP California Fish and Game Code Fully Protected Species FC Candidate for listing under the federal Endangered Species CSC California Department of Fish and Game Species of Special Concern Act SE Listed as Endangered under the California Endangered Species Act FD Delisted under the federal Endangered Species Act ST Listed as Threatened under the California Endangered Species Act FE Listed as Endangered under the federal Endangered Species Act FSC USFWS “species of concern” FT Listed as Threatened under the federal Endangered Species Act SLC USFWS Sacramento Fish & Wildlife Office “species of local concern”

2 Status designations based on: USFWS species list (updated March 1, 2004); CDFG Special Animals list (August 2004); CDFG State and Federally Listed Endangered and Threatened Animals of California (January 2005); NOAA Fisheries Endangered Species Act Status of West Coast Salmon & Steelhead (NOAA Fisheries website, updated May 2003). 3 Based on the species identified in the CNDDB records, the range of habitats present, and the geographical range of these species, a determination was made as to which special-status species could occur in the project corridor.

Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit 3-170 DEIR November 2005 Chapter 3: Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures

Biological Resources

Special Status Animals Several special status animals included in Table 3.9-4 have moderate or high potential to occur within the project corridor. Many of these species are associated with aquatic and riparian habitats at stream crossings. The Russian River, Petaluma River, and several other perennial and intermittent streams crossed by or adjacent to the corridor support migratory runs of Central California Coast steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss) (Table 3.9-5). The Russian River also supports California Coastal chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) and Central California Coast coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch). Other special-status fish species that are likely to occur in streams within the corridor include Pacific lamprey (Lampetra tridentata), Russian River tule perch (Hysterocarpus traskii pomo), and Sacramento splittail (Pogonichthys macrolepidotus).

TABLE 3.9-5 PRESENCE OF SALMONID FISHES IN STREAMS IN THE PROJECT STUDY AREA Watercourse Name Milepost Hydrology Salmonid Fish1 Porterfield Creek 84.34 Seasonal Steelhead Icaria Creek 82.94 Perennial Steelhead Unnamed creek 79.29 Perennial Steelhead Peterson Creek 74.47 Seasonal Steelhead Foss Creek 68.65 Perennial Steelhead Russian River 67.62 Perennial Coho salmon Chinook salmon Steelhead Mark West Creek 59.50 Perennial Coho salmon Steelhead Santa Rosa Creek 53.57 Perennial Coho salmon Steelhead Copeland Creek 46.97 Perennial Steelhead Lichau Creek 44.37 Perennial Steelhead Willow Brook 42.42 Seasonal Steelhead Petaluma River 37.19, Perennial / tidal Chinook salmon 39.74 Steelhead Novato Creek 26.93 Perennial / tidal Steelhead Miller Creek 22.09 Perennial Steelhead Note: 1 See the Biological Technical Report for the SMART Passenger Rail Project (Garcia and Associates, 2005) for sources and further explanation.

Special status amphibians and reptiles with moderate or high potential to occur within the corridor include the California tiger salamander (CTS) and northwestern pond turtle (Emys [= Clemmys] marmorata marmorata). Potential breeding habitat for CTS was mapped in several locations where seasonal ponds or ditches occur in non-urban segments of the corridor between Windsor and Penngrove. Northwestern pond turtles were observed in the proposed project corridor in 2003 in a culvert under the railroad tracks in Healdsburg (MP 69.6) and in 2004 in Miller Creek (MP 22.1). No California red-legged frogs were detected in protocol surveys conducted in consultation with the USFWS; therefore, this species is considered unlikely to occur within the proposed project corridor.

Special status animals that could occur in salt marsh and brackish marsh habitats between southern Petaluma and northern Novato include California clapper rail (Rallus longirostris obsoletus), California black rail (Laterallus jamaicensis), salt-marsh harvest mouse (Reithrodontomys raviventris), Suisun ornate shrew (Sorex ornatus sinuosus) and American bittern (Botaurus lentiginosus). Several other special-status bird species have potential to occur in riparian and oak woodland habitats within or adjacent to the project corridor (See Table 3.9-4). Three special status bat species, the pallid bat

Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit 3-171 DEIR November 2005 Chapter 3: Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures

Biological Resources

(Antrozous pallidus), Townsend’s western big-eared bat (Corynorhinus townsendii townsendii), and Yuma myotis bat (Myotis yumanensis) have moderate or high potential to occur within the project corridor.

Invasive Exotic Plant Species (Noxious Weeds) The exotic invasive status of all plants observed in the project corridor during the botanical surveys was identified by consulting the CDFA (2000) List of California’s Noxious Weeds and the California Exotic Pest Plant Council1 (Cal-EPPC) (1999) list. A total of 27 exotic invasive plant species was identified. Sixteen of these species are concentrated in ruderal and non-native grassland communities within the project corridor. Four of the species occur exclusively in wetlands, and the remaining seven occur in a variety of plant communities.

Common ruderal invasive species found throughout the project corridor include wild oats (Avena spp.), bull thistle (Cirsium vulgare), fennel (Foeniculum vulgare), annual rye (Lolium multiflorum), Harding grass, and Italian thistle (Carduus pycnocephalus). Other invasive species occur in scattered patches, including French broom (Genista monspessulan), Scotch broom (Cytisus scoparius), poison hemlock (Conium maculatum), gorse (Ulex europaeus), wooly mullein (Verbascum thapsus), and pampas grass (Cortaderia jubata). These are all highly invasive plants that displace native species and degrade native plant communities. They are most prevalent on the railroad grade but are also interspersed with native species in natural wetland and upland plant communities within the right-of-way.

Two invasive exotics, perennial pepperweed (Lepidium latifolium) and salt-water cordgrass (Spartina alterniflora), occur in salt marshes within the project corridor. Perennial pepperweed is highly invasive in brackish and salt marshes, as well as in fields with slightly saline soils (Bossard et al., 2000). Salt-water cordgrass invades the intertidal area of salt marshes where it overtakes mudflats and hybridizes with the native California cordgrass (Bossard et al., 2000).

Freshwater marshes in the study area support two invasive plant species, giant reed grass (Arundo donax) and water hyacinth (Eichornia crassipes). Giant reed grass is a robust grass that displaces native vegetation in riparian areas and also can alter stream hydrology and morphology (Bossard et al., 2000). Water hyacinth is a floating aquatic plant that invades aquatic systems and rapidly covers the entire water surface. Annual rye and Harding grass are dominant invasive species in the seasonal wetlands adjacent to the railroad grade. Pennyroyal (Mentha pulegium) is another common invasive plant found in seasonal wetlands, including vernal pools, within the project corridor.

Along the project corridor, Himalayan blackberry dominates both a wetland plant community (blackberry wetland) and an upland scrub plant community (blackberry scrub). This exotic blackberry is a highly aggressive brambling shrub that generally crowds out all other species once established. It is considered one of the most invasive and widespread of California’s wildland pest plants (Cal-EPPC, 1999).

3.9.4 Significance Criteria

Project-related effects on wetland, vegetation and wildlife resources were considered significant if they would result in one or more of the following conditions: • A substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any wildlife species identified as endangered, threatened, candidate, sensitive or special-status by the USFWS, CDFG, CEQA, or CNPS or in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations; • A substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified by the USFWS or CDFG or in local or regional plans, policies, regulations;

1 The Cal-EPPC is now referred to as the California Invasive Plant Council (Cal-IPC).

Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit 3-172 DEIR November 2005 Chapter 3: Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures

Biological Resources

• A substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands or other Waters of the U.S. as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means; • Interfere substantially with the movement of any 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; • Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources; • Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional or state habitat conservation plan; • Conflict with the following federal and state laws and regulations: o The Migratory Bird Treaty Act; o California Fish and Game Code Sections 3503 and 3503.5, which protect nesting birds and raptors; o California Fish and Game Code Section 1600 protections for fish and wildlife associated with streambed alteration activities; or • Introduce or spread a noxious weed or substantially increase the dispersal and spread of existing populations of noxious weeds such that an existing plant community or wildlife habitat is substantially degraded.

3.9.5 Impact Assessment Methodology

In general, temporary and long-term impacts on biological resources would occur mostly within the existing, previously disturbed right-of-way and the station and maintenance facility sites. Permanent loss or alteration of sensitive plant communities and wildlife habitats would be limited to the proposed bicycle/pedestrian pathway side of the right-of-way, new siding track areas, and areas of stream banks and channels that would be modified with new crossing structures.

To quantify impact acreages for the various proposed project segments and components, this analysis assumes the extent of the impact footprint (area of potential disturbance) as follows: • For segments of the corridor with the proposed bicycle/pedestrian pathway: the entire side of the corridor containing the bicycle/pedestrian pathway, from the centerline of the track to the outer edge of the right-of-way or outer edge of the bicycle/pedestrian pathway footprint, whichever is greater; • For segments of the corridor without the proposed bicycle/pedestrian pathway: no change in existing condition except at stream crossings; • For stream crossings: the entire right-of-way width for the length of the new crossing (structures suspended over water are considered as footprint by CDFG and ACOE); • For siding track locations: the siding side of the right-of-way from the track centerline to the outer edge of the right-of-way; • For proposed station sites: the footprint of new built structures including buildings, pavement, sidewalks and landscaping; and, • For proposed maintenance yards and staging sites: the total areas of each site.

In all areas where long-term impacts are expected to occur (i.e. development of the bike path, stations, and maintenance facility), it was assumed that existing natural communities would be converted to developed land. The impact footprint is likely to be overestimated at stream crossings because most in- stream areas would be spanned by bridges and a substantial portion of watercourse area within the right-of-way would be unaffected once construction is complete. Proposed station locations indicated in

Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit 3-173 DEIR November 2005 Chapter 3: Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures

Biological Resources the description in Chapter 2 of this DEIR were used as the basis for quantifying the impact area associated with the new stations.

3.9.6 Impact Summary

Construction and operation of the proposed project is likely to adversely affect biological resources. Reconstruction of the rail line itself would result in minor impacts, but the addition of the proposed bicycle/pedestrian pathway would necessitate some widening of the corridor and fill of wetlands in areas that contain biological resources. Freshwater seasonal wetlands, largely functioning as drainage ditches, parallel much of the railroad grade. Because the railroad grade is raised, original construction produced a hydrologic barrier. Over time, and in combination with adjacent development, water has been concentrated to the right-of-way.

Of the approximately 360 acres that would be impacted by the proposed project, about 308 acres are non-sensitive upland communities (e.g. previously disturbed or developed lands) with minimal value for sensitive biological resources. Impacts in these communities (blackberry scrub, mixed scrub, non-native grassland, vineyard, ruderal, and developed/landscaped) would be less than significant. The remaining 52 acres that would be impacted include communities, such as wetlands and oak woodland, which do support sensitive biological resources.

Implementation of the proposed project would cause temporary impacts on biological resources associated with the construction of the proposed transportation facilities, permanent loss of resources associated with facility siting, and periodic disturbance of biological resources associated with maintenance and operation of the rail line. All of these impacts can be mitigated to a less-than- significant level through implementation of recommended mitigation measures to avoid, minimize and compensate for these impacts. In addition, environmental compliance measures that are part of the proposed project (see Section 2.9) and required consultation with the USFWS and CDFG would serve to reduce potential impacts.

3.9.7 Impacts and Mitigation Measures

Impacts resulting from the proposed project could include alteration of plant communities and wildlife habitats, loss of individual plants or wildlife, alteration or loss of wetlands and other waters, removal and trimming of native trees, alteration of stream banks, short-term increases in turbidity and sedimentation within creeks, and other types of disturbance to wildlife and plants.

Construction-Related Impacts

Construction-related impacts are predominantly short-term effects associated with project construction activities, including reparable ground disturbance in temporary work areas. However, adverse effects on special-status species are considered under long-term impacts, even if they occur in temporary work areas. Potential temporary, direct impacts on biological resources would include the following.

Impact BR-1: Project construction would cause damage to sensitive upland vegetation and wildlife habitat within temporary work areas. (Significant mitigable)

Operation of vehicles and equipment in temporary construction access and staging areas, parking of vehicles and placement of equipment and materials in temporary laydown and storage areas could remove or crush vegetation, damage tree roots, compact soil, or collapse animal burrows. Accidental spill or release of a hazardous material could potentially harm wildlife and impair the recruitment and establishment of onsite vegetation. Temporary work areas would be located mostly in ruderal and developed areas, but may overlap small portions of other upland plant communities including oak woodland, mixed scrub, and non-native grassland. Construction-related impacts on common upland plant communities would be less than significant. However, impacts on wildlife in work areas could be considered significant if they interfere substantially with wildlife movement, impede the use of breeding

Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit 3-174 DEIR November 2005 Chapter 3: Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures

Biological Resources sites, or conflict with local policies that protect wildlife species and habitats. Implementation of the following mitigation measures would reduce this impact to a less than significant level.

Mitigation Measure BR-1a: Construction access, staging, storage, and parking areas shall be located on ruderal or developed lands to the extent possible. Vehicle travel adjacent to wetlands and riparian areas shall be limited to existing roads and designated access paths. Sensitive natural communities (i.e., wetlands, waters, riparian zones and oak woodlands) shall be conspicuously marked in the field to minimize impacts on these communities, and work activities shall be limited to outside the marked areas.

Mitigation Measure BR-1b: Qualified biologists shall monitor construction activities that could potentially cause significant impacts on sensitive biological resources. A worker education program shall be developed and presented to all construction personnel before they start work on the proposed project. The program shall summarize relevant laws and regulations that protect biological resources, discuss sensitive habitats and special-status species with the potential to occur in the work zone, explain the role and authority of the biological monitors and review applicable avoidance and minimization measures to protect sensitive species and habitats.

Impact BR-2: There could be temporary disturbance of wetlands/Waters of the United States. (Significant mitigable)

Construction activities could impact wetlands and other waters at temporary work sites, including temporarily-affected areas at stream crossings within and adjacent to the project corridor. Bridge and culvert construction, reconstruction, or rehabilitation would occur at 62 crossing sites along the proposed project corridor (see Impact BR-5 for long-term impact on these areas). Operation of vehicles and equipment in these areas could adversely affect wetland and stream habitat by disrupting soil and damaging or removing wetland and riparian vegetation. Ground disturbance and other activities within and adjacent to stream zones could result in increased erosion, water turbidity and sediment transport into waterways. Oil, gas and other pollutants could also be released into water bodies. While these temporary effects would not result in net loss of wetlands or other waters, they could adversely affect aquatic organisms in the vicinity of work areas. Suspended sediments can interfere with respiration, reduce visibility and affect feeding and other essential life cycle activities. Excess sediments can also bury eggs, fill pools and alter streambeds that provide important habitat. Construction in stream zones would require coordination with the RWQCB, CDFG, and possibly other agencies. (See Section 3.3, Water Resources for analysis of impacts on water quality).

Environmental compliance measures incorporated into the proposed project (see Section 2.9) include provisions for agency consultation, erosion control BMPs and fuel spill prevention measures. Mitigation measures WR-1a and 1b in Section 3.3.6 call for a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) and Streambed Alteration Agreement to reduce potential water quality impacts. Most in-stream work areas would be temporarily dewatered which would prevent concrete and other debris from entering the water during bridge construction. A temporary dam structure would be installed upstream of, or surrounding, the work area, and water would be pumped or diverted away from the work area through a temporary culvert. These activities would displace fish and other aquatic animals from the dewatered areas and could disturb aquatic animals in areas adjacent to work areas. These effects would be temporary, generally lasting no more than one to two months, and would be confined to a relatively small area under and adjacent to crossing structures. Aquatic species are expected to return to these areas once the work is complete and flow is reestablished. Because of the limited extent and short-term nature of these effects, the impact on individual non-special-status species is less than significant. Potential impacts on special-status fish and aquatic species are described below under Impacts BR-12, 13 and 14.

In addition to environmental compliance provisions and mitigation measures identified in Section 3.3.6, implementation of Mitigation Measures BR-2a-c would reduce impacts on wetlands and U.S. Waters to a less than significant level.

Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit 3-175 DEIR November 2005 Chapter 3: Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures

Biological Resources

Mitigation Measure BR-2a: Instream construction shall be confined to the dry or low-flow season. During in-stream construction, dewatered areas and temporary culverts shall be limited to the minimum area necessary. Pumps used for dewatering shall have agency-approved fish screens installed to minimize intake of fish into pumps. Diversion structures shall be left in place until all in-stream work is completed. Temporary culverts and all construction materials and debris shall be removed from the affected area prior to reestablishing flow and prior to the rainy season.

Mitigation Measure BR-2b: A qualified biological monitor shall be present during critical construction periods (e.g., grubbing and clearing, culvert installation, pouring concrete) in all streams and wetland areas. If a listed or protected species is encountered, work shall be stopped immediately at that location, the appropriate agency or agencies (USFWS, NOAA Fisheries and/or CDFG) shall be notified, and work shall not resume at that location prior to the agencies’ approval, or as agreed to in prior consultation with the agencies.

Mitigation Measure BR-2c: Upon completion of the proposed project, all temporarily disturbed natural areas, including stream banks, shall be returned to original contours to the extent feasible. Affected wetlands, stream banks or stream channels shall be stabilized prior to the rainy season and/or prior to reestablishing flow. For wetland areas, the top six inches of native topsoil should be stockpiled and replaced following work. Wetland and riparian vegetation shall be reestablished as appropriate.

Impact BR-3: There could be disturbance of nesting birds due to construction activities. (Significant mitigable)

Construction activities could affect raptors and other birds nesting in vegetation or on bridges or other built structures in or adjacent to work areas. Trimming or removal of vegetation could destroy or disturb active nests. Equipment noise, vibration, lighting and other human-related disturbance could disrupt nesting, feeding or other life cycle activities, and could cause nest abandonment or nesting failure. Structure-nesting species such as cliff swallows could also have their nests destroyed by demolition of existing bridges. Because active nests of most bird species are protected by the federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act and Section 3503 of the California Fish and Game Code, this impact is potentially significant. Additional protections would apply to federal- or state-listed bird species. Implementation of Mitigation Measures BR-3a and BR-3b would reduce this impact to a less than significant level.

Mitigation Measure BR 3a: To the extent feasible, trees and shrubs in the construction zones shall be trimmed or removed between September 1 and January 31 to reduce potential impacts on nesting birds. If vegetation must be removed during the period from February 1 to August 31, a qualified wildlife biologist shall conduct pre-construction surveys for nesting birds. If an active nest is found, the bird shall be identified to species and the approximate distance from the closest work site to the nest estimated. No additional measures need be implemented if active nests are more than the following distances from the nearest work site: (a) 300 feet for raptors; or (b) 75 feet for other non-special-status bird species (for California clapper rail and California black rail see Mitigation Measure BR-12). If active nests are closer than those distances to the nearest work site and there is the potential for destruction of a nest or substantial disturbance to nesting birds due to construction activities, a plan to monitor nesting birds during construction shall be prepared and submitted to the USFWS and CDFG for review and approval. Disturbance of active nests shall be avoided to the extent possible until it is determined that nesting is complete and the young have fledged.

Mitigation Measure BR-3b: If construction is likely to occur during the nesting season of cliff swallows (March 1 to July 31), bridges shall be periodically inspected for swallow nests by a qualified biologist prior to the onset of bridge demolition and/or new bridge construction. Nests shall be knocked down by a biologist prior to being one-third completed. Inspection of the bridges shall start in late February. Alternative methods to prevent cliff swallow nesting on the bridge may be used with prior approval by the CDFG.

Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit 3-176 DEIR November 2005 Chapter 3: Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures

Biological Resources

Long-Term Impacts

Long-term impacts on biological resources include permanent conversion of natural habitats to developed land, other permanent alterations of natural biological communities and potential harm or mortality to individuals of special-status plant or animal species. Table 3.9-6 shows the estimated extent of long-term impacts on various plant communities within the study area under the proposed project.

TABLE 3.9-6 EXTENT OF LONG-TERM IMPACTS ON PLANT COMMUNITIES IN THE PROPOSED PROJECT AREA Affected Area, 1 Cloverdale to Larkspur Plant Community (acres) Coastal Salt Marsh 0.5 Coastal Brackish Marsh 1.3 Coastal Freshwater Marsh 2.0 Coastal Freshwater Seasonal Wetland 24.0 Vernal Pool 0.4 Blackberry Wetland 0.6 Total Wetlands 28.8 Perennial Watercourse 1.8 Seasonal Watercourse 1.0 Open Water 0.1 Total Waters 2.9 Riparian Scrub 3.5 Riparian Woodland 1.8 Total Riparian 5.3 Oak Woodland 15.0 Blackberry Scrub2 3.8 Mixed Scrub2 6.3 Non-native Grassland3 14.6 Vineyard2 1.0 Ruderal2 229.0 Developed/Landscaped2 53.8 Total Upland 323.5 Grand Total 360.5 Note: 1 The impact footprint includes the bicycle/pedestrian path side of the railway corridor, new sidings and spurs, new stations, and the proposed Cloverdale maintenance facility site. See Table 3.9.-2 for a comparison of existing plant communities between the proposed Cloverdale and alternative Windsor maintenance facility sites. See Section 3.9.5 for further explanation of assumptions used to calculate the impact area. 2 Non-sensitive plant community and not likely to support sensitive biological resources. 3 Non-sensitive plant community with potential to support sensitive biological resources.

Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit 3-177 DEIR November 2005 Chapter 3: Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures

Biological Resources

Introduction of Noxious Weeds

Impact BR-4: The proposed project could result in the introduction or spread of noxious weeds in the project corridor. (Significant mitigable)

Project construction and maintenance activities could inadvertently spread existing populations of invasive weeds and/or introduce new species from contaminated sources. The entire project corridor has exotic invasive plants, some of which are already widespread and others that occur in isolated patches or specific habitat types. Invasive plants could be introduced or spread at any time of year by transfer of seeds or plant fragments on vehicles and heavy equipment; through erosion control practices such as placement of hay bales, seeding or mulching; and during planting of landscaping or reestablishment of natural vegetation within the right-of-way. Because this could conflict with policies to limit the spread of invasive weeds, this impact is potentially significant. Implementation of Mitigation Measure BR-4 would reduce this impact to a less than significant level.

Mitigation Measure BR-4: During construction activities, the following measures shall be implemented to the extent feasible to reduce the spread of exotic invasive plants in temporary work areas and throughout the project corridor: • Minimize vehicle travel through weed-infested areas. • Minimize soil disturbance and the removal of existing vegetation (exotic or native) to the extent feasible during construction activities. • Use only certified weed-free straw and mulch or weed-free fiber roll barriers or sediment logs. • Use only certified weed-free native seed mixes and native plants that are appropriate to the pre-existing or adjacent natural habitat for revegetation. • Monitor all erosion-control and revegetation sites for weed infestations at least twice yearly during the growing season, for at least three years after construction.

Impacts on Sensitive Natural Communities

Impact BR-5: The proposed project would result in the loss or alteration of wetlands/Waters of the United States. (Significant mitigable)

Construction of the proposed project would result in the loss or permanent alteration of Waters of the U.S. and wetlands, including coastal salt marsh, coastal brackish marsh, coastal freshwater marsh, coastal freshwater seasonal marsh, and blackberry wetland. Approximately 28.8 acres of wetlands and 2.9 acres of jurisdictional waters would be permanently affected (Table 3.9-6) by filling and installation of new bridge structures. Placement of fill into wetlands and waters would occur at water crossings for the rail line as well as the proposed bicycle/pedestrian pathway. All 62 crossings along the existing line would require replacement or rehabilitation. Watercourses crossed by the rail line include those listed in Table 3.9-5 and numerous other creeks and drainage channels (see complete listing in Section 3.3, Water Resources). In most cases, existing timber trestles would be replaced with concrete spans supported on concrete pilings. Some smaller bridge crossings would be replaced with box or pipe culverts. Placement of the proposed bicycle/pedestrian pathway would remove narrow areas of wetland plant communities which occur throughout the project corridor along both sides of the rail line. The proposed bicycle/pedestrian pathway would avoid impacts on the majority of these wetlands and on the highest value wetlands (the pathway avoids salt marsh, which is considered the highest value wetlands). The construction activities described above would require coordination with, and authorization from, the ACOE and RWQCB (and possibly other agencies). Conformance with permit conditions and requirements specified by these agencies, and implementation of Mitigation Measures BR-2a-c and BR- 5a and BR-5b, would reduce this impact to a less than significant level.

Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit 3-178 DEIR November 2005 Chapter 3: Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures

Biological Resources

Mitigation Measure BR-5a: To replace impacted wetlands, a habitat restoration plan shall be developed and implemented to enhance wetland and riparian habitats in undeveloped portions of the right-of-way. Habitat should be restored or replaced at a minimum 1:1 ratio of acres of these habitats permanently impacted. Restoration efforts shall focus on areas where current conditions are degraded due to erosion, unstable slopes or abundance of invasive exotic plant species. Elements of the plan could include slope stabilization, control of invasive weeds, and reestablishment of appropriate native vegetation. Performance standards that are accepted by the resource agencies for site revegetation shall be specified in the plan. These standards could include a minimum 80 percent success rate of plants reestablished or acres restored. The restored areas shall be monitored for a minimum of three years and remedial measures taken, such as replanting vegetation or enhancing additional areas, if the performance standards are not met.

Mitigation Measure BR-5b: In the event that habitat restoration and enhancement within the right-of-way is insufficient to compensate for all wetland losses resulting from the proposed project, SMART shall provide additional, off-site compensation as needed to achieve a minimum 1:1 replacement ratio for affected wetland areas.

Impact BR-6: The proposed project would result in the loss or alteration of vernal pools. (Significant mitigable)

Construction of the proposed bicycle/pedestrian pathway would remove approximately 0.4 acre of vernal pool habitat. Vernal pools occur within the project corridor between Windsor and Santa Rosa along both sides of the rail line, and additional potential habitat for vernal pool plant species was identified on railroad margins within the Santa Rosa Plain (MP 46.8-65.1). Vernal pools are locally unique biological communities that potentially support sensitive plants (addressed in Impact BR-10) and the federal animal Species of Concern, California linderiella (addressed under Impact BR-11). Implementation of a habitat restoration plan or off-site compensation for vernal pools, pursuant to the provisions of Mitigation Measure BR-5a and BR-5b would reduce this impact to a less than significant level.

Impact BR-7: The proposed project would result in the loss or alteration of riparian vegetation. (Significant mitigable)

Installation of new crossing structures such as bridge platforms, pilings and abutments on stream banks would result in removal of approximately 5.3 acres of riparian woodland and riparian scrub vegetation. These vegetation types occur along numerous watercourses throughout the project corridor including, but not limited to, those listed in Table 3.9-5. Riparian woodland vegetation is best developed north of Santa Rosa along perennial streams such Mark West Creek. Riparian habitats are considered sensitive by the resource agencies because of their high value to wildlife and because of the substantial loss and degradation of these habitats regionally. Removal of riparian vegetation could reduce potential nesting and cover sites for animals, reduce beneficial shading of watercourses and potentially affect bank stability. Therefore, this impact is potentially significant. Implementation of water resources Mitigation Measure WR-1b (see Section 3.3) and Measures BR-2c and BR-5a would reduce this impact to a less than significant level.

Impact BR-8: The proposed project would result in the loss of oak woodlands and removal of individual protected trees. (Significant mitigable)

Approximately 15.0 acres of oak woodland would be affected under the proposed project. Most of this impact would occur along the footprint of the proposed bicycle/pedestrian pathway north of Santa Rosa. Although large tracts of oak woodland habitat would not be removed, individual oak trees would be trimmed or removed and portions of the pathway could overlap the root zone of oaks. Oak woodlands are considered sensitive natural communities by the CDFG because of their high value to wildlife and their continuing decline regionally. Valley oak habitat areas and woodland habitats in general, are targeted for protection in the Sonoma County General Plan. In addition, project construction could result in removal of individual oak trees that are protected under Sonoma County, Marin County, or city tree

Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit 3-179 DEIR November 2005 Chapter 3: Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures

Biological Resources ordinances. Therefore, this impact is potentially significant. Implementation of Mitigation Measure BR-6 would reduce this impact to a less than significant level.

Mitigation Measure BR-6: A qualified arborist shall conduct a tree survey within the project corridor, prior to ground-disturbing activities, to identify trees that would be removed or potentially affected by the proposed project and trees that can be avoided. Where it is feasible to avoid protected trees, keep vehicles and mechanical equipment outside the dripline of these trees. In areas where oaks or other protected trees cannot be avoided, replace trees removed with the same native tree species at a minimum 3:1 ratio, or as required by applicable ordinance(s). SMART shall conduct monitoring for three years following planting to verify that trees have successfully reestablished.

Impact BR-9: The proposed project could result in the obstruction or alteration of wildlife corridors. (Significant mitigable)

Installation of the proposed bicycle/pedestrian pathway safety structure, retaining walls, new bridge structures, and operation of passenger trains could interfere with wildlife movement corridors in the study area. Portions of three major habitat linkages, the Russian River watershed, Bay Wetlands and the Sonoma Mountains - Burdell Mountain linkage, could be affected. Although the existing rail line crosses these movement corridors, it does not presently create a substantial barrier to wildlife movement because the railroad grade is mostly at ground level and does not have any barrier structure. All of the proposed safety structure designs could interfere with overland movements of wildlife to varying degrees, especially in non-urban areas of the project corridor. No substantial or long-term effect is anticipated in the stream zone of the Russian River, but wildlife movements through adjacent riparian and upland habitats, and other riparian corridors such as Mark West Creek, could be impeded. Wildlife movements and habitat connectivity could also be affected in the Sonoma Mountains - Burdell Mountain linkage area located between southern Petaluma and northern Novato. Effects in this area are expected to be relatively minor because the proposed bicycle/pedestrian pathway and associated safety structure would bypass the marshlands between Petaluma and Novato. Because the proposed project could interfere substantially with the movement of resident or migratory wildlife species in some locations, this impact is potentially significant. Implementation of Mitigation Measure BR-7 would reduce this impact to a less than significant level.

Mitigation Measure BR-7: In non-urban areas of the corridor that are not directly adjacent to Highway 101 and where a safety structure or wall is proposed to be installed between the proposed bicycle/pedestrian pathway and railway, intermittent gaps shall be placed along the barrier to allow passage of wildlife. These gaps shall be at least three feet wide, extend from ground level to the top of the structure, and be spaced no farther apart than every quarter-mile where feasible within existing or potential wildlife movement corridors along the right-of-way. Gaps shall be located in the following areas: • Rural lands between Cloverdale and northern Santa Rosa where the right-of-way is at least 0.25 mile from Highway 101; and • Between Main Gate Road (MP 23.6) and Smith Ranch Road (MP 21.0) in Marin County.

Gaps shall also be placed on both sides of bridge crossings of Mark West Creek and other major non- urban stream corridors to enable wildlife passage through these areas. Gaps shall not be located in or adjacent to urban or residential areas.

Impacts on Special-status Plants

Impact BR-10: The proposed project could result in the loss of individuals or habitat of special- status plant species. (Significant mitigable)

Construction of the proposed bicycle/pedestrian pathway, stream crossings, and other new facilities of the proposed project would potentially affect the following special-status plants associated with habitats

Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit 3-180 DEIR November 2005 Chapter 3: Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures

Biological Resources that may be disturbed. If any of these species are detected within the project corridor and individual plants or populations would be removed or disturbed, this impact would be potentially significant, but mitigable to a level that is not significant by implementation of Mitigation Measures 8a and 8b. • Sonoma sunshine, Burke’s goldfields, Sebastopol meadowfoam, and many-flowered navarretia. Vernal pools and other seasonal wetland habitats in the Santa Rosa Plain, located between MP 47.4 and MP 66.6, have suitable potential habitat for these plant species. All of these plants are federal endangered species, which are required to be surveyed in the Santa Rosa Plain under a two-year protocol established by the USFWS (1996). Because protocol surveys have not been completed, the presence and locations of these species within the proposed project corridor is not known. However, they are not expected to be abundant or widespread because of the predominantly disturbed conditions within the corridor. • Clara Hunt’s milkvetch and/or Colusa layia. The Clara Hunt’s milkvetch and Colusa layia have the potential to occur in non-native grasslands or oak woodlands. Although surveys conducted in potential habitat for Clara Hunt’s milkvetch and Colusa layia did not detect these species, protocol surveys have not been completed. Because the Clara Hunt’s milkvetch is a federally endangered and state threatened species, this impact is potentially significant. • Pt. Reyes bird’s beak and/or soft bird’s beak. The Pt. Reyes bird’s beak and soft bird’s beak have potential to occur in salt marsh habitats. Protocol surveys would be required to determine the presence and location of these species within the project corridor. Even if these species were to occur within the corridor, potential impacts on these species would be expected to be slight because construction within marsh areas would be confined mostly to the existing, disturbed railroad grade and the proposed bicycle/pedestrian pathway would bypass the extensive salt marsh area between Petaluma and Novato. Because the soft bird’s beak is a federally endangered and state rare species and the Pt. Reyes bird’s beak is a CNPS List 1B species, adverse effects on individuals or habitat of these species would be a potentially significant impact.

Mitigation Measure BR-8a: Within three years prior to project construction activities that could affect vernal pool habitats in the Santa Rosa Plain, conduct the botanical survey protocol for federally endangered plant species in the Santa Rosa Plain. The protocol would require two years of botanical surveys, three times over the impact area each year, to determine possible impacts on Sonoma sunshine, Burke’s goldfields, Sebastopol meadowfoam and many-flowered navarretia. For other sensitive plant species, plant surveys shall be conducted pursuant to protocols established in consultation with appropriate agencies.

Mitigation Measure BR-8b: In the event that populations or individuals of sensitive plant species are found in the project corridor, the following measures shall be implemented: • Sensitive plant species that are found within the right-of-way but not where construction would occur shall be protected by installing temporary plastic fencing outside the population perimeter with “Sensitive Habitat Area” signs posted on the outside of the fence. Monitoring shall occur during and following construction to insure compliance with plant protection. • Where it is not feasible to avoid sensitive plant locations within the project corridor and the affected species is a non-listed annual that is sensitive pursuant to CEQA, seed collection and transplanting is proposed in suitable areas of the right-of-way outside of proposed construction. • If an affected sensitive plant is a non-listed perennial, native plant nursery propagation is proposed as well as right-of-way planting outside of construction areas. All mitigation sites would be chosen for their suitability to each species. • All sensitive plant restoration and planting areas shall be protected as described in (a) above and monitored for five years. • Potential impacts on state- or federally listed species would necessitate consultation with the CDFG and/or USFWS and mitigation meeting the resource agency requirements. This could

Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit 3-181 DEIR November 2005 Chapter 3: Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures

Biological Resources

include off-site mitigation and mitigation bank investments, similar to those that have been established in the Santa Rosa Plain.

Impacts on Special-status Wildlife – Direct Impacts

Impact BR-11: The proposed project could result in the loss of individuals or habitat of California linderiella. (Significant mitigable)

Construction of the proposed bicycle/pedestrian pathway could remove vernal pools or other ephemerally ponded areas that may support this invertebrate. Mortality to individuals could result if the species is present and work activities occur in its habitat during the wet season. Dormant eggs could also be lost during ground-disturbing activities in the dry season. Because there is less than one acre of vernal pool habitat within the project corridor, there would be relatively little loss of high-quality habitat for this species. Removal of marginal seasonal wetlands within the right-of-way could potentially impact suitable habitat for this species. Implementation of Mitigation Measures BR-2c, and BR-5a would apply to this species and would reduce the impact to less than significant.

Impact BR-12: The proposed project could result in the loss or disturbance of individuals of Central California Coast coho salmon, California Coastal chinook salmon and Central California Coast steelhead. (Significant mitigable)

Construction of stream crossings could cause mortality, harm or disturbance to state- and federally listed coho salmon and federally listed chinook salmon and steelhead if they are present in or near work areas. During construction, migratory passageways for adults or juveniles could be temporarily blocked. While spawning by these species is not expected within the project corridor, juvenile fish could be present and could be displaced by work activities, injured by construction equipment and pile-driving or taken into pumps during dewatering of in-stream work areas. Construction-related increases in water turbidity or sedimentation could also adversely affect migrating or rearing fish. Among these species, steelhead have the greatest potential to be affected by the proposed project because they occur in several streams in the project corridor. California Coastal chinook salmon could be affected only in the Russian River, and coho salmon could be affected in the Russian River, Mark West Creek and possibly Santa Rosa Creek. Because runs of these fish are small in most streams in the project area, and work activities would be temporary and limited to existing crossing sites, relatively few individuals would potentially be affected. There would be no permanent adverse modification of these species’ habitat because all streams that harbor salmonid fish would be spanned by bridges. Permanent in-stream structures associated with new bridges and bridge improvements would not substantially alter stream flow or hinder fish passage once construction is complete. Because there is the potential for adverse effects on individuals of species protected under the federal ESA and CESA, this impact is potentially significant. Implementation of Mitigation Measures WR-1a and b (see Section 3.3) and BR-2a-c to protect stream habitats, and Mitigation Measures BR-9a and BR-9b would reduce this impact to a less than significant level.

Mitigation Measure BR-9a: For work in stream zones (Table 3.9-5) that harbor federal- or state-listed salmonid fish, SMART shall consult with NOAA Fisheries and CDFG and implement protection measures specified in consultation with those agencies.

Mitigation Measure BR-9b: In streams that harbor state- or federally listed salmonid fish species, in-stream work shall not start before July 1 and shall be completed by October 15, unless otherwise approved by appropriate agencies.

Impact BR-13: The proposed project could result in the loss or disturbance of individuals of Pacific lamprey, Russian River tule perch, and Sacramento splittail. (Significant mitigable)

Bridge construction activities at the Russian River could harm or disturb individuals of Pacific lamprey and Russian River tule perch. Bridge construction activities at the Petaluma River, Novato Creek, Gallinas Creek, and other bayside watercourses could harm or disturb estuarine fishes including the

Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit 3-182 DEIR November 2005 Chapter 3: Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures

Biological Resources

Sacramento splittail. These activities would be temporary and confined to a relatively small area, and would potentially affect only a small number of individuals of these species. There would be no permanent adverse modification of these species’ habitat because new bridge structures and improvements to existing bridges would not substantially alter river flow or hinder fish passage once construction is complete. Because these are species of concern to the USFWS, this impact is potentially significant. Implementation of Mitigation Measures WR-1a and b (see Section 3.3) and BR-2a-c to protect stream habitats would reduce this impact to a less than significant level.

Impact BR-14: The proposed project could result in the loss or disturbance of individuals or habitat of the California tiger salamander. (Significant mitigable)

Construction activities within the range of the federally threatened California tiger salamander could result in harm, mortality or disturbance to individual salamanders if they are present within the work area. Breeding adults, larvae and juveniles could be directly affected in and around aquatic sites (seasonal pools, ponds or ditches) during and immediately following the rainy season (approximately mid-October through June). Adults could be impacted by construction vehicles or equipment during their fall and winter breeding migrations (approximately mid-October through March), and juveniles could be impacted during dispersal movements in the spring and early summer (approximately mid-April through July). Installation of the proposed bicycle/pedestrian pathway and new sidings tracks could permanently remove breeding pools and dispersal habitat of this species. Installation of the proposed bicycle/pedestrian pathway safety structure could also obstruct migration or dispersal movements of salamanders across the proposed project corridor. Because the CTS is a federally threatened species and a CDFG Species of Special Concern, this impact is potentially significant. Implementation of Mitigation Measures BR-10a and BR-10b would reduce this impact to a less than significant level.

Mitigation Measure BR-10a: For areas where construction would occur within the range of the California tiger salamander in Sonoma County (i.e., non-urban areas between Windsor and Penngrove), SMART shall consult with the USFWS and CDFG to obtain authorization for activities that could affect this species and implement all applicable protection measures specified through this consultation. Protection measures shall be focused on locations where California tiger salamander habitats have been identified within and adjacent to the right-of-way and where California tiger salamander could potentially be affected as determined in consultation with the USFWS. Protection measures could include, but would not be limited to, the following: • Where impacts on potential CTS breeding habitats can be avoided, establish site-specific exclusion zones to protect these areas. Install temporary plastic fencing around the exclusion areas with “Sensitive Habitat Area” signs posted and clearly visible on the outside of the fence. • Where it is not feasible to avoid work within or adjacent to potential CTS breeding sites, limit work in these areas to the period from June 1 to October 14 or when the ponds are dry. • From October 15 to May 31 within potential CTS dispersal habitat, minimize operation of proposed project vehicles and equipment at night off pavement during rain events and within 24 hours following rain events, and check under vehicles parked overnight off pavement before moving them.

Mitigation Measure BR-10b: If permanent loss of occupied or potential CTS breeding habitat cannot be avoided, compensation shall be provided through protection and enhancement of CTS habitat within the right-of-way, purchase of off-site mitigation credits, and/or contribution to regional conservation and recovery efforts for the species as determined in consultation with the USFWS and CDFG.

Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit 3-183 DEIR November 2005 Chapter 3: Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures

Biological Resources

Impact BR-15: The proposed project could result in the loss or disturbance of individuals or habitat of the northwestern pond turtle (NWPT). (Significant mitigable)

Construction activities along the project corridor could result in mortality, harm or disturbance to NWPT adults, juveniles or nests. Individual turtles could be crushed by construction vehicles and equipment, and their nests and eggs could be destroyed by ground disturbing activities. Movements of turtles could also be impeded during construction at stream crossings. Construction of the proposed bicycle/pedestrian pathway and other new facilities could permanently remove occupied or potential habitat of this species. The risk of these impacts would be greatest in and around permanent ponds, freshwater marshes, streams and drainage ditches in non-urban areas of the project corridor. Because this species has been documented both within and near the project corridor, and is a species of concern to the USFWS and CDFG, this impact is potentially significant. Implementation of Mitigation Measure BR-11 would reduce this impact to a less than significant level.

Mitigation Measure BR-11: A qualified biologist shall conduct a pre-construction survey for NWPT no more than 30 days prior to construction in suitable aquatic habitats within the project corridor, including stream crossings, drainage ditches, and culverts. A combination of visual and trapping surveys may be performed with authorization from the CDFG. If this species is found near any proposed construction areas, impacts on individuals and their habitat shall be avoided to the extent feasible. If occupied habitat can be avoided, an exclusion zone shall be established around the habitat and temporary plastic fencing shall be installed around the buffer area with “Sensitive Habitat Area” signs posted and clearly visible on the outside of the fence. If avoidance is not possible and the species is determined to be present in work areas, the biologist with approval from CDFG may capture turtles prior to construction activities and relocate them to nearby, suitable habitat out of harm’s way (e.g., upstream or downstream from the work area). Exclusion fencing should then be installed if feasible to prevent turtles from re- entering the work area. For the duration of work in these areas the biologist should conduct monthly follow-up visits to monitor effectiveness.

Impact BR-16: The proposed project could result in the loss or disturbance of individuals or habitats of the salt-marsh harvest mouse (SMHM), California clapper rail and California black rail. (Significant mitigable)

Construction activities in salt marsh and brackish marsh areas could result in mortality, harm or disturbance to the state- and federally endangered SMHM and California clapper rail and the state- threatened California black rail, or permanently remove potential or occupied habitats of these species. The bicycle/pedestrian pathway would bypass the extensive salt marshes between Petaluma and northern Novato, so the risk of direct impacts on these species is low. Clapper rail and black rail are not likely to nest within the right-of-way because humans and feral animals currently use the existing railroad grade to move through the wetlands, but construction-related noise could temporarily disturb nesting birds in wetlands adjacent to the right-of-way. Similarly, SMHM is unlikely to be present within the right- of-way during construction, but could occur adjacent to the corridor and possibly be disturbed by work activities. Although the risk of direct harm to these species is very low, any project-related disturbance of these species would be prohibited without authorization from the USFWS and CDFG. Therefore, this impact is potentially significant. Implementation of Mitigation Measures BR-12 would reduce this impact to a less than significant level.

Mitigation Measure BR-12: For areas where the construction activities would occur within or adjacent to salt marsh or brackish marsh habitats, consult with the USFWS and CDFG to determine locations where salt-marsh harvest mouse, California clapper rail and California black rail could potentially be affected by the proposed project. All applicable protection measures specified through consultation with these agencies would be implemented during project construction. Protection measures could include, but would not be limited to, the following: • A qualified biological monitor shall be present during all work activities in or adjacent to salt marsh and brackish marsh habitats between Petaluma and Novato.

Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit 3-184 DEIR November 2005 Chapter 3: Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures

Biological Resources

• In areas where one or more of these species is determined to be potentially affected, work activities shall be confined to the existing railroad grade to the extent feasible. Staging, access and parking areas shall be located outside of salt marsh and brackish marsh habitats. • Avoidance measures for SMHM could include installation of temporary exclusion barriers to prevent SMHM from entering work areas during construction. For California clapper rail and California black rail, protection measures could include avoiding work activities during the nesting season (March 1 to July 31) within 300 feet of areas identified as suitable nesting habitat for these species. • If any of these species is detected during work activities, work shall be stopped immediately at that location and the USFWS and/or CDFG shall be contacted within two working days. Work shall not resume at that location until authorization is obtained from the USFWS and CDFG (for the SMHM and California clapper rail) or from the CDFG (for the California black rail), unless prior approval has been granted by these agencies.

Impact BR-17: The proposed project could result in disturbance or injury to special-status bats. (Significant mitigable)

Demolition of old buildings at station sites and bridge structures along the right-of-way could directly impact special-status bat species if they inhabit any of these structures. While most of the existing bridges and trestles do not provide sufficient thermal cover for bat roosting, abandoned buildings and hidden cavities in old structures could possibly be used as roosting or nursery sites. If bats are present, construction activities could cause mortality or harm to roosting bats or cause them to abandon these sites. If an active bat nursery is present, construction activities could disturb or harm breeding adults or offspring and adversely affect their reproductive success. Disturbance of an active bat nursery or harm to individuals of a special-status bat species would be a potentially significant impact. Implementation of Mitigation Measure BR-13 would reduce this impact to a less than significant level.

Mitigation Measure BR-13: A qualified biologist shall conduct a pre-construction survey for bats at bridges that have sufficient thermal cover for bat roosting, abandoned buildings and old structures prior to demolition or construction at these sites. Bats should be determined to be absent or flushed from roost locations prior to demolition of buildings. If flushing of bats from buildings is necessary, it shall be done by the biologist during the non-breeding season from October 1 to March 31. When flushing bats, structures shall be moved carefully to avoid harming individuals, and torpid bats given time to completely arouse and fly away. During the maternity season from April 1 to September 30, prior to building demolition or construction, a qualified biologist shall determine if a bat nursery is present at any sites identified as potentially housing bats. If an active nursery is present, disturbance of bats shall be avoided until the biologist determines that breeding is complete and young are reared.

Impacts on Special-status Wildlife – Indirect Impacts Indirect impacts are those that would occur later in time after development of the proposed project, including long-term rail operation and maintenance activities. Potential indirect impacts on biological resources would include the following effects.

Impact BR-18: The proposed project could result in train collisions with wildlife. (Significant mitigable)

Operation of the trains would likely result in occasional collisions with wildlife that move through the corridor. Installation of the bicycle/pedestrian pathway safety structure could increase the frequency of collisions by obstructing escape routes for wildlife. However, the safety structure would also have the potential to prevent some collisions as it would obstruct access to the railway in some areas. Collisions would be expected to occur mostly with common wildlife species, but could also occasionally affect special-status mammals, birds, reptiles or amphibians. If large numbers of common native animals, or

Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit 3-185 DEIR November 2005 Chapter 3: Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures

Biological Resources individuals of any special-status species, are killed or injured by train collisions, this impact could be significant. Implementation of Mitigation Measures BR-7 and BR-14 would reduce this impact to a less than significant level.

Mitigation Measure BR-14: A qualified biologist shall conduct monitoring surveys to assess wildlife collision impacts along the entire corridor at least two times a year, once during spring and once during fall, for the first three years of train operation. The results shall be reported to the CDFG and, if federally listed or migratory bird species are affected, to the USFWS. If the CDFG or USFWS determines that collision impacts are excessive or adverse effects on federal- or state-protected species (including listed species, migratory birds and raptors) are occurring, remedial measures (e.g. redesign of structures and gaps) shall be developed and implemented in consultation with these agencies.

Impact BR-19: The proposed project could result in disturbance to stream zones, special-status species and nesting birds during railway maintenance activities. (Significant mitigable)

Routine and emergency maintenance activities at stream crossings (e.g. repair of flood-damaged crossing structures or slide-prone portions of the RR grade) could temporarily affect stream zones and associated fish and wildlife species in the vicinity of work areas. These activities could cause ground disturbance in stream channels and banks and could affect water quality by increasing turbidity, sedimentation or discharging oil, gas or other pollutants into watercourses. Use of herbicides for vegetation control, particularly near wetlands and watercourses, could have adverse effects on fish and wildlife species. Individual fish or wildlife, including special-status species, could be harmed or temporarily displaced by these activities. Maintenance vehicles and equipment and trimming of vegetation could disturb nesting birds and other animals that occur within, or move through, the corridor. Maintenance activities would be confined mostly to the existing railway, and vehicle access would occur mostly along the developed bicycle/pedestrian pathway, which would minimize potential impacts on wildlife. However, some maintenance activities could affect special-status species or their habitats in undeveloped portions of the project corridor. Nesting birds are protected by federal MBTA and the CFGC, and special-status species are of concern to the resource agencies; therefore this impact is potentially significant. Implementation of Mitigation Measures BR-15a and BR-15b would reduce this impact to a less than significant level.

Mitigation Measure BR-15a: SMART shall consult with the resource agencies (USFWS, NOAA Fisheries and CDFG) to develop habitat and species protection measures for scheduled and emergency maintenance activities to minimize impacts on wetlands, streams, riparian habitats, and special-status species.

Mitigation Measure BR-15b: For all herbicide applications during right-of-way maintenance, herbicides shall be used only according to label directions, applications shall be confined to within the right-of-way and appropriate BMPs shall be followed to prevent uncontrolled release of chemicals. Only aquatic-approved herbicides shall be used for vegetation control adjacent to open water and wetland habitats.

Cumulative Impacts

A review of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects has identified 29 residential and commercial developments in close proximity to the project corridor, including nine projects along and adjacent to the corridor and 17 projects within one mile of the corridor between Windsor and San Rafael. These projects are listed in Section 3.1.

As with construction of the proposed project, these projects could affect local plant communities, wetland resources and wildlife habitats by direct removal or temporary disturbance during construction. Approximately half of these sites can be characterized as urban infill, mostly or entirely surrounded by existing urban development. In general, projects on urban infill sites are not expected to result in

Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit 3-186 DEIR November 2005 Chapter 3: Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures

Biological Resources substantial losses of plant communities, wetland resources or wildlife habitats, or have substantial adverse effects on special-status plant or wildlife species.

The remaining developments considered in the analysis are located mostly along the margins of existing developed areas of Petaluma, Novato, and San Rafael. Development of these non-infill projects is expected to result in some cumulative losses of natural plant communities, predominantly non-native grassland, in the vicinity of the project corridor. Smaller patches of oak woodland habitats may also be removed or altered because of their proximity to these new developments. Removal of non-native grassland and other common upland communities are not expected to have a substantial cumulative impact because these habitats are common and widespread in the area. Within the project corridor, these habitats occur in discontinuous patches often adjacent to developed or cultivated lands, which reduce their value as natural plant communities and wildlife habitats. The removal of oak woodlands could contribute to a regional loss of these habitats that provide high value for wildlife; however, oak woodland habitat in the region is extensive and the proposed project’s contribution to this impact is relatively minor. While there would likely be trimming and possibly removal of scattered, individual oak trees along the project corridor, the impact to the region would be negligible. Furthermore, replacement of trees is required through several city and county tree protection ordinances. Therefore, potential cumulative impacts of the proposed project on upland plant communities would be less than significant.

The removal and alteration of wetland resources within the project corridor could contribute to cumulative wetland impacts due to construction of the projects adjacent to the corridor. Following construction, local wetland resources could also be affected by altered hydrology, including increased storm runoff from impermeable surfaces. Furthermore, releases of irrigation water in summer (i.e., urban runoff) could alter the hydrologic regime. Wetland resources along the corridor could also be affected by altered water quality due to pollutants from urban and industrial sources and sedimentation from unstabilized soil. Implementation of Mitigation Measures BR-2a-f would protect stream zones and wetland habitats and Mitigation Measures BR-5a and BR-5b would ensure no net loss of wetland resources or corresponding wetland functions and values as a result of the project. Therefore, potential cumulative impacts of the proposed project on wetland resources would be less than significant.

Implementation of the proposed project in combination with other foreseeable projects in the vicinity of the project corridor could result in some cumulative losses of wildlife habitats in the region and increases in human-related disturbance, harm or mortality to wildlife. However, the cumulative impact of these projects on wildlife resources is expected to be less than significant because of the location of the project sites within or adjacent to developed urban areas and Highway 101. Mitigation Measures BR-7, BR-14 and Mitigation Measures for sensitive habitats (BR-5a, BR-5b and BR-6) would further reduce the proposed project's contribution to this less than significant cumulative impact.

The projects identified in this analysis are not expected to affect salt marsh habitats that could support special-status species such as the California clapper rail, California black rail and SMHM. Similarly, no known vernal pool habitats and associated species would be affected by these projects. Some special- status species could be affected by removal of non-native grassland at some of the project sites, but habitat suitability for these species is likely low to marginal because of the proximity of these sites to urban developed areas. The proposed project’s contribution to any cumulative impact on special-status species would be reduced to a less than significant level with implementation of the species-specific Mitigation Measures (BR-6b, BR-10a, BR-10b, BR-11, and BR-12) previously described.

Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit 3-187 DEIR November 2005 Chapter 3: Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures Land Use and Planning

3.11 LAND USE AND PLANNING

This section describes existing land uses found within the proposed project study area, evaluates the proposed project’s consistency with relevant land use and planning documents and policies, analyzes the project’s possible impacts on land use, including agricultural lands, and proposes potential measures to mitigate those impacts. The study area includes the area within ½ mile on both sides of the proposed project corridor and around the station sites as this is considered the area that could potentially experience impacts. Additional detailed information is in the Community Impact Assessment (Parsons Brinckerhoff, 2005) prepared for this project.

3.11.1 Regulatory Setting

The existing regulatory setting of the study area was documented by reviewing existing adopted land use plans and policies of Sonoma and Marin counties including those communities located along the project corridor. General plans are designed to guide counties’ and cities’ decisions regarding the physical growth and development, provision of public services and facilities, and the conservation and enhancement of natural resources. The proposed project was evaluated for consistency with the following adopted land use plans and policy documents governing the study area (see Section 3.11.7 for consistency analysis): • Sonoma County Comprehensive Transportation Plan (2004) • Sonoma County General Plan (1989, revised 1998) • Cloverdale General Plan Policy and Program Document (1992) • City of Healdsburg General Plan Policy Document (1987, revised 2004) • Town of Windsor General Plan (2000) • Santa Rosa 2020: General Plan (2002) • City of Rohnert Park General Plan (2000) • City of Cotati General Plan (1996) • Petaluma General Plan (1987) • Moving Forward: A 25-Year Transportation Vision for Marin County (2003) • Marin Countywide Plan 2004 (2004) • City of Novato General Plan (1996, revised 2003) • San Rafael General Plan 2020 (2004) • City of Larkspur General Plan 1990 – 2010 (1990) • Metropolitan Transportation Commission Mobility for the Next Generation: Transportation 2030 Plan for the San Francisco Bay Area (2005)

Local Plans

Sonoma County General Plan In an effort to preserve open space and agricultural land and to limit the amount of residential sprawl, the Sonoma County General Plan includes various goals and objectives designed to guide the future development within the county. Goal LU-2 states that the county should accommodate the majority of future growth within existing cities and those unincorporated communities which are planned for adequate water and sewer capacities. Goal LU-3 states that the future growth within the cities and

Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit 3-196 DEIR November 2005 Chapter 3: Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures Land Use and Planning unincorporated service areas should be done in a compact manner using vacant infill parcels and lands next to existing development at the edge of those areas.

The Sonoma County General Plan also includes goals and policies aimed at promoting local agricultural products, stabilizing and protecting agricultural land at the urban fringes and limiting the intrusion of new residential uses into agricultural areas. Some specific objectives include: • Objective AR-2.1: Limit intrusion of urban development into agricultural areas. • Objective AR-2.2: Maintain the urban service boundaries to protect agricultural lands at the urban fringe for continued agricultural production.

Goal CT-1 of the Sonoma County General Plan focuses on the development of a transit system. Objective CT-1 calls for the design and implementation of a circulation and transit system that will serve projected future travel demand, minimize congestion, achieve the shortest feasible travel times and distances, and achieve the land use plan of city-centered growth and limited growth in rural areas. Policies CT-3h and CT-3i focus specifically on encouraging continuing freight operations on the NWP right-of-way and preserving the right-of-way for public transportation purposes.

The Sonoma County Agricultural Preservation and Open Space District was created through a voter- approved initiative and a quarter-cent sales tax measure in 1990. The District works to preserve agricultural and open space lands through partnerships with willing landowners. Preservation of land is primarily accomplished through the creation of permanent conservation easements, which outline the types of activities that are permitted and prohibited on the land. The District also assists with providing new or expanded recreational opportunities through fee acquisition of key properties, which are then conveyed to State or regional parks departments to develop or manage for recreational and open space purposes.

Sonoma County Comprehensive Transportation Plan The Sonoma County Comprehensive Transportation Plan calls for implementing passenger rail service on the NWP right-of-way from Cloverdale, in the north, to downtown San Rafael, in the south, and constructing a north-south bicycle/pedestrian path adjacent to the railroad tracks in the NWP right-of-way from Windsor to the Marin County line.

Cloverdale General Plan Policy and Program Document The Cloverdale General Plan calls for implementation of passenger rail service on the NWP railroad right-of-way, increasing existing bus transit services and developing new bus transit services, and planning new residential and commercial development to fully accommodate, enhance, and facilitate public transit including pedestrian and bicycle access to transit. The passenger rail station at Cloverdale is already built in accordance with the Plan guidelines.

City of Healdsburg General Plan Policy Document The City of Healdsburg General Plan Policy Document calls for developing and maintaining a coordinated transportation system including bus service and rail transit on the NWP railroad right-of-way, developing and maintaining public transportation facilities including rail stations and park-and-ride lots, achieving the maximum benefits from locating retail, office, and high density residential land uses adjacent to public transportation facilities, and designating a rail station at the historic railroad depot as the central focal point for transportation services in Healdsburg. Plans goals and policies promote convenient transit service with complementary land use adjacent to transit stations. Policy #1 under Goal E indicates that sufficient land needs to be designated in the General Plan for transit facilities including bus stations, rail stations, and park-and-ride lots. Policy #3 under Goal E designates the historic railroad depot as the “center” of Healdsburg.

Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit 3-197 DEIR November 2005 Chapter 3: Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures Land Use and Planning

Town of Windsor General Plan The Town of Windsor General Plan calls for protecting the NWP railroad right-of-way for future passenger rail use, identifying and protecting preferred sites for future rail stations, and encouraging high density mixed-use residential, office and commercial development within walking distance of the rail station.

Santa Rosa 2020: General Plan The Santa Rosa 2020: General Plan calls for passenger rail service along the NWP railroad right-of-way; high density residential and mixed-use development up to 30 units per acre in the areas surrounding potential rail stations at Jennings Avenue, Railroad Square, and Bellevue Avenue; and a Class I Bikeway along the entire length of the NWP railroad right-of-way in Santa Rosa. Specifically, Policy T-1-1 supports implementation of rail service along the NWP right-of-way and Policy T-1-2 calls for zoning land in close proximity to potential rail stations for high density residential and/or mixed-use development.

City of Rohnert Park General Plan The City of Rohnert Park General Plan proposes passenger rail service on the NWP railroad right-of- way, shuttle service from the rail station and a bicycle/pedestrian pathway along the railroad right-of-way. It also calls for expanded bus services and a multi-hub transit corridor along the Rohnert Park Expressway with a rail station. Specially, Policy TR-33 encourages the Sonoma County Transportation Authority (SCTA) to continue their efforts to develop the passenger rail service and directs the city staff to work with the SCTA to resolve specific issues associated with the implementation of passenger rail service.

City of Cotati General Plan The City of Cotati General Plan calls for implementing passenger rail service on the NWP railroad right- of-way including a transit center on Industrial Avenue, improving local bus service, implementing the City’s Bicycle Master Plan, and supporting voluntary trip reduction programs.

Petaluma General Plan and Central Petaluma Specific Plan The Petaluma General Plan indicates that if either rail or express bus service is implemented on the NWP railroad right-of-way, then the intra-city Petaluma bus service should be focused on serving the new transit stations along the NWP right-of-way. The Central Petaluma Specific Plan calls for implementation of passenger rail service on the NWP railroad right-of-way, renovation of the historic train depot to a rail station, construction of a bus transit mall on Copeland Street, implementation of a second rail station at the southern end of the planning area near Caulfield Lane, and development of high density office, retail and residential uses in the area immediately surrounding the historic train depot.

Moving Forward: A 25-Year Transportation Vision for Marin County Moving Forward: A 25-Year Transportation Vision for Marin County provides the framework to help guide future transportation investments and improvements in Marin County. It was developed as a collaborative effort between the public, staff of the Transportation Authority of Marin and elected officials. It calls for both passenger rail service and express bus service from Sonoma County to Marin County. Specifically, the plan calls for passenger rail stations at the Bel Marin Keys and Fireman’s Fund employment areas, coordination between rail and a planned transit center in Novato, local shuttles service, and the Novato Bikeway Connector project. In addition, the Plan calls for passenger rail stations at Civic Center and downtown San Rafael, and a rail/ferry connection at Larkspur.

Marin Countywide Plan 2004 Marin County includes several goals and policies in the Marin Countywide Plan 2004 designed to direct future growth and preserve open space. Policy CD-1.1 states that urban development should be concentrated in the City-Centered Corridor which is the area of the county generally located along Highway 101. Other policies (CD-2.3, CD-2.5 and CD-2.6) focus on locating housing near activity

Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit 3-198 DEIR November 2005 Chapter 3: Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures Land Use and Planning centers and transit routes and locating commercial and high density residential development in areas with high transit accessibility.

The Marin Countywide Plan 2004 includes several goals and policies emphasizing the expansion of transit services to meet growing traffic congestion. Goal TR-3 calls for the county to provide efficient affordable public transportation service. Policy TR-3.2 promotes rail service and an adjacent multi-use pathway on the NWP railroad right-of-way, expanded regional ferry service and enhanced regional express bus services. In order to achieve the goal, implementing program TR-3d states that the county should participate in planning for rail transportation through SMART and other regional transit expansion initiatives. Implementing policy TR-3.f encourages the development of compact mixed-use development within ½ mile of intermodal hubs and future rail stations. Goal TR-2 calls for the expansion of bicycle and pedestrian facilities and access in and between neighborhoods, employment centers and recreational sites. Specific policies to meet this goal include TR-2.1 and TR-2.2 while implementation program TR.2f advocates that the county continue to work with SMART to incorporate and fund a multi- use pathway that generally follows the proposed railroad corridor.

Two specific goals of the Marin Countywide Plan 2004 are focused on preserving and sustaining agricultural uses within the county. Goal AG-1: Preserve Agricultural Lands and Resources is aimed at protecting agricultural lands by “maintaining parcels large enough to sustain agricultural production, preventing conversion to non-agricultural uses, and prohibiting uses that are incompatible with long-term agricultural production.” The Plan identifies 13 policies designed to meet this goal. Goal AG-2: Improved Agricultural Viability includes eight policies to “enhance the viability of Marin County farms, ranches and agricultural industries.”

The Marin Agricultural Land Trust was the first private non-profit land trust in the United States devoted to protecting agricultural land. As of 2003, the Marin Agricultural Land Trust has permanently protected 35,000 acres of land on 53 family farms and ranches (Marin Agricultural Land Trust, 2004).

City of Novato General Plan The City of Novato General Plan calls for utilizing the NWP railroad right-of-way for a future transit service and a possible bike route in TR Policy 17. It also encourages coordinated planning for the use of the NWP railroad right-of-way (TR Program 17.1), including exploring the development of multi-modal transit facilities along railroad corridor (TR Policy 15.5). Lastly, in TR Policy 13, the General Plan supports the development of high-density land uses including mixed-use, multiple family residences, public services, and commercial retail centers near transit routes and facilities to reduce vehicle trips.

San Rafael General Plan 2020 The San Rafael General Plan 2020, specifically, the Circulation Element policy C-17 (Regional Transit Options) calls for the “development and use of a viable commuter rail service through San Rafael operating on the SMART right-of-way”. It also encourages efforts to connect the railroad with ferry service bound for San Francisco. Additionally, policy C-17a supports the establishment of rail stations in Downtown and at Civic Center. These stations are expected to become inter-modal transit hubs, as outlined in policy C-20, which calls for them to provide “convenient and safe connections and support for bus, rail, shuttle, bicycle, and pedestrian users, as well as automobile drivers using transit services. Hubs should include secure bicycle parking and efficient drop-off and pick-up areas”. If rail service is developed, policy C-18 also supports the development of shuttle service connections between rail stations and major employers. Moreover, both policy C-17a and C-26a call for a north/south bicycle/pedestrian path on, or adjacent to, the railroad right-of-way. Finally, policy C-17 encourages high-density, transit-oriented development in the vicinity of the San Rafael rail stations.

City of Larkspur General Plan 1990- 2010 The City of Larkspur General Plan 1990 - 2010 calls for the implementation of passenger rail service on the NWP railroad right-of-way with a direct connection to the Larkspur Ferry Terminal, in Policy “v” in the Circulation Element. That same policy also encourages the eventual expansion of the railroad south of Larkspur. Policy “a” calls for the development of a coordinated system of roads, bike paths, foot paths,

Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit 3-199 DEIR November 2005 Chapter 3: Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures Land Use and Planning and public transit, while Action Programs [7], [8] & [10] call for cooperation among local transit agencies to “periodically review, modify, and upgrade transit service”, to “provide amenities at transit stops” and to “expand opportunities for park-and-ride and shared-ride parking lots in or around Larkspur”. Policy “o” calls for coordination between circulation and development so that “higher intensity uses such as commerce, professional offices, public services, and higher density residences are located near major transit routes and are served by public transit facilities.”

Regional Plans

Mobility for the Next Generation: Transportation 2030 Plan for the San Francisco Bay Area The 2005 MTC Transportation 2030 Plan charts a 25-year course for transforming the Bay Area transportation system. The Plan proposes three approaches to enhance and improve mobility in the Bay Area. The first approach is to devote 85 percent of the plan’s budget to operate and maintain the existing transportation system. The second approach is to expand upon the techniques and technologies designed to improve system efficiency. The third approach of the plan is the investment in strategic expansion of the Bay Area’s road, transit and bicycle/pedestrian networks. In addition, the MTC established a five-point transportation/land-use platform to further coordinate transportation and land use planning with the region and neighboring areas. In this platform, the Plan calls for an emphasis on smart growth development patterns. This includes infill development in existing urban and suburban areas as well as coordinating transportation and land use decisions. MTC recommends that existing transportation infrastructure be utilized efficiently while new investment is coordinated regionally. This includes new public transit service supporting existing transit centers and densification of development around existing transit infrastructure. The proposed SMART project is included as a strategic expansion project for the Bay Area region. The full operation of the rail system is not included in the financially constrained element of the plan; it only includes the environmental study, preliminary engineering and right-of-way acquisition.

State Regulations

Assembly Bill No. 2224 Assembly Bill No. 2224 amended the California Public Utilities Code (section 105000 et seq.) to create the Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit District within Sonoma and Marin counties. The bill established a 12-member board of directors to govern the district and authorizes the district to own, operate, manage, and maintain a passenger rail system, including ancillary bicycle and pedestrian pathways, within the territory of the district. The bill requires the district to work with the NCRA to achieve safe, efficient and compatible operation of both passenger rail and freight service on the NWP in Sonoma and Marin counties. The bill gives authority to the district to exercise the right of eminent domain to take property necessary or convenient to the exercise of the powers granted in the act, with the exception of property acquired for transit-oriented development. For any property taken by eminent domain, the District is required to pay damages for the taking, in addition to the cost of removal, reconstruction or relocation of any substitute facilities.

California Land Conservation Act Since 1965, the California Land Conservation Act, more commonly known as the Williamson Act, has been the state’s primary agricultural land protection program. The Williamson Act was created in response to concerns about sprawl and leapfrog development. Through property tax incentives and voluntary restrictive use contracts, the Act preserves agricultural and open space lands. Private landowners voluntarily restrict their land to agricultural and compatible open-space uses under minimum 10-year rolling term contracts with local governments. In return, restricted parcels are assessed for property tax purposes at a rate consistent with their actual use, rather than potential market value. In August of 1998, the State Legislature enhanced the Williamson Act with the Farmland Security Zone (FSZ) provisions. These provisions offer landowners greater opportunities for property tax reduction in return for a minimum rolling contract term of 20 years (California Department of Conservation, Williamson Act Program, 2002). Both Sonoma and Marin counties are Williamson Act-Farmland Security Zone participants.

Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit 3-200 DEIR November 2005 Chapter 3: Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures Land Use and Planning

3.11.2 Environmental Setting

Overview of Existing Land Use Patterns

The land area of Sonoma County covers 1,016,395 acres. In 2000, 92,923 acres (9 percent) were urban land and 923,472 acres (91 percent) were non-urban land (ABAG, 2000). Sonoma County is the largest of the nine Bay Area counties. Sonoma County includes a diverse mixture of landforms and environments, including rolling hills, flat plains, coastal prairies, oak woodlands and redwood and mixed conifer forests. The Santa Rosa Plain lies in the center of the county between the Sonoma Mountains to the east and low coastal hills to the west. The majority of urban development in Sonoma County is located within the Santa Rosa Plain along the project corridor.

Marin County encompasses approximately 335,380 acres; 47,565 acres (14 percent) were urban land and 287,995 acres (86 percent) were non-urban land in 2000 (ABAG, 2000). The majority of development in Marin County is located in the eastern portion of the county along the proposed project corridor. The western portion of the county includes large expanses of State and federal protected lands and open space.

Sonoma County has a series of cities with well-defined boundaries that are dispersed along the project corridor. Many of these communities developed around the historic rail stations on the NWP railroad. Current land use policies are aimed at maintaining the boundaries through community separators. Some jurisdictions, such as Healdsburg, Rohnert Park and Santa Rosa within the project corridor, have adopted urban growth boundaries. Several other jurisdictions in the county are considering placing measures on the ballot for voter approval to establish urban growth boundaries. Marin County has a relatively compact urban form, resulting from its geography and past policy decisions to focus growth in the eastern part of the county (Calthorpe Associates, 1997). Marin County’s historic commitment to open space and agricultural lands preservation has also defined much of the county. In addition, Marin County has a significant amount of land preserved as national and state parklands.

Table 3.11-1 provides a summary of existing land uses in Sonoma and Marin counties in 2000. As shown in the table, both Sonoma and Marin counties consist primarily of nonurban/open space land. The second largest existing land use within both counties is residential. Each county also includes areas of downtown development and mixed-use development.

TABLE 3.11-1 LAND USES IN SONOMA AND MARIN COUNTIES, 2000 Sonoma County Marin County Land Use Category Acres % of Total Acres % of Total Downtown/Town Center 1,835 0.2% 686 0.2% Employment Center 9,091 0.9% 5,373 1.6% Urban Undeveloped 2,962 0.3% 985 0.3% Mixed-Use 4,389 0.4% 5,874 1.8% Residential 74,646 7.3% 34,467 10.3% Nonurban/Open Space 923,472 90.9% 287,995 85.9% Total 1,016,395 100.0% 335,380 100.0% Source: Association of Bay Area Governments, Smart Growth Strategy/Regional Livability Footprint Project 2000.

Open Space and Agricultural Land

The open space systems of both counties are defined to a great extent by agricultural lands (Calthorpe Associates, 1997). In Sonoma County, the open space system is defined by land use policies designed to protect agricultural lands, hillsides and ridges, and streams and rivers (particularly the Russian River).

Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit 3-201 DEIR November 2005 Chapter 3: Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures Land Use and Planning

In Marin County, large areas of publicly owned lands, particularly the Golden Gate National Recreation Area and the Marin Municipal Water District watershed lands, have established the open space patterns of the county.

Based on 2002 data from the California Department of Conservation - Division of Land Resource Protection, Sonoma County has approximately 4,000 acres of Prime Farmland, 1,000 acres of Farmland of Statewide Importance, 2,000 acres of Unique Farmland, and 3,000 acres of Locally Important Farmland within a ½ mile corridor around the proposed project alignment. Marin County has approximately 2,100 acres of Locally Important Farmland within a ½ mile of the project corridor.

Land Uses Near Proposed Rail Stations

A more detailed look at the existing land uses within ½ mile of proposed passenger stations along the project corridor is provided in Table 3.11-2. Data for the station areas is based on available geographic information systems (GIS) data and assessor data from Marin County and the Sonoma County Transportation Authority. • Commercial/Retail/Office – includes various forms of commercial uses, retail establishments and offices. • Industrial – includes both light and heavy industrial uses. • Mixed-Use – includes those areas that are specifically designated to include a mix of commercial and residential uses. • Single-Family Residential – includes those areas designated single-family residences and rural residential. • Multi-Family Residential – includes those areas designated as multi-family residences. • Open Space/Recreation/Agriculture – includes all open space areas, parks, recreation areas, urban separators, floodways, and agricultural lands. • Public – includes those areas owned by public entities such as schools, municipal uses and libraries. • Vacant - unspecified vacant land. • Miscellaneous – includes areas that had no use designation, parking areas, private roads, railroad right-of-ways, and private non-taxable land.

Adjacent to the proposed project corridor and outside of the urban boundaries for each city along the project corridor, land uses are dominated by agricultural uses and open space (see Table 3.11-1).

Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit 3-202 DEIR November 2005 Chapter 3: Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures Land Use and Planning

TABLE 3.11-2 EXISTING LAND USE WITHIN ½ MILE OF PROPOSED STATIONS (2000 – 2005) (ACRES) Open Commercial Single- Multi- Space/ /Retail Mixed- Family Family Recreation/ Station /Office Industrial Use Residential Residential Agricultural Public Vacant Miscellaneous Cloverdale 29.9 122.7 1.6 147.7 17.0 210.5 95.3 65.2 0.3 Healdsburg 54.6 137.6 6.0 87.2 39.6 178.5 35.2 34.4 16.4 Windsor 12.5 6.4 2.3 149.8 53.9 37.0 160.7 61.1 13.1 Jennings Avenue 114.6 33.0 - 71.7 29.5 0.2 17.9 26.0 9.6 Santa Rosa Railroad Square 108.3 51.4 - 81.4 46.9 18.8 34.2 34.3 16.6 Rohnert Park 84.8 93.4 7.9 284.2 19.6 385.0 105.9 107.2 15.6 Cotati 15.4 106.4 0.3 236.8 94.7 24.0 33.7 18.2 20.3 Corona Road 58.6 114.6 - 150.3 52.7 48.5 33.8 41.0 - Downtown Petaluma 111.8 51.3 2.3 107.3 11.3 6.2 97.6 58.7 2.2 Novato North 74.6 3.1 1.7 69.7 7.0 64.3 102.0 68.9 4.0 Novato South 52.6 83.9 - 41.9 21.0 3.6 117.4 33.1 37.4 Marin Civic Center 96.5 3.9 0.9 60.5 10.7 1.0 130.9 43.9 53.8 Downtown San Rafael 90.6 32.7 9.1 59.7 43.9 0.4 81.8 19.4 31.7 Larkspur 63.9 1.4 - 138.2 13.0 - 86.5 35.1 4.0 Source: GIS and assessor data from Marin County (2003) and Sonoma County Transportation Authority (2004).

Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit 3-203 DEIR November 2005 Chapter 3: Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures Land Use and Planning

Zoning at Station Sites The proposed station sites vary in terms of their zoning designations. Table 3.11-3 summarizes the zoning at each proposed station site.

TABLE 3.11-3 ZONING AT PROPOSED STATION SITES Station Zoning Designation Cloverdale Public/Institutional Healdsburg Light Industrial Windsor Public/Institution (station) Town Center Commercial (park- and-ride lot) Jennings Avenue Light Industrial Santa Rosa Railroad Square Planned Development – Historic Rohnert Park Public/Institutional Cotati Specific Plan – Santero Way Corona Road Light Industrial Downtown Petaluma Railroad District North Novato Business and Professional Office District South Novato Light Industrial/Office Marin Civic Center Public/Quasi Public Downtown San Rafael Hetherton Office District Larkspur Public Facility Sources: Material from the world wide web: City of Cloverdale zoning map, City of Healdsburg zoning map, Town of Windsor zoning map, City of Santa Rosa Community Development Department, City of Rohnert Park zoning map, City of Cotati zoning map, City of Petaluma GIS Portal, City of Novato Community Development Department, City of San Rafael zoning ordinance, City of Larkspur General Plan. July 2005.

3.11.3 Significance Criteria

The proposed project’s effects on land use were considered significant if they would result in the following conditions: • Physically divide an established community; • Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to, the general plan, specific plan, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect; • Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance, as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use; • Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract; • 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 • Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere.

Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit 3-204 DEIR November 2005 Chapter 3: Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures Land Use and Planning

3.11.4 Impact Assessment Methodology

ABAG land use data from the Smart Growth Strategy/Regional Livability Footprint Project was utilized for a general overall inventory of existing land uses in Sonoma and Marin counties. A more detailed inventory of the land uses within ½ mile radius of each of the 14 stations along the project corridor is based on GIS and assessor data provided by Sonoma and Marin counties.

An inventory of farmland resources was provided by the California Department of Conservation’s Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program. The most recent and complete biennial farmland land use inventory for both Sonoma and Marin counties was for the period 2000-2002.

Impacts on land uses within the project area were assessed based on the significance criteria outlined in Section 3.11.3. The assessment examined whether the introduction of passenger rail service would create a physical division between established communities, if the implementation of the proposed project would conflict with existing plans and policies of the region, and if any important agricultural land would be lost or otherwise impacted as a result of the proposed project.

3.11.5 Impact Summary

Implementation of passenger rail service along the existing rail corridor would not result in any significant unavoidable land use impacts. Although passenger rail service on the tracks has been dormant for many years, the reintroduction of rail service would not physically divide the communities, since they were originally established around the railroad and the historic stations. Other proposed facilities such as the stations and maintenance facility would not create physical divisions within neighborhoods or communities. The proposed passenger rail and associated facilities including stations, maintenance facility, and bicycle/pedestrian pathway would not present a conflict with existing land uses in the project area. Existing land uses within the station areas are generally compatible with transit facilities and would be supportive in terms of commercial and residential activity. Some of the station sites are already being used or developed for transit purposes. Placement of the proposed bicycle/pedestrian pathway adjacent to the railroad and the minimal amount of additional land that would be required would not conflict with existing land uses along the proposed project corridor. All of the general plans for communities along the project corridor call for the use of the existing railroad for transit purposes; therefore implementation of passenger rail service along the railroad would be consistent with local general plan policies.

In order to accommodate station improvements, the development of a maintenance facility, and the implementation of the proposed bicycle/pedestrian pathway along the corridor, land acquisition would be required and several businesses would be displaced. Development of some of the proposed rail stations would require the acquisition of parcels outside of the right-of-way currently owned by SMART. These acquisitions would be necessary for placement of station facilities and parking. Table 3.11-4 summarizes station-related acquisitions, which vary depending on the station option. If the Corona Road Station option 2 is selected, acquisition of one residential parcel located on the east side of Corona Road would be required.

Acquisition of industrial property would also be required for the placement of the maintenance facility. The Cloverdale option for the maintenance facility would require the acquisition of five industrial parcels, for a total of approximately 26 acres. The Windsor maintenance facility option would require the acquisition of one 31-acre industrial parcel.

In order to accommodate the proposed bicycle/pedestrian pathway at a safe distance adjacent to the railroad, it would be necessary to extend the pathway out of the existing right-of-way onto adjacent properties in several locations. Approximately 43 miles of the 70-mile proposed bicycle/pedestrian pathway would be located in the railroad right-of-way. The remaining 27 miles would be constructed outside of the existing right-of-way. About 14.5 miles of the 27 miles outside of the existing right-of-way would need to be constructed by SMART. The remaining 12.5 miles outside of the rail right-of-way either exists today as part of an established path or would be constructed by local jurisdictions as independent projects. To provide the 14.5 miles of bicycle/pedestrian pathway outside the right-of-way, SMART

Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit 3-205 DEIR November 2005 Chapter 3: Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures Land Use and Planning would need to acquire an additional 9.8 acres of privately owned property and about 7 acres of public easements. Table 3-11-5 summarizes the privately owned properties that would need to be acquired for the proposed bicycle/pedestrian pathway construction. This property acquisition would not displace any businesses or people, but would require acquisition of about 2.2 acres of agricultural land.

TABLE 3.11-4 PROPERTY ACQUISITIONS FOR RAIL STATIONS Station Approximate Acres Existing Land Use Jennings Ave (Opt 1) 3.0 Vacant Jennings Ave (Opt 1) 0.8 Public Jennings Ave (Opt 2) 8.4 Industrial (vacant) Corona Rd (Opt 1) 0.2 Industrial (vacant) Corona Rd (Opt 1) 0.7 Public (vacant) Corona Rd (Opt 1) 6.9 Industrial Corona Rd (Opt 2) 12.1 Single-Family Residential South Novato 0.7 Commercial* Downtown San Rafael 0.6 Commercial Sources: Community Design + Architecture and Parsons Brinckerhoff Quade & Douglas, Inc., 2005. Note: * Possible acquisition by Marin County Transit District for bus transit center.

TABLE 3.11-5 PROPERTY ACQUISITIONS FOR THE BICYCLE/PEDESTRIAN PATH County Approximate Acres Existing Land Use Sonoma 0.3 Unknown 5.6 Industrial Marin 2.2 Agriculture 0.6 Private Non-taxable 0.9 Open Space 0.2 Vacant TOTAL 9.8 Sources: HDR Engineering Inc. and Parsons Brinckerhoff Quade & Douglas, Inc., 2004. Notes: Dates of GIS data used vary from 2000 to 2005. None of the agricultural land affected is prime, unique or of statewide importance.

Public easements would be required for the proposed bicycle/pedestrian pathway at the following locations. These easements would not require displacement of homes, people or businesses. • Milepost 52.0 – 52.5 • Milepost 46.3 – 47.4 • Milepost 27.5 – 28.5 • Milepost 26.2 – 26.8 • Milepost 23.9 – 24.2 • Milepost 20.3 – 20.9

The areas where additional right-of-way would be needed to accommodate the proposed bicycle/pedestrian pathway include low-value agricultural/grazing, open space, private nontaxable, and

Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit 3-206 DEIR November 2005 Chapter 3: Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures Land Use and Planning industrial land uses, none of which would lose their functional value by the acquisition of small portions of their total area that are adjacent to the railroad right-of-way. No Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance would be converted to other uses by the proposed project. None of the parcels proposed for acquisition are Williamson Act properties.

As stated in the Regulatory Setting (Section 3.11.1), the SMART enabling legislation would require that the District pay damages for the taking of property by eminent domain, in addition to the cost of removal, reconstruction or relocation of any substitute facilities. Compliance with these regulations would ensure that the displacement impacts on workers or businesses resulting from the implementation of the proposed project would not be significant because those persons or businesses affected would be compensated and relocated. Negotiations with property owners would occur as part of the right-of-way acquisition phase.

The proposed public transit use is not specifically included under current zoning designations at several station sites, but the proposed use would be consistent with the general plan designations for each community as these plans call for the implementation of transit service along the railroad. The SMART District is exempt from local zoning regulations, so any zoning inconsistencies would not be considered a significant impact.

There would be no substantive construction-related impacts to land uses within the project area as Best Management Practices (BMPs) would be implemented on construction sites.

3.11.6 Impacts and Mitigation Measures

Construction-Related Impacts

Construction of the proposed project would not temporarily divide an established community; conflict with any applicable land use plan or policy; nor result in the conversion of Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance. Construction activities would, for the most part, take place within the SMART right-of-way and at SMART-owned station sites, which are exempt from local zoning regulations. Some project construction would occur on properties that are proposed for acquisition by SMART for implementation of the proposed bicycle/pedestrian pathway, stations and the maintenance facility. No significant impacts would occur to those land uses adjacent to proposed construction staging areas, since these areas would only be used for the temporary storage of equipment and materials and would be accessed only during the hours of construction activities. The majority of staging areas are located within the rail right-of-way in areas with predominately industrial uses. Construction staging areas are identified in Chapter 2, Project Description.

Construction activities would follow standard BMPs to reduce any potential impacts on surrounding land uses and access to all adjacent land uses would be provided during the construction period. BMPs that would limit the impacts associated with construction noise and dust to a less than significant level include: use of enclosures or walls to surround noisy equipment; installing mufflers on engines; substituting quieter equipment or construction methods; minimizing time of operation and locating equipment farther from sensitive receptors; watering all active construction areas at least twice daily; covering all trucks hauling soil, sand, and other loose materials or requiring that all trucks maintain at least two feet of freeboard; and sweeping daily all paved access roads, parking areas and staging areas at construction sites. Construction of the proposed project would, therefore, not result in any adverse short-term environmental impacts related to land use. Impacts associated with short-term noise, air quality, hazardous materials, and construction-related traffic are discussed in greater detail under relevant sections of the DEIR.

Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit 3-207 DEIR November 2005 Chapter 3: Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures Land Use and Planning

Long-Term Impacts

Impact LU-1: The proposed project would require the conversion of approximately two acres of farmland. (Less than significant)

In order to accommodate the proposed bicycle/pedestrian pathway, the rail right-of-way would need to be extended outward between 15 and 25 feet into adjacent properties in some areas along the corridor. The estimated 2.2 acres of farmland affected is located along the western edge of the railroad in an area just north of Smith Ranch Road in San Rafael (see Table 3.11-5). Conversion of this limited amount of non Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance would not be a significant impact to agricultural lands in Sonoma and Marin counties.

Impact LU-2: Rail stations would be supportive of existing commercial uses within a ½ mile and provide the opportunity for mixed-use development. (Beneficial)

The area surrounding each of the proposed station sites includes commercial, retail and office land uses (see Table 3.11-2). The Jennings Avenue, Santa Rosa Railroad Square, Downtown Petaluma, Novato North, Marin Civic Center and Downtown San Rafael station sites each include a substantial portion of commercial/retail/office uses within a ½ mile. Increasing the transit accessibility of these commercial areas would be a positive benefit of the project.

Mixed-use development is a combination of complementary land uses such as residential, office and commercial uses in one specified area. Mixed-use development near transit facilities generally would be expected to increase transit ridership and reduce the need for automobile use. Station locations that currently support mixed-use development are Cloverdale, Healdsburg, Windsor, Rohnert Park, Cotati, Downtown Petaluma, North Novato, Marin Civic Center, and Downtown San Rafael. The Larkspur Landing Shopping Center adjacent to the proposed Larkspur Station includes a mix of retail and offices uses, with adjacent high density housing.

All proposed station sites currently have vacant lands within a ½ mile radius that could potentially serve as infill sites for future high density commercial, residential or mixed-use development. Therefore, the implementation of the proposed project and rail stations has the potential to increase the pressure for development around the stations. The general plans and/or central city plans for Cloverdale, Healdsburg, Windsor, Santa Rosa, Cotati, Petaluma, Novato, and San Rafael include specific elements that support higher density development in the station areas. Any additional pressure associated with a proposed station in those locations which may accelerate development would be in accordance with the local plans.

Impact LU-3: Development of station sites for transportation purposes is inconsistent with current local zoning at several stations. (Less than significant)

Currently, the zoning designations at six of the proposed station sites - Healdsburg, Jennings Avenue, Corona Road, Novato North, Novato South, and Downtown San Rafael - do not specifically permit transportation facilities (see Table 3.11-3 for the current zoning designation at each site). Transit-related improvements at these sites to facilitate implementation of passenger rail service along the corridor would, however, be consistent with the local general plans and compatible with surrounding and nearby land uses. It should be noted that several of these station sites are already being developed for transportation uses or are adjacent to existing transportation uses. The Healdsburg site is currently under development for a transportation facility, as Sonoma County Transit is building a transit stop and park and ride lot adjacent to the historic Healdsburg Depot. In Downtown San Rafael, the proposed station site is just north of the existing Bettini Transit Center, the major transfer point for bus service in Marin County.

As state legislation exempts the SMART District from adherence to local zoning regulations, use of the parcels for rail transportation purposes would not require changes to the existing zoning designations. In

Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit 3-208 DEIR November 2005 Chapter 3: Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures Land Use and Planning addition, none of these station sites are currently zoned for agricultural purposes and therefore would not impact properties zoned for agricultural use or those governed by the Williamson Act.

Impact LU-4: An option for the Corona Road Station would require the acquisition of a portion of one residential property. (Less than significant)

The Corona Road Station option 2 would require the acquisition of one residential parcel located on the east side of Corona Road. Under this option, the proposed station would require approximately 12 acres of the parcel, which is classified as rural residential. Although there are no structures on the portion of the parcel that would be required for the station, there is a single-family residential structure located just north of the proposed station site. Development of the station would not require the removal of the residence, but placement of a transit facility immediately adjacent to a residence may be incompatible and require the full acquisition of the parcel and removal of the residence. The loss of one residential unit would not be considered a significant impact under the specified criteria since the loss of one house would not specifically necessitate the construction of replacement housing as new housing stock is continually being added to the region. Additionally, the SMART District would be required to pay damages for this taking, in addition to the cost of removal, reconstruction or relocation of any substitute facilities.

Cumulative Impacts

The implementation of the proposed project in conjunction with other past, present and future projects listed in Section 3.1 would not contribute to adverse cumulative impacts on the land use of Sonoma and Marin counties. The other projects identified for the cumulative impact analysis are located in existing developed areas along the project corridor and would not physically divide communities. Other projects in combination with the proposed project, would not contribute to cumulative impacts in regards to community connectivity.

Although transit-oriented development is not proposed as part of project, there are several such projects being proposed near the rail station sites. This future development combined with the proposed rail facilities would be generally consistent with local general plans, would be compatible land uses with each other and with surrounding land uses and would support infill development.

As the other projects identified for the cumulative impact analysis would likely not include a significant conversion of agricultural land to other uses and therefore would not have a significant cumulative impact on conversion of agricultural uses. The addition of the two acres of agricultural land that would be converted to a transportation use as part of the proposed project would not result in a significant cumulative impact on the overall agricultural land of Sonoma and Marin counties. The land converted for the proposed project would be comprised of narrow bands between 15 and 25 feet along the edge of large parcels that would retain their full function.

3.11.7 Project Consistency with Local and Regional Plans

This section evaluates the consistency of the proposed project with the transportation and land use elements of local and regional plans in Sonoma and Marin counties.

All of the local plans in Sonoma and Marin counties call for establishment of passenger rail service on the NWP railroad right-of-way. Some of the plans -- the Sonoma County Comprehensive Transportation Plan, the Cloverdale General Plan, the Santa Rosa 2020: General Plan, the City of Rohnert Park General Plan, the City of Cotati General Plan, and the San Rafael General Plan 2020 -- also call for the establishment of a bicycle/pedestrian pathway on or adjacent to the railroad right-of-way. The proposed project would generally be consistent with all of these plans. There are a few inconsistencies with some of the local plans as noted below.

Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit 3-209 DEIR November 2005 Chapter 3: Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures Land Use and Planning

Santa Rosa 2020: General Plan

The Santa Rosa 2020: General Plan calls for a Class I bikeway along the entire railroad right-of-way through Santa Rosa. The proposed project would be inconsistent with the plan since a portion of the proposed bicycle/pedestrian pathway would have to diverge from the railroad right-of-way in the vicinity of Railroad Square due to the lack of adequate space to safely accommodate the bicycle/pedestrian pathway within the rail right-of-way.

City of Rohnert Park General Plan

The proposed Rohnert Park Station site would be inconsistent with the station location at Rohnert Park Expressway called for in the plan. The Rohnert Park Expressway Station was evaluated as a potential station site, but was eliminated due to site constraints. The station site in the proposed project was developed in cooperation with the City of Rohnert Park and has been determined to be a viable site for the Rohnert Park rail station.

Petaluma General Plan and Central Petaluma Specific Plan

The proposed project would include a rail station at the historic train depot as recommended in the Central Petaluma Specific Plan, and the second station would be located at Corona Road. Caulfield Lane was considered as a potential station site but was dropped due to less than desired station spacing distance from the Downtown Petaluma Station, as well as insufficient park-and-ride capacity. The Corona Road site also proved superior in terms of access, site capacity, and connections to surrounding areas.

City of Larkspur General Plan 1990 - 2010

The proposed Larkspur Station is located approximately 1,500 feet to the north of the Ferry Terminal rather than adjacent to it as recommended in the City of Larkspur General Plan 1990 - 2010. Access to the terminal would be provided via existing sidewalks. The proposed station site was chosen based on direction from the Larkspur City Council in order to minimize impacts to existing land uses in Larkspur.

Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit 3-210 DEIR November 2005 Chapter 3: Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures Public Facilities and Safety

3.12 PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SAFETY

This section describes the public facilities and safety services within the proposed project study area, evaluates the potential impacts of the proposed project on those facilities and services, and proposes measures to mitigate those impacts. Impacts on emergency service providers who would serve the proposed project are assessed in this section.

Public facilities are defined as schools, hospitals, fire protection and emergency services, and police services.1 The study area for schools includes the area within approximately ½ mile of the proposed project corridor as this is considered the area that would potentially experience impacts. The study area for emergency services includes the area within one mile of the proposed project corridor as this is considered the area that would likely respond to an emergency. Hospitals, however, were identified on a countywide basis. The DEIR discussion of impacts on public parks and recreation facilities is provided in Section 3.10. An examination of public facilities and safety is also in the Community Impact Assessment (Parsons Brinckerhoff, 2005) prepared as part of the preliminary planning for the proposed project.

3.12.1 Regulatory Setting

Federal Regulations

Federal Railroad Safety Act The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), pursuant to the Federal Railroad Safety Act, promulgates railroad safety rules governing tracks, locomotives, train cars, braking systems, operating practices, locomotive engineer certification, control of alcohol and drug use, and regulation of transportation of hazardous materials via rail. The Act generally requires the FRA to hold public hearings prior to issuance of a rule, with public notice of, and an opportunity to comment on, the proposed rule.

At-Grade Rail Crossings The FRA promotes education and enforcement of crossing safety, primarily through Operation Lifesaver, a private organization in 49 states. The FRA also promotes engineering improvements to crossings and sponsors research to improve warning devices and visibility at crossings.

Code of Federal Regulations The Code of Federal Regulations includes several sets of requirements for railway safety measures and emergency response, including the following: • Code of Federal Regulations, Title 49, Part 234, Grade Crossing Signal System Safety; • Code of Federal Regulations, Title 49, Part 236, Rules, Standards, and Instructions Governing the Installation, Inspection, Maintenance, and Repair of Signal and Train Control Systems, Devices and Appliances; • Code of Federal Regulations, Title 49, Subtitle B, Chapter 11, FRA Regulations; and • FRA Passenger Train Emergency Preparedness Final Rule. Section 239.101. Prior to rail start-up, SMART is required to prepare and submit an Emergency Preparedness Plan to the FRA. The Plan must be developed in concert with local emergency responders and submitted to FRA for approval prior to initiation of passenger rail service. See Section 2.9 (Environmental Compliance Measures) for a listing of the Plan requirements.

1 As noted in the Executive Summary and Section 5.4, SMART has determined that utilities and service systems would not be subject to potentially significant environmental impacts and therefore are eliminated from further evaluation in this DEIR.

Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit 3-211 DEIR November 2005 Chapter 3: Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures Public Facilities and Safety

Tunnels Tunnels for the proposed project would comply with the National Fire Protection Association’s (NFPA) NFPA 130: Standard for Fixed Guideway Transit and Passenger Rail Systems.2

State Regulations

California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) The CPUC employs federally certified staff inspectors and coordinates with the FRA to ensure that railroads comply with federal railroad safety regulations. The Commission investigates railroad accidents and responds to safety related inquiries made by community officials, the general public and railroad labor organizations. The Commission is an active participant in Operation Lifesaver, an at-grade crossing awareness training program. The CPUC has adopted several General Orders addressing rail safety: • CPUC General Order No. 72-B, Rules Governing the Construction and Maintenance of Crossings At- Grade of Railroads with Public Streets, Roads and Highways in the State of California; • CPUC General Order No. 75-C, Regulations Governing the Protection of Crossings At-Grade of Roads, Highways and Streets with Railroads in the State of California; • CPUC General Order No. 88-A, Rules For Altering Public Railroad-Highway Grade Crossings; and • CPUC General Order No. 135, Rules Governing the Occupancy of Public Grade Crossings by Railroads.

3.12.2 Environmental Setting

Schools

In Sonoma County there are 40 public school districts, consisting of 171 schools with an enrollment of nearly 73,000 students (Sonoma County Office of Education, 2004). Of the 171 schools, 152 are elementary/high schools, while the remaining schools include continuation schools and charter schools. Sonoma County has three colleges/universities: Empire College, Santa Rosa Junior College and Sonoma State University.

Thirty-one of these schools are located within ½ mile of the proposed project corridor. Of these, the following three schools are located within 500 feet of the proposed project: Sonoma Country Day School in Santa Rosa, Windsor Christian Academy in Windsor and Foss Creek Elementary School in Healdsburg.

Marin County has 19 public school districts, with a total of 77 schools (Marin County Office of Education, 2004). Of the 77 public schools, 44 are elementary schools (grades K – 8), 11 are middle/junior high schools (grades 6-8) and eight are high schools (grades 9-12), with an enrollment of nearly 28,600 students in 2002-2003. The remaining 14 public schools include continuation schools (two), alternative education/independent study (eight), and charter schools (four). Marin County also has two colleges: the College of Marin and Dominican University.

Thirteen Marin County schools are located within ½ mile of the proposed project corridor. Of these, the following two schools are located within 500 feet of the proposed project: North Bay Christian Academy in Novato and Dominican University in San Rafael.

2 NFPA 130: Standard for Fixed Guideway Transit and Passenger Rail Systems, available: http://www.nfpa.org/aboutthecodes/AboutTheCodes.asp?DocNum=130&cookie%5Ftest=1.

Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit 3-212 DEIR November 2005 Chapter 3: Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures Public Facilities and Safety

Hospitals

The following lists hospitals that are located within Sonoma and Marin counties that would be available to assist in the event of an emergency associated with the proposed project.

Sonoma County

Healdsburg District Hospital Sutter Medical Center 1375 University Avenue 3325 Chanate Road Healdsburg, CA 95448 Santa Rosa, CA 95404

Santa Rosa Memorial Hospital Petaluma Valley Hospital 1165 Montgomery Drive 400 N. McDowell Blvd. Santa Rosa, CA 95405 Petaluma, CA 94952

Kaiser Santa Rosa Sutter Warrack Hospital 401 Bicentennial Way 2449 Summerfield Road Santa Rosa, CA 95403 Santa Rosa, CA 95405

Sonoma Valley Hospital Redwood Coast Medical Services 347 Andrieux Street P.O. Box 1100 Sonoma, CA 95476 Gualala, CA 95455

Palm Drive Hospital 501 Petaluma Avenue Sebastopol, CA 95472

Marin County

Marin General Hospital (MGH) 250 Bon Air Road Greenbrae, CA 94904

Kaiser Hospital San Rafael (KSR) 99 Monticello Road San Rafael, CA 94903

Novato Community Hospital (NCH) 180 Rowland Way Novato, CA 94945

Fire and Emergency Services

There are local fire stations throughout the proposed project corridor that provide fire and emergency services within Sonoma and Marin counties (see Table 3.12-1). These facilities would respond to emergency calls on the proposed project.

In Sonoma County, the Fire Services Division of the Sonoma County Department of Emergency Services coordinates fire service activities in the unincorporated areas of Sonoma County (County Service Area #40), advises the Board on fire service issues, assists with disaster program planning and emergency response planning, responds to emergency situations, and reviews program and policy matters with the Board of Supervisors. In addition, the Division administers contracts for fire prevention, code

Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit 3-213 DEIR November 2005 Chapter 3: Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures Public Facilities and Safety enforcement and plan review with local fire districts. The Division responds to emergency incidents in its assigned area, along with local fire agencies and the California Department of Forestry (CDF). In addition, CDF responds to State responsibility wildland areas within the county (County of Sonoma, Department of Emergency Services, 2004).

In Marin County there are 16 fire protection districts, including the Marin County Fire Department, which provides fire suppression in most of unincorporated Marin County. In addition, most of the fire protection districts have mutual aid agreements, allowing districts to receive mutual assistance in times of special need.

TABLE 3.12-1 FIRE STATIONS WITHIN ONE MILE OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT CORRIDOR Within one Within ½ mile of mile of proposed proposed Fire Department Location project project Cloverdale Fire 116 Broad Street, Cloverdale Yes Protection District City of Healdsburg 601 Healdsburg Avenue, Healdsburg Yes Fire Department Fire Station 1 8200 Old Redwood Highway, Windsor Yes Windsor Fire (Headquarters) Protection District Fire Station 2 444 Windsor River Road, Windsor Yes Windsor Fire (unstaffed) Protection District Fire Station 1 955 Sonoma Avenue, Santa Rosa Yes Santa Rosa Fire (Headquarters) Department Fire Station 3 3311 Coffey Lane, Santa Rosa Yes Santa Rosa Fire Department Fire Station 1 500 City Hall Drive, Rohnert Park (on- Yes Rohnert Park Fire call Headquarters station that is not Services Division staffed full-time) Fire Station 3 435 Southwest Boulevard, Rohnert Yes Rohnert Park Fire Park (on-call unstaffed station that Services Division responds with off-duty personnel and members of the Volunteer contingent) Fire Station 1 1 East Cotati Avenue, Cotati Yes Rancho Adobe Fire Protection District Fire Station 2 1001 N. Mc Dowell Boulevard, Yes City of Petaluma Fire Petaluma Department Fire Station 3 831 S. McDowell Boulevard, Yes City of Petaluma Fire Petaluma Department

Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit 3-214 DEIR November 2005 Chapter 3: Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures Public Facilities and Safety

Within one Within ½ mile of mile of proposed proposed Fire Department Location project project Fire Station 1 and 7025 Redwood Boulevard, Novato Yes Administrative Offices Novato Fire Protection District Fire Station 4 319 Enfrente Drive, Novato Yes Novato Fire Protection District Fire Station 5 5 Bolling Drive, Novato Yes Novato Fire Protection District Fire Station 1 1039 C Street (between 4th and 5th), Yes City of San Rafael San Rafael Fire Department Fire Station 2 210 Third Street, San Rafael Yes City of San Rafael Fire Department Fire Station 4 46 Castro Street, San Rafael Yes City of San Rafael Fire Department Fire Station 7 3530 Civic Center Drive, San Rafael Yes City of San Rafael Fire Department Fire Station 16 15 Barry Way, Greenbrae Yes Larkspur Fire Protection District Fire Station 15 420 Magnolia Avenue, Larkspur No (within 1.5 Larkspur Fire miles) Protection District

Police

Sonoma and Marin counties both have county sheriff offices as well as local police departments in the cities along the proposed project corridor. Local police departments would respond to a call on the proposed project within their jurisdiction, and they would rely on mutual aid from other jurisdictions, in particular the Sheriff’s Departments of Sonoma and Marin counties.

Sonoma County The Sonoma County Sheriff’s Department serves the unincorporated areas of Sonoma County, located throughout the 1,600 square miles of the county. It provides law enforcement, court security services and detention services within the county. The Sonoma County Sheriff’s Department headquarters is located at 2796 Ventura Avenue in Santa Rosa, within approximately ½ mile of the proposed project corridor.

The City of Cloverdale Police Department provides police services for the local community, including patrol, investigations, records, and dispatch. It has a “take home” car program in which each officer is assigned a patrol car that is kept at the officer’s residence when off-duty. This enables the officer to

Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit 3-215 DEIR November 2005 Chapter 3: Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures Public Facilities and Safety quickly respond as back-up when the need arises. The Cloverdale Police Department is located at 112 Broad Street, within approximately ½ mile of the proposed project corridor.

The City of Healdsburg Police Department includes the following divisions: Investigations, Bike Patrol, School Community Policing Officer, Youth Services, Technical Services, Community Services, and Reserve Program. It is located at 238 Center Street, within approximately ½ mile of the proposed project corridor. The Department would rely on mutual aid from Sonoma County Sheriff’s Department in the event of an emergency associated with the proposed project.3

The Town of Windsor has contracted with the Sonoma County Sheriff’s Department for law enforcement services since 1993, beginning with a five-year contract. In 1998, the Town of Windsor voted to extend its contract with the County Sheriff’s Department for ten years. By virtue of this contract the Windsor Police Department can call on all resources available to the Sheriff’s Department at no additional cost. The Town of Windsor Police Department is located at 9291 Old Redwood Highway, within approximately ½ mile of the proposed project corridor.

The City of Santa Rosa Police Department provides police services in the local community including field services (neighborhood enforcement/patrol), special services (e.g., property crime), records, and dispatch. It is located at 965 Sonoma Avenue, within approximately one mile of the proposed project corridor.

The City of Rohnert Park Department of Public Safety provides integrated police and fire services for the local community. Its office is located at 500 City Hall Drive, within approximately ½ mile of the proposed project corridor.

The City of Cotati Police Department provides police services within the local community, including dispatch, patrol, traffic enforcement, investigation, and community crime prevention. It is located at 203 West Sierra Avenue, within approximately ½ mile of the proposed project corridor.

The City of Petaluma Police Department includes the following divisions: Investigations Unit, Street Crimes Unit, and Traffic Safety Unit. It is located at 969 Petaluma Boulevard, within approximately one mile of the proposed project corridor.

Marin County The Marin County Sheriff’s Office is responsible for crime prevention and law enforcement in unincorporated areas of Marin County. Other responsibilities of the Sheriff’s Office include maintaining the county jail, operating a countywide communications division and operating a documentary services division consisting of records, warrants and civil units. The Sheriff’s Office is located at 3501 Civic Center Drive #145 in San Rafael, within approximately ½ mile of the proposed project corridor.

The Twin Cities Police Authority provides police services for the communities of Corte Madera and Larkspur. The communities consolidated police services in 1980. The Larkspur Facility – Station One is located at 250 Doherty Drive in Larkspur, within approximately one mile of the proposed project corridor. It is maintained 24 hours a day with limited counter service between 8:30 a.m. and 5 p.m. The Corte Madera Facility – Station Two is located at 342 Tamalpais Drive in Corte Madera, which is approximately two miles from the proposed Larkspur Station.

The City of Novato Police Department is organized into the following divisions: a Crime Prevention Bureau, Investigations Bureau, Patrol Bureau, Technical Services Bureau, and Traffic Section. It is located at 909 Machin Avenue in Novato, within approximately one mile of the proposed project corridor.

3 Phone conversation with Linda Haviland, City of Healdsburg Police Department, August 16, 2005.

Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit 3-216 DEIR November 2005 Chapter 3: Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures Public Facilities and Safety

The San Rafael Police Department is organized into the following divisions: criminal investigations, dispatch, patrol, personnel and training, records and property, and traffic enforcement. Patrol is the largest division and is tasked with implementing the department’s Community Oriented Public Service (COPS) strategy, based on developing partnerships with the community it serves. The San Rafael Police Department is located at 1400 Fifth Avenue in San Rafael, within approximately one mile of the proposed project corridor.

Rail Safety

Commuter rail operations typically operate in densely populated urban and suburban settings. In spite of the relatively high traffic volumes within these areas, accidents involving commuter rail train collisions with motor vehicles are infrequent. The combined total number of grade crossing accidents for the four commuter railroads operating in California – Metrolink, Coaster, Altamont Commuter Express (ACE), and Caltrain – were 17 in 2002, 21 in 2003 and 15 in 2004 (see Table 3.12-2). The proposed SMART passenger rail service would have a similar operational profile to ACE (Stockton to San Jose) and Coaster (Oceanside to San Diego) in that these two services operate primarily during peak hours and operate in a mix of rural, suburban and urban environments.

The following tables present the three indicators that were used to measure rail safety: grade crossing accidents in California and the United States; accidents per million train miles; and fatalities for passenger rail compared to auto/truck in the United States.

TABLE 3.12-2 GRADE CROSSING ACCIDENTS IN CALIFORNIA AND THE UNITED STATES California United States Commuter Railroad 2002 2003 2004 2002 2003 2004 Metrolink 16 16 10 Coaster 0 0 0 ACE 0 0 2 Caltrain 1 5 3 Total 17 21 15 Grade Crossing accidents for all 17 U.S. 62 59 71 Commuter Rail Operations in the U.S. Grade Crossing accidents for all freight services 91 82 94 2808 2683 2732 in the U.S. Source: Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), 2005. Notes: 1. Grade crossing accidents refer to commuter rail train collisions with motor vehicles. 2. According to the FRA, commuter rail passenger transportation means short-haul rail passenger transportation in metropolitan and suburban areas usually having reduced fare, multiple-ride and commuter tickets and morning and evening peak period operations.

Table 3.12-3 illustrates the ratio between train miles and grade crossing accidents. It compares California commuter railroad accidents per million train miles (MTM) to other commuter agencies and freight railroads nationally. It is important to note that the ratio of train to motor vehicle collisions for commuter railroads is considerably less than for freight railroads. As noted in Table 3.12-3 the accident rate for 17 U.S. commuter rail operations in 2003 was less than one accident (0.03) per MTM compared with approximately 3.6 accidents per MTM for freight rail. The accident rate for California commuter rail operations ranged from zero to 1.90 accidents per MTM in 2003.

Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit 3-217 DEIR November 2005 Chapter 3: Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures Public Facilities and Safety

TABLE 3.12-3 ACCIDENTS PER MILLION TRAIN MILES (MTM) Train Miles Accident Rate

2003 2003 Coaster 1,324,460 0.0 Caltrain 4,862,411 1.03 ACE 747,343 0.0 Metrolink 8,424,078 1.90 17 U.S. Commuter 264,585,439 0.03 Operations in U.S. Freight 3.61 Source: Federal Transit Administration, 2005. Note: 2004 train mile data is unavailable.

In terms of fatalities, there were 90 passenger rail fatalities in the U.S. in 2003 compared to almost 43,000 auto/truck related fatalities. Of the 90 passenger rail fatalities, 68 (or 75 percent) were a result of illegal trespassing, not a result of rail safety operations. As noted in Table 3.12-4, the total number of passenger rail fatalities per million passenger miles (MPM) is less than one.

TABLE 3.12-4 UNITED STATES FATALITIES: PASSENGER RAIL VS VEHICLES (AUTO/TRUCK), 2003 Passenger Rail Passenger Rail Fatalities (people on 1 0.00 Fatalities Per MPM train)

Grade Crossing 21 Grade Crossing 0.002 Fatalities Fatalities Per MPM Trespasser Trespasser Fatalities 68 0.007 Fatalities Per MPM Total Passenger Total Passenger Rail 90 Rail Fatalities Per 0.01 Fatalities MPM

Vehicle Occupant 36,440 Vehicle Occupant 0.008 Fatalities Fatalities Per MPM Non-motorist Fatalities Non-motorist (Car-Pedestrian and 5,756 0.001 Fatalities Per MPM Car-Bicycle collisions) Total Vehicle Total Vehicle Fatalities 42,196 0.01 Fatalities Per MPM Sources: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration: http://www-fars.nhtsa.dot.gov, http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/STSI/State_Info.cfm?Year=2003&State=CA&Accessible=0 and http://www.nhtsa.com/people/Crash/crashstatistics/index.htm; Bureau of Transportation Statistics: http://www.bts.gov/publications/national_transportation_statistics/2004/html/table_01_37.html; and http://safetydata.fra.dot.gov/OfficeofSafety/.

The total passenger miles for vehicles (auto/truck) were over 4.7 trillion in 2003, while the total passenger miles for passenger rail were over 9.3 billion. As a result, fatality rates per MPM do not differ substantially.

Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit 3-218 DEIR November 2005 Chapter 3: Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures Public Facilities and Safety

3.12.3 Significance Criteria

Project-related effects on public facilities and safety were considered significant when these impacts would result in the following conditions: • Substantial increases in emergency response times; • The need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the following public services: o fire protection and emergency response o police protection o schools; • Creation of a hazardous condition (e.g. pedestrian/train conflicts), with regard to safety of the public and schools; or • Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan.

3.12.4 Impact Assessment Methodology

Public facilities, such as schools and emergency services (including hospitals, fire and police) were identified throughout the two counties using MapPoint, a Microsoft mapping and location services software, Yahoo maps and a review of public websites. Schools were identified within a ½ mile of the proposed project corridor, while emergency service providers were identified within one mile of the corridor. Hospitals, however, were identified on a countywide basis.

Impacts on public facilities within the proposed project area were assessed based on the significance criteria outlined in Section 3.12.3. Local emergency service providers in Sonoma and Marin counties were contacted to assess both their ability to respond to incidents in the community, as well as to an incident related to the proposed project. The assessment examined whether fire protection, emergency response, police protection, and schools would be able to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or performance objectives with implementation of the proposed project.

3.12.5 Impact Summary

There is the potential for temporary delays in response times of fire and police vehicles due to increased traffic congestion and/or road closure during construction activities on at-grade crossings. Emergency vehicles may need to alter their routes in order to avoid those areas where construction is occurring along the rail corridor. This also applies to travel to and from schools. There is the potential for delays in getting to school and the possible need to temporarily alter routes during the construction period.

In terms of long-term operational impacts, emergency vehicles would experience delays at train crossings when the gates are down. On average, emergency response travel delays resulting from the proposed project are expected to be minimal, about 40 seconds, depending on traffic demands and location.

Implementation of passenger rail service may result in an increased demand for emergency response services from the local providers. Should there be an incident involving the train, local emergency service providers would need to respond. However, in spite of the relatively high traffic volumes within the more densely populated urban and suburban settings in which the proposed project would operate, based on the safety records of other commuter railroads in the state and country, accidents are very infrequent and therefore the impact on emergency service providers and hospitals would be less than significant.

Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit 3-219 DEIR November 2005 Chapter 3: Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures Public Facilities and Safety

Implementation of the proposed project would not affect the ability of the school districts to adequately provide educational services to residents in the proposed project corridor. Because the proposed project does not include a residential component, there would be no additional children in the school districts in either Sonoma or Marin counties. As a result, no new facilities would be necessary to serve the proposed project, and no adverse environmental impacts from facility construction and operation would occur.

Although the proposed project could create a hazardous condition with regard to the safety of the public and schools, implementation of proposed programs and safety measures would ensure that this impact is less than significant. Security for the rail operations would be the responsibility of SMART, either through in-house services or contracted security services.

The railroad corridor is not expected to impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. Potential impacts from the construction or operation of the proposed project would be less than significant due to SMART’s implementation of the Emergency Preparedness Plan required by the FRA. SMART would coordinate with local jurisdictions to ensure compliance with all applicable emergency response plans in Sonoma and Marin counties.

Implementation of the proposed project, in conjunction with other past, present and reasonably foreseeable projects listed in Section 3.1, would not result in significant cumulative impacts on public facilities or safety.

Impacts on public facilities as a result of air emissions, noise and vibration and visual changes are described in their respective sections of this environmental document.

3.12.6 Impacts and Mitigation Measures

Construction-Related Impacts

Impact PFS-1: Project construction activities could cause emergency response delays. (Less than significant)

During the construction period for the proposed project, there is the potential for delays in response times of fire and police vehicles due to increased traffic congestion or road closure/detour as work is being done on at-grade crossings and at proposed stations. Emergency vehicles may need to alter their routes in order to avoid those areas where construction is occurring along the rail corridor.

This type of delay would occur for a very short time period. The number of delays would vary depending on location, type of improvement and surrounding conditions such as traffic demands, access and pedestrian activity. SMART would notify local emergency service providers of construction activities and road closures and would coordinate with local providers to establish alternative routes and appropriate signage.

Long-Term Impacts

Impact PFS-2: Response times may increase for emergency vehicles approaching at-grade crossings when a passenger rail train is present. (Less than significant)

As discussed in Chapter 2 of this document, the proposed project would provide a total of 13 daily passenger rail round trips between the following cities: four daily round trips between Cloverdale and Larkspur, two daily round trips between Healdsburg and Larkspur, three daily round trips between Windsor and Larkspur, two daily round trips between Petaluma and Larkspur, and two daily round trips between Healdsburg and Petaluma. Service generally would be operational only on weekdays, with the possibility of weekend service.

Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit 3-220 DEIR November 2005 Chapter 3: Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures Public Facilities and Safety

Paramedic, fire and police service providers may experience delays approaching at-grade crossings when a passenger rail train is present and the gates are down. Safe operating procedures require emergency responders to stop at at-grade crossings when the gates are in the down position and to wait for trains to clear the crossing before proceeding. This may result in travel delays on average of about 40 seconds.

Train operators may further minimize emergency vehicle delays by remaining stopped at station platforms when emergency vehicles are in the area, slowing down or stopping to permit emergency vehicles to pass the train, or by proceeding as quickly as possible through the crossing. Additionally, if conditions allow, emergency vehicles could attempt a “queue jump” maneuver that would allow them to move to the front of the vehicle queue and immediately leave when the gates are raised. In the event that a grade crossing is blocked due to a train-related incident, emergency aid may be required from an adjoining fire or police station or from a neighboring jurisdiction, until the crossing is clear. However, given the infrequency of grade crossing collisions, the potential for this type of impact on emergency service providers is very low. Overall, the potential impact on emergency response times is considered less than significant.4

Impact PFS-3: The proposed project would increase demand for emergency response services from local providers. (Less than significant)

An emergency incident along or in the proposed project corridor would require dispatching emergency services – police, fire and/or emergency medical services – to the scene. Emergency services would be dispatched from the nearest station within the jurisdictional boundary of the incident. To assure effective and timely response to a passenger railroad related incident, close coordination would be required between SMART and local emergency services.

Prior to the start of passenger rail services, SMART is required to prepare an Emergency Preparedness Plan, subject to approval by the FRA. An emergency response working group comprised of SMART personnel and all emergency response agencies that may be affected by passenger railroad operations would be established. The purpose of the working group would be to review the Emergency Preparedness Plan and evaluate protocols for emergency response. The plan would include emergency response related to railroad equipment, railroad right-of-way and other aspects unique to railroad infrastructure and operations. Response times and responder responsibilities related to the Puerto Suello and Cal Park Tunnels would be a key part of the emergency plans. See Section 2.9 (Environmental Compliance Measures) for details regarding the Emergency Preparedness Plan.

As described in Section 3.12.2 (Environmental Setting), commuter rail accidents are very infrequent. Accordingly, with implementation of the required Emergency Preparedness Plan, the impact on emergency service providers would be less than significant.

Impact PFS-4: The proposed project could result in the creation of a hazardous condition (e.g. pedestrian/train conflicts), with regard to safety of the public and schools. (Less than significant)

There are 44 schools within ½ mile of the proposed project corridor, including five schools within 500 feet. The proximity of these schools to the rail right-of-way presents the potential for rail-related accidents involving school children. In order to educate the community, and school children in particular, about safety issues around the rail tracks SMART plans to work with Operation Lifesaver.5 Operation Lifesaver is a nationwide, non-profit information safety program dedicated to educating the public on how to reduce crashes, injuries and fatalities at at-grade rail crossings and on railroad rights-of-way. This free public service works to create awareness of the hazards that may occur on railroad property, and at at-grade crossings in particular, and there is a program specifically for children. SMART proposes to sponsor in-school education in advance of start-up of the project. In addition, passenger rail is highly

4 Please see Section 3.6 of this DEIR for a detailed operational analysis of local street networks. 5 Operation Lifesaver, available: http://www.oli.org/.

Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit 3-221 DEIR November 2005 Chapter 3: Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures Public Facilities and Safety regulated by both federal and state agencies with respect to safety. Standard safety measures would be employed including fencing, other physical safety structures, signage, and other physical impediments designed to promote safety and minimize pedestrian/train accidents. These measures are listed in Chapter 2, Project Description, Section 2.9 (Environmental Compliance Measures).

System security would be an important component of rail operations and would be the responsibility of SMART. SMART could have either in-house security or contract for it. Contracted services could include local police, county sheriff’s personnel or private security personnel. Fare inspectors would also be part of system security and serve as additional surveillance to deter crime.

Although the proposed project could result in passenger rail-related accidents and fatalities, the accident rate for the proposed project is expected to be similar to state and national data, with accidents with motor vehicles ranging from zero to 1.9 accidents per million train miles and fatalities less than one annually per million passenger miles. With the implementation of the programs and safety measures described above, the impact of the proposed project on public safety would be less than significant.

Cumulative Impacts

Implementation of the proposed project, in conjunction with other past, present and reasonably foreseeable projects listed in Section 3.1, would not result in significant cumulative impacts on public facilities or safety.

Other identified cumulative projects are not expected to result in a significant impact on emergency response times. The potential delays associated with the proposed project would be due to construction around the proposed stations and at at-grade crossings and to the presence of trains at at-grade crossings when emergency vehicles need to cross. To the extent any road closures or detours required for construction of the cumulative projects would occur at the same time as the proposed project’s construction, the proposed project’s contribution to any combined delays would be less than significant due to SMART’s coordination with local emergency providers to establish alternative routes and appropriate signage. The potential impact of the proposed project on increased delays of emergency response vehicles at at-grade crossings due to the presence of trains is unique to the rail project and would not combine with other cumulative development projects to create a significant cumulative impact. The operation of freight trains in the corridor could contribute to increased delays at at-grade crossings if freight trains are present when emergency vehicles need to cross. However, since freight service would operate primarily during off-peak hours while the proposed project would operate during peak hours, the operation of the two rail services would not likely combine to create a significant cumulative impact at at- grade crossings.

With regard to the potential impact on demand for emergency response services from local providers, the cumulative development projects would increase the number of residential units and commercial enterprises within the study area. This increase would result in a cumulative demand on public facilities including schools, hospitals, fire protection, emergency services, and police services. However, for the most part, these projects would be approved by the local jurisdictions and developed within the guidelines of local general plans. Therefore, local jurisdictions would be expected to increase their services to serve the approved development. In addition, the Emergency Preparedness Plan required to be developed for the proposed project in consultation with local emergency providers would ensure that the proposed project’s contribution to the cumulative demand on emergency response services is less than significant. Impacts from proposed freight operations could combine with impacts of the proposed project on public safety to create a cumulative impact. However, freight service would operate primarily in the off-peak hours in the project corridor north of Highway 37 only, whereas the proposed passenger rail service would operate during peak hours. This would reduce the likelihood of an accident involving both passenger and freight vehicles. Furthermore, SMART’s implementation of the community education program, Operation Lifesaver, would serve to reduce the likelihood of accidents at at-grade crossings for both types of rail service. Considering the very low accident rate associated with passenger rail service, the proposed project’s contribution to a cumulative public safety impact would be less than significant.

Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit 3-222 DEIR November 2005 Chapter 3: Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures

Visual/Aesthetics

3.13 VISUAL/AESTHETICS

This section describes the existing visual characteristics of the proposed project corridor, analyzes the nature and extent of the physical changes resulting from the proposed project, the visibility of these changes and their effects. More information on the visual resources and impacts is in the Visual Impact Assessment (Winzler & Kelly Consulting Engineers, 2005) prepared for this project.

3.13.1 Regulatory Setting

There are no federal or state laws that specifically define or protect visual resources; however, several federal, state and local regulations provide protection for resources that include visual elements. Most local jurisdictions have provisions for design review of all commercial, industrial, or public buildings, facilities or other major infrastructure. In addition, most local jurisdictions also have landscaping provisions for developments.

Federal Regulations

The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires that prior to the onset of any undertaking a federal agency must take into account the effects of a project on the environment, including aesthetic effects. Likewise, Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) requires that federal agencies take into account the effects of a project on historic properties, and provide the State Office of Historic Preservation (OHP) an opportunity to comment. Effects may include impacts to the setting of the historic structure, which could include views of the resource as well as views from the resource. The National Wild and Scenic Rivers System and National Scenic Byway Program provide protection for scenic resources included in their systems.

State Regulations

An analysis of a project’s impacts on the visual quality of the environment is required by CEQA (Public Resources Code, Div. 13, Sec. 21000-21177) and the State CEQA Guidelines (14 CCR 15000-15387 with appendices). The California Public Utility Code, Section 105096, requires SMART to comply with the design-review processes of the local jurisdictions in which rail transit facilities are to be located (including the rail stations and maintenance facilities), with the local jurisdictions’ design review and approval being for advisory purposes only. The California Wild and Scenic Rivers System and the California Scenic Highway Program provide protection for scenic resources included in their systems.

Local Jurisdictions

The general plans of counties and cities embody the goals, objectives, and policies used to inform and provide a basis for land-use decisions. The primary decision-making bodies of local jurisdictions are city councils and county boards of supervisors. Many local jurisdictions have appointed planning commissions for reviewing and deciding planning and permitting matters prior to consideration by the governing body. Additionally, many local jurisdictions have other secondary appointed bodies, including specific design-review bodies (variously called design-review boards, commissions, or committees), having a role in project planning and permitting matters.

Both of the counties and all of the cities and towns in the project corridor have general plans and design review ordinances and/or processes implementing review for development within their jurisdictions. Although the processes vary among the jurisdictions, the design review processes generally have been established to provide advice on new development projects and most exterior changes to existing buildings, using the general plans to inform of the values and special areas of focus. As stated above under “State Regulations,” the proposed project would be submitted to each jurisdiction for consideration under its design-review process.

Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit 3-223 DEIR November 2005 Chapter 3: Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures

Visual/Aesthetics

The following is a summary of the design review procedures for the cities and towns along the project corridor: • Cloverdale – The Design Review Committee is authorized to approve Design Review applications or make recommendation to the City Council. • Healdsburg – All commercial, office, industrial, and residential projects (two or more residential units per site) require design review. • Windsor – Design review is done by the Town’s planning staff, Staff Review Committee and the Planning Commission. • Santa Rosa – The Santa Rosa Design Review Board reviews both public and private development proposals to ensure that Santa Rosa remains attractive and maintains a "sense of place" which the General Plan sets forth as "unique to Santa Rosa". The Design Review Board reviews design proposals in light of adopted design review policies set forth in the City's Design Review Guidelines. • Rohnert Park - All development projects involving either new building construction and/or the significant remodeling of existing structures require architectural and design review. • Cotati – Design review is performed by the Design Review Committee which makes recommendations to the Planning Commission. • Petaluma – Design review is performed by the Site Plan and Architectural Review Committee (SPARC). The SPARC is appointed by the City Council and performs the duties prescribed in the zoning ordinance of the City or other ordinance, statute, rule, or regulation of the state, county, or the City pertaining to securing compliance with the zoning ordinance and promoting orderly and harmonious development within the City. • Novato – Design review is performed by the Design Review Committee. Some actions would require approval by the Community Development Director but no public hearing is required. • San Rafael – The Design Review Board serves an advisory role, evaluating projects based on the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance design policies and criteria. • Larkspur – The Planning Commission is responsible for design review.

The general plans of the local jurisdictions are discussed below with respect to identification of visual resources.

Sonoma County The Sonoma County General Plan (1989, revised 1998 to reflect amendments and corrections) has several elements which focus on protection of visual resources. The Land Use Element and the Open Space Element are two of the most relevant. The Land Use Element designates community separators that are further defined and protected as part of the Open Space Element. The Open Space Element designates various portions of the County as areas of visual resources. The limitations on types and intensities of permissible uses and special development and permit review requirements are expressed in the General Plan for each open space classification. The Plan classifies scenic resources into three open space categories: community separators, scenic landscape units and scenic corridors. Goals, objectives and policies are identified for each of the scenic resource categories. Specific resources identified in the general plan are discussed in the environmental setting that follows this section. The three basic goals include: • Goal OS-1: Preserve the visual identities of communities by maintaining open space areas between cities and communities. • Goal OS-2: Retain the largely open, scenic character of important scenic landscape units. • Goal OS-3: Identify and preserve roadside landscapes which have a high visual quality as they contribute to the living environment of local residents and to the county’s tourism economy.

Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit 3-224 DEIR November 2005 Chapter 3: Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures

Visual/Aesthetics

The proposed project corridor passes through five of the eight community separators specifically identified in the Sonoma County General Plan including: 1) 2,700-acre open space between Petaluma and the Marin County line dominated by rolling hills with trees and farms located along the valley floor, 2) 3,300-acre separator between Petaluma, Penngrove and Rohnert Park/Cotati, 3) 1,700-acre open space break between Rohnert Park and Santa Rosa, 5) 2,000-acre open space separator between Santa Rosa, Larkfield and Windsor, and 6) 1,200-acre open space separator between Windsor and Healdsburg.

Eight of the fifteen major landscape units identified in the Sonoma County General Plan are within or meaningfully visible from the project corridor. These landscape units are identified in the general plan as follows: 2) Oat Valley 6) River Road 3) Alexander and Dry Creek Valleys 12) Sonoma Mountains 4) Hills east of Windsor 13) Hills south of Petaluma 5) Eastside Road 15) South Sonoma Mountains

Within the project corridor, several scenic corridors parallel or cross the project corridor. The primarily parallel scenic corridor is U.S. Highway 101, which parallels the project for many miles. Among the scenic corridors intersecting the project corridor are Dutcher Creek Road, River Road, Canyon Road, State Route 128, Dry Creek Road, Westside Road, Chalk Hill Road, Guerneville Road, Fulton Road, Sate Route 12, State Route 116, and Old Redwood Highway.

Marin County The built environment policies in the Marin Countywide Plan 2004 (2004)address aesthetic and environmental issues including, but not limited to: preservation of ridges and upland greenbelts, creekside development, design standards in planned district categories, and guidelines for the design of activity centers, preservation of cultural and archeological resources, and protection and enhancement of view corridors.

The Marin Countywide Plan 2004 designates portions of the following areas as visual resources: Ridgelines (Community Separators): Big Rock Ridge, St. Vincent's, Pinheiro Ridge and Mount Burdell; Water Edge Lowlands; San Pablo Bayfront; Novato Creek/Black Point and Petaluma River; Watercourse areas: Arroyo San Jose, Novato and Warner Creeks; Safety Zone, Gnoss Field.

Cloverdale The City of Cloverdale General Plan Policy and Program Document (1992) reflects visual quality in several of its goals: Goal A: establish overall sense of Cloverdale place and time through its community design statement; and Goal D: Preserve and enhance Cloverdale’s small-town character and the experience of its natural setting.

The General Plan policies further define specific visual resources with Policy 4: “Maintain views of ridges and hillsides” being most relevant to the SMART project.

The Cloverdale General Plan identifies seven road segments as scenic roads, but only Highway 101 which runs parallel to the railroad alignment is visible from the proposed project corridor.

Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit 3-225 DEIR November 2005 Chapter 3: Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures

Visual/Aesthetics

Healdsburg City of Healdsburg General Plan Policy Document (1987, revised 2004) identifies several important views and landmarks including Fitch Mountain, Amity Hill, the Russian River, and the foothills to the north, west, and east. The main scenic ridgeline borders the eastern edge of the City. Several smaller ridgelines just north of the City (in Simi) are in close proximity and run perpendicular to the project corridor. In addition, the following road segments are declared scenic roads for the purposes of the Healdsburg: • Highway 101 - Entire length within the Planning Area • Healdsburg Avenue - North of Chiquita Road • Alexander Valley Road - Entire length within the Planning Area 107 • Dry Creek Road - West of Highway 101 • North Fitch Mountain Road - East of Benjamin Way • South Fitch Mountain Road - West of Heron Drive • Westside Road/West Dry Creek Road - Entire length within the Planning Area • Healdsburg Avenue - South of Memorial Bridge

Windsor The Town of Windsor General Plan (2000) identifies 17 scenic corridors including rural lanes and scenic roads. Scenic corridors in the immediate area include: • Highway 101 throughout the town planning area (adjacent project corridor) • Eastside Road throughout the town planning area (intersects project corridor at northern end of town) • Wilson Lane between SMART railroad right-of-way and Highway 101 (terminates at project corridor) • Conde Lane between SMART railroad right-of-way and Highway 101 (terminates at project corridor)

The plan also identifies three areas as designated Scenic Landscape Units which would maintain existing low intensity rural development. These areas are the hillsides that surround the town and include: • East facing slopes between the town limits and Eastside Road in the northwest portion of the town planning area; • East facing slopes between the town limits and Eastside Road in the western and southern portion of the town planning area; and • Southwesterly facing slopes in the northeast portion of the town planning area.

Santa Rosa The Santa Rosa 2020: General Plan (2002) includes goals and policies addressing the visual quality and character of the built environment of Santa Rosa. The Plan identifies 22 roadways which are designated as scenic roads including: Melita Road, Los Alamos Road, Calistoga Road (north of Badger Road), Highway 12 (from Highway 101 west to Fulton Road), Highway 12 (from Farmers Lane east to the urban growth boundary), Montecito Avenue (north of Norte Way), Brush Creek and Wallace Roads, Fountaingrove Parkway, Bennett Valley Road (south of Farmers Lane), Montgomery Drive (from Mission Boulevard to Melita Road), Chanate Road (from Mendocino Avenue to Fountaingrove Parkway), Petaluma Hill Road (from Colgan Avenue to urban growth boundary), Highway 101, Los Olivos Road, Manzanita Road, Newanga Avenue, Channel Drive, Francisco Avenue, Wright Road South, Ludwig Avenue, Farmers Lane Extension (planned south of Bennett Valley Road), and Burbank Avenue.

Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit 3-226 DEIR November 2005 Chapter 3: Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures

Visual/Aesthetics

The Plan also identifies several community focal points, visual landmarks and features which contribute to the identity of Santa Rosa including: Old Courthouse Square, DeTurk Round Barn, Railroad Square water tower, St. Rose School, Hotel La Rose, Santa Rosa Creek, Luther Burbank Home and Gardens, and views to the hills.

Rohnert Park City of Rohnert Park General Plan (2000) establishes specific urban design policies at a citywide, neighborhood, and street scale. As identified in the Plan, the eastern ridgelines constitute a prominent feature of the Rohnert Park landscape and the Plan contains policies to reserve and enhance views of these ridges.

The County has designated US 101 and Petaluma Hill Road as scenic corridors. Highway 101, in almost its entire stretch through Rohnert Park, is lined with redwoods resulting in limited distant views. Rohnert Park General Plan policies call for preserving and enhancing the visual character of scenic corridors.

Cotati City of Cotati General Plan (1996) recognized opportunities for views offered as a result of the topography of the area such as the rolling hills and scenic routes along creeks could be and were being developed for bicycle and pedestrian traffic.

Petaluma The City of Petaluma General Plan (1987) sections most relevant to the visual quality include the community Character and the Open Space sections. According to the Plan, Petaluma’s distinctive character derives from its physical diversity, unique, small-town atmosphere, and rural backdrop. These attributes and the views of important natural features, including the Sonoma Mountains, Petaluma River, and western hills – which envelop Petaluma and incorporate the vibrant natural setting into the life of the city – should be preserved. The Central Petaluma Specific Plan (2003) also has architectural guidelines and rehabilitation and reuse of architecturally interesting structures and cites the Petaluma Rail Depot as an example.

Novato The City of Novato General Plan (1996, revised 2003) identifies several scenic resources and significant landmarks. These features include Mt. Burdell, located north of the City of Novato; Pinheiro Ridge which functions as a ridge and upland greenbelt separator between the Atherton area and Gnoss Field; Big Rock Ridge; the series of canyons that stretch into the western edges of the planning area; and the small ridgelines which have a role in providing visual barriers from one residential area to another. Other scenic resources identified include the hillsides, Bay plains, and Bay shorelines.

San Rafael The Community Design Element of the City of San Rafael General Plan 2020 (2004) states that the major features that give San Rafael its visual character are the hills and valleys, the Bay, creeks, the San Rafael Canal, transportation corridors, neighborhoods, and the Downtown. Highway 101, which goes through the City of San Rafael, is not an officially designated State Scenic Highway, but is considered eligible for such designation. The General Plan includes policy CD-5 which states that the City should preserve and enhance views of the Bay and its islands, Bay wetlands, St. Raphael’s church bell tower, Canalfront, marinas, Mt. Tamalpais, Marin Civic Center, hills and ridgelines as viewed from public streets, parks and publicly accessible pathways.

Larkspur Goal 2 of the City of Larkspur General Plan 1990 – 2010 (1990) is to maintain Larkspur's livable and attractive environment. Policy b states that the City should preserve the desirable features of the built environment as well as the remaining natural environment - trees, marshes, creeks, hillsides - as

Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit 3-227 DEIR November 2005 Chapter 3: Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures

Visual/Aesthetics components of Larkspur's community character and identity. There are no specific significant visual resources identified for the City of Larkspur in the Plan.

3.13.2 Environmental Setting

Project Setting

The project corridor, which extends from Cloverdale in the north upper end of Alexander Valley to Larkspur in the south, is within an existing rail corridor – a visible historic part of the transportation system in Sonoma and Marin counties. As such, the proposed project corridor has existing features related to rail trackwork, crossing gates, bridges, signage, and stations.

The project corridor is generally valley floor terrain, narrow at the north end and gradually widening southward to the Santa Rosa Plain. Low hills occur adjacent to the project corridor north and south of Petaluma and west through Marin County; open vistas in the southern portion of the corridor lie to the east towards San Francisco Bay. Natural vegetation throughout the corridor is largely oak woodland, which appears as a patchwork of oaks and grass. Vineyards are extensive in the northern portion of the corridor, diminishing south of Petaluma, as the scenes become one of greater urbanization. In the Petaluma area, the Petaluma River, its estuary and associated marshes are important visual features. At the southern end of the corridor, the surrounding water of the San Francisco Bay is visually important as it is visible from some hillside locations and at the Larkspur Landing. These views are not visible from the project corridor in the area between Novato and San Rafael.

A scenic vista is a distant view of a natural landscape. Many scenic vistas exist as seen both from the project corridor and toward the project corridor from near and far. There is a high degree of open space along the project corridor and surroundings, and there is no fixed number of vistas. Whether a vista is considered to be scenic or not will depend on how much of the natural landscape is seen, the visual quality of the landscape and the extent to which development intrudes on viewers’ enjoyment of the view, all of which are subjective individual judgments. Terms used to describe views and visual resources in the environmental setting include vista, distant view, and quality.

No state or federally designated scenic resource, such as a scenic highway, wild and scenic river, scenic vista, or other scenic resource area, is in or near the proposed project corridor. Four short stretches of highway are identified by the state as Eligible State Scenic Highways - Not Officially Designated: in Sonoma County, State Route 12 east from Highway 101 and State Route 116 west from Highway 101; and in Marin County, Highway 101 just north from State Route 37 and State Route 37 just east from Highway 101.

To facilitate the description and analysis of the study area, the corridor is subdivided into 20 Visual Analysis Areas that encompass distinct spatial areas. Visual Analysis Areas are geographically discrete areas that are often separated by natural features, such as bodies of water, ridges, or changes in vegetation, or by development. Each Visual Analysis Area has a certain visual character based upon the land uses and features that it comprises. The general boundaries of the visual analysis areas are indicated on Figure 3.13-1. A summary of the characteristics of each Visual Analysis Area follows. The proposed project improvements identified for each Visual Analysis Area are described in more detail in Chapter 2, Project Description. It should be noted that the referenced at-grade crossings generally include upgraded signals, gates, flashing lights, and electrical feeds to the gates; however, each is different based on the current condition. A list of the at-grade crossing upgrades is provided in Chapter 2.

Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit 3-228 DEIR November 2005 Chapter 3: Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures

Visual/Aesthetics

FIGURE 3.13-1 VISUAL ANALYSIS AREAS

Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit 3-229 DEIR November 2005 Chapter 3: Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures

Visual/Aesthetics

Visual Analysis Area 1: Cloverdale Terminus to Merrill Street (Geyserville) The northern most portion of the project corridor begins at a small light industrial site (proposed maintenance facility) in Cloverdale and heads south along the existing NWP rail corridor to Merrill Street. Visual Analysis Area 1 is predominantly composed of vineyards, oak woodlands, scattered open grasslands, the small community of Cloverdale and development surrounding the winery town of Asti. Although open landscapes predominant, mature stands of trees frequently frame the existing rail corridor. The Cloverdale Station, already in place along the existing rail corridor, is a visible reminder of the historic use of this rail corridor. Looking south on existing rail corridor from Woods Lane Crossing just north of Merrill Street in Geyserville This area includes six at-grade public crossings. New bells and flashers would be installed at five of these public crossings. No improvements would be necessary at First Street and Asti Road.

A safety structure would be provided between the tracks and the proposed bicycle/pedestrian pathway for most of this segment. The safety structure moves from the east side (just north of Milepost 80, Figure 2.5-3) to west side of the tracks as the alignment continues south.

Visual Analysis Area 2: Merrill Street to State Road 128 This short stretch of the proposed project corridor is characterized by a mix of features more rural in nature given the unincorporated status of Geyserville. The segment includes residences in Geyserville, small rural road crossings, vineyards with associated facilities such as warehouses, and distant views of forested hills, most frequently to the east. Although the dominant features in the unit are businesses and residences, the visual feeling is still one of openness along the rail corridor. This area includes one crossing at State Route 128, which would not require any improvements, as it already is equipped with proper grade crossing safety equipment.

A safety structure would be constructed along the west side of the railroad tracks. Similar to Visual Analysis Area 1, proposed bicycle/pedestrian pathway users and rail passengers would have distant views of the Russian River and hills.

Visual Analysis Area 3: State Road 128 to Lytton Springs Road The proposed project corridor between State Route 128 and Lytton Springs Road is comprised of wineries, small rural road crossings and extensive vineyards. Similar to Visual Analysis Area 2, open views are predominant, mixed with scattered oaks and wineries along the existing NWP rail corridor. Small creek crossings, seasonal wetlands, and willow stands occur along the existing rail corridor. There are distant views of forested hills, generally to the east. This area includes four public at-grade crossings; all but one would require new bells and flashers. No improvements would be required at Lytton Springs Road. In addition, there are several informal and private crossings.

Beginning in the vicinity of Lytton Springs Road, a safety structure would be constructed along the east side of the railroad tracks for most of the length of this segment.

Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit 3-230 DEIR November 2005 Chapter 3: Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures

Visual/Aesthetics

Visual Analysis Area 4: Lytton Springs Road to the Russian River Bridge (Healdsburg) Visual Analysis Area 4 is urban residential and limited commercial/light industrial development. Healdsburg’s commercial buildings, with a mix of styles ranging from Victorian to modern box buildings, dominate the urban landscape in the existing rail corridor. The Healdsburg Station site is currently occupied by a vacant historic station structure and undeveloped land formerly used as a railroad switching yard and turntable. The existing station structure is a visual reminder of the predominant historic use of this corridor for rail.

This area includes five public at-grade crossings. Improvements to the grade Looking northeast in the area of the Healdsburg Depot crossing safety equipment including bells and flashers and quick curbs would be required at North and Matheson Streets. Bells and flashers would be required at the entrances to LD Lumber and Simi Winery. In addition, there are several informal and private crossings.

A short (less than 75 feet) segment of safety structure would be constructed along the east side of the tracks.

Visual Analysis Area 5: Russian River Bridge to Wilcox Road The landscape is largely natural in the stretch between Healdsburg and Windsor. The Russian River and the Russian River Bridge are the dominant features as seen from the existing rail corridor river crossing. Continuity is provided by nearly continuous views of vegetation, both near and distant. The terrain is broad and flat with views of the interior Coast Range towards Mt. St. Helena and far distant views of the western Coast Range. Just south of Healdsburg, Highway 101 crosses over the railroad corridor. This area includes four grade crossings. One crossing at Old Redwood Highway would require new gates. Looking northwest in Healdsburg from the east bank A safety structure would be constructed along of Russian River at the Russian River Bridge the west side of the tracks.

Visual Analysis Area 6: Wilcox Road to Windrose Lane (Windsor) Moderately continuous small-urban and suburban developments characterize Visual Analysis Area 6. The short portion of the existing rail corridor passes through the incorporated town of Windsor, which is comprised of residential, commercial, light industrial and undeveloped properties with limited distant views. In some northern portions of this stretch, there currently exists six- to eight-foot tall fencing between the rail corridor and residences. The proposed Windsor Station would be incorporated into the bus transit center that is currently under construction.

South of Windsor, commercial and light industrial developments become denser. South of Airport Boulevard, the visual characteristics revert back to a more rural character with pastures, vineyards,

Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit 3-231 DEIR November 2005 Chapter 3: Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures

Visual/Aesthetics wineries, and open space. The southern-most portion of this area includes some broad distant vistas of the interior Coast Range to the east and distant views of the Coast Range to the west. This area includes eight public at-grade crossings. Starr, Windsor and Fulton Roads would all require improvements to the at-grade crossing safety equipment.

A safety structure would be located on west side of the railroad tracks for most of this area. Views from the proposed bicycle/pedestrian pathway to the scenic hills in the west would be available along some portions that do not have existing fencing.

Visual Analysis Area 7: Windrose Lane to Jennings Avenue (Santa Rosa) Visual Analysis Area 7 has a high degree of continuity with dominant views of suburban to urban development with a narrow view corridor limited by rear yards, fences, and building walls. Chain link or wooden fences separate apartment buildings from the existing rail corridor. A few creek crossings introduce a relatively minor degree of visual diversity. This area includes four public at-grade crossings, but only West Steele Lane would require curb improvements.

A safety structure would be located along east side of the tracks from Windrose Lane to Piner Road it then switches to the west side of the tracks between Piner Road and West Steele Lane and then back to the east to Jennings Avenue.

Visual Analysis Area 8: Jennings Avenue to Bellevue Avenue (Santa Rosa) The Jennings Avenue to Bellevue Avenue portion of the existing rail corridor in Santa Rosa passes through nearly continuous urban development. Distant views are limited by the development along the rail corridor. The rail corridor includes the Santa Rosa Depot and former rail yard, which provides a significant visual historic element as the corridor passes through the historic portion of Santa Rosa’s downtown.

As the rail corridor continues south, it crosses over Santa Rosa Creek where residences and light industrial areas border the rail corridor with some residences separated from the rail corridor by wooden fences. There are From existing rail corridor looking east toward Santa ten public at-grade crossings. Crossing Rosa Depot in Historic Railroad Square safety equipment improvements would only be required at 3rd Street with an additional crossing gate.

A safety barrier would be located along the east side of the railroad tracks from Jennings Avenue to 7th Street. In the area of Railroad Square a safety structure would not be required. A safety structure would also be required along the west side of the tracks from Hearn Avenue to Bellevue Avenue.

Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit 3-232 DEIR November 2005 Chapter 3: Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures

Visual/Aesthetics

Visual Analysis Area 9: Bellevue Avenue to Rohnert Park Expressway Visual Analysis Area 9 is a moderately rural area between densely urbanized portions of Santa Rosa and Rohnert Park. In the northern portion, the views include Colgan Creek Flood Control Channel, which runs parallel to the rail corridor for several miles. Continuing in this more rural portion of the corridor, Todd Channel also runs parallel to the east of the rail corridor.

Highway 101, which crosses over the existing rail corridor just south of Healdsburg, crosses back again in the southern portion of Visual Analysis Area 9 Existing rail corridor in Rohnert Park at Enterprise in the area of Foxtail Golf Course. The golf Driverive Looking North course is a significant visual element with extended views of fairways. The proposed station would be located adjacent to an existing park-and-ride lot. This segment includes five public at-grade crossings, none of which would require additional improvements to the existing facilities. A safety structure would be constructed on the east side of the tracks in this area.

Visual Analysis Area 10: Rohnert Park Expressway to Terminus of Lancaster Drive (Rohnert Park) Visual Analysis Area 10 has a high degree of dense, relatively recent urban development in the City of Rohnert Park and the northern portion of the City of Cotati. Typical developments include restaurants, office buildings, mobile home parks, houses and apartments. Several residences and apartment buildings are separated from the existing rail corridor by wooden fences and, in one instance, a tall concrete wall. This area includes three public at-grade crossings. Crossing equipment improvements would be required at Southwest Boulevard and East Cotati Avenue.

This segment would include two short segments of a safety structure, one on the west side near Rohnert Park Expressway and one on the east side near East Cotati Avenue.

Visual Analysis Area 11: Terminus of Lancaster Drive to just north of Payran Street (Penngrove) The area along the existing rail corridor is diverse and lacks continuity of landscape, ranging from rural at the north end, to urban, back to rural, to industrial urban at the north city limit of Petaluma. The rail corridor is lined with tall eucalyptus trees and oak trees in some areas. There are extensive views of rolling grasslands and scattered oaks to the west toward the Coast Range.

Where the rail corridor passes through the community of Penngrove, there are views of rural residences, barns, small horse pastures, and a few workshops and a trucking business. At the Main Street crossing, the rail corridor passes through the small and historical business district of Penngrove, with some structures immediately adjacent to the rail corridor. Visual Analysis Area 11 includes eight grade crossings. Improvements to the curbs would be required at Main Street/Petaluma Hill Road in Penngrove.

A safety structure would be located along the east side of the tracks from East Railroad Avenue to Corona Road. A safety structure would continue on the west side of the tracks from North McDowell Boulevard to just north of Payran Street.

Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit 3-233 DEIR November 2005 Chapter 3: Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures

Visual/Aesthetics

Visual Analysis Area 12: North of Payran Street to the Petaluma River (Petaluma) Visual Analysis Area 12 is characterized predominantly by the urban development of central Petaluma, which is reflected in the historic downtown, and recent construction of new transit-oriented development including condominiums, a parking structure and theatre. The viewshed is generally restricted to the relatively narrow rail corridor lined with residences and commercial and industrial uses. Along the residential areas, there is fencing separating the existing rail corridor from the houses. As the corridor heads south, it becomes more industrial in orientation (e.g., dominant grain buildings), which Renovated Petaluma Depot relates to the historic use of the rail corridor for freight. Exterior rehabilitation of the Petaluma train depot buildings is complete and provides a visual centerpiece of the area and this rail corridor.

Haystack Landing Bridge, a swing bridge crossing the Petaluma River, is the southern boundary of this visual analysis unit. The bridge is a visual reminder of the existing rail corridor and is visible from Highway 101 to the immediate west. The rail corridor provides locally dominant views of the river channel. Visual Analysis Area 12 includes five grade crossings. Crossing equipment improvements would be required at East Washington Street, D Street, Hopper Street, and at a private road.

Only one short segment of a safety structure would be located on the west side of the tracks just north of Lakeville Street in this area.

Visual Analysis Area 13: Petaluma River to Atherton Avenue Generally this portion of the proposed project corridor is characterized largely by open space, sparse development, marshes and open water. The continuity of the largely natural landscape is interrupted by segments of developments such as a junk yard, a landfill, airport, and commercial establishments.

Beyond the Redwood Landfill, the view from the rail corridor is of pasture, with cows visible in the distance to the east. To the west, the views are of low rolling oak-forested hills. A large dairy farm is operational on both sides of the rail corridor, with the rail corridor and Highway 101 bisecting the dairy property. Waste ponds associated with the dairy farm are visible from the rail corridor. Generally this is a scenic area that is not visible from Highway 101, but would be visible from the rail corridor and from users of the proposed bicycle/pedestrian pathway.

South of the dairy farm and pastures, the views to the east of the rail corridor are of the Marin County Airport, wetlands, and undeveloped oak-covered hills beyond to the southeast. Commercial properties consisting of rental storage and offices are located west of the rail corridor. The tracks cross over creeks on trestles twice along this wetland. The western Coast Range, which includes Olompali State Historical Park (Mt. Burdell) on the west side of Highway 101, extends towards the project corridor and affords extensive views of rolling grasslands and scattered oaks to the west. Eastern vistas are broadened by extensive marshes that mark the Petaluma River estuary terminus at San Pablo Bay. Visual Analysis Area 13 includes two grade crossings, Mira Monty Marina and an access road to the landfill. Both crossings would require new bells and flashers.

There would not be a safety structure in this Visual Analysis Area.

Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit 3-234 DEIR November 2005 Chapter 3: Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures

Visual/Aesthetics

Visual Analysis Area 14: Atherton Avenue to Slade Park (Novato) Visual Analysis Area 14 encompasses a highly urbanized portion of Novato along the rail corridor. The narrow views from the rail corridor through the City of Novato include a variety of commercial, light industrial and residential uses, with the exception of views of undeveloped hills in the distance. Much of the existing rail corridor in the City of Novato is tree-lined; however, views are predominantly of industrial plants, construction materials yards and the former train depot and fire damaged freight building. The depot site is another reminder of the historic rail use of this corridor. At Slade Park, on the southern end of Visual Analysis Area 14, the landscape changes from urban to rural and open. This area includes five grade crossings. Crossing equipment improvements would be required at Rush Creek Place, Olive Avenue, and Grant Avenue.

A safety structure would be constructed along the east side of the tracks from just south of Atherton Avenue to Slade Park.

Visual Analysis Area 15: Slade Park to Highway 37 The mixed character of Visual Analysis Area 15 is split east-west along the rail corridor. Looking east from the corridor, there are abundant open views of the Novato Creek bottomlands and bay fringes. Looking west from the rail corridor, there are similar near views, but beyond roughly 1,000 feet the view abruptly changes to urban Novato at Highway 101, with a background of midrange views of vegetated hillsides and ridges. The southern end of Visual Analysis Area 15 is delineated by the prominent overcrossing interchange of Highway 101 and Highway 37. The one crossing in this area, Hanna Ranch Road, would require the installation of crossing gates.

There would be a small segment of safety structure along the west side of the tracks just south of the Novato Creek crossing.

Visual Analysis Area 16: Highway 37 to Main Gate Road Visual Analysis Area 16 is diverse, with views from the rail corridor ranging from commercial adjacent to Highway 101, a golf course, recent upscale housing tracts and well maintained historic military housing at the former Hamilton Air Force Base, and a few scattered open views of the hills. The corridor also passes through a large vacant parcel that is bordered to the east by a mobile home park. This empty parcel is the proposed location of the North Novato Station. This Visual Analysis Area ends on the south as views open up to extensive open spaces. This area includes two public at-grade crossings. New crossing gates would be required at Roblar Road. Looking South at the Existing Rail Corridor with gates and signals at the Hamilton Base Redevelopment in There is no proposed safety structure in Novato this Visual Analysis Area.

Visual Analysis Area 17: Main Gate Road to Smith Ranch Road Visual Analysis Area 17 is predominantly continuous open space consisting of vast tracts of pastures and agricultural fields to the east of the corridor and hilly terrain vegetated with oak trees and other brush to the west. The St. Vincent School to the west of the corridor, consisting of school buildings and a large church, adds a prominent element of diversity. The corridor crosses Miller Creek, which is heavily vegetated by dense willows. The southern portion of this Visual Analysis Area includes extensive

Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit 3-235 DEIR November 2005 Chapter 3: Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures

Visual/Aesthetics seasonal wetlands and the open fields of McInnis County Park. This area includes one crossing, Smith Ranch Road, which would require a new cantilever crossing gate.

There is one small segment of proposed safety structure on the west of the tracks just north of Smith Ranch Road.

Visual Analysis Area 18: Smith Ranch Road to Marin Civic Center (San Rafael) Transitioning from predominantly open space to the urban setting on the south, Visual Analysis Area 18 is a mix of open space and residential, with little commercial development. From the Smith Ranch Road crossing southward to the Highway 101 crossing, the views from the rail corridor are of natural wetlands and canals as well as a variety of urban developments. The tracks cross over the North Fork of Gallinas Creek, south of Smith Ranch Road, on a bridge. Throughout this vicinity, several canals and marshy areas are visible, with a boat occasionally moored in the canal. The development alongside the rail corridor varies from a mobile home park to condominiums and office buildings. Approaching Lincoln Tunnel Looking South in the Throughout this section of the existing rail Existing SMART Rail Corridor in San Rafael corridor, Mount Tamalpais can be seen in the distance to the southwest. This area includes two grade crossings. New bells and flashers would be required at a private road crossing the tracks.

No safety structure would be located in this Visual Analysis Area.

Visual Analysis Area 19: Marin Civic Center to Central San Rafael Station (San Rafael) Visual Analysis Area 19 contains views trees, residences, fences, the existing Highway 101 sound wall, urban uses, the commercial district, and transit center in downtown San Rafael. At the Highway 101 crossing, the tracks pass beneath the highway and loop westward and through a residential neighborhood. Along this stretch there are a variety of wooden and wire fences built by individual homeowners generally set back approximately 75 feet from either side of the rail corridor, creating an informal barrier between the residences and the rail corridor. Trees along this segment have grown into the railroad right of way over the years. The rail corridor passes through the Puerto Suello Tunnel, where the tracks are below grade.

After passing through the tunnel, the rail corridor turns eastward toward Highway 101 and continues through developed residential neighborhoods. Throughout the approximately two-mile stretch from the Puerto Suello Hill Tunnel to downtown San Rafael, the rail corridor mostly runs adjacent to the Highway 101 sound wall. This stretch of the rail corridor is characterized by the presence of residential dwellings in close proximity to the rail corridor. Some houses and many apartments adjacent to the rail corridor have fencing separating them from the corridor.

In downtown San Rafael, the rail corridor continues to parallel Highway 101, though the highway is a few blocks east of the rail corridor and above street level. The views from the rail corridor are of a commercial district and a focal point, the Bettini Transit Center. Visual Analysis Area 19 includes seven grade crossings, all of which would require upgraded protection equipment.

A safety structure may be planned in this area, following a final determination by Marin County as to the siting of the bicycle/pedestrian pathway.

Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit 3-236 DEIR November 2005 Chapter 3: Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures

Visual/Aesthetics

Visual Analysis Area 20: Central San Rafael Station to Larkspur Station South of the Central San Rafael Station, the landscape is urban, commercial and industrial. The Highway 101 Freeway and the Greenbrae Interchange is immediately visible to the east and remains so until crossing beneath the highway just prior to the Cal Park Hill Tunnel. The landscape, prior to the tunnel becomes brushy with scattered oaks. Views of San Francisco Bay are visible to the east. As the corridor emerges on the south side of Cal Park Hill, the urban commercial, apartments and retail and commercial uses of Larkspur can be seen. The Greenbrae Interchange to the west, Sir Francis Drake Boulevard, Larkspur Landing and the Larkspur Ferry Terminal are also visible. In the area of the rail station there are glimpses of the Bay beyond the Larkspur Ferry Terminal parking lot. This area includes five grade crossings.

There would be a wall separating the railroad tracks from the proposed bicycle/pedestrian pathway within the Cal Park Tunnel.

3.13.3 Significance Criteria

Project-related effects on aesthetics are considered significant when these impacts would result in the following conditions, as noted in Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines: • Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista which has been identified based on a field inventory and the General Plans and policies and implementation guidelines for jurisdictions as noted in the regulatory setting, Section 3.14.1; • Cause substantial damage to scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway; • Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings; or • Create a new source of substantial light or glare which substantially adversely affects day or nighttime views in the area.

3.13.4 Impact Assessment Methodology

The process used in this visual impact assessment generally follows the guidelines outlined in the Federal Highway Administration’s (FHWA’s) guide, Visual Impact Assessment for Highway Projects (1981). This guide presents an approach for assessing the visual impacts of highway projects, although it is adaptable to any kind of project. The major components of visual impact assessment include establishing the visual environment of the project and assessing impacts of the proposed project on the visual resources in the proposed project area. The views of the proposed project and from the proposed project are analyzed. In addition, the General Plans and any relevant specific area plans of the counties, cities and towns along the rail corridor were consulted to identify specific visual resources that the jurisdictions have identified as important (see Section 3.13.1). These components and the scenic resources specifically identified by the jurisdictions define the existing baseline conditions. Then, the degree of visual impact is determined by assessing the visual changes introduced by the proposed project.

3.13.5 Impact Summary

The proposed project would be located in an existing rail corridor. Although there have not been any rail operations in the recent past, most notably south of Novato, the proposed project would not introduce a new linear feature into the landscape or unrelated uses in a transportation corridor. The new or modified stations would be in urban locations where the introduction of station elements (i.e., platforms, waiting area shelters, parking lots and bicycle facilities) would not change visual quality or interfere with scenic vistas. Station and railway improvements would not conflict with views from designated scenic highways or roads and no stations would be located in Sonoma County Community Separators. The proposed maintenance facility would be in an area that has some light industrial uses and would not impact existing visual quality or scenic vistas.

Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit 3-237 DEIR November 2005 Chapter 3: Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures

Visual/Aesthetics

Views from the rail corridor itself, which would be used by rail passengers, bicyclists and pedestrians, would increase the views of the scenic resources in the corridor. In some areas these views are only available from the rail corridor.

Public Utility Code 105096 requires SMART to comply with the design review process of local jurisdictions in which rail transit facilities are located (including the rail stations and maintenance facilities) although the local jurisdiction’s design review and approval would be advisory only. Working with design standards of the local communities, the rail stations would be designed to be visually compatible with the look of the surrounding area. As referenced in the Environmental Compliance measures in Section 2.9, SMART would work with the jurisdictions to ensure that proposed stations and park-and-ride lots are consistent with the visual guidelines in the immediate project area. SMART has also committed to: designing facilities to avoid light and glare on residential areas; and consulting with adjacent property owners regarding the design of safety structures and landscaping along the rail right- of-way.

There would be trimming and possibly removal of scattered, individual trees along the project corridor that have grown into the railroad right of way. SMART would replant trees in visually sensitive areas such as residential neighborhoods. Effects of the proposed project on views of the landscape and, in particular, oak trees would be minor because no large, contiguous blocks of oak woodland would be affected.

The proposed bicycle/pedestrian safety structure would be visible from some portions of Highway 101. Other scenic visual resources or viewsheds identified in local general plans would not be substantially affected by the proposed safety structure. Landscaping and design features would reduce the visual impacts of the safety structure to levels that are not significant. Again, SMART would work closely with local jurisdictions in the final design of these structures.

3.13.6 Impacts and Mitigation Measures

From the northern end of the corridor at Cloverdale to the southern end at Larkspur, the corridor runs through numerous developed areas where the existing rail corridor is in plain view from a wide variety of land uses, including residences, commercial and industrial businesses, local and tourist street and highway traffic.

Construction-Related Impacts

Impact V-1: The presence of project-related construction equipment and other construction activities would create a temporary visual disturbance. (Less than significant)

A majority of the construction activities would be in the existing rail corridor right-of-way except some stations and maintenance facilities, which would be constructed on parcels outside the railroad right-of- way. Construction would be generally short in duration with the greatest construction visibility in station and maintenance facility areas and bridge rehabilitation areas. Materials and construction equipment that are stored on site also could adversely affect the visual setting. Construction activities would be visible from some adjacent properties. However, due to the temporary nature of this impact, it is considered less than significant. Impacts could be further reduced by implementation of the following measure.

Mitigation Measure V-1: SMART shall install temporary fencing where views from adjacent residences are adversely affected during construction. These areas shall be identified in greater detail during design review and the type of temporary fencing selected, as part of the design review. Fencing materials would remain in place until finish work has been completed.

Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit 3-238 DEIR November 2005 Chapter 3: Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures

Visual/Aesthetics

Long-Term Impacts

Impact V-2: Development of stations, including park-and-ride lots, and maintenance facilities would introduce new sources of nighttime light to their surrounding areas. (Less than significant)

New stations, park-and-ride lots and maintenance facilities would incorporate lighting into their design for visibility, safety and security. SMART has committed to incorporating measures so that all new sources of light are designed to reduce glare on adjacent properties and protect nighttime views, including the night sky. Site-specific design would be developed in consultation with local jurisdictions. Residences on Harmon Street just north of the Healdsburg Station, residences surrounding the parking area at Windsor Station, and residences east of Novato South Station across Roblar Drive, in particular, would see the additional lighting; however, all lighting would be directed in a manner to reduce light spillage off- site. Although SMART has included in the project description a commitment to reducing light and glare, the following mitigation measure is offered to provide more details on the type of lighting design that should be considered.

Mitigation Measure V-2: Fixture types, cut off angles, shields, lamp arm extensions, and pole heights will be determined, in consultation with the local jurisdictions.

Impact V-3: The bicycle/pedestrian safety structure would add a dominant feature in areas where there is open space and no nearby structures. (Significant mitigable in some areas)

The greatest change in the corridor would be in the portions of the corridor which have a five- to eight- foot high bicycle/pedestrian safety structure between the rail and the bicycle/pedestrian pathway and also have the fewest number of other visually dominant elements such as trees, noise walls or buildings. Since the pathway would be adjacent to the rail in most areas, a safety structure of some type is required to protect bicyclists and pedestrians from the trains at higher speed areas. Figure 2.5-1 illustrates a typical cross-section of the railroad with the adjacent bicycle/pedestrian pathway. Figure 2.5-2 conceptually illustrates the types of safety structures that would be considered – illustrating the degree to which the visual change would be minimized. In general, the scale of the safety structure would be similar to existing fencing in the corridor in scale. In order to allow for the passage of wildlife, gaps of at least three feet in width extending from ground level to the top of structure would be placed in the structure no farther apart than every ¼ mile (1,320 feet) except in urban residential areas. The exact height of the safety structure and locations are determined based on train speed, distance of the path to the tracks and elevation of path in relation to the tracks. The following describes the impacts by visual analysis area (see Figure 3.13-1).

Visual Analysis Area 1: Cloverdale Terminus to Merrill Street (Geyserville). No views of identified resources would be obstructed for the proposed bicycle/pedestrian pathway users and rail passengers. There would be some distant views of the safety structure from Highway 101, but the structure would not obstruct distant views. Portions of Highway 101 are considered a scenic roadway, but scenic views would not be damaged as a result of the presence of the railway safety structure in limited distance views.

Visual Analysis Area 2: Merrill Street to State Road 128. Similar to Visual Analysis Area 1, bicycle/pedestrian pathway users and rail passengers would have distant views of the Russian River and hills. No views of identified resources would be obstructed for bicycle/pedestrian pathway users and rail passengers. Portions of the safety structure would be visible in the distance from Highway 101, but it would not obstruct distant views.

Visual Analysis Area 3: State Road 128 to Lytton Springs Road. No views of identified resources would be obstructed from view by bicycle/pedestrian pathway users and rail passengers. The safety structure would be most visible from Highway 101 in the vicinity of Lytton Springs Road; however, no distant views would be obstructed. There are some intervening features (e.g. structures and vegetation)

Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit 3-239 DEIR November 2005 Chapter 3: Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures

Visual/Aesthetics in the views from Highway 101 along this segment, so the structure would not be a dominant feature in the viewshed.

Visual Analysis Area 4: Lytton Springs Road to the Russian River Bridge (Healdsburg). A short (less than 75 feet) segment of safety structure along the east side of the tracks would obscure some views of the scenic ridgeline by the rail passengers along the eastern edge of Healdsburg. A portion of the safety structure would be visible from Highway 101 near Lytton Springs Road. The structure would not obstruct views of Dry Creek Valley, as it would be on the opposite side of the highway.

Visual Analysis Area 5: Russian River Bridge to Wilcox Road. Distant views of the scenic hills to the west would not be obscured for bicycle/pedestrian pathway users while rail passengers may have blocked views. The safety structure generally would not be visible from Highway 101 because of its distance from the highway and other structures and vegetation within the viewshed.

Visual Analysis Area 6: Wilcox Road to Windrose Lane (Windsor). Views from the bicycle/pedestrian path to the scenic hills in the west would be available along some portions that do not have existing fencing, but additional views for rail passengers may be obscured for a brief amount of time. The safety structure is generally not visible from Highway 101 due to urban development.

Visual Analysis Area 7: Windrose Lane to Jennings Avenue (Santa Rosa). There are no identified scenic resources in this urban area. The safety structure would not be visible from Highway 101.

Visual Analysis Area 8: Jennings Avenue to Bellevue Avenue (Santa Rosa). Views to the Sonoma Mountains in the east would be unobstructed from the bicycle/pedestrian path but portions could be obscured for rail passengers. In the area of Railroad Square a safety structure would not be required and the setting of the buildings, such as the Hotel La Rosa, in the Railroad Square District would not be affected. A safety structure would also be required along the west side of the tracks from Hearn Avenue to Bellevue Avenue. Portions of the distant views of Taylor Mountain and the Sonoma Mountains would be obscured for bicycle/pedestrian pathway users in this area but not the rail passengers. The safety structure would not be visible from Highway 101 as the railway is below the horizon of the highway and not within the highway’s viewshed.

Visual Analysis Area 9: Bellevue Avenue to Rohnert Park Expressway. Distant views to the Sonoma Mountains, Taylor Mountain and golf course would be intact from the bicycle/pedestrian pathway users’ view. Generally portions of the distant views of Sonoma Mountains would remain visible to rail passengers where terrain allows. The safety structure would be visible from portions of Highway 101 where Highway 101 crosses the proposed project corridor in the area of Wilfred Avenue. This is a developed area so the structure wouldn’t obstruct scenic vistas. There are views on the east side of Highway 101, but the safety structure would be on the west side of the highway for the majority of this segment, except in the southern part where urban development is present.

Visual Analysis Area 10: Rohnert Park Expressway to Terminus of Lancaster Drive (Rohnert Park). No identified sensitive visual resources are affected in this developed area.

Visual Analysis Area 11: Terminus of Lancaster Drive to just north of Payran Street (Penngrove). No identified visual resources are found in this area. The safety structure would be visible from Highway 101 where the highway crosses the proposed project corridor. For most of this segment, the structure would not be visible due to the distance from Highway 101 and presence of intervening features.

Visual Analysis Area 12: North of Payran Street to the Petaluma River (Petaluma). No visual resources would be obscured for either bicycle/pedestrian pathway users or rail passengers. No safety structures are visible from Highway 101 in this area due to the distance and location lower than the highway.

Visual Analysis Area 13: Petaluma River to Atherton Avenue. No safety structure would be constructed in this Visual Analysis Area; therefore no views would be blocked.

Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit 3-240 DEIR November 2005 Chapter 3: Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures

Visual/Aesthetics

Visual Analysis Area 14: Atherton Avenue to Slade Park (Novato). No identified visual resources are found in this area. The safety structure would be relatively close to, and visible from Highway 101. However, its location would not affect distant views from the highway.

Visual Analysis Area 15: Slade Park to Highway 37. There are no identified visual resources found in this area. There would be no safety structure in the Petaluma Marsh Wildlife area, except for a very short segment at the southern tip as the right-of-way enters a densely vegetated area. The safety structure in this short segment would be visible from Highway 101.

Visual Analysis Area 16: Highway 37 to Main Gate Road. There would not be a safety structure in this Visual Analysis Area; therefore no views would be blocked.

Visual Analysis Area 17: Main Gate Road to Smith Ranch Road. No views of scenic resources would be blocked due to the distance of the safety structure from Highway 101 and the general absence of sensitive visual resources in this area.

Visual Analysis Area 18: Smith Ranch Road to Marin Civic Center (San Rafael). No safety structure would be located in this Visual Analysis Area; therefore no views would be blocked.

Visual Analysis Area 19: Marin Civic Center to Central San Rafael Station (San Rafael). A safety structure may be required in this area depending upon the final pathway alignment developed by Marin County. There are no identified sensitive views present in this developed area and there is an existing Highway 101 soundwall.

Visual Analysis Area 20: Central San Rafael Station to Larkspur Landing Station. There would be a wall dividing the tracks from the proposed bicycle/pedestrian pathway through Cal Park Tunnel, however, no views would be blocked. The only area where a safety structure is proposed is below the level of Highway 101 and outside of the highway viewshed.

Proposed landscaping and the following mitigation measure would reduce the visual impacts of the safety structure to the extent feasible.

Mitigation Measure V-3: To reduce the adverse visual impacts of the proposed bicycle/pedestrian safety structures where there is no intervening landscaping or structures such as existing privacy fencing, the safety structure associated with bicycle/pedestrian pathway shall be designed to fit in contextually with adjacent nearby fencing via the use of different materials or landscaping. SMART shall work with local jurisdictions and property owners to select the structure that minimizes visual impacts and provides additional vegetation or other design elements to integrate the safety structure to a greater extent into the viewshed while providing adequate safety.

Impact V-4: Relocation of the existing soundwall structure would affect views from residential areas. (Significant mitigable)

As part of the Caltrans project to widen Highway 101 in the San Rafael area, the current soundwall along Highway 101 would be relocated, as described in Chapter 2 and shown in Figure 2.6-1. SMART has recommended that the relocated soundwall be placed to the west of the rail corridor between approximately 500 feet north of Pacheco Street to the vicinity of the Prospect Drive Interchange as shown in Figure 2.6-1. Caltrans proposed relocating the sound wall to between the widened Highway 101 and the train tracks. In this proposed Caltrans design, Highway 101 would be located east of the soundwall, while the railroad tracks and residences will be west of the wall. Visual impacts in this area would be less than significant if the soundwall is located between the tracks and the freeway as the soundwall would be more distant and appear lower in height due to the terrain. However, if the soundwall is located between the tracks and the neighborhood, the visual impacts would be significant as the soundwall would be a dominant feature as viewed from adjacent residences due to distance and terrain. Although considered a dominant feature, the soundwall would block views of the tracks and

Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit 3-241 DEIR November 2005 Chapter 3: Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures

Visual/Aesthetics

Highway 101 from the residences. The proposed bicycle/pedestrian pathway may be located either side of the Caltrans designed soundwall.

Mitigation Measure V-4: To reduce adverse visual impacts should the soundwall be placed to immediately west of the residences, Caltrans should consult with the local jurisdiction and property owners to select a design that minimizes the visual impacts and provides design elements to integrate the structure to a greater extent into the viewshed while meeting Caltrans noise wall standards and maximizing the noise reduction afforded by the structure.

Cumulative Impacts

With the projects that are reasonably foreseeable (refer to Section 3.1) in the corridor, there would be a visual change in areas that are currently undeveloped or underdeveloped to areas that would increase development or redevelopment. Some of these areas such as the Town Green Village in Windsor, the Railroad Square transit-oriented development, and the Petaluma Depot Station transit-oriented development would be designed to complement and incorporate rail. Other developments such as Albertson’s in Novato or the San Rafael Corporate Center would increase the overall visual experience of development, but would not be related to the proposed passenger rail project. However, in all cases the jurisdictions have design review processes (refer to Section 3.13.1) for proposed developments. None of the projects would interrupt scenic views and vistas. Therefore, the combination of the location of the proposed project in an existing rail corridor, development in the areas around the stations in support of local goals or polices and local design review would result in a less than significant cumulative visual impact.

Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit 3-242 DEIR November 2005 Chapter 3: Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures Historic Resources

3.14 HISTORIC RESOURCES

This chapter provides a summary of study methods and offers a discussion of federal, state and local regulatory context and criteria for evaluating the historic significance of properties in the proposed project area. The historic buildings, structures, and setting, the basis for the Area of Potential Effects (APE) definition of architectural resources, and a summary of historic resources in the proposed project follow. Finally, the impacts on historic resources are identified and appropriate mitigation measures are recommended for potentially significant impacts. Further details are contained in the Historic Resources Technical Report for the Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit (SMART) Project (Garcia and Associates, 2004).

3.14.1 Regulatory Setting

Federal Regulations

Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) requires that prior to the onset of any undertaking, a federal agency - in this case the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) or the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers for the Section 404 permit - must take into account the effects of a project on historic properties, and provide the Office of Historic Preservation (OHP) an opportunity to comment. Regulations regarding compliance with Section 106 state that although the tasks necessary to comply with Section 106 may be delegated to others, the lead federal agency is ultimately responsible for ensuring that Section 106 is fully executed.

A historic property is defined as any prehistoric or historic district, site, building, structure, or object included in, or eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) maintained by the Secretary of the Interior. Historic properties include artifacts, records, and remains that are related to and located within such properties. They also can include properties of traditional religious and cultural importance to Indian tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations that meet NRHP criteria. Historic properties eligible for inclusion in the NRHP include both properties formally listed in accordance with regulations of the Secretary of the Interior and all other properties that meet the NRHP criteria.

Cultural resource significance is evaluated in terms of a resource’s eligibility for listing in the NRHP (36 CFR 60.4). Eligibility for listing on the National Register of Historic Places is determined using the following criteria: The quality of significance in American history, architecture, archaeology, and culture is present in districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects of State and local importance that possess integrity of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association, and, (a) that are associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history; or (b) that are associated with the lives of persons significant in our past; or (c) that embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, or that represent the work of a master, or that possess high artistic values, or that represent a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction; or (d) that have yielded or may be likely to yield information important in prehistory or history [Code of Federal Regulations, Title 36, Part 60].

Sites less then 50 years of age, unless of exceptional importance, are not eligible for the National Register.

Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit 3-243 DEIR November 2005 Chapter 3: Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures Historic Resources

The types of integrity listed above are defined as: • Location: the place where the historic property was constructed or the place where the historic event occurred. • Design: the combination of elements that create the form, plan, space, structure, and style of a property. • Setting: the physical environment of a historic property. • Materials: the physical elements that were combined or deposited during a particular time and in a particular pattern or configuration to form a historic property. • Workmanship: the physical evidence of the crafts of a particular culture of people during any given period in history or prehistory. • Feeling: the property’s expression of the aesthetic or historic sense of a particular period of time. • Association: the direct link between an important historic event or person and a historic property.

California Regulations

Cultural resources are defined by CEQA as buildings, sites, humanly modified landscapes, Traditional Cultural Properties, structures, or objects that may have historical, architectural, cultural, or scientific importance. CEQA states that if a project will have a significant effect on important cultural resources, then alternative plans or mitigation measures need to be developed. However, only significant cultural resources need to be considered in the mitigation plans.

CEQA defines significant historical resources as “resources listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR)” (Public Resources Code Section 5024.1). NRHP and CRHR criteria are very similar. A property may be considered “historically significant” by CEQA if it meets the following criteria for listing on the CRHR: 1. It is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of California’s history and cultural heritage; or 2. It is associated with the lives of persons important to California’s past; or 3. It embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction, or represents the work of an important creative individual, or possesses high artistic values; or 4. It has yielded or is likely to yield information important in prehistory or history [Public Resources Code (PRC) Section 5024.1].

As per Title 14, California Code of Regulations Section 15064.5, historical resources are those that are: • Listed in, or eligible for listing in, the CRHR (Public Resources Code 5024.1, Title 14 CCR, Section 4850 et. seq.); • Listed in, or eligible for listing in, the NRHP; • Included in a local register of historical resources, as defined in an historical resource survey meeting the requirements of Section 5024.1(g) of the Public Resources Code; or • Any object, building, structure, site, area, place, record, or manuscript which a lead agency determines to be historically significant or significant in the architectural, engineering, scientific, economic, agricultural, educational, social, political, military, or cultural annals of California, provided the lead agency’s determination is supported by substantial evidence in light of the whole record.

The fact that a resource is not listed in, or determined to be eligible for listing in the CRHR, not included in a local register of historical resources (pursuant to Section 5020.1(k) of the Public Resources Code), or identified in an historical resources survey (meeting the criteria in Section 5024.1(g) of the Public

Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit 3-244 DEIR November 2005 Chapter 3: Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures Historic Resources

Resources Code) does not preclude a lead agency from determining that the resource may be an historical resource as defined in Public Resources Code sections 5020.1(j) or 5024.1.

Any resource determined eligible for the NRHP is also automatically eligible for the CRHR. CEQA also contains a section addressing “unique” archeological resources and provides a definition of such resources (Public Resources Code, Section 21083.2). This section establishes limitations on the cost of mitigation and prohibits imposition of mitigation measures for impacts on archeological resources that are not unique. However, the CEQA Guidelines state that the limitations in this section do not apply when an archeological resource has already met the definition of a Historical Resource [Title 14, California Code of Regulations, Section 15064.5(c)(2)].

Local Regulations

Sonoma County The Open Space Element of the Sonoma County General Plan includes historic preservation goals under 5.0 Archaeological/Historical Resources. Goal OS-9, is to “Preserve significant archaeological and historical sites which represent the ethnic, cultural, and economic groups that have lived and worked in Sonoma County. Preserve unique or historically significant heritage or landmark trees.”

Objective OS-9.1 supports Goal 0S-9: “Encourage the preservation and conservation of historic structures by promoting their rehabilitation or adaptation to new uses.”

Sonoma County has also established a Historic Combining District to protect those structures, sites and areas that are remainders of past eras, events and persons important in local, state or national history, or which provide significant examples of architectural styles of the past, or which are unique and irreplaceable assets to the county and its communities (County Ordinance No. 4643, 1993).

Marin County In the Marin Countywide Plan 2004 (2004) the built environment policies address aesthetic and environmental issues including preservation of cultural and archeological resources. Several of these policies have been implemented through zoning and subdivision laws. Review procedures ensure that proposed developments comply with the County's conservation policies.

Marin County also has combining districts under Title 22 development Code, Chapter 22.14 Special Purpose and Combining Districts; however, nothing has been established specifically for historic resources.

Cloverdale The City of Cloverdale’s General Plan (1994) Conservation and Open Space Element addresses historic preservation: Goal D is to identify, preserve, and enhance the historic and prehistoric cultural resources of Cloverdale. Specific policies related to this goal focus on identification of resources and include: 3. Make an effort to identify historically significant structures, i.e. those with any of the following attributes: representative of a unique style of architecture, typical of a type of architecture considered significant either locally or throughout the state (such as the Victorians of San Francisco), or a structure associated with either an important local or wider-known individual or event important locally or throughout the region.

Healdsburg Healdsburg provides for historic preservation with overarching historic preservation goals and specific policies for the railroad depot. Healdsburg’s General Plan Policy Document (1987) under I. Land Use/Goal E states that: 3. The historic railroad depot is the designated center for Healdsburg. The designation of this facility shall not be deemed to preclude the development of other uses under the General Plan.

Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit 3-245 DEIR November 2005 Chapter 3: Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures Historic Resources

Other potential transit facility sites in the community may be considered provided they are minor facilities or support the railroad depot facility use and are based on the results of further planning, circulation and environmental analyses.

Section VI. Cultural and Recreational Resources – also supports historic preservation: Goal D: To preserve and enhance Healdsburg’s historical heritage sites through establishment of policies.

The City of Healdsburg adopted an ordinance in 1987 establishing procedures for the establishment of City designated historic districts, landmarks, and historic buildings. This ordinance was subsequently incorporated into the City Zoning Ordinance adopted in 1998.

Windsor Similar to other jurisdictions, the Town of Windsor General Plan (1995) includes policies which support historic preservation. Chapter 6, Environmental Resources, Part E, Cultural Resources includes the following: E.1 Identify and preserve significant cultural or historical sites or structures within the Town. E.2 Promote public awareness of and support for historic preservation, and encourage both visual and physical access to historic properties, whenever appropriate.

Santa Rosa Recognizing the value of Santa Rosa's historic resources, the City Council adopted a Preservation Ordinance in 1988 and created the City's Cultural Heritage Board. Santa Rosa's on-going support of preservation planning is also expressed in the City's General Plan which includes a separate Preservation Element, Element 11, Historic Resources, in the City of Santa Rosa’s 2020 General Plan. Railroad Square is called out as an example of an historic landmark.

The Santa Rosa Zoning Code, Title 20, provides for an Historic (-H) Combining District (20-28.040) “to preserve and/or enhance neighborhood character and residential privacy within designated historic districts by establishing height limits for structures proposed within the combining district that are more restrictive than the height limits of the primary zoning district.”

Rohnert Park In support of historic preservation, The City of Rohnert Park General Plan (2000), Section 6.1, Historic and Archaeological Resources, policy (EC-A) is to “Conserve historic and archaeological resources for the aesthetic, educational, economic, and scientific contribution they make to Rohnert Park’s identity and quality of life”. Although Rohnert Park’s Zoning Ordinance does not address historic resources specifically, all development projects involving either new building construction and/or the significant remodeling of existing structures require architectural and design review.

Cotati The City of Cotati has developed around a hexagonal central plaza (a registered historical landmark). In the City of Cotati General Plan (1990), historic preservation focused on this plaza and on general design guidelines to preserve Cotati’s community identity.

Petaluma The Central Petaluma Specific Plan (2003) addresses historic preservation within the Specific Plan area through policy direction, as well as providing a survey of potential resources. More specifically it says: Objective 2: Preserve the industrial and commercial complex of structures, including the resources within the Petaluma Historic Commercial District.

Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit 3-246 DEIR November 2005 Chapter 3: Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures Historic Resources

Novato The City of Novato General Plan (2003) in Chapter IX, Community Identity, includes the following policy in support of historic preservation: CI Policy 31 Historic Buildings, Sites and Districts. Identify, recognize and protect sites, buildings, structures and districts with significant cultural, aesthetic and social characteristics which are part of Novato's heritage.

The Downtown Specific Plan further supports the General Plan through its Design Guidelines.

San Rafael In the City of San Rafael General Plan 2020 (2004), historic preservation elements can be found under the goals for Culture and Arts. Goal 26: Protected Cultural Heritage, states, “It is the goal for San Rafael to have protected and maintained historic buildings and archaeological resources as part of San Rafael’s cultural heritage.”

The City of San Rafael also has adopted an historic preservation ordinance and within the Title 14, Zoning, provides for project review criteria (14.25.050) under Architecture. “The design should be sensitive to and compatible with historic and architecturally significant buildings in the vicinity, and should enhance important community gateways, view corridors and waterways as identified in the general plan.”

Larkspur In the City of Larkspur General Plan (1990) Chapter 3, Community Character, Goal 3 is to: Assure the survival of Larkspur's special "sense of place." Larkspur’s heritage preservation program establishes a framework for the identification, establishment, and protection of sites, structures, and artifacts of architectural, historical, archaeological (see next section) or cultural significance.

3.14.2 Environmental Setting

The most obvious historic resource within the corridor is the Northwestern Pacific Railroad (NWP) roadbed. Over fifty historic resource locations, which include stations, stops, sidings, junctions, wyes, railroad sections and other features, have been identified along the line. Many of these identified locations along the line were named after a prominent landmark or business, even though the train may not have stopped there. Other common NWP railroad structures and features include trestles, culverts, tunnels, bridges, switches, sidings, spurs, whistle posts, telegraph poles, call boxes, a turntable and stations/depots. In addition, other historic resources are located nearby or within the railroad right-of- way. These resources include winery buildings, residences and rural structures like barns and fishing related buildings. Table 3.14-1 presents important historic resources within or adjacent to the project corridor that are listed or potentially eligible for the NRHP, CRHR, or local status.

TABLE 3.14-1 HISTORIC RESOURCES IN OR ADJACENT TO THE PROJECT CORRIDOR OR PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS Name Register Status Asti Redwood Empire Mill Appears eligible for CR as an individual property through 26800 Asti Road survey evaluation. Adjacent to bicycle/pedestrian pathway. Swiss-Italian Colony Asti Station California State Landmark No. 621 Geyserville Appears eligible for NR as an individual property through Nervo Winery survey evaluation. Adjacent to bicycle/pedestrian pathway. 19585 South Geyserville Road Langhart Museum/City of Healdsburg inventory 1983.

Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit 3-247 DEIR November 2005 Chapter 3: Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures Historic Resources

Name Register Status Appears eligible for CR both individually and as a Railroad Avenue/Crowell and Walden contributor to a CR eligible district through a survey street residences evaluation. Intact rows of Folk Victorian and Craftsman style residences adjacent to bicycle/pedestrian pathway. Healdsburg Appears eligible for NR as an individual property through Simi Winery survey evaluation. Adjacent to bicycle/pedestrian pathway. 16275 Healdsburg Ave Langhart Museum/City of Healdsburg inventory 1983. Appears eligible for NR as an individual property through Olivetto Winery survey evaluation. Adjacent to bicycle/pedestrian pathway. 845 Healdsburg Avenue Langhart Museum/City of Healdsburg inventory 1983. Healdsburg Chamber of Commerce Appears eligible for NR as an individual property through Building survey evaluation. Adjacent to bicycle/pedestrian pathway. 217 Healdsburg Ave. Langhart Museum/City of Healdsburg inventory 1983. Healdsburg Russian River Railroad Appears eligible for NR as an individual property through Bridge survey evaluation. Previously evaluated. Appears eligible for NR as an individual property through Healdsburg Station and Freight Depot survey evaluation. Previously evaluated. PAR 2001 Appears eligible for NR as an individual property through The Healdsburg Turntable survey evaluation. Contributor to a district that is listed or designated locally. Healdsburg Ward Street Historic District Adjacent to bicycle/pedestrian pathway. Previously Railroad Ave./Adeline/Ward Streets evaluated. Roma Winery/Sunsweet prune packing Individual property that is listed or designated locally. 128 Mill Street Langhart Museum/City of Healdsburg inventory 1983. Roma Vista Winery Individual property that is listed or designated locally. 420 Hudson Street Langhart Museum/City of Healdsburg inventory 1983. Santa Rosa Warehouse Appears eligible for CR as an individual property through 7 College Avenue survey evaluation. Adjacent to bicycle/pedestrian pathway. May become eligible for separate listing in the National Santa Rosa North Railroad District Register when one of the following occurs: 4S1-the property (eight buildings) 802 Donahue Street, become old enough to meet the Register’s 50-year 806 Donahue Street, 812 Donahue requirement. Previously evaluated (in 1989 with 1997 as Street, 807 Ripley Street, 21 West eligible date). Seventh Street, 625 Wilson Street, 717 3S: Appears eligible for NR as an individual property Wilson Street, 99 Sixth Street through survey evaluation. Appears eligible for CR or City Register as an individual Historic Residence property through survey evaluation. Adjacent to 769 Wilson bicycle/pedestrian pathway. Santa Rosa Depot Park NRHP listed Wilson Street Santa Rosa Station NRHP listed (38 district contributors) 4th Street Santa Rosa Warehouse NRHP listed 46 West 6th Street Redwood Feed and Milling Co. Appears eligible for CR as an individual property through 1 Sebastopol Ave. survey evaluation. Adjacent to bicycle/pedestrian pathway.

Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit 3-248 DEIR November 2005 Chapter 3: Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures Historic Resources

Name Register Status

Penngrove Appears eligible for CR or Sonoma County register as an Historic flatiron-style hotel individual property through survey evaluation. Adjacent to 10056 Main Street bicycle/pedestrian pathway. 3CS: Appears eligible for CR or Sonoma County register as Redwood Montessori School an individual property through survey evaluation. Adjacent 11051 Main St. to bicycle/pedestrian pathway. 3CS: Appears eligible for CR or Sonoma County register as Railroad freight warehouse an individual property through survey evaluation. Adjacent 11790 Main St. to bicycle/pedestrian pathway. Petaluma Gothic Revival Cedar Park Grove Appears eligible for NR as an individual property through House survey evaluation. Previously evaluated Petaluma City Park Sobrantes House Appears eligible for NR as an individual property through 421 E. Washington Street survey evaluation. Previously evaluated. Poultry Producers Cooperative Appears eligible for NR as an individual property through 323 E. Washington Street survey evaluation. Previously evaluated. Burdells Creamery Appears eligible for NR as an individual property through 405 E. D Street survey evaluation. Previously evaluated. Determined ineligible for NR by consensus through Section NWP RR downtown segment along 106 process – Not evaluated for CR or Local Listing. Copeland Street Previously evaluated. City of Petaluma register Petaluma Station Appears eligible for NR as an individual property through Lakeville Street survey evaluation. Previously evaluated. Petaluma/Santa Rosa car barns and Appears eligible for NR as an individual property through depot 228 Weller survey evaluation. Previously evaluated. Old East Petaluma District Contributor to a district that is listed or designated locally. Worker homes (six) East D, Edith, Previously evaluated. Wilson streets Appears eligible for NR both individually and as a Haystack Bridge contributor to a NR eligible district through survey evaluation. Petaluma-Novato Rail section from Novato north to Appears eligible for NR as a contributor to a NR eligible Petaluma (Haystack M.P. 36.7 to district through survey evaluation. Burdell M.P. 31.3). Includes trestles, poles, culverts, siding, and signal lights. Appears eligible for CR or Sonoma County register as an Petaluma River delta fishing shack individual property through survey evaluation. Novato Locally significant both individually (listed, eligible, or appears eligible) and as a contributor to a district that is County Engineer’s house locally listed, designated, determined eligible or appears 868 Railroad Ave eligible through survey evaluation. City of Novato Historic District.

Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit 3-249 DEIR November 2005 Chapter 3: Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures Historic Resources

Name Register Status Locally significant both individually (listed, eligible, or appears eligible) and as a contributor to a district that is DeBorba House locally listed, designated, determined eligible or appears 900 Railroad Avenue eligible through survey evaluation. City of Novato Historic District. Locally significant both individually (listed, eligible, or appears eligible) and as a contributor to a district that is Augere Hiribarren House locally listed, designated, determined eligible or appears 904 Railroad Avenue eligible through survey evaluation. City of Novato Historic District. Locally significant both individually (listed, eligible, or appears eligible) and as a contributor to a district that is Samuels House locally listed, designated, determined eligible or appears 906 Railroad Avenue eligible through survey evaluation. City of Novato Historic District. Locally significant both individually (listed, eligible, or appears eligible) and as a contributor to a district that is Oliver House locally listed, designated, determined eligible or appears 910 Railroad Avenue eligible through survey evaluation. City of Novato Historic District. Locally significant both individually (listed, eligible, or appears eligible) and as a contributor to a district that is Yelmorini Building (flatiron) locally listed, designated, determined eligible or appears 701 Scott Court eligible through survey evaluation. City of Novato Historic District. Locally significant both individually (listed, eligible, or appears eligible) and as a contributor to a district that is Yelmorini House locally listed, designated, determined eligible or appears 705 Scott Court eligible through survey evaluation. City of Novato Historic District. Locally significant both individually (listed, eligible, or appears eligible) and as a contributor to a district that is Novato passenger depot locally listed, designated, determined eligible or appears Railroad Avenue eligible through survey evaluation. City of Novato Historic District. San Rafael Marin County Civic Center NRHP listed Civic Center Drive San Rafael railroad station Appears eligible for NR as an individual property through 930 Tamalpais survey evaluation. Previously evaluated Barrel House Individual property that is eligible for local listing or 927 Tamalpais designation. Previously evaluated.

Railroad Structures

Sixteen modern and vintage bridges, 55 trestles, 75 culverts, 22 spurs, one turntable, 31 switches, 38 communication/signal facilities, 100 historic telegraph poles, and various crossing markers are present along the main line from Cloverdale to Larkspur. These railroad structures on the NWP vary in age, type, and design. Three railroad structures, including the Healdsburg Railroad Bridge, Petaluma Haystack Bridge, and Healdsburg turntable are significant historical resources. In addition, a section of the NWP line from Novato north to Petaluma (Haystack M.P. 36.7 to Burdell M.P. 31.3), including

Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit 3-250 DEIR November 2005 Chapter 3: Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures Historic Resources trestles, telegraph poles, culverts, siding, and signal lights appears to be eligible for the NRHP as a historic district.

Modern Bridges Two modern reinforced concrete bridges are found within the rail right-of-way. These bridges exhibit 1970s-1990s bridge construction techniques, and have replaced earlier bridges or trestles. They represent the latest addition and upgrades performed along the corridor before it ceased full-time freight rail operations.

Vintage Bridges Vintage bridges, both fixed and moveable, are represented within the rail right-of-way. Fixed bridges are stationary, while moveable bridges move to accommodate water traffic. Vintage-era bridges still in operation are rare in the West. The majority of American vintage railroad bridges are located in Pennsylvania. In California, significant examples of railroad bridges include the following: • Mountain Queries Company Railroad Bridge (1911)-Placer County • Central Pacific Line between Sacramento and Reno (1869-1945) • Napa River Bridge-Sonoma County • Union Pacific Santa Anna River Railroad Bridge (1904)-Riverside County

Moveable Bridges. One swing railroad bridge is located within the rail right-of-way in Petaluma. The Haystack Landing Bridge is located immediately south of Petaluma at the Petaluma River crossing. The American Bridge Company constructed the bridge in 1901 and it represents one of the firm’s earliest bridge projects. The American Bridge Company was a significant early twentieth century firm. Aided by its affiliation with U.S. Steel, the company gained national prominence. This bridge is a variant of a Howe Truss bridge. A center tower pivots from two Howe Truss spans that extend outward. Cables connect the spans and the center tower for greater structural support. The bridge is permanently held open to allow boat traffic to pass.

In California, the truss bridge was the dominant nineteenth-century railroad bridge until it fell out of favor by the 1930s (Mikesell, 1990). Swing bridges were once located in 78 locations in California with most of them constructed between 1890 and 1915 and, subsequently removed between 1915 and 1950. The Haystack Bridge is one of eight surviving California railroad swing bridges. Not all of these bridges are of the same architectural design. At least one is a pony plate girder swing bridge and not a Howe Truss bridge like the Haystack Bridge (Winn, 1995).

Fixed Bridges. The most prominent fixed bridge style in the rail right-of-way is the Russian River Bridge south of Healdsburg. This bridge is a steel Subdivided Warren Truss style structure built in 1901, the sole example of this style on the NWP. It has a timber pile trestle leading up to the steel bridge deck and superstructure on both sides. The substructure consists of four concrete piers that support the bridge.

Another type of fixed historic bridge in the SMART corridor is the simply constructed continuous span bridge with a steel I-beam. Some have concrete pier substructures for support while others do not. Similarly, some bridges have pedestrian catwalks with cable handrails while others do not have this feature. Three of the seventeen bridges are this type. These types of bridges can be as small as 10 to15 feet or traverse a much broader expanse.

The third type of fixed railroad bridge found in the SMART corridor is the pre-stressed, pre-cast (PSPC) concrete bridge. This bridge type consists of a concrete deck that can be open or ballasted. It is narrower at the bottom and flares out at the top providing a walkway on either side of the tracks. It can continuously span a feature or have concrete piers to support the deck. It can also vary in size depending on the feature to be bridged. Eight of the 17 bridges in the corridor are PSPC bridges.

Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit 3-251 DEIR November 2005 Chapter 3: Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures Historic Resources

The last fixed type of bridge found in the corridor is the pony plate girder bridge. This type of bridge consists of an open deck enclosed on two sides by upright metal girders. Knee braces are present where the girders and deck meet for added support and to prevent deflection. Within the right-of-way, this type of bridge is a continuous span with substructure supports at either end.

Trestles The SMART corridor includes 55 trestles along the main line from Cloverdale to Larkspur. Trestles differ from bridges in that they provide no pedestrian features such as catwalks. The trestles represent standardized railroad civil engineering features. The trestles vary in size from ten feet to several hundred feet in length. The substructure of the trestles is mainly composed of timber pilings with a few exceptions. The deck of the trestles are mainly composed of wood, with a few composed of metal.

While some trestles have steel cables for rails, the main structural element is timber. Modern rail trestles are constructed entirely of concrete and steel, and the vintage NWP trestles recall when timber dominated trestle construction. Many of these trestles are constructed of local materials such as redwood or Douglas fir. The timbered pile trestle is most common throughout the corridor. This trestle type is supported by three or more wooden support bents (or towers) of timbered piles, with a certain number of separate wooden piles in each tower. The outer two piles in each tower are slanted as they meet the ground for added ability to support the weight of the train and cars. Heavy planks, placed parallel under the steel rails, are bolted to the cap. Timbered “X” braces are installed between bents to provide added support.

Spurs Spur tracks are short sections of railroad line that diverge from the mainline and terminate at properties along the mainline. Spurs served nearby businesses and were also used by the railroad to store excess cars and equipment along the line. While the spurs remain along the mainline, most no longer accommodate the businesses for which they were originally built. However, these spurs do provide information about the relative importance and/or wealth of businesses or industries adjacent to the line in previous times. In cases like the Asti Winery, spurs ran through their warehouses so the trains could be loaded directly. Lumber mills along the line had spurs running to their operations to accommodate the large quantities of material. Eventually, these spurs were abandoned as automobile (truck) traffic became cheaper and more efficient.

Turntables At least three turntables were located within the NWP corridor between Cloverdale and San Rafael: one in Cloverdale; one in Petaluma; and one in/near Healdsburg. Currently, the only turntable that still exists within the right-of-way is near Healdsburg.

Stations

Stations or depots along the NWP line vary in type and pattern. Their size and design historically depended on how much potential traffic was expected at each location and the expected function (i.e., freight versus passenger). Some stops were just signposts with trains only rarely stopping for passengers. At least twenty locations were identified to have platforms or stations (Stindt, 1964). Of those twenty locations, some were simple platforms and some were enclosed stations with full facilities. Six of these stations are still standing and are located in Asti, Healdsburg, Santa Rosa, Petaluma, Novato, and San Rafael (the Larkspur station is also still standing but is south of the project area). A new station has replaced the former historic Cloverdale Station.

Vernacular The earliest stations were built of wood in a simple vernacular style, some with Gothic Revival elements. Although some stations, such as the San Rafael Station, were developed at later dates in a more elaborate vernacular style, most stations were simple utilitarian structures. This type of station is illustrated best by the original Novato Station, built in 1875 and the demolished Cloverdale Station. The

Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit 3-252 DEIR November 2005 Chapter 3: Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures Historic Resources board and batten clad stations have medium-pitched, side-gabled roofs with slightly arched Gothic- revival braces supporting the eaves around the entire perimeter. The roof cladding consists of composition shingles. Their rectangular floor plans aligned the long axis with the railroad track. Wall opening styles and operation vary from station to station.

Other vernacular style stations were also built along the corridor. Stations such as Cotati and Fulton illustrate this type of station. The tongue-and-groove clad stations had medium-pitched hipped roofs clad with composition shingles, some with braces under the eaves. Their rectangular floor plans rested on indeterminate foundations.

Another vernacular style station along the line is the Santa Rosa station. The 1904 Santa Rosa station replaced the original 1870 wood station. The 1904 station is unlike any others in the project area. It was built of locally quarried stone. The stone walls are surrounded on all sides by stone pillars that support the irregularly hipped roof, which is clad with composition shingles. A dormer is present on the façade facing the track. The irregular floor plan rests with its long axis parallel to the tracks.

Mission Revival In most cases, these vernacular style stations were replaced by newer stations built in the popular Mission Revival style in the early twentieth century. The use of the Mission Revival style was part of an overall marketing effort by the railroads to promote western tourism. Red tile roofs, stucco, and elaborate arches are typical of stations built in this style.

Additionally, a particular type of minimalist Mission Revival station appears in two cases on the line. At least two stations, Healdsburg and Novato, are virtually identical in design. The stucco-clad stations have a hipped composition shingle-clad roof with façade exhibiting a small parapet. This type of station has a rectangular floor plan with the long axis paralleling the track. An arched doorway faces the track with recessed patios to either side supported by a single post.

Tunnels

Two tunnels, both near San Rafael, are located in the study area. The first, at MP 15.7 south of San Rafael, is the 1,106-foot long California Park Hill Tunnel No. 3, constructed in 1884 and refaced in 1924. This tunnel dates to the nineteenth century; however, the tunnel was determined ineligible for inclusion on the NRHP (JRP, 2004).

The second tunnel is the Puerto Suelo Tunnel No. 4 at milepost 18.16 north of San Rafael. The 1,350- foot long tunnel burned in the 1950s and the NWP reconstructed the structure in 1959. As a result, the historical integrity of this tunnel has been lost.

3.14.3 Significance Criteria

Impacts on CRHR eligible resources, or resources listed on local registers, constitute a significant effect on the environment if the project may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource.

As per Title 14, CCR, Section 15064.5(b)(1), physical demolition, destruction, relocation, or alteration of the resource or its immediate surroundings such that the significance of an historical resource would be materially impaired would trigger a finding of substantial adverse change. “Materially impaired” indicates that the historical resource will be demolished or the physical characteristics of the resource that made the resource eligible will be adversely altered such that the resource would no longer be eligible for the CRHR nor listed in a local historical register [Title 14, California Code of Regulations, Section 15064.5(b)(2)].

Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit 3-253 DEIR November 2005 Chapter 3: Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures Historic Resources

3.14.4 Impact Assessment Methodology

A study area was first delineated to guide background research and field surveys. The architectural history study area was initially defined as the NWP railroad right-of-way as well as the parcels adjacent to, and including, the proposed station sites.

The preliminary APE was defined in consultation with the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) based on the following reasoning. Since the railroad predates much of the built environment, as buildings were built and towns expanded, the railroad was always a part of the built environment defining settlement patterns in and adjacent to the project corridor. Resumption of passenger rail service would not be a new use of the corridor, so visual impacts on these buildings are not anticipated. Additionally, because the use of the corridor would essentially remain the same, new physical impacts based on usage are not anticipated. The NWP right-of-way corridor is a sufficient APE for architectural resources along most of the study corridor.

At the proposed station locations, the APE is expanded to include all adjacent parcels because in many cases new construction may occur where it could visually and physically impact the historic integrity of any buildings or structures. A one-parcel buffer around station sites was established. Visual impacts on historic resources are an important aspect to consider because the viewshed can be significantly degraded if improper types of building materials are used.

Consultation with SHPO resulted in criteria for definition of the architectural APE for the proposed bicycle/pedestrian pathway and safety structure. In locations where a bicycle/pedestrian pathway and a five to eight-foot tall solid safety structure are proposed, the architectural APE comprises historic buildings immediately adjacent to the railroad right-of-way, plus other potentially significant buildings that could be visually impacted for a distance of up to150 feet.

A record search was conducted at the Northwest Information Center (NWIC) of the California Historical Resources Information System (CHRIS) for information regarding previous cultural resource surveys and recorded sites and historic architecture.

Previous survey reports, historic resources records, historic maps, NRHP listings, California Bridge Inventory, California Points of Historical Interest, California Historic Landmarks, Historic Property Data File, and other applicable material was compiled from the NWIC. All studies and recorded historic buildings and structures within ¼-mile of the rail line also were compiled.

Local historical societies and other organizations were consulted for information regarding the proposed project. These organizations include: • Marin County Historical Society • Northwestern Pacific Railroad Historical Society • Sonoma County Museum • Petaluma Historical Museum and Library • Windsor Historical Society • Healdsburg Historical Society • The Novato History Museum and Archives • Bancroft Library, UC Berkeley • California State Railroad Museum and Archives

Due to the narrow corridor, it was determined that a single-transect pedestrian survey performed by certified historians and historical archaeologists along the center of the alignment was adequate for the discovery of railroad-related architectural resources. At the proposed station locations, survey personnel

Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit 3-254 DEIR November 2005 Chapter 3: Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures Historic Resources examined both the parcel of the proposed station or existing depot, as well as all parcels adjacent to the station parcel. For resources noted to exist along, but outside, the railroad alignment, the decision to record such resources was made based on a practical “in the field” estimate of the age of the resource. This was generally done when assessing historic buildings with the potential for visual impacts resulting from the proposed bicycle/pedestrian safety structure. Access to these resources was restricted because they were located on private property, and complete recordation was not possible.

3.14.5 Impact Summary

Potential long-term impacts include permanent loss of historic cultural landscape and historic district visual values, vibration damage to historic masonry buildings, and historic bridge removal. Through implementation of the mitigation measures identified below, impacts on historic resources would be reduced to a less than significant level. Based on the assessment of the proposed project in combination with other projects there would not be a significant cumulative impact on historic resources.

3.14.6 Impacts and Mitigation Measures

Construction-Related Impacts

Impact HR-1: Disturbance of historic Healdsburg Station turntable could occur as a result of construction activities. (Significant mitigable)

Project construction activities associated with grading to establish a staging area in Healdsburg and continued use of the area by construction workers could impact the historic turntable. The staging area would be located immediately adjacent to the turntable at MP 67.8, but outside the area of effect. The turntable is potentially significant because it is the only extant historic turntable remaining along the SMART right-of-way and it retains integrity. Although the proposed project includes a worker orientation program to summarize relevant laws and regulations and review applicable avoidance and minimization measures, activities by construction workers such as parking automobiles and possible intentional or unintentional vandalism could occur at the site.

Mitigation Measure HR-1: Exclusionary plastic mesh fencing shall be installed and maintained to prohibit equipment from impacting the structure.

Long-Term Impacts

Impact HR-2: Inappropriate rehabilitation techniques could affect the historic Healdsburg Station. (Less than significant)

The historic Healdsburg Station (ca. 1928) was determined to be potentially eligible for the NRHP by PAR Environmental in 2001. The station site would be renovated to serve the proposed passenger rail line. However, the proposed project does not include any work on the historic structure itself. Sonoma County Transit is in the process of building a transit center and park and ride lot adjacent to the historic Healdsburg Depot. As part of this separate Sonoma County Transit project, the exterior of the depot is being repaired and upgraded following review and approval by the California Historic Preservation Office. Although water and electrical stub ends to the building would be provided as part of the proposed project, no internal renovation of the depot is planned at this time. The minor modifications proposed as part of the SMART project would not result in any significant effects on this historic station.

Impact HR-3: Proposed changes to the Santa Rosa Railroad Square Station landscaping could affect the historic character of the Railroad Square District. (Less than significant)

Extensive rehabilitation efforts have taken place in this National Register District and building and site treatment is governed under Secretary of the Interior Guidelines and City of Santa Rosa Community Development Design Guidelines Section 4.7 “Historic Districts.” The district consists of several historic stone buildings and wood-clad warehouses. Improvements as part of the proposed project would not

Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit 3-255 DEIR November 2005 Chapter 3: Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures Historic Resources involve any changes to existing structures, but would involve construction of platforms, access, and other ancillary facilities such as a bicycle station. Consultation and coordination with the City of Santa Rosa regarding the design of station facilities will ensure that any adverse impacts are less than significant. Additional mitigation, though not required, is suggested below to further minimize any potential impacts.

Mitigation Measure HR-2: Any new street furniture, train platform, or shelters shall be sympathetic to the local historic character, landscaping spatial patterning, and designed in concert with the Community Development Department City Cultural Heritage Board. The City’s historic district fencing guidelines shall be consulted in the proposed bicycle/pedestrian pathway designs.

Impact HR-4: Inappropriate rehabilitation techniques could affect the historic Petaluma Station. (Less than significant)

The historic Petaluma Station has been rehabilitated by the City of Petaluma. Future renovations related to the proposed project would be limited to minor retrofitting, addition of street furniture and construction of the two proposed train platforms. Any potential adverse impacts could be further reduced through the following measure.

Mitigation Measure HR-3: Any proposed rehabilitation, changes, alterations and additions shall comply with City of Petaluma policy which requires conformance with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties with Guidelines for Preserving, Rehabilitating, Restoring and Reconstructing Historic Buildings. Use of these guidelines shall be consulted for any proposed street furniture and construction of the two proposed train platforms.

Impact HR-5: Railroad construction would affect historic features associated with a section of trackwork that retains integrity. (Significant mitigable)

A 5.4 mile section from the Burdell Siding MP 31.3 to the Haystack Landing Swing Bridge MP 36.7 appears potentially eligible for the NRHP at the local level due to its intact setting, materials, and design. This track portion would be affected by the new track work. Implementation of the mitigation measure below would reduce this impact to a less than significant level.

Mitigation Measure HR-4: Prior to construction, a report shall be prepared by a professional architectural historian and shall be accompanied by requisite sets of large format camera Historic American Landscape Survey (HALS) Level II black-and-white 8-by-10 inch archival quality prints produced by a professional photographer. A minimum of twenty views shall be documented (five landscape perspectives at one-mile intervals, trestle profiles, culvert profiles, and telephone pole alignments) and two sets of prints, plus the report, shall be sent to the California State Library in Sacramento and the Petaluma Museum. The report and accompanying photography would provide a permanent record of this section of the former NWP track and right-of-way. This record would preserve the historic information and context for this section of track.

Impact HR-6: Proposed rehabilitation of the Russian River Railroad Bridge could impact the integrity of the bridge. (Significant mitigable)

The Russian River Railroad Bridge is potentially eligible for the NRHP and its proposed rehabilitation could be a significant impact. This bridge requires a formal SHPO determination of eligibility. Retaining the bridge through rehabilitation using Secretary of the Interior Guidelines and Standards would reduce this impact to a less than significant level.

Mitigation Measure HR-5: The following shall be conducted prior to any rehabilitation effort: a report shall be prepared by a professional architectural historian and shall be accompanied by requisite sets of large format camera Historic American Engineering Record (HAER) Level II black-and-white 8-by-10 inch archival quality prints taken by a professional photographer. A

Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit 3-256 DEIR November 2005 Chapter 3: Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures Historic Resources

minimum of twelve views shall be documented (two profiles, two centerline shots, four abutment shots, and four engineering details) and two sets of prints shall be sent to the California State Library in Sacramento and the Healdsburg Museum. Measured drawings shall be prepared of the structure under the supervision of a qualified architectural historian. After this effort, the bridge shall be rehabilitated using Secretary of the Interior Guidelines and Standards. The new concrete members shall be colored to match the existing metal to lower the visual impacts to less than significant levels.

Impact HR-7: Proposed replacement of the Petaluma River Haystack Bridge would affect the significance of this historical resource. (Significant mitigable)

Replacement of the bridge could be a significant impact since the bridge is potentially eligible to the NRHP for its engineering design and use of materials.

Mitigation: Implementation of Mitigation Measure HR-2, with the exception that a set of prints and drawings be sent to the Petaluma Museum. The following additional mitigation measure should be required:

Mitigation Measure HR-6: Advertisements shall be placed in local newspapers, and historical advocacy groups that may be interested in acquiring the bridge shall be contacted. Arrangements shall be made for the relocation of the historic structure with its subsequent rehabilitation and adaptive re-use at its new site, including compliance with all State Historic Building Code requirements. Should efforts to relocate the structure fail, one or more of the following actions should be implemented to mitigate the loss: 1. Commemoration of the structure with an enclosed display of text and photos designed by a local professional historical consultant to be placed on the passenger cars at the primary entrance, or alternatively at the Petaluma Station. 2. Salvage of significant materials of the historic structure for conservation in a historical display located at the former bridge site. 3. Incorporation of the historic structure’s operator’s cab and truss system into the design of the new bridge.

Impact HR-8: Proposed bicycle/pedestrian pathway safety structures could cause adverse visual impacts on adjacent historic resources. (Significant mitigable)

Impacts from the proposed bicycle/pedestrian pathway are associated with construction of the bicycle/pedestrian pathway safety structure. Adjacent property owners and local governments would be consulted regarding what materials should be utilized for the proposed bicycle/pedestrian safety structure. The following list describes portions of the alignment where a safety structure would be built near historic resources. For additional discussion of visual impacts, refer to Section 3.14, Visual Quality. • Cloverdale and Asti Road to Healdsburg. Three wineries have been determined to be potentially designated as Sonoma County landmarks or otherwise hold CRHR/NRHP significance. Of these, two would be adjacent to or near new safety structures: Chianti (MP 78.8), and Asti (MP 81-81.5). • Nervo to Geyserville. The Nervo Winery has previously been found eligible and is within the APE. A potential residential historic district is located in Geyserville, bound on the south by Railroad Avenue, and crossed (east-west) by Crowell and Walden streets. • Healdsburg. The Olivetto Winery in Healdsburg is within the APE and has been found eligible for inclusion on the local register. • Santa Rosa. A warehouse at 7 College Avenue appears eligible for the CR as an individual property through survey evaluation.

Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit 3-257 DEIR November 2005 Chapter 3: Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures Historic Resources

• Penngrove. Three buildings appear eligible for the California Register or Sonoma County register. These include a historic flatiron-style hotel at 10056 Main Street, the Redwood Montessori School at 11051 Main Street, and a railroad freight warehouse at 11790 Main Street. • Novato. Eight properties are listed in the City of Novato Historic District. They include the County Engineer’s house at 868 Railroad Avenue, DeBorba House on 900 Railroad Avenue, Augere Hiribarren House on 904 Railroad Avenue, Samuels House at 906 Railroad Avenue, Oliver House on 910 Railroad Avenue, Yelmorini Building (flatiron) at 701-705 Scott Court, and the Novato passenger depot on Railroad Avenue. • San Rafael. The San Rafael railroad station (The Whistlestop) on 930 Tamalpais appears to meet the National Register significance criteria as an individual property. The Barrel House at 927 Tamalpais is eligible for a local historic district designation.

Implementation of the following mitigation measure for the proposed bicycle/pedestrian pathway safety structures would reduce impacts on historic resources to less than significant levels.

Mitigation Measure HR-7: Where tall safety structures are required in close proximity to historic resources, design safety structures similar to the surrounding historical landscape. For example, structures should be built with similar materials (e.g., horizontal wooden planks and vertical wooden posts near historic wooden structures or brick near historic brick buildings). Adjacent property owners and local government shall be consulted about the design details of the safety structures and landscaping, safety structures should be consistent with applicable local historic preservation policies and guidelines.

Cumulative Impacts

CEQA describes cumulative impacts as two or more individual impacts which, when considered together, are substantial or which compound or increase other environmental impacts. The purpose if a cumulative study is to define the “incremental impact of the project when added to other, closely related past, present, or reasonably foreseeable future projects” that can cause “individually minor but collectively significant projects taking place over a period of time (CEQA Guidelines Section 15355). Impacts on historic resources tend to be site-specific and are generally assessed on a case-by-case basis. However if a project were to result in development features or changes to existing environmental conditions that are incompatible with historical resources that exist within the vicinity of the project site, a potentially significant cumulative impact on historical resources could result.

A review of 29 recent or proposed projects within this proposed project’s vicinity did not identify any significant cumulative impacts on historical resources. However, two of the proposed projects in the vicinity of historic buildings and structures related to this project would contribute to the cumulative impacts. These projects include the Santa Rosa Square Station transit-oriented development, Santa Rosa – a 5.4-acre site proposed for housing, retail, commercial, and public open space, and the Petaluma Depot Station transit-oriented development – a 6.0-acre commercial and residential development. With the incorporation of appropriate mitigation measures, project impacts would be mitigated, and the cumulative impacts to historic resources would not be significant. Appropriate mitigation would consistent of a review of the final designs for the two TOD projects by a qualified architectural historian for consistency with this historic resources document and the U.S. Secretary of the Interior’s standards. The addition of this mitigation measure would result in a reduction of potential impacts to historic resources within the project vicinity to less than significant levels.

Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit 3-258 DEIR November 2005 Chapter 3: Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures

Archaeological Resources

3.15 ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES

This section summarizes the historic and prehistoric archaeological resources in the project area including delineation of an archaeological Area of Potential Effect (APE) for the project; study methodology that includes discussions of the regulatory framework, prehistoric, ethnographic, and historic settings, methods used for research and field survey, and consultation with Native American groups; results of the record search, archival research, pedestrian survey, and archaeological resources findings; and identification of potential impacts from project implementation, and measures to mitigate the impacts.

Archaeological resources can include prehistoric (pre-contact) and historic (post-contact) artifacts, densities of artifacts or isolated finds. Prehistoric archaeological resources comprise physical remnants of human activities that date prior to European contact. Examples of prehistoric archaeological sites include temporary campsites, villages, lithic or other artifact scatters, hearths and/or roasting pits, bedrock mortars, cupules, or other milling features, burials, rock art that includes petroglyphs, pictographs, intaglios, and rock mosaics, and other rock features such as hunting blinds. Historic archaeological sites include objects, ruins or other physical remnants reflecting Euro-American origins. Historic archaeological sites include physical remnants of human activities that postdate European and Native American contact, but are also over 50 years old. Examples of historic archaeological sites are the remains of foundations and footings, privies and trash scatters associated with former human occupation of homesteads, farms, ranches, towns, transportation activities, and mining.

Ethnographic resources, also referred to as Traditional Cultural Properties (TCP), are also referred to in this study. They can be physical locations or materials that are of importance to Native Americans because of their religious, spiritual or traditional value. Examples of TCPs include traditional hunting, fishing, or gathering areas, sacred locations (burial sites, caves and/or rockshelters, rock art sites, springs, and mountain peaks), or specific types of native plants, minerals or rock art sites. TCPs that meet specific criteria may be eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). In addition, TCPs that meet the criteria as set forth in Executive Order 13007 can be considered sacred sites.

3.15.1 Regulatory Setting

Federal Regulations

Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) requires that, prior to the onset of any undertaking, a federal agency, in this case the Federal Transit Administration (FTA), must take into account the effects of a project on historic properties and provide the Office of Historic Preservation (OHP) an opportunity to comment. Regulations regarding compliance to Section 106 state that although the tasks necessary to comply with Section 106 may be delegated to others, the lead federal agency is ultimately responsible for ensuring that Section 106 is fully executed.

A historic property is defined as any prehistoric or historic district, site, building, structure, or object included in, or eligible for inclusion in, the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) maintained by the Secretary of the Interior. Historic properties include artifacts, records and remains that are related to and located within such properties. They also can include properties of traditional religious and cultural importance to Indian tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations that meet NRHP criteria. Historic properties eligible for inclusion in the NRHP include both properties formally listed in accordance with regulations of the Secretary of the Interior and all other properties that meet the NRHP criteria.

Eligibility for listing on the National Register of Historic Places is determined using the following criteria: The quality of significance in American history, architecture, archaeology, and culture is present in districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects of State and local importance that possess integrity of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association, and,

Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit 3-259 DEIR November 2005 Chapter 3: Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures

Archaeological Resources

1. that are associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history; or 2. that are associated with the lives of persons significant in our past; or 3. that embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, or that represent the work of a master, or that possess high artistic values, or that represent a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction; or 4. that have yielded or may be likely to yield information important in prehistory or history [Code of Federal Regulations, Title 36, Part 60].

The issue of integrity must first be addressed before considering the applicable criteria when evaluating a property for eligibility to the NRHP. For a property to be eligible for listing in the NRHP, it must meet one or more criteria for significance and retain integrity. It must possess several or usually most of the seven aspects of integrity that include location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling and association.

Federal Regulations Regarding Archaeological Sites Section 3(d) of the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA) [43 CFR 10.2 (g) (4)] of NHPA addresses the treatment of inadvertently discovered human remains, funerary items, sacred objects, or items of cultural patrimony on federal or tribal lands.

ARPA (P.L. 9695; 16 U.S.C. 470 aamm) prohibits the unauthorized damage or removal of archaeological resources located on federal or tribal lands and provides for felony penalties for serious violations and repeat offenders.

State Regulations

The proposed project is subject to compliance regulations stipulated by CEQA. The lead agency for this project is the SMART District and it is responsible for complying with CEQA’s requirements regarding the identification and treatment of historic and prehistoric cultural resources. CEQA stipulates that both public and private projects with financing or approval from a public agency must assess the effects of the project on cultural resources (Public Resources Code Section 21082, 21083.2 and 21084.1 and California Code of Regulations 15064.5). Cultural resources are defined as buildings, sites, humanly modified landscapes, TCPs, structures, or objects that may have historical, architectural, cultural, or scientific importance. CEQA states that if a project will have a significant effect on important cultural resources, then alternative plans or mitigation measures need to be developed. However, only significant cultural resources need to be considered in the mitigation plans.

CEQA defines significant historical resources as “resources listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR)” (Public Resources Code Section 5024.1). A property may be considered ‘historically significant” if it meets the following criteria for listing on the CRHR: 1. It is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of California’s history and cultural heritage; 2. It is associated with the lives of persons important to California’s past; 3. It embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction, or represents the work of an important creative individual, or possesses high artistic values; or 4. It has yielded or is likely to yield information important in prehistory or history [Public Resources Code (PRC) Section 5024.1].

Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit 3-260 DEIR November 2005 Chapter 3: Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures

Archaeological Resources

CEQA Regulations Regarding Human Remains Section 15064.5 of the State CEQA Guidelines specifies procedures to be used in the event of an unexpected discovery of Native American human remains on nonfederal land. These procedures are outlined in PRC sections 5097 and 5097.98. These codes protect such remains from disturbance, vandalism, and inadvertent destruction; establish procedures to be implemented if Native American skeletal remains are discovered during construction of a project; and establish the Native American Heritage Commission as the authority to resolve disputes regarding disposition of such remains.

County Regulations

Sonoma County The Sonoma County Code, Article 68 § 26-68-005, provides for a Historic Combing District zoning designation. The purpose of this overlay zoning is to “protect those structures, sites and areas that are reminders of past eras, events and persons important in local, state or national history, or which provide significant examples of architectural styles of the past, or which are unique and irreplaceable assets to the county and its communities” (Ord. No. 4643, 1993).

Marin County Disturbance of “Indian midden” is unlawful unless a permit is issued through the Department of Public Works (Marin County Code Ord. 1589 § 2, 1967). The holder of the permit is limited to a 60-day period to complete their studies (Ord. 1825 § 2, 1971).

3.15.2 Environmental Setting

Regional Overview

The project area is located within two distinct prehistoric cultural areas: the San Francisco Bay Region and the North Coast Region. In the San Francisco Bay Region the project area is most closely associated with the North Bay sub-region (Moratto, 1984). Three sub-areas are identified within the North Coast Region of California, the Northwest Coast, Eel River and the Russian River drainage, the latter being directly applicable to the proposed project. These areas are comprised of distinct cultures with at least 33 ethnographic dialects representing five major North American language families including Athabaskan, Algonkin, Hokan, Pentian, and Yukian (Shipley, 1978).

The project corridor passes through several distinctive ethnographic territories. Three main Native American groups inhabit these areas: the Pomo, Wappo and Miwok. The Pomo inhabited an area along the north-central coast of California. Some Southern Pomo village sites are located near the project corridor. One is close to an extinct lake and marsh on the southeast side of Healdsburg; another village site is north of Cloverdale; and three more sites are present south of Cloverdale (McLendon and Oswalt, 1978). The project corridor also passes through what was once territory of the Western Wappo. They occupied the land between Cobb Mountain, Mt. St. Helena and Geyserville. Two village sites that are near the project area are Malalachahli and Gayechin near Lytton. Coast Miwok once inhabited the region along the railroad corridor. Coast Miwok territory encompassed the area along the coast and inland between Duncan’s Point north of Bodega Bay, southward to San Pablo Bay in Sonoma and Marin counties. Their territory extended as far inland as the Napa River. Various Coast Miwok villages were located near the railroad route. Near Cotati, three villages existed, one giving Cotati its name. Six villages were located south of Cotati to Petaluma.

The NWP railroad played a dominant role in the historic influence of the area. The NWP is an amalgam of 42 separate lines constructed between 1864 and the early twentieth century, with the main line that extends through the project area, running between Tiburon and Eureka. Several stations used by the NWP still exist along the rail corridor and contribute to the overall historic integrity of this segment of the NWP.

Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit 3-261 DEIR November 2005 Chapter 3: Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures

Archaeological Resources

Archaeological Resources in the Project Study Area

A review of archeological site records and survey reports at the NWIC revealed 357 previous studies within ¼ mile of the project corridor extending from Cloverdale to Larkspur. The record search revealed 28 prehistoric sites, 16 historical sites and four sites with prehistoric and historic components previously recorded within ¼ mile of the railroad tracks that comprise the 70-mile project corridor. During the subsequent archaeological pedestrian survey completed by project team archaeologists, 18 new sites were identified, including one prehistoric site, 16 historic archaeological sites and one site with historic and possible prehistoric components. Of all of these sites, 23 sites are within the railroad right-of-way and have the potential for impacts from project-related ground disturbances. Five more archaeological sites are located outside the right-of-way, but within 100 feet of the railroad tracks. Because their boundaries are not well defined, they also have the potential for impacts from the proposed project. None of these sites have been previously evaluated, and they would require evaluation on a case-by- case basis.

3.15.3 Significance Criteria

In accordance with CEQA guidelines, a project would create a significant impact on archaeological resources if it causes a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource, or if it disturbs any human remains, including interments outside former cemeteries.

Significant impacts are those that diminish the integrity, research potential or other characteristics that make a resource significant or important. Adverse but not significant impacts are those that alter the characteristics of a resource but do not diminish the resource’s significance, such as the removal of a small, disturbed portion of an archaeological site. Adverse but not significant impacts also include impacts on non-significant resources and temporary impacts.

Significant impacts on archaeological sites that are listed or determined to be eligible for listing on the NRHP or CRHR require mitigation. Potential mitigation measures include site avoidance, site capping, integration of the site into a recreation space, or data recovery excavations.

3.15.4 Impact Assessment Methodology

In consultation with the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO), the archaeological APE for the proposed project was defined as the physical footprint of the approximately 70-mile rail corridor right-of- way, and the proposed station sites and alternative maintenance facility sites or other locations slated for ground disturbances. The archaeological APE is the boundary of the railroad right-of-way corridor and any locations where there are plans for proposed station sites, construction staging areas or other areas with the potential for ground disturbance. The effects on archaeological resources located along the proposed bicycle/pedestrian pathway and associated structure are also considered in this study. Although much of the proposed bicycle/pedestrian pathway is located within the railroad right-of-way, the bicycle/pedestrian pathway partially extends outside the railroad corridor. The railroad corridor is not consistently the same width throughout the project area and as such, the APE corresponds to these fluctuations in the corridor. Generally, the APE extends approximately 30-40 feet on either side of the centerline of the tracks.

Various research and field methods were employed throughout this project. Record searches were conducted for historical background information at several locations. The Northwest Information Center (NWIC) of the California Historical Resources Information System (CHRIS) at Sonoma State University, the California Native American Heritage Commission and local historical societies were contacted regarding the proposed project. Additionally, archaeological and historical field methods were used during survey and recordation of cultural resources within the project area; they are detailed below.

Prehistoric sites in this area range from bedrock mortars to dense middens and historic archaeological sites vary from single concrete foundation remnants to privies. Two previously recorded prehistoric sites and two historic sites are located within the NWP railroad right-of-way. Seven other sites have been

Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit 3-262 DEIR November 2005 Chapter 3: Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures

Archaeological Resources recorded outside the railroad right-of-way, but within 100 feet of the railroad track centerline. The boundaries of these sites have not been defined through archaeological testing, so it is plausible that they could extend into the right-of-way.

Native American Consultation

As part of the consultation process with Native American organizations and individuals, the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) was contacted with a request for information about sacred lands that may be located within the proposed project area. A search of the Sacred Lands files housed at the NAHC did not result in the identification of any sacred lands within the APE. The NAHC provided a list of local groups and individuals to contact for further information regarding local knowledge of sacred lands. Certified letters were sent to each of the nine groups on the list, including the Cloverdale Rancheria of Pomo Indians, Dawn Getchell, Dry Creek Rancheria of Pomo Indians, Grant Smith, The Federated Indians of Graton Rancheria, Lytton Band of Pomo Indians, Mishewal-Wappo Tribe of Alexander Valley, Stewarts Point Rancheria, and Ya-Ka-Ama.

Two Native American groups supplied written responses. The Lytton Rancheria indicated that they have no information on sacred lands or sites, but they requested that the project team update them on new discoveries. The Stewarts Point Rancheria indicated that the project area is outside their tribal lands.

Consultation with the Cloverdale Rancheria of Pomo Indians identified one TCP. The tribal representatives stated that the traditional lands of their former rancheria are adjacent to the railroad right- of-way. Phone conversations and a formal meeting with the Cloverdale Rancheria helped to identify areas of concern for that group. They provided information regarding an area they consider as sensitive sacred lands. The area generally extends from just north of the Mendocino/Sonoma county line south to Dry Creek. However, the Cloverdale Rancheria property is next to the rail corridor, just south of Cloverdale. The Cloverdale Rancheria requested notification if any new construction takes place near that location. They also requested that Native American monitors be present for any subsurface work within their sacred lands.

Follow-up phone calls were conducted to each Native American group or individual contacted previously by letter, plus additional calls were made to contacts from the 1999 Native American consultation effort.

Field Investigations

Due to the nature of the project area, a long linear corridor, previous archaeological surveys have been performed throughout portions of the corridor. The pedestrian field survey was completed in areas not previously surveyed and in areas not surveyed more recently than ten years ago. The field surveys used transects intervals of 20 meters unless prohibited by lack of access, vegetation or safety. Each proposed station and maintenance facility location was also surveyed for archaeological resources.

As described in the environmental section, 18 new archaeological sites, comprising one prehistoric and 16 historical archaeological sites, and one site with historical and prehistoric components, were identified during the archaeological field survey.

3.15.5 Impact Summary

The proposed project has the potential to impact important archaeological sites. Presently, only one site was evaluated and determined to be significant. However, the site was later reportedly destroyed. Archaeological testing would determine if intact portions of the site still exist. None of the remaining 23 archaeological sites within the railroad APE, or the five sites directly outside the APE, has been evaluated and their boundaries are not well defined. As such, all require significance assessments on a case-by-case basis. Based on relevant information, 12 recorded historic railroad related archaeological features, all described as footings, do not appear to be significant and would not require mitigation. Three additional historic foundation footings would require evaluation, as would three additional archaeological sites to determine NRHP/CRHR significance. Ten more archaeological sites have not

Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit 3-263 DEIR November 2005 Chapter 3: Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures

Archaeological Resources been previously evaluated, but based on information provided in survey reports and site records they are likely to be determined significant. In total, 16 of 28 sites would require evaluation, either through additional archival research, archaeological excavation, or a combination of both.

Additional sites, presently depicted outside the railroad APE, with boundaries defined through surface survey alone, may also extend into the APE. Extended Phase 1 testing would be required for each of these sites to determine the true extent of their boundaries. After Phase 1 testing has been completed, efforts should be made to avoid sites that extend into the APE. If avoidance is not feasible, then archaeological sites that have the potential to be impacted by ground disturbances related to the proposed project would require NRHP and CRHR evaluation to determine their significance.

Significant impacts on archaeological sites that are listed, or are eligible for listing, on the NRHP or CRHR would require mitigation. However, site evaluations will need to be completed prior to determining NRHP or CRHP eligibility. Potential mitigation measures include site avoidance, site capping, integration of the site into a recreation space, or data recovery excavations. Other mitigation measures include preparing a plan, in consultation with SHPO and Native American groups, to identify, evaluate and determine the potential impacts of the proposed project on a resource. Implementation of the prescribed mitigation measures would reduce potential impacts to archaeological sites to less than significant levels.

In general, any ground disturbing project has the potential for the permanent destruction of intact archaeological sites. Because archaeological sites are remnants of communities and cultures from the past, once lost they can never be recovered. However, because these sites are generally buried or not clearly visible, projects such as the proposed project are able to obtain valuable information regarding the people or cultures that inhabited or used the site being impacted. As a result, the proposed project may result in the permanent in-place loss of some archaeological sites, but at the same time add to the collective knowledge about the people and cultures that created the site.

3.15.6 Impacts and Mitigation Measures

Construction-Related Impacts

Impact AR-1: Several locations exist within the project corridor that have a high probability to contain historic or prehistoric archaeological deposits. (Significant mitigable)

These sites are discussed below. • Cloverdale Area: Because of the cultural sensitivity for archaeological and ethnographic sites in the Cloverdale area, ground disturbances related to the proposed parking lot expansion and proposed bicycle/pedestrian pathway next to the Cloverdale Station could impact known or unknown prehistoric archaeological resources. Because this area is considered traditional lands for the Cloverdale Rancheria of Pomo Indians, they have requested notification of work near the station, and they would like to serve as Native American monitors for projects occurring between Cloverdale and Healdsburg. • Cloverdale Maintenance Site: One prehistoric archaeological site is recorded adjacent to the eastern boundary of the Cloverdale maintenance site. The close proximity of this site to the maintenance site alternative suggests there is potential for impacts. In addition, if this maintenance site alternative is selected then the archaeological site is likely to be impacted by trackwork north of Cloverdale. • Healdsburg Station: Given the ethnographic information and the location of the project area at the Historic Healdsburg Railroad Depot, there is a high probability that buried prehistoric or historic archaeological deposits exist in the project area. • Santa Rosa Depot: No prehistoric archaeological sites or TCPs have been identified in the location of the Santa Rosa Depot; however, there is potential for presently unidentified subsurface prehistoric or historical archaeological sites or features to be impacted by ground disturbances related to the proposed parking lot expansion, proposed bicycle/pedestrian pathway and track and depot improvements.

Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit 3-264 DEIR November 2005 Chapter 3: Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures

Archaeological Resources

• Petaluma Area: Historic archaeological deposits associated with the former Crown Station whistle stop could be impacted by construction in this location. • Petaluma Station: Modifications to the track and platform construction at the Petaluma Station could impact presently unidentified historical archaeological deposits, and Depression Era hobo refuse may also be located in the area (Newland and Esser, 1999:4). • Novato North Station: It is possible that subsurface deposits, not visible on the ground surface, are present at the Novato North Station site and could be disturbed during construction of the station. • Novato South Station: It is possible that subsurface deposits, not visible on the ground surface, are present at the Novato South Station site and could be disturbed during construction of the station. The station location is in a culturally sensitive area. • San Rafael Area: Construction activities associated with the San Rafael Station could disturb unknown and potentially important prehistoric and/or historic archaeological resources. Downtown San Rafael is a culturally sensitive area. • Construction of the proposed bicycle/pedestrian pathway and associated fences and/or structures may impact known and unknown sites within and near the project APE. Potential impacts could occur in areas where archaeological sites are near the railroad right-of-way, and ground-disturbing activities are proposed. There is the potential for impacts to these sites or to previously undiscovered cultural materials in these areas.

Mitigation Measure AR-1: Because of the high probability for the presence of historic or prehistoric artifact deposits, an Extended Phase I archaeological study is recommended at these sites in locations where ground disturbances are planned. If an archaeological site is discovered, additional fieldwork (Phase II testing) may be required to establish site boundaries and determine each site’s eligibility for listing on the NRHP. If a site is determined to be eligible, consultation shall be initiated with the SHPO and other appropriate consulting parties to either avoid the site or to develop a data recovery plan.

Extended Phase I archaeological testing is generally comprised of a series of systematically placed vertical holes that are slightly wider than the width of a shovel blade. Shovel test pits are typically excavated to sterile subsoil or the maximum practical depth to which soil material can be removed by shovel, usually just over a meter. During excavation, care is taken that soil strata are recognized and artifacts from each stratum are bagged separately. A profile is then produced and soils are classified by type and Munsell colors.

Impact AR-2: Subsurface historic archaeological deposits associated with the Coast Miwok ethnographic village north of Cotati could be impacted by construction. (Significant mitigable)

Mitigation Measure AR-2: Archaeological and Native American monitoring is recommended in this area because subsurface historic and possibly prehistoric archaeological deposits could be impacted by construction.

Impact AR-3: Ground disturbing construction activities could adversely affect unknown potentially important subsurface cultural materials in the vicinity of the Marin Civic Center Station. (Significant mitigable)

Mitigation Measure AR-3: If construction personnel locate buried cultural materials, work shall be halted or shifted to another area and a qualified archaeologist shall be contacted to determine proper treatment of the find.

Impact AR-4: Eleven culturally sensitive historic and prehistoric sites have been identified in the area that extends north from the Marin/Sonoma county line to the Haystack Bridge south of Petaluma. (Significant mitigable)

Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit 3-265 DEIR November 2005 Chapter 3: Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures

Archaeological Resources

Sites near the railroad tracks have been identified that have the potential for being impacted by trackwork.

Mitigation Measure AR-4: Trackwork shall be avoided or undertaken in a manner to avoid ground disturbance beyond the current track limits (e.g., by undertaking construction from the existing track) in the most culturally sensitive railroad segments. The Federated Indians of Graton Rancheria have asked that any archaeological site identified within those boundaries be depicted as an “environmentally sensitive area” on railroad maps. Furthermore, maintenance trucks shall avoid driving through this area until boundary definition, evaluation and site capping is completed at the site within the railroad right-of-way. If it is not possible to avoid impacts along this railroad segment, boundary definition would also be warranted at each site to determine if trackwork has the potential to impact the sites.

Avoidance of all ground disturbances that could create impacts is recommended at the following sites: two historic foundations; a buried concrete wall within the railroad right-of-way; a prehistoric site north of Pennegrove; and a prehistoric site south of San Rafael at Simms. If avoidance is not feasible, then the sites would require evaluation for NRHP/CRHR eligibility.

Impact AR-5: Any replacement bridgework has the potential to disturb potentially significant archaeological resources since prehistoric and historic archaeological sites are often located on stream banks or near the confluence of steams. (Significant mitigable)

Of note are bridges and trestles to be replaced from the Marin/Sonoma county line northward to the Petaluma Haystack Bridge, including approximately five bridges and trestles between MP 31 to MP 37. This area is culturally sensitive because a cluster of archaeological sites is present in the vicinity. Other areas of specific cultural sensitivity include bridgework north of MP 85 in Cloverdale, a trestle north of Chianti, and a ballast-deck trestle between MP 43 and MP 44 north of Pennegrove.

Mitigation Measure AR-5: Of the five bridges and trestles located between MP 31 to MP 37, the open deck trestle between MP 35 and MP 36 should be avoided. If the trestle needs to be replaced, then archaeological site determination (Extended Phase I testing), Phase II eligibility testing, and possible data recovery would be required. The remaining four bridges would require monitoring by a qualified archaeologist and a Native American monitor. Archaeological sites near bridges located at MP 85 and between MP 43 to MP 44 would require boundary definition. If the sites would be impacted by bridgework, then evaluation would be required prior to bridge removals.

Impact AR-6: Site preparation and use of some of the proposed pre-construction staging areas could disturb unknown and potentially significant cultural resources. (Significant mitigable)

Mitigation Measure AR-6: If ground disturbances are planned and staging areas cannot be avoided, an archaeologist shall be present for all grading or other ground disturbing activities planned in the staging area. In the vicinity of the staging areas near Ignacio, if ground disturbances are planned, an archaeologist and Native American monitor should be present for all grading or other ground disturbing activities planned in the staging area.

Cumulative Impacts

Cumulative impacts result from incremental actions that are collectively significant to a resource. If a project results in development features or changes to existing environmental conditions that are incompatible with archaeological resources that exist within the vicinity of the project site, a potentially significant cumulative impact could result.

This study reviewed the cumulative impacts of 29 residential and commercial developments near the project corridor between Windsor and Larkspur. Although none of these present and future

Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit 3-266 DEIR November 2005 Chapter 3: Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures

Archaeological Resources developments would impact known prehistoric or historical archaeological sites, three are located in areas with increased cultural sensitivity: • Albertsons Grocery Store, Ignacio; • Marin Business Center, Novato; and • Proposed Food and Wine Center, Santa Rosa.

The Albertsons Grocery Store project is presently under construction in an area of cultural sensitivity for prehistoric archaeological resources. Ground disturbances associated with the grading and excavation for the building and parking lot could impact potential archaeological sites. The development is near the project right-of-way and proposed Ignacio construction staging parcel where impacts may result from grading for the staging area, proposed bicycle/pedestrian pathway, and continued maintenance of the railroad track and its components. One archaeological site has been identified within 500 feet of the railroad tracks and other archaeological sites are also clustered in this general area.

The Marin Business Center was completed in 2000. Nearby, proposed project plans include the Novato North Station. Railroad-related impacts include station development, platform, park-and-ride spaces, and bicycle and pedestrian access. One archaeological site is nearby and other presently unidentified sites may be present in the area.

Both of these commercial projects are in the general vicinity of one or more identified prehistoric sites. These types of projects may attract additional commercial and residential development that will increase the chances of impacting potential archaeological sites.

The proposed Food and Wine Center and Mixed-Use Development would be located within the Santa Rosa Railroad Square District. This project could impact potential historical archaeological sites during ground disturbances associated with construction. The proposed project also proposes work at the Santa Rosa Railroad Square Station; work includes renovations at the extant Historic Depot at Railroad Square and plans for two platforms, a double track and new parking spaces. It is likely that historic building foundations, trash dumps and other historic artifacts exist in this area.

These three developments, in combination with the proposed project, could result in cumulative impacts on prehistoric or historic archaeological sites. However, the mitigation measures identified for project impacts would ensure that the proposed project’s contribution to any cumulative impact would be reduced to less than significant.

Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit 3-267 DEIR November 2005