BURBANK AVENUE ANNEXATION DRAFT SUBSEQUENT EIR SOILS, GEOLOGY, AND SEISMICITY 3.7 SOILS, GEOLOGY, AND SEISMICITY

Consideration of soils, geology and seismicity conditions is an important aspect of all development in the nine counties surrounding San Francisco Bay (the Bay Area). This includes areas like the Santa Rosa Plain where the Project is located adjacent to creeks that drain to the Llano de Santa Rosa and the Russian River. Although most projects, including the proposed Project analyzed in this SEIR, have little or no effect on the geology of the Bay Area, any project involving construction will have some effect on soils and topography; and all will be affected by certain geologic events, such as earthquakes, landslides or erosion. The purposes of reviewing the soils, geology and seismicity information of any projects are: (1) to identify potentially hazardous conditions; (2) to identify potential impacts of the proposed project; and (3) to provide techniques to reduce, eliminate or avoid these conditions and impacts.

3.7-1 SETTING

Regional Setting

Regional Geology

The regional geologic framework of the Bay Area (Figure 3.7-1), and Sonoma County in particular, can be understood through the theory of plate tectonics. The Earth’s mantle is composed of several large plates that move relative to each other. The San Andreas fault zone is at the junction of two such plates. The Pacific plate, on the west side of the zone, is at the junction of two such plates, and is moving north relative to the North American plate on the east side. One of the results of this movement is the regional rock deformation that is expressed in the general northwest trend of valleys and ridges in Sonoma County. This is visible, for example, in the orientation of the Rodgers Creek fault and the Sonoma Mountains, northeast of the Llano de Santa Rosa. Another result of plate movement is the regional seismicity that Sonoma County has in common with the rest of the Bay Area.

All of the geologic formations in the Santa Rosa area are on the North American plate. The oldest bedrock formations exposed in the area are the Petaluma claystone/mudstone and the Sonoma Volcanics (lava flows and volcanic ash), both of the Tertiary period (deposited between 7 million and 1.6 million years ago). Gravels, sands, silts and clays of the major alluvial fans in the northwest-trending valleys are younger, of the Quaternary in age (the last 1.6 million years). Fluvial sand, silt and clay were deposited in local streams cut into the alluvial fans during the latest several thousand years of this period.

AUGUST 30, 2005 PARSONS PAGE 3.7-1 Date: 10/2002

Rodgers Cr

Project Site San Santa Rosa Andr eek

1 101 eas Napa Gr Sonoma W est Napa een 80 Petaluma

V T olay alley -

Novato Vallejo Concord

San 680 Rafael Hayward Walnut Creek San Gregorio

San Francisco

LEGEND

101 Highway

Burbank Avenue Annexation Site

Holocene Fault (active in last 10 thousand years)

Quaternary Fault (active in last 2 million years)

MILES 0 10 20 Source: Modified from USGS OFR-99-517

City of Santa Rosa Parsons Burbank Avenue Annexation EIR Regional Fault Map Figure 3.7-1 BURBANK AVENUE ANNEXATION DRAFT SUBSEQUENT EIR SOILS, GEOLOGY, AND SEISMICITY

Regional Seismicity

The regional seismic context is important because the forces that will affect the Project are regional in nature: that is, they probably will be generated outside the Project area, outside the City, and possibly, outside the County. However, the effects of these forces must be accommodated within new development in compliance with regulations and guidelines established by the State and the City. Table 3.7-1 contains the maximum parameters for known faults affecting the Southwest Santa Rosa vicinity.

Table 3.7-1

Estimated Maximum Earthquake Magnitudes

Peak Horizontal Approximate Duration of Maximum Accelerations in Rock Distance from Moment Strong Shaking Intensity and Stiff Soil (Gravity)4 Project to fault Fault Magnitude1 (seconds)2 (MMI)3 (miles) Napa 6.7 18-30 VII-VIII 0.3 – 0.4 20E Rodgers Creek 7.1 18-30 IX-X > .60 2E San Andreas 7.1 30-60 V-VI 0.2 – 0.3 17W Hayward 7.3 30-60 VII-VIII 0.3 – 0.4 31W

Source:EIP Associates 2000 1 For the purposes of describing the size of the design (or scenario) earthquake of a particular fault segment, moment magnitude (Mw) of the characteristic earthquake for that segment has replaced the concept of a maximum credible earthquake of a particular Richter magnitude. This has become necessary because the Richter Scale “saturates” at the higher magnitudes; that is, the Richter scale has difficulty differentiating the size of earthquakes above magnitude 7.5. The Mw scale is proportional to the area of the fault surface that has slipped, and thus is directly related to the length of the fault segment. Although the numbers appear lower than the traditional Richter magnitudes, they convey more precise (and more useable) information to geologic and structural engineers. 2 Duration of ground motion at 0.5g within 10 miles of the fault. Estimates based on relationships developed by Bolt, 1973. 3 Estimated Modified Mercalli Intensity damage level based on relationships developed by Perkins and Boatwright, 1995, or Richter 1958 (San Andreas fault only). 4 Estimates based on relationships developed by Seed and Idriss, 1972, Joyner and Boore, 1981, Campbell and Sadigh, 1983. Sonoma County, together with the rest of the Bay Area, is in one of the most active seismic regions in the United States. Each year, low and moderate magnitude earthquakes occurring within or near the Bay Area are felt by residents of the County. Since the mid-nineteenth century, about 150 local earthquakes have been felt in the County. About 10 of these temblors caused some damage in the County; those of 1906 and 1969 being the most destructive. The April 1906 earthquake on the San Andreas fault has been estimated at about Magnitude (M) 8.3 on the Richter scale and practically destroyed the business district of the City of Santa Rosa. The October 1969 earthquakes on the Healdsburg fault registered M5.6 and M5.7. No deaths occurred; several million dollars damage was done, including numerous breaks in water system pipes. More recently, the M4.9 earthquake along the Hayward fault (26 January 1986) was felt in Sonoma County, but no major damage was reported to utilities or facilities. The M7.1

AUGUST 30, 2005 PARSONS PAGE 3.7-3 BURBANK AVENUE ANNEXATION DRAFT SUBSEQUENT EIR SOILS, GEOLOGY, AND SEISMICITY

Loma Prieta earthquake of October 17, 1989 on the San Andreas Fault caused severe damage throughout the Bay Area, but not extensively in the vicinity of Santa Rosa.

The major fault zones of the San Andreas Fault System were the sources of all these earthquakes and are expected to be the sources of future earthquakes. Even though no known active fault traces pass through the Southwest Plan Area, it is necessary to design structures and facilities to withstand the anticipated effects of seismic vibration from distant, as well as nearby, sources. The City and County General Plan Safety Elements specifically identify the Rodgers Creek Fault, approximately two miles east of the Project area, as a potential source of seismic activity that must be taken into consideration during the planning of development in the City and County.

Following the Loma Prieta earthquake, the U.S. Geological Survey estimated the probability of at least one large earthquake (Magnitude 7 or greater) in the San Francisco Bay region within the 30-year period between 1990 and 2020 at about 67 percent. On the Rodgers Creek fault and the Northern East Bay segment of the Hayward fault, the probabilities are estimated at about 22 and 28 percent, respectively, that a large earthquake would occur in this time-frame. Earthquakes of this magnitude are sufficient to create ground accelerations in bedrock and in stiff unconsolidated sediments severe enough to cause major damage to structures and foundations not designed specifically to resist the lateral forces generated by earthquakes, and to underground utility lines not designed with sufficient flexibility to accommodate expected seismic ground motion. There are several potentially active fault zones that could affect future development projects in the Project area. These include faults that are historically active (during the last 200 years), those that have been active in the geologically recent past (about the last 10,000 years, usually referred to as the Holocene epoch), and those that have been active at some time during the Quaternary geologic period (the last 1.6 million years). The San Andreas, Hayward, Napa, Healdsburg, and Rodgers Creek fault zones are all, at least partially, historically active. Parts of each of the major fault zones have been classified as Holocene or Quaternary depending on the age of the evidence of the most recent movement. The Rodgers Creek fault, about two miles to the east, is the closest known active fault to the Project area. Other nearby traces occur in the faults listed in Table 3.7-1. A characteristic earthquake (Mw 7.3) on the Hayward fault is the largest that would affect the Project area, however, a characteristic earthquake (Mw 7.1) on the Rodgers Creek fault would be so much closer to Santa Rosa that its effects would be more severe. The characteristic earthquake of Mw 7.1 on the Rodgers Creek fault is capable of generating intensities of Modified Mercalli Intensity (MMI) VIII and IX in the Project area. Groundshaking intensities of MMI IX generally will not damage specially designed structures, but can cause moderate damage in structures of good workmanship, and heavy damage in ordinarily substantial buildings, foundations and underground utility lines. For new buildings and infrastructure constructed to current California Building Code seismic-resistance standards, the damage potential is substantially lower.

AUGUST 30, 2005 PARSONS PAGE 3.7-4 BURBANK AVENUE ANNEXATION DRAFT SUBSEQUENT EIR SOILS, GEOLOGY, AND SEISMICITY

Other faults that exist in the vicinity of the City of Santa Rosa are pre-Quaternary in origin, generally being related to the Coastal thrust belt of the Coast Range thrust. They were active tens of million years ago, but have shown no evidence of activity during the last 1.6 million years.

Project Area Characteristics

Topography

The Project area is on the floor of the Santa Rosa Valley in the Sonoma Mountains of the California Coast Ranges. Elevations range from about 110 feet above mean sea level (+110 feet msl) along the southern portion of the annexation area to about +130 feet msl along the northern portion. Slopes across the Project area are less than 1 percent, except along the banks of the drainage way, where short slopes (less than 5 feet) are as steep as 50 percent.

Soils

The soils of Sonoma County belong to two major groups, which are further subdivided into 15 associations. The major soil groups are related to the substrate on which the soils have developed. The major Soil Association related to the Project is the Huichica-Wright-Zamora Association. This Association was developed on the unconsolidated deposits of flood plains, terraces and alluvial fans. The soil types in this association are somewhat poorly drained to well drained, nearly level, loams to silty clay loams. The principal use of these soils is for pasture and hay.

The Huichica-Wright-Zamora Soil Association is subdivided into soil types based on a variety of distinguishing characteristics, such as texture, slope, and agricultural capability. Soil types in this association are 90 percent Huichica, Wright and Zamora soils, but the remaining 10 percent includes Clear Lake and Yolo soils. The soil types in the Project are shown in Figure 3.7-2, Soils, and their characteristics pertinent to development capability are listed in Table 3.7-2. The soils tend to be clays and clay loams, relatively impermeable, moderately to highly expansive, prone to settlement, and moderately to highly corrosive to untreated steel and concrete. In their undisturbed state, erosion hazard is low because of their low slopes and fine texture.

Geologic Units

There are two types of unconsolidated sedimentary deposits in the Project area: alluvial fan deposits and older alluvial deposits. The distribution of these geologic units is shown in Figure 3.7-3. The younger alluvial fan deposits generally are fine- to medium-grained, but contain minor amounts of gravel. The older alluvium is coarse material (coarse sand and gravel). Unconsolidated sedimentary deposits represent material eroded from the hills to the east and deposited in ancient river channels or as alluvial fans. They are excavated easily, but will not stand long in steep unsupported slopes. The clayey material is prone to expansion and does not drain easily. The coarser-grained sediments (sand and gravel) drain readily and there is a possibility (although a very low one) that some pockets of liquefiable sand exist within these deposits.

AUGUST 30, 2005 PARSONS PAGE 3.7-5 PROJECT LOCATION

CITY OF SANTA ROSA PARSONS BURBANK AVE. SOILS ANNEXATION EIR Figure 3.7-2 BURBANK AVENUE ANNEXATION DRAFT SUBSEQUENT EIR SOILS, GEOLOGY, AND SEISMICITY

Table 3.7-2

Soil Characteristics – Burbank Avenue Annexation Area

Soil Type 1 Percolation Expansion Erosion Liquefaction Soil Strength 4 Corrosion Agricultural Rate 2 Potential 3 Hazard 3 Potential 3 Hazard 3 Capability Class 5 Clear Lake clay S H VL L P H II, III Wright loam M-VS L-H L-M VL F-P H III, IV Yolo clayey to M L-M L VL F-P L I, II gravelly loam Notes: 1 See Figure 3.7-2 for distribution of soil units. 2 VR = Very Rapid 3 VH = Very High 5 I = Few Limitations R = Rapid H = High II = Moderate Limitations MR = Moderately Rapid M = Moderate III = Severe Limitations M = Moderate L = Low IV = Very Severe Limitations MS = Moderately Slow VL = Very Low V = Impractical to Cultivate S = Slow 4 G = Good VI = Severe Limitations; Generally Unsuitable for Cultivation VS = Very Slow F = Fair VII = Very Severe Limitations; Unsuitable for Cultivation P = Poor VII = Precluded from Use for Commercial Planting

AUGUST 30, 2005 PARSONS PAGE 3.7-7 BURBANK AVENUE ANNEXATION DRAFT SUBSEQUENT EIR SOILS, GEOLOGY, AND SEISMICITY

Faults

The known active fault traces closest to the Project are those of the Rodgers Creek fault, about two miles to the east. This is the only fault in the vicinity of Santa Rosa that is zoned by the State under the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Zoning Act of 1972. No other Earthquake Fault Zones or active faults traces cross or trend toward the Project area. The traces of the Rodgers Creek fault in the Earthquake Fault Zone are not historically active, but show evidence of activity during the last 10,000 years. The Rodgers Creek fault is capable of generating a characteristic earthquake of Mw 7.1 and peak horizontal ground accelerations in excess of 0.6g. Groundshaking intensity associated with this event is expected to be at least VIII on the Modified Mercalli Intensity (MMI) Scale. MMI VIII causes slight damage in specially designed structures, but considerable damage to ordinarily substantial buildings. An earthquake of this magnitude would be sufficient to create peak accelerations severe enough to cause major damage to structures, foundations and underground utility lines. In looser unconsolidated deposits (sand) close to the epicenter, peak accelerations could be higher. Seismic ground response in the vicinity of the fault trace could cause severe damage to older commercial or residential buildings that were not properly constructed and secured to their foundations. For buildings constructed to current California Building Code seismic-resistance standards, the damage potential is lower, but still not insubstantial, unless the buildings are constructed using site-specific design to address the proximity of the fault.

The Project may be located in proximity to a splinter trace of the Rodgers Creek fault. This feature was mapped diagonally through the Project area (see Figure 3.7-3), based on work completed in 1974 for the California Division of Mine and Geology (CDMG) study for Geology for Planning Sonoma County. That report shows a “possibly active fault” extending from the Rodgers Creek fault, northwest through Bellevue, and connecting with a previously mapped fault trace east of Trenton. The fault east of Trenton was thought to be a post-Pliocene trace (less than 1.6 million years old). The current CDMG map of the Santa Rosa Quadrangle does not show the same connection between the Rodgers Creek fault and the fault east of Trenton, and indicates that the existence of a fault trace across the Project area is highly speculative. The indication is that there is no strong evidence for movement of this fault during the last 700,000 years. The CDMG has revised the Earthquake Fault Zoning maps in the vicinity of Santa Rosa as recently as 1983, and has not placed either of the speculatively located faults in an Earthquake Fault Zone, based on the lack of evidence of rupture of geologically young deposits. This does not mean the fault does not exist, but that sufficient information has not been found to confirm or deny its existence at this location.

Geo-Seismic Hazards and Constraints

The Project area contains moderate-risk and, potentially, high-risk geo-seismic hazard areas. The possible presence of an active fault (surface rupture hazard) is a high-risk issue. The effects of regional seismicity (groundshaking and associated ground failure) are moderate- to high-risk issues. The presence of potentially unstable foundation support material in the form of expansive soils, weak soils, and a shallow groundwater table (potentially saturated soils) are moderate-risk issues. Construction-related disruption and erosion of soils also are moderate-risk issues.

AUGUST 30, 2005 PARSONS PAGE 3.7-8 PROJECT LOCATION

CITY OF SANTA ROSA PARSONS BURBANK AVE. GEOLOGIC UNITS ANNEXATION EIR Figure 3.7-3 BURBANK AVENUE ANNEXATION DRAFT SUBSEQUENT EIR SOILS, GEOLOGY, AND SEISMICITY

Fault rupture is a potentially significant impact because the trace of a splinter fault in the Rodgers Creek fault zone may pass near the Project area (Figure 3.7-3). The portion of the trace that has been identified clearly by the CDMG is southeast of the Project and was active some time between 10,000 to 700,000 years ago. The trace trends towards the Project, but has not been identified in the sediments less than 10,000 years old within the Project. The CDMG does not consider this fault active and no Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone restrictions have been placed around it. The fault remains a concern because it appeared in the City’s Master Environmental Assessment of the Southwest Area, which was based on earlier geologic data. Although the known segment of this fault now is considered inactive, its possible presence should be taken into consideration during development of the infrastructure in the Project area.

Groundshaking hazards in the Project area are classified by the CDMG as “Moderate” to “High” because of the thickness of unconsolidated alluvium (up to 100 feet) and the generally shallow groundwater table (less than 20 feet), both of which could contribute to secondary ground failures (such as liquefaction) caused by seismic vibration. Peak horizontal ground accelerations in the Project area are expected to be near 0.6g (60% of the force of gravity), which means the standards for California Building Code Seismic Zone 4 would be the minimum requirements for site design and would need to be checked on a site-specific basis to ensure appropriate seismic- resistant construction.

Liquefaction potential generally is low because of the mixture of coarse and fine sediments underlying the Project. However, liquefaction needs to be addressed at each construction site or alignment because conditions such as depth to water table, uniformity of grain size and mix of grain size can vary dramatically within alluvial deposits. In general, the areas underlain by poorly sorted older alluvium are less liquefaction-prone than those underlain by the younger fine sand deposits.

3.7-2 RELEVANT PLANS AND POLICIES

State Policies and Regulations

The major State legislation regarding earthquake fault zones is the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act. In 1972, the State of California began delineating Earthquake Fault Zones (called Special Studies Zones prior to 1994) around active and potentially active faults to reduce fault-rupture risks to structures for human occupancy. The Act has resulted in preparation of maps delineating Earthquake Fault Zones to include, among others, recently active segments of the Healdsburg-Rodgers Creek fault. The Zones are revised periodically, and are about a quarter of a mile wide. No structures for human occupancy may be built across an identified active fault trace. An area of 50 feet on either side of an active fault trace is assumed to be underlain by the fault, unless proven otherwise. The Act provides for special considerations if developments are planned in areas adjacent to active or potentially active faults. Proposed construction within an Earthquake Fault Zone may be permitted only following the completion of detailed geologic investigations and a fault location report prepared by a California Registered Geologist. The Project is not crossed by Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zones, but if the splinter trace of the

AUGUST 30, 2005 PARSONS PAGE 3.7-10 BURBANK AVENUE ANNEXATION DRAFT SUBSEQUENT EIR SOILS, GEOLOGY, AND SEISMICITY

Rodgers Creek fault that may cross the Project is found to be active, an Earthquake Fault Zone would be established around it.

The major State regulations regarding geo-seismic hazards, other than surface faulting, are contained in Title 24, Part 2 of the California Building Code (CBC). The CBC applies to public buildings and a large percentage of private buildings in the State. It is based on the current Uniform Building Code (UBC 1997), but contains Additions, Amendments and Repeals that are specific to building conditions and structural requirements in the State of California. Local codes are permitted to be more restrictive than Title 24, but are required to be no less restrictive. Chapter 16 of the CBC deals with Structural Design Requirements, including (but not limited to) regulations governing seismically resistant construction. Chapter 18 and Appendix Chapter 33 deal with excavations, foundations, retaining walls, and grading, including (but not limited to) requirements for seismically resistant design, foundation investigations, stable cut and fill slopes, and drainage and erosion control. The Project area is in the CBC Seismic Zone 4, as is about 45 percent of the State, and therefore is required to meet the most stringent CBC construction standards.

The major State legislation regarding mineral resource zones is the Surface Mining and Reclamation Act of 1975. Part of the purpose of the act is to classify mineral resources in the State and to transmit the information to local governments that regulate land use in each region of the State. Local governments are responsible for designating lands that contain regionally significant mineral resources in the local General Plans to assure resource conservation in areas of intensive competing land uses. The law has resulted in preparation of Mineral Land Classification Maps delineating Mineral Resource Zones (MRZ) 1 through 4 for aggregate resources (sand, gravel and stone) in the City of Santa Rosa. The Project is mapped as MRZ-1, an area where there is adequate information to indicate that no significant mineral deposits are present.

Local Policies and Regulations

Santa Rosa General Plan

The following objectives and policies, from the Santa Rosa 2020: General Plan Noise and Safety Element are applicable to the Project:

NS-C. Prohibit development in high-risk geologic and seismic hazard areas to avoid exposure to seismic and geologic hazards.

NS-C-1. Prior to development approval, require appropriate geologic studies to identify fault trace locations within active fault zones as designated by the provisions of the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act. California registered geologists or engineers must conduct these studies and investigation methodologies must comply with guidelines set forth by the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act.

NS-C-2. Require comprehensive geotechnical investigations prior to development approval, where applicable. Investigations shall include evaluation of landslide risk, liquefaction potential, settlement, seismically-induced landsliding, or weak and

AUGUST 30, 2005 PARSONS PAGE 3.7-11 BURBANK AVENUE ANNEXATION DRAFT SUBSEQUENT EIR SOILS, GEOLOGY, AND SEISMICITY

expansive soils. Evaluation and mitigation of seismic hazards, including ground shaking, liquefaction, and seismically-induced landslides, shall comply with guidelines set forth in the most recent version of the California Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 117.

NS-C-3. Restrict development from areas where people might be adversely affected by known natural or manmade geologic hazards. Hazards might include unstable slopes, liquefiable soils, expansive soils or weak poorly engineered fills, as determined by a California registered geologist or engineer.

NS-C-7. Require inspection for structural integrity of water storage facilities, water conveyance facilities, electricity transmission lines, roadways, water detention facilities, levees, and other utilities after a major seismic event, especially on the San Andreas or Rodgers Creek faults.

NS-C-8. Adopt mandatory, minimum erosion control measures for current properties and those under construction that exhibit high erosion potential, are in areas of steep slopes, or have experienced past erosion problems. Control measures shall reduce soil erosion from primary erosion agents, including wind, construction operations and storm water runoff.

Southwest Santa Rosa Area Plan

There are no specific geologic, soils, or seismic policies included in the Southwest Santa Rosa Area Plan. Grading, erosion, and seismic safety issues are addressed in the General Plan and cover the southwest area.

3.7-3 EVALUATION CRITERIA WITH THRESHOLD OF SIGNIFICANCE

Table 3.7-3

Evaluation Criteria with Threshold of Significance – Soils, Geology and Seismicity

As Measured Threshold of Evaluation Criteria Justification by Significance

1. The Project may be Potential for loss, Any portion of Earthquake fault zones are established under subject to surface injury or death facilities within 50 the Alquist-Priolo earthquake fault zone Act rupture along a possible involving rupture feet of an active by the California Division of Mines and splinter fault of the of a known fault zone or fault Geology (CDMG) to regulate development Rodgers Creek fault earthquake fault trace near active faults to mitigate the hazard of zone. surface rupture. Santa Rosa General Plan 4.11-A Master EIR 3.2.1-1 Redevelopment EIR 3.2.1-1

AUGUST 30, 2005 PARSONS PAGE 3.7-12 BURBANK AVENUE ANNEXATION DRAFT SUBSEQUENT EIR SOILS, GEOLOGY, AND SEISMICITY

Table 3.7-3

Evaluation Criteria with Threshold of Significance – Soils, Geology and Seismicity

As Measured Threshold of Evaluation Criteria Justification by Significance

2. The Project may be Structural design Construction not in Local building codes subject to potentially and construction conformance with Santa Rosa General Plan 4.11-A damaging seismically not in applicable building induced groundshaking, conformance with codes. Master EIR 3.2.1-2 localized liquefaction, applicable Redevelopment EIR 3.2.1-2 or/or seismic-related building codes landsliding. 3. Construction of the Construction Construction not in Clean Water Act regulations and local Project may have the activities not in compliance with building or grading ordinances (refer to text) potential to increase compliance with NPDES or building Santa Rosa General Plan 4.11-B erosion of soil from the NPDES or and grading codes sites and subsequent building and Master EIR 3.2.1-3 deposition of particles grading codes in drainage ways, creeks, or wetlands. 4. The use of Shrink-swell A rating of Soil Conservation Service (SCS) publications expansive or weak soils potential as rated Moderate to High indicate that: “If the shrink-swell potential is for foundation support in Sonoma rated moderate to very high, shrinking and may create unstable soil County Soil swelling can damage buildings, roads, and conditions at the Survey other structures.” Project construction Santa Rosa General Plan 4.11-B site. Master EIR 3.2.1-4 Redevelopment EIR 3.2.1-3

Source: Southwest Santa Rosa Area Plan EIR, Southwest Santa Rosa Redevelopment Plan EIR, Santa Rosa General Plan 2020 EIR

3.7-4 IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES

IMPACT: 3.7-1: The Project may be subject to surface rupture along a possible splinter fault of the Rodgers Creek fault zone.

Analysis: Significant The known active fault closest to the Project area is of the Rodgers Creek Fault, about 2.17 miles to the east of the Project (see Figure 3.7-1). However, fault rupture is a potentially significant impact because the trace of a splinter fault in the Rodgers Creek fault zone may pass near or through the Project site (see Figure 3.7-3). The portion of the trace that has been identified clearly by the CDMG is southeast of the Project and was active some time between 10,000 to 700,000

AUGUST 30, 2005 PARSONS PAGE 3.7-13 BURBANK AVENUE ANNEXATION DRAFT SUBSEQUENT EIR SOILS, GEOLOGY, AND SEISMICITY

years ago. The trace trends towards the Project, but has not been identified in the sediments less than 10,000 years old within the Project. The CDMG does not consider this fault active. Although the known segment of this fault now is considered inactive, its possible presence has been taken into consideration during development of the infrastructure in the Project area. The Master EIR and Redevelopment EIR found that surface rupturing along the trace of any fault affects all types of material; however, it does not always show clearly in unconsolidated soils or alluvium, such as occur in the Project area. Damage caused by surface rupturing is limited to the actual location of the fault- line break, unlike damage from groundshaking which can occur at great distances from the fault. Even a moderate earthquake can be accompanied by enough surface rupturing to damage foundations and buried utility lines that have not been adequately protected where they cross fault traces. Under the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act, the State is required to delineate “Earthquake Fault Zones” along known active faults to regulate development near active faults in order to mitigate the hazard of surface fault- rupture. No Earthquake Fault Zones has been delineated along this possible splinter fault segment of the Rodgers Creek fault zone, because its location and existence are questionable. The fact that a possible fault trace has been shown on several maps over the past 40 years, including the 1980 Geology for Planning in Sonoma County, California Division of Mines and Geology Special Report 120, indicates that concern remains. If the splinter trace were found to be active, a Special Studies Zone would be established around it. This is considered a significant impact. Mitigation: 3.7-1. Perform site-specific geotechnical investigations. (Master EIR and Redevelopment EIR Mitigation Measure 3.2.1-1) The proposed Project includes properties that are located along the potential fault trace (see Figure 3.7-3). Therefore, a geotechnical investigation shall be conducted for the Project prior to the approval of specific development plans to determine if a splinter trace can be identified, and if so, if the splinter trace is active. The geotechnical investigation would be conducted by a California Certified Engineering Geologist, Registered Geologist or Geotechnical Engineer, and the findings would be incorporated into the land use design for those projects affected by the splinter trace. (a) If an active fault trace is found, the minimum setback from the trace shall be 50 feet, unless the site-specific fault investigation can demonstrate satisfactory safety conditions closer to the trace. (b) Additional seismic-resistant earthwork and construction design criteria shall be incorporated in the project as necessary, based on the site- specific recommendations of a California Certified Engineering Geologist in cooperation with California-registered geotechnical and structural engineering professionals (see also Mitigation Measure 3.7-2 below).

AUGUST 30, 2005 PARSONS PAGE 3.7-14 BURBANK AVENUE ANNEXATION DRAFT SUBSEQUENT EIR SOILS, GEOLOGY, AND SEISMICITY

The risk of Project damage due to surface rupture will be reduced to within acceptable limits by establishing a 50-foot setback from the trace and incorporating seismic-resistant earthwork and construction design in the Project. After Mitigation: Less than Significant

IMPACT: 3.7-2. The Project may be subject to potentially damaging, seismically induced groundshaking, localized liquefaction, and/or seismic-related landsliding.

Analysis: Significant The Master EIR and Redevelopment EIR found that Santa Rosa will be, on average, subjected to at least one major earthquake during the useful economic life of the Project. The design earthquake for the Project is estimated to be an Mw 7.1 earthquake on the Rodgers Creek fault, creating peak horizontal ground accelerations as high as 0.6g. The resulting vibration could cause damage to structural members of residential and commercial facilities and their associated infrastructure (primary effects) and could cause ground failures in alluvium and poorly compacted fill (secondary effects). As previously discussed, the entire Project area is underlain by alluvial materials that, in their natural state, could respond poorly to loading during seismic ground motion. To reduce the risks associated with seismically induced groundshaking, it is necessary to take the location and type of subsurface materials into consideration when designing foundations and structures for a particular project site. In the City of Santa Rosa, buildings and infrastructure are required to reduce the exposure to potentially damaging seismic vibrations through seismic-resistant design, in conformance with the California Building Code Seismic Zone 4 requirements (the most stringent in the State). Mitigation: 3.7-2. Comply with state building code seismic requirements (Master EIR and Redevelopment EIR Mitigation Measure 3.2.1-2) Because the requirements of CBC Seismic Zone 4 allow some discretion in the application of ground motion design parameters (CBC § 1629), the City shall perform its own review of its needs for seismic protection and apply the appropriate CBC criteria. The City’s review of geologic conditions at construction sites, and development of criteria for determining the design earthquake for the specific project site and ground motion criteria for areas in which new structures would be located, shall be performed by a California Registered Geologist or Certified Engineering Geologist in consultation with the geotechnical and structural engineers for the specific project. The review would ensure appropriate recommendations regarding seismic restraints that would be incorporated in the design of projects within the Project area to increase the chances of survival for residents and visitors to the area in the event of a major earthquake. The requirements of CBC Seismic Zone 4 would include:

AUGUST 30, 2005 PARSONS PAGE 3.7-15 BURBANK AVENUE ANNEXATION DRAFT SUBSEQUENT EIR SOILS, GEOLOGY, AND SEISMICITY

(a) The minimum seismic-resistant design standards for all proposed facilities shall conform to the CBC Seismic Zone 4 Standards. (b) Additional seismic-resistant earthwork and construction design criteria shall be incorporated as necessary, based on the site-specific recommendations of a California Certified Engineering Geologist in cooperation with California- registered geotechnical and structural engineering professionals. (c) During site preparation, the registered geotechnical professional shall be on the site to supervise implementation of the recommended criteria. (e) A California Certified Engineering Geologist consultant shall prepare an "as built" map/report, to be filed with the City, showing details of the site geology, the location and type of seismic-restraint facilities, and documenting the following requirements, as appropriate. 1. Engineering analyses shall demonstrate satisfactory performance of alluvium and fill where they form part or all of the support for structures. 2. Analysis of soil expansion potential and appropriate remediation (e.g. compaction, removal) shall be completed prior to using expansive soils for foundation support. 3. Access roads, foundations and underground utilities in fill or alluvium shall be designed to accommodate settlement or compaction estimated by the site-specific investigations of the geotechnical consultant. The risk of damage caused by seismically induced groundshaking will be reduced to within acceptable limits by requiring the use of site-specific ground motion criteria, as described in CBC § 1629, and reviewed by the City’s California- registered geotechnical and/or structural engineer, to be incorporated in the design of trenches, slopes, foundations and structures for projects within the Project area. After Mitigation: Less than Significant

IMPACT: 3.7-3. Construction of the Project may have the potential to increase erosion of soil from the sites and subsequent deposition of particles in drainage ways, creeks, or wetlands.

Analysis: Significant The Master EIR found that during the grading and construction period, the potentially erosive effects of water leaving the construction areas would be of concern. Runoff during the grading period could carry particles of fill from the grading or construction sites, or could erode soil downgradient, if the flow were not controlled. In some cases the loss of the material by erosion may not be a significant impact in itself, however, the re-deposition of eroded material in water bodies in or adjacent to the Project area could create turbidity (endangering aquatic life), reduce wildlife habitat, and reduce the water-carrying capacity of streams and drainage ways, thereby potentially aggravating flood conditions (see

AUGUST 30, 2005 PARSONS PAGE 3.7-16 BURBANK AVENUE ANNEXATION DRAFT SUBSEQUENT EIR SOILS, GEOLOGY, AND SEISMICITY

Section 3.8, Hydrology and Water Quality). Erosive conditions created during the grading period can persist into the operations period. Grading is expected to be minimal, because of the low topographic relief across the Project area. Some caving is expected in the coarser materials (sand and gravel), and erosion could become a problem if grading extended into the wet season. Most soils in the Project area have low erosion potential in their natural condition because of low slopes and a mixture of fine and coarse grain sizes. However, disrupted soils become more erosion-prone unless specific measures are taken to control erosion. General grading activities, including those related to construction, are regulated by Chapter 79 of the CBC. Because the Project slopes at a very gentle and consistent gradient and contains fairly similar soil materials, a plan to control erosion and sediment transport can be outlined that generally would suit most sites. The specific design of the erosion and sediment transport control plan would be based on the actual conditions at the sites where the grading and construction was to occur. The concepts to be incorporated (as appropriate) in the Project have been published by the Association of Bay Area Governments and are reproduced in Mitigation Measure 3.7-3, below.

Mitigation: 3.7-3a. Perform grading activities only during the dry season (Master EIR Mitigation Measure 3.2.1-3) One of the most effective methods to counteract the potential for water erosion is to complete as much of the grading and construction as possible during the dry season. However, if portions of these phases extend into the wet season, sediment can be prevented from leaving the construction sites through the use of silt fences, straw bales, perimeter ditches, water bars, temporary culvers and swales, sediment traps, minimal grading concepts, and/or similar techniques appropriate for the site. These erosion and sediment transport control structures need to be in place prior to the onset of seasonal rains.

If grading or construction is to occur during the wet season, the project will require an erosion and sediment transport control plan, designed by an erosion control professional, or landscape architect or civil engineer specializing in erosion control, that shall meet the following objectives for the grading and construction period of projects proposed for the Southwest Plan Area. (a) The erosion and sediment transport control plan shall be submitted, reviewed, implemented and inspected as part of the approval process for the grading plans for each project. (b) The plan shall be designed by the developers' erosion control consultant, using concepts similar to those developed by the Association of Bay Area Governments, as appropriate, based on the specific erosion and sediment transport control needs of each area in which grading and construction is to occur. Those concepts include some which apply generally to the Southwest Plan Area (see

AUGUST 30, 2005 PARSONS PAGE 3.7-17 BURBANK AVENUE ANNEXATION DRAFT SUBSEQUENT EIR SOILS, GEOLOGY, AND SEISMICITY

bullet items on list below), and some that would be appropriate only for specific sites. The possible methods are not necessarily limited to the following items. • Confine grading and activities related to grading (demolition, construction, preparation and use of equipment and material storage areas [staging areas], preparation of access roads) to the dry season, whenever possible. • If grading or activities related to grading need to be scheduled for the wet season, ensure that structural erosion and sediment transport control measures are ready for implementation prior to the onset of the first major storm of the season. • Locate staging areas outside major streams and drainage ways. • Keep the lengths and gradients of constructed slopes (cut or fill) as low as possible. • Discharge grading and construction runoff into small drainages at frequent intervals to avoid buildup of large potentially erosive flows. • Prevent runoff from flowing over unprotected slopes. • Keep disturbed areas (areas of grading and related activities) to the minimum necessary for demolition or construction. • Keep runoff away from disturbed areas during grading and related activities. • Stabilize disturbed areas as quickly as possible, either by vegetative or mechanical methods. • Direct runoff over vegetated areas prior to discharge into public storm drainage systems, whenever possible. • Trap sediment before it leaves the site with such techniques as check dams, sediment ponds, or siltation fences. • Make the contractor responsible for the removal and disposal of all sedimentation in off-site retention ponds that is generated by grading and related activities of the project. • Use landscaping and grading methods that lower the potential for down- stream sedimentation. Modified drainage patterns, longer flow paths, encouraging infiltration into the ground, and slower storm-water conveyance velocities are examples of effective methods. • Control landscaping activities carefully with regard to the application of fertilizers, herbicides, pesticides or other hazardous substances. Provide proper instruction to all landscaping personnel on the construction team. (c) During the installation of the erosion and sediment transport control structures, the erosion control professional shall be on the site to supervise the

AUGUST 30, 2005 PARSONS PAGE 3.7-18 BURBANK AVENUE ANNEXATION DRAFT SUBSEQUENT EIR SOILS, GEOLOGY, AND SEISMICITY

implementation of the designs, and the maintenance of the facilities throughout the demolition, grading and construction period. (d) The erosion control professional shall prepare an "as built" erosion and sediment control facility map, to be filed with the City, showing details of the structural elements of the plan and providing an operating and maintenance schedule throughout the operational period of the project. The risk of Project construction impacts regarding the potential to increase erosion of soil from the sites and subsequent deposition of particles in drainage ways, creeks, or wetlands will be reduced to within acceptable limits by requiring an erosion and sediment transport control plan. Mitigation: 3.7-3b. Implement NPDES Permit Requirements. (Master EIR Mitigation Measure 3.2.3-4). As described in Section 3.8, Hydrology and Water Quality, the 1972 amendments to the Clean Water Act prohibit the discharge of pollutants and sediments to navigable waters from a point source unless the discharge is authorized by a National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit. The RWQCB requires that an NPDES permit be obtained for construction grading activities for all projects greater than one acre. This permit requires implementation of nonpoint source control of stormwater runoff through the application of a number of Best Management Practices (BMPs). These practices are meant to reduce the amount of constituents entering streams and other water bodies. A Best Management Practices (BMP) program, as required by the RWQCB, describes stormwater management practices (structural and operational measures), to control the quantity and quality of stormwater runoff, and aid in erosion control. Practices include on-site detention and treatment, preventive maintenance, inspection, security measures, and employee training. If construction is scheduled to occur throughout the year or is unlikely to be restricted to the dry months of the year, the BMPs must be implemented to ensure that sediment is confined to the construction area and not transported off site. Erosion control also is required by the City, County, and the RWQCB through general plan policies and regulatory permits (NPDES permit in the case of the RWQCB). Implement the NPDES permit requirements regarding the implementation of non- point pollution source control of stormwater runoff through the application of Best Management Practices would reduce vernal pool/wetland pollution and sedimentation impacts to a level of insignificance. After Mitigation: Less than Significant IMPACT: 3.7-4. The use of expansive or weak soils for foundation support may create unstable soil conditions at the Project construction site.

Analysis: Significant

AUGUST 30, 2005 PARSONS PAGE 3.7-19 BURBANK AVENUE ANNEXATION DRAFT SUBSEQUENT EIR SOILS, GEOLOGY, AND SEISMICITY

The Master EIR and Redevelopment EIR found that the existence of expansive, compressible and corrosive soils throughout the Project area makes it necessary to ensure the soils used for foundation support are sound. The creation of building pads or access road/parking lot bases in unsuitable soils has the potential to create future problems of foundation settlement and utility line disruption if the soils are not specifically engineered for stability. Mitigation: 3.7-4a. Avoid construction where soil suitability is unknown. (Master EIR Mitigation Measure 3.2.1-4 and Redevelopment EIR Mitigation Measure 3.2.1-3) Require site-specific soil suitability analysis and stabilization procedures, and design criteria for foundations, as recommended by a California-registered soil engineer during the design phase for each site where the existence of unsuitable soil conditions is known or suspected. (a) During the design phase for each site where the existence of unsuitable soil conditions is known or suspected, the developer's registered soil engineering consultant shall provide documentation to the City that: 1. site-specific soil suitability analyses has been conducted in the area of the proposed foundation to establish the design criteria for appropriate foundation type and support, and 2. the recommended criteria have been incorporated in the design of foundation. (b) During grading for these sites, the registered soils professional shall be on the site: 1. to observe areas of potential soil unsuitability, 3. to supervise the implementation of soil remediation programs, and 4. to verify final soil conditions prior to setting the foundations. (c) The registered soils engineering consultant shall prepare an "as built" map, to be filed with the City, showing details of the site soils, the location of foundations, sub-drains and clean-outs, the results of suitability analyses and compaction tests. 3.7-4b. Adopt site-specific soil characterization programs and recommendations. An acceptable degree of soil stability can be achieved by adopting soil treatment programs (e.g. grouting, compaction, drainage control) and foundation designs (e.g. drilled piers, driven piles) that address site-specific soil conditions. Site- specific analysis is the basis of sound foundation design in areas where unsuitable conditions are suspected. Such analyses contain recommendations for ground preparation, earthwork, and foundations specific to the site, which become an integral part of the construction design.

AUGUST 30, 2005 PARSONS PAGE 3.7-20 BURBANK AVENUE ANNEXATION DRAFT SUBSEQUENT EIR SOILS, GEOLOGY, AND SEISMICITY

Before approving the design of projects within the annexation area, the City should have a completed report of soil conditions at the project site, provided by the developer, which identifies and evaluates potentially unsuitable soil conditions. The evaluations must be conducted by registered soil professionals, and measures to reduce or eliminate inappropriate soil conditions must be applied to the site. The site-specific measures needed to achieve satisfactory soil performance cannot be determine until the soil evaluations are complete and at least conceptual designs for a project have been prepared. At a minimum, the investigations must provide information and recommendations for the following items: 1. The characteristics of the soil materials at the site. 2. The most appropriate type of treatment to correct inadequacies in the support soils. 3. The most appropriate type of foundations for the proposed structures. 4. The design criteria for the recommended foundation type. 5. The estimated ground settlement rate beneath the foundation. 6. The necessary subgrade preparation for the foundations. 7. The lateral pressures for retaining walls. 8. The drainage conditions at the site. 9. The suitability of on-site soils for use as backfill. The recommendations of the foundation reports for the construction of buildings at any specific project site are required to be incorporated in the Plans and Specifications for the design of any project. The requirement of site-specific soil suitability analysis and stabilization procedures, and design criteria for foundations, during the design phase for each site where the existence of unsuitable soil conditions is known or suspected, will reduce the potential impact of unstable soil conditions due to the use of expansive or weak soils for foundation support to a level below significance. After Mitigation: Less than Significant

3.7-5 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS

Although the project would occur in Sonoma County, an area of high seismic risk, the potential impacts are site specific, and would not combine with impacts on other sites to result in a cumulatively significant impact. Standard erosion control, soil suitability, and seismic design measures for other projects in the area would be expected to reduce their impacts to less than significant.

AUGUST 30, 2005 PARSONS PAGE 3.7-21 BURBANK AVENUE ANNEXATION DRAFT SUBSEQUENT EIR SOILS, GEOLOGY, AND SEISMICITY

3.7-6 REFERENCES

City of Santa Rosa. 2002. Santa Rosa 2020: General Plan EIR. June.

City of Santa Rosa. 1994. Southwest Santa Rosa Area Plan Final EIR. EIP Associates. April.

City of Santa Rosa. 2000. Southwest Santa Rosa Redevelopment Plan EIR. EIP Associates. May.

AUGUST 30, 2005 PARSONS PAGE 3.7-22 BURBANK AVENUE ANNEXATION DRAFT SUBSEQUENT EIR HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY 3.8 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY

This section discusses impacts on surface water and groundwater resources, including water quality, flooding, and stormwater runoff pertinent to the Project as derived from the Southwest Santa Rosa Area Plan EIR (Master EIR), Santa Rosa Redevelopment Plan EIR (Redevelopment EIR), and Santa Rosa 2020 General Plan EIR.

3.8-1 SETTING

Drainage

The majority of the Project area drains into Roseland Creek, which flows through the Project area. A small area at the southern portion of the project area drains to Colgan Creek. Both creeks are tributary to the Laguna de Santa Rosa. The Laguna de Santa Rosa is tributary to the Russian River and it contains the major drainages of the southeastern portion of the Russian River watershed. The Laguna de Santa Rosa drains an area of 254 square miles and is actually a long chain of marshes and wetlands interconnected by a series of poorly-defined natural and modified channels with restricted flow capacity. These conditions have created a series of natural detention basins that slow the discharge of flood waters into the Russian River. The Laguna also provides overflow storage for flood waters that originate at the northern end of the Russian River watershed.

The Roseland Creek watershed encompasses 4.6 miles and is entirely within the Santa Rosa Plain. Roseland Creek’s watershed is located south of Highway 12 and west of U.S. 101 and extends to Llano Road in the southwest. Roseland Creek traverses a portion of the Project area flowing from east to west. The creek is natural, flows intermittently and is unchannelized for a majority of its length across the Project area. The natural, unchannelized portion of the creek is privately owned. The creek becomes channelized towards the western edge of property where it becomes the Roseland Creek Flood Control Channel. The flood control channel is owned and maintained by the Sonoma County Water Agency. The Roseland Creek Flood Control Channel continues south through a box culvert under Ludwig Avenue east of South Wright Road, and eventually flows into the Laguna de Santa Rosa about 2.5 miles to the southwest.

About 30 percent of the entire Southwest Santa Rosa Plan Area currently is covered by impervious surface. 5he largest concentrations of impervious surface in the Southwest Area are outside the Project area in existing commercial/industrial areas and suburban developments, and the Project area contains large areas of vacant land. It is thus estimated that the Project area currently has less than 20 percent impervious surface area.

Flood Hazard

Drainage from the Project area flows into Roseland Creek through a network of public storm drains, which also serves areas east of the annexation area. In addition, a 54-inch diameter storm drain exists in Burbank Avenue north of Roseland Creek and drains areas to the north of the annexation area. The storm drain system and Roseland Creek Flood Control Channel are

AUGUST 30, 2005 PARSONS PAGE 3.8-1 BURBANK AVENUE ANNEXATION DRAFT SUBSEQUENT EIR HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY

currently owned and maintained by the Sonoma County Water Agency, and they will continue to own and maintain the channel following annexation to the City. Ownership of the other existing storm drain lines within the annexation area is anticipated to transfer from the County to the City of Santa Rosa concurrent with annexation. Figure 2-8 – Storm Drain Plan (in Chapter 2 of this SEIR) shows the new drainage infrastructure that is proposed in conjunction with individual development proposals.

In 2004 the City of Santa Rosa Department of Public Works completed the Southern Santa Rosa Drainage Study. The study included review and modeling of the current drainage and flooding conditions for Navel, Roseland, and Colgan Creeks and three unnamed watersheds. It also included modeling designed to illustrate drainage and potential flooding following future development in the areas that drain to the three creeks and the three unnamed watersheds. The hydrologic model was designed to estimate both the existing and future design storm flows to identify drainage improvements necessary to accommodate stream flows during a 100-year flood flow event. The hydrologic model as well as existing data indicates that Roseland Creek floods in the middle and lower reaches under current conditions and is likely to experience additional flooding in the future. The upper reach where the Project area is located does not normally flood; however, drainage from that area contributes to flooding in the lower channel. Significant portions of Colgan Creek also are projected to flood during future 100-year storm conditions.

The study identified numerous drainage improvements for the middle and lower reaches of Roseland and Colgan Creeks. These improvements include detention basins, culvert size increases, culvert bypass, channel widening and revegetation, and floodplain protection to increase flood flow capacity of Roseland Creek. The City of Santa Rosa has not yet adopted the plan or selected drainage improvements for Roseland Creek.

Water Quality

Surface water quality of the region is monitored by the North Coast Region of the California Water Quality Control Board (WQCB). The WQCB implements a Water Quality Control Plan or basin plan to control water quality in order to achieve the maximum benefit possible. Under the basin plan for the Santa Rosa region, present beneficial uses listed for the reach of the Laguna de Santa Rosa include agricultural and industrial supply, recreation, freshwater habitat, wildlife habitat and potentially aquaculture. Present and potential water quality problems identified by the Regional Water Quality Control Board in the Basin Plan include: increased surface runoff, sedimentation, the disposal of municipal wastes and wastewater, and impacts associated with underground storage tanks. The 2002 Clean Water Act 303(d) list of water quality limited water bodies identifies the entire Russian River, including the Laguna de Santa Rosa and Roseland Creek, as impaired due to excessive sedimentation/siltation and high water temperatures.

Surface water quality in the Project area is influenced by the three separate sources of water that contribute to the flow within local drainage channels: natural streamflow, stormwater and irrigation runoff, and direct discharges. Natural streamflow is limited, and depends on the slow drainage of groundwater through surface seeps and springs located throughout the hills that surround Santa Rosa. This water generally is free of contamination, although it often contains high concentrations of dissolved minerals and other naturally occurring solids. Stormwater and

AUGUST 30, 2005 PARSONS PAGE 3.8-2 BURBANK AVENUE ANNEXATION DRAFT SUBSEQUENT EIR HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY irrigation runoff enter streams directly as overland flow, carrying the dissolved or suspended residue of both natural and human land uses within each watershed. This can include sand, silt, clay, organic fertilizers and pesticides, heavy metals, oil and grease, animal waste, decaying forest litter, and debris. Direct discharges into streams generally are made only by industrial plants and wastewater treatment facilities. Discharges are regulated locally by the North Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board, which grants permits for waste discharges and enforces the treatment provisions set forth within each permit.

The sand, silt, and clay carried by stormwater runoff are the products of continuing soil erosion within the watershed. As topography flattens, soil is deposited and slowly accumulates. The accumulated material gradually lowers the channel capacity and forces flood waters further into the surrounding floodplain. Through urbanization, the resulting increase in stormwater runoff has caused longer duration, high velocity flows in the easily eroded natural stream channels. Upland erosion also is causing sedimentation in the Laguna de Santa Rosa, slowly lowering its capacity to mitigate downstream Russian River flooding.

Groundwater

The Project area is located within the Santa Rosa Plain groundwater subbasin. The subbasin has one main water-bearing unit (Merced Formation) and several units with lower water-bearing capacities (the Glen Ellen formation and alluvium of various ages). Groundwater occurrence is not continuous throughout the subbasin. The subbasin contains numerous complex and discontinuous water-bearing formations. Folding and faulting throughout the region has disrupted groundwater flow. This compartmentalization, with both vertical and horizontal barriers, creates a variety of water table elevations and a complicated pattern of groundwater quality. Division of the groundwater subbasin into semi-isolated units also implies that these units tend to remain localized barring any substantial changes in pumping patterns. The major water-yielding units surrounding the Project area are the alluvial fan deposits and the Merced formation sandstones (State of California 2003).

Recharge of groundwater occurs through percolation of rainfall and seepage from streams, primarily where land slopes are relatively gentle, and soils and geological materials are permeable. Recharge is limited within much of the Santa Rosa Plain and adjoining low hills by the relatively high clay content of the basin soils and existing impermeable surfaces. The clay soil layer forms a cap above the water table that slows the percolation of rainwater, causing prolonged ponding in low lying areas and often preventing the construction of septic leachfields. Within the Santa Rosa Plain the most significant natural recharge areas are located along the channels of Santa Rosa, Mark West, Matanzas, Rincon, and Windsor Creeks, and Laguna de Santa Rosa. These important natural recharge zones are not within the Project area. However, the Department of Water Resources recognizes most of the Santa Rosa Plain as a potential groundwater recharge zone, including the Project area

From recharge areas, groundwater tends to flow toward streams or the troughs of major valleys. Groundwater flows across the Project area in a southwesterly direction. Groundwater discharge occurs primarily through seepage to streams, marshes, or through the pumping of wells. Groundwater levels and depth to groundwater differ considerably across the Santa Rosa Plain, reflecting the variety of water-bearing formations and the compartmentalization of the

AUGUST 30, 2005 PARSONS PAGE 3.8-3 BURBANK AVENUE ANNEXATION DRAFT SUBSEQUENT EIR HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY

groundwater basins. Shallow groundwater generally occurs at depths of 5 to 20 feet, with higher levels during the winter and early spring. The Santa Rosa Plain groundwater subbasin as a whole is approximately in balance, with increased groundwater levels in the northeast contrasting with decreased groundwater levels in the south (State of California 2003).

Groundwater Quality

The Santa Rosa groundwater basin’s primary recharge zones are the marshes and wetlands of the Laguna de Santa Rosa. This area provides a series of natural detention basins which slow discharge of stormwater into the Russian River, allowing the settlement of suspended sediment and substantial portion of the runoff to percolate into the groundwater. As a result, the quality of stream flow within the Laguna de Santa Rosa’s tributaries directly affects groundwater quality. Although high iron, manganese, and hardness have been reported in groundwater from some portions of the Santa Rosa Plain basin, the overall quality of groundwater in the Santa Rosa Plain is good (State of California 2003).

A portion of the Project area has experienced groundwater contamination problems. For a discussion of hazardous materials and contamination issues see the Hazardous Materials chapter (Chapter 3.5) of this SEIR.

3.8-2 RELEVANT PLANS, POLICIES AND REGULATIONS

Water resources are regulated by a variety of statutes at the local, State, and Federal levels administered by a variety of jurisdictions. Agencies having jurisdiction with respect to water resources include: City of Santa Rosa, the Sonoma County Water Agency, State Water Resources Control Board and Regional Water Quality Control Board, California Department of Fish and Game, and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

The following plans are applicable to the Project:

Santa Rosa General Plan

The City of Santa Rosa General Plan contains policies to improve stormwater drainage and capacity (GP Goal PSF-I), minimize hazards associated with storm flooding (GP Goal NS-D), and protect the quality of surface waters (GP Goal OSC-D-9). The following policies contained in the Santa Rosa 2002 General Plan are applicable to the Project:

Policy PSF-I-1. Require dedication, improvement and maintenance of stormwater flow and retention areas as a condition of approval.

Policy PSF-I-2. Require developers to cover the costs of drainage facilities needed for surface runoff generated as a result of new development.

Policy PSF-I-3. Require erosion and sedimentation control measures to maintain an operational drainage system, reserve drainage capacity, and protect water quality.

AUGUST 30, 2005 PARSONS PAGE 3.8-4 BURBANK AVENUE ANNEXATION DRAFT SUBSEQUENT EIR HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY

Policy PSF-I-4. Require measures to maintain and improve the storm drainage system, consistent with goals of the Santa Rosa Waterways Plan, to preserve natural conditions of waterways and minimize paving of creek channels.

Policy PSF-I-6. Require implementation of Best Management Practices to reduce drainage system discharge of non-point source pollutants originating from streets, parking lots, residential areas, businesses, industrial operations, and those open space areas involved with pesticide application.

Policy PSF-I-8. Develop a Standard Urban Stormwater Mitigation Plan (SUSMP) to reduce pollutants and runoff flows from new development and significant redevelopment projects.

Policy PSF-I-9. Consider installation of creekside pathways, consistent with the City’s Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan, when possible as part of stormwater improvement projects along the City’s creek corridors.

Policy OSC-D-9. Ensure that construction adjacent to creek channels is sensitive to the natural environment. Ensure that natural topography and vegetation is preserved along the creek, and that construction activities do not disrupt or pollute the waterway.

Policy NS-D-1. Ensure flood plain protection by retaining existing open areas and creating new open areas needed to retain stormwater, recharge aquifers, and prevent flooding.

Policy NS-D-3. Require that new development incorporate features into site drainage plans that would reduce impermeable surface area, increase surface water infiltration, and minimize surface water runoff during storm events. Such features may include:

• Additional landscape areas,

• Parking lots with bio-infiltration systems,

• Permeable paving designs, and

• Stormwater detention basins.

City of Santa Rosa Code Sections 19.64.010 and 17.12.010

All subdivisions are subject to compliance with Sections 19.64.010 of the Santa Rosa Municipal Code, which requires proper grading and erosion control, including the prevention of sedimentation or damage to off-site property. In addition, Municipal Code Chapter 17.12 contains procedures and regulations for protection of stormwater and restricts stormwater discharge.

AUGUST 30, 2005 PARSONS PAGE 3.8-5 BURBANK AVENUE ANNEXATION DRAFT SUBSEQUENT EIR HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY

Southwest Santa Rosa Area Plan

Safety - The Area Plan includes policies related to hydrology and water quality in the Safety Element.

Goal S-1: Minimize health dangers from contaminated or potentially contaminated groundwater.

Objective 1.1: Minimize the potential for human health risks associated with the use of groundwater for potable sources.

Policy 1.1.1: Potable water for all future development in the study area shall be supplied by the municipal water system.

Policy 1.1.2: Encourage existing uses to connect to the municipal water system to avoid potential human health risks. Alternatively, existing groundwater users should have their water quality periodically investigated for industrial wastes (chlorinated solvents, petroleum products, and metals etc, as appropriate) in addition to routine bacteriological analysis.

Objective 1.2: Prevent the spread of groundwater contamination.

Policy 1.2.1: When undergrounding utilities in potential problem areas, incorporate measures which reduce, minimize, and ideally prevent, migration of contaminated groundwater. Such measures could include, but are not limited to:

a) Installation of utilities about ground where feasible; b) Replacing excavated souls with soils of a lower permeability; c) Installation of barriers within utility trenches; and d) Lining storm drains and sanitary sewers to prevent infiltration.

Policy 1.2.2: Discourage the construction of new wells which may act to spread or draw contaminated groundwater.

Goal S-3: Minimize flooding and poor drainage.

Objective 3.1: Install drainage improvements as needed in coordination with new development and as a retrofit to existing developed areas.

Policy 3.1.1: Utilize open space areas to retain or store storm water run off and prevent down stream flooding as well as flooding of developed areas, where feasible.

Policy 3.1.2: Continue to work cooperatively with the Sonoma County Water Agency and the development community in the development of storm drainage improvements.

Policy 3.1.3: Insure adequate improvements are in place to convey storm water run off from new development.

AUGUST 30, 2005 PARSONS PAGE 3.8-6 BURBANK AVENUE ANNEXATION DRAFT SUBSEQUENT EIR HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY

Sonoma County General Plan

The Project is currently within the County of Sonoma’s jurisdictional boundaries. Therefore compliance with the Sonoma County General Plan (SCGP) Policies is required. The following policies area applicable to the Project:

Policy RC-3a. Grading, filling and construction should not substantially reduce or divert any stream flow that would affect groundwater recharge.

Policy PS-2e. Use the 100-year flood event and corresponding elevations as the County measure of acceptable level of risk and protection in the consideration of any amendments on the land use plan map.

Policy PS-2f. On-site and off-site flood related hazards shall be reviewed for all projects located within areas subject to known flood hazards.

Policy PS-2g. Regulate development, water diversion, vegetation removal, grading, and fills to minimize any increase in flooding and related damage to people and property.

Policy PS-2i. Require that design and construction of drainage facilities be subject to the review and approval of the Sonoma County Water Agency.

Sonoma County Water Agency

SCWA reviews project plans for proposed on-site drainage systems, as well as proposals for upgraded facilities that may be required off-site within the City of Santa Rosa. The SCWA reviews projects for conformance with the SCWA Flood Control Design Criteria. In compliance with the SCWA Flood Control Design Criteria, all culverts and drainage systems must be designed to accommodate the runoff from a 25-year recurrence interval storm event. In addition, all structures must be protected from flooding expected to occur during a 100-year recurrence interval storm.

State Regional Water Quality Control Board/State Water Resources Control Board

The California Regional Water Quality Control Board, North Coast Region has jurisdiction over the Russian River and its tributaries. The Regional Board is required by law to develop, adopt and implement a Water Quality Control Plan for the entire region. The principal elements of this plan include a statement of beneficial water uses that the Board will protect, water quality objectives needed to protect the designated beneficial water uses; and strategies and time schedules for achieving the water quality objectives. The water quality objectives are to be achieved primarily through the establishment and enforcement of waste discharge requirements.

The State Water Resources Control Board has developed water quality objectives for priority pollutants. The objectives are contained in a document entitled “Development of Water Quality Control Plans for: Inland Surface Waters of California and Enclosed Bays and Estuaries of California” adopted 11 April 1991. Statewide water quality objectives address protection of

AUGUST 30, 2005 PARSONS PAGE 3.8-7 BURBANK AVENUE ANNEXATION DRAFT SUBSEQUENT EIR HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY

aquatic life and human health, and limiting exposure to chlorinated dibenzodioxins and dibenzofurans.

Among the provisions are: a) all point and non-point source discharges (including urban runoff) must comply with the identified water quality objectives; and b) effluent limits are to be imposed, either through National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits or waste discharge requirement, such that the water quality objectives shall not be exceeded in the receiving water.

California Department of Fish and Game and Army Corps of Engineers

Any significant alterations to existing creeks/streams, such as Roseland Creek, including flood control projects, are subject to review by the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG). All construction activity occurring within designated stream corridors is subject to review and approval by CDFG and typically requires a Section 1602 Streambed Alteration Agreement prior to initiation of construction within a creek or stream channel. In addition, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers would need to issue a Section 404 Permit under the Clean Water Act for any alterations to wetlands or waters of the U.S. For further discussion of creek or stream alteration see Chapter 3.9 (Vegetation, Wildlife and Habitat).

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

The 1972 amendments to the Clean Water Act prohibit the discharge of pollutants to navigable waters from a point source unless the discharge is authorized by a National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit. Industries that have direct stormwater discharges to navigable waters are required to obtain a permit. It is within the existing authority of the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) to issue an NPDES permit for any stormwater outfall to the waters of the U. S. The RWQCB requires that an NPDES permit be obtained for construction grading activities for all projects greater than one acre. This permit requires implementation of nonpoint source control of stormwater runoff through the application of a number of Best Management Practices (BMPs). These practices are meant to reduce the amount of constituents entering streams and other water bodies.

A BMP Program, as required by the RWQCB, describes stormwater management practices (structural and operational measures), to control the quantity and quality of stormwater runoff. Practices include on-site detention and treatment, reporting of spills, implementing techniques to reduce contamination of surface water, preventive maintenance, inspection and record keeping, security measures, and employee training. A Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasure Plan is included in the program. If construction is scheduled to occur throughout the year or is unlikely to be restricted to the dry months of the year, the BMPs must be implemented to ensure that sediment is confined to the construction area and not transported off site. Erosion control also is required by the City, County, and the RWQCB through general plan policies and regulatory permits (NPDES permit in the case of the RWQCB).

The City of Santa Rosa in conjunction with other cooperating agencies has developed a Standard Urban Stormwater Mitigation Plan (SUSMP) to reduce pollutants and runoff flows to the maximum extent practicable, generally meaning that 85 percent of the runoff from all new

AUGUST 30, 2005 PARSONS PAGE 3.8-8 BURBANK AVENUE ANNEXATION DRAFT SUBSEQUENT EIR HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY development and significant redevelopment projects is infiltrated or treated. Applicable projects that are under the City’s jurisdiction and are within the NPDES permit boundary are required to design and implement stormwater source and treatment control BMPs. The purpose of the SUSMP is to control runoff both during and after construction. The SUSMP requires the protection of receiving waters through the incorporation of permanent stormwater BMPs into the project design.

The SUSMP is a component of the City’s Storm Water Management Plan, which has been prepared to comply with the terms of the Phase I and Phase II NPDES Permit for Storm Water Discharges from the Santa Rosa area (RWQCB, 2001).

3.8-3 EVALUATION CRITERIA WITH THRESHOLD OF SIGNIFICANCE

Table 3.8-1

Evaluation Criteria with Threshold of Significance – Hydrology and Water Quality

As Measured Threshold of Evaluation Criteria by Significance Justification

1. Construction within Increases in Substantial increase of Federal Emergency Management the Project area may impervious areas surface water runoff Agency (FEMA) uses 1 foot as a result in an increase in and resulting peak downstream in Laguna guideline for significance. Sonoma impervious areas and flow runoff and de Santa Rosa County Water Agency generally does higher levels of surface discharge volumes; not consider increases of less than 0.1 runoff than currently alteration of an feet significant during project review. leaves the area, existing drainage Santa Rosa General Plan 4.12-A, 4.12-C potentially increasing pattern or creek, erosion and flooding in which would result Master EIR 3.2.2-1 down stream drainage in erosion, siltation, Redevelopment EIR 3.2.2-1 ways. or increased surface runoff 2. Future development Location and Location in an CEQA checklist within the Project changes in depth to important groundwater Redevelopment EIR 3.2.2-2 boundary may reduce groundwater recharge area or rise in infiltration in a natural water table to within 6 groundwater recharge feet of the ground zone surface 3. Project construction Area of construction Substantial number of General Construction Activity NPDES activities for future construction areas or Permit privately or publicly substantial size of a Master EIR 3.2.2-2 sponsored infrastructure construction area projects may result in Redevelopment EIR 3.2.2-3 short-term or long term increases in erosion.

AUGUST 30, 2005 PARSONS PAGE 3.8-9 BURBANK AVENUE ANNEXATION DRAFT SUBSEQUENT EIR HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY

Table 3.8-1

Evaluation Criteria with Threshold of Significance – Hydrology and Water Quality

As Measured Threshold of Evaluation Criteria by Significance Justification

4. Increased runoff from Degraded water Substantial increase in EPA (California Toxics Rule) criteria; additional impermeable quality due to the total area of EPA final chronic values; Basin Plan surfaces may lower the sediments and other impermeable surfaces numeric and narrative criteria quality of stormwater nonpoint source Santa Rosa General Plan 4.12-B runoff. pollutants in stormwater runoff Master EIR 3.2.2-3 Redevelopment EIR 3.2.2-4

Source: Southwest Santa Rosa Area Plan EIR, Southwest Santa Rosa Redevelopment Plan EIR, Santa Rosa General Plan 2020 EIR

3.8-4 IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES

IMPACT: 3.8-1: Construction within the Project area may result in an increase in impervious areas and higher levels of surface runoff than currently leaves the area, potentially increasing erosion and flooding in downstream drainage ways.

Analysis: Significant Development of the 133.1-acre site would result in about 60 acres of impervious coverage. The Master EIR estimates the expected change in impervious area by making a broad assumption for site coverage for each particular land use. The change is estimated by comparing the existing land uses with the proposed land uses and applying the maximum coverage percentage as detailed in the Santa Rosa Zoning Ordinance. By applying this methodology, development of the 133.1-acre site would result in 60 acres of impervious coverage, so approximately 45 percent of the Project area could be impervious (see Table 3.8-2 below). Landscaping and irrigated areas would likely be incorporated into individual building design; therefore, the amount of impervious coverage may be less.

Table 3.8-2

AUGUST 30, 2005 PARSONS PAGE 3.8-10 BURBANK AVENUE ANNEXATION DRAFT SUBSEQUENT EIR HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY

Impervious Surface Coverage

Land Use Total Area Maximum Potential Impervious (acres) Coverage1 Coverage (acres)

Low Density Residential 70 40% 28 Medium-low Density 29 40% 12 Residential Medium Density Residential 32 55% 18 Commercial 2 85% 2 Total 133 60 1. Based on City of Santa Rosa Zoning Code Development Standards.

The increase in impervious surface at buildout of the Burbank annexation would increase the total amount of surface runoff that leaves the site. Estimates of the magnitude of the increase were calculated using the Rational formula as outlined in the Sonoma County Water Agency Flood Control Manual and data collected for the Master EIR and the Redevelopment EIR. The Rational Formula is: Q=CIAK where: C= runoff coefficient for the increase in impervious area (0.9) I= Rainfall Intensity 0.96 (in/hr) for a 25 year storm of 1 hour duration A= Drainage Area (acres), 60 acres, which represents about 45 percent impervious area out of 133.1 acres K= 1.23, SCWA factor included because mean seasonal precipitation in the plan area is 0.96 inches/hour For a 25-year recurrence interval storm event, a peak surface runoff of 64 cfs would be associated with this increase in impervious area for the annexation boundary. This increase could affect reaches of Roseland Creek below the annexation area. The increase in peak surface runoff from increase impervious coverage would have significant impacts where flooding problems already existing along the lower and middle reaches of Roseland Creek. Portions of Roseland Creek presently exist as a natural channel. Urbanization and development immediately adjacent to the stream banks would result in disruption and need for channel improvements to convey increased storm flows adequately as addressed above. Buildout of the Project area could cause downstream flooding in Roseland Creek. This impact would be significant. A network of public storm drains currently owned and maintained by Sonoma County drains through the Project area to Roseland Creek and serves areas east of the annexation boundary. Ownership of these facilities would transfer to the City at annexation. It is assumed that individual development proposals within the Southwest Area, including areas located within the annexation boundary, would

AUGUST 30, 2005 PARSONS PAGE 3.8-11 BURBANK AVENUE ANNEXATION DRAFT SUBSEQUENT EIR HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY

be required to connect to the existing storm drainage network and, where new storm drainage infrastructure is necessary, such infrastructure would be subject to storm drain design requirements of the City. It is also anticipated that these construction projects would comply with the Stormwater Phase II regulations administered by the North Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board through permits to the City. Mitigation: 3.8-1a. Minimize impervious surfaces and detain a portion of stormwater on site (Master EIR Mitigation Measure 3.2.2-1) Overall mitigation strategy includes project specific design review focused on the development and inclusion of explicit elements to reduce the proportion of impervious surfaces within each individual project area and to allow improved management of stormwater flows throughout the annexation boundary and should include the following: • Incorporate measures into drainage projects (storm drains, conduits, and channel improvements) that maximize infiltration/permeability and trap pollutants and sediment from stormwater runoff. • To the extent possible, locate newly planned impervious surfaces to avoid identified natural recharge areas. • Wherever feasible, use the Start at the Source, Design Guidance Manual for Stormwater Quality (1999) Bay Area Stormwater Management Agencies Design Guidance Manual to modify roadway, landscaping and channel improvement projects to incorporate recommended design elements such as: sediment traps, gravel strips and/or trenches, concave planting areas, permeable substrate, and infiltration basins at the end of downspouts. • Detain a portion of stormwater generated by new impervious coverage. Stormwater infiltration basins should be included in project design where feasible as an integral contingency measure to reduce flooding impacts and to improve downstream water quality. The locations of improvements should coincide with the outfalls of specific drainage conduits or other locations deemed suitable by the Sonoma County Water Agency. (a) The Colgan Creek channel west of U.S. 101 would be enlarged and modified if necessary for a length of 2,450 feet so that it can convey the design storm runoff from the Southeast and Southwest Plan Areas. This improvement shall be undertaken under the direction of the Sonoma County Water Agency. (b) Portions of Roseland Creek channel which have been enlarged and modified should be further evaluated to determine if additional improvements within the channel corridors are needed to convey storm runoff and improve water quality. Portions of the Naval Creek Channel in the vicinity of the Air Center, should be widened and reconfigured to accommodate the design storm runoff and prevent flooding in cooperation with the SCWA (c) Improvements, which may be necessary to the natural drainages that cross or are downstream from the Southwest Plan area or Annexation Boundary,

AUGUST 30, 2005 PARSONS PAGE 3.8-12 BURBANK AVENUE ANNEXATION DRAFT SUBSEQUENT EIR HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY

should be undertaken with review by the SCWA and designed in compliance Sonoma County Flood Control Design Manual specifications for natural waterways or constructed natural waterways. These improvements should take the form of a naturalized channel to the specifications of the City of Santa Rosa. Up to date Best Management Practices are included in the Start at the Source Design Guidance Manual Published by the Bay Area Stormwater Management Agencies Association (1999). 3.8-1b. Adopt and implement the Roseland Creek portion of the Southern Santa Rosa Area Drainage Study The City of Santa Rosa should adopt and implement the drainage structure improvements identified to reduce the flooding threat for those portions of Roseland Creek and Colgan Creek that are shown to be inadequate to handle design flows. Decreasing the amount of impervious cover resulting from buildout of the Project area would reduce the amount of water leaving the site; thereby reducing the peak surface runoff during storm events. However, the decrease in impervious coverage alone does not reduce the flooding that occurs along Roseland Creek. The existing natural stream channel and the existing flood control structures do not sufficiently handle the 100-year storm flows. Mitigation Measure 3.8-1b would increase the capacity for Roseland Creek to accommodate flows without flooding during large storm events. The drainage plan identifies channel widening and restoration, culvert bypass, detention basins, and drainage structure installation at existing bridges as options to increase capacity and decrease flooding along Roseland Creek. To the extent that the storm flow capacity problems identified for Roseland Creek in the Southern Santa Rosa Area Drainage Study are addressed and sufficient drainage infrastructure is in place at the time of development no significant drainage impacts would occur within the Project area or along reaches of Roseland Creek downstream from the annexation area. Implementation of the mitigation measures designed to reduce impervious coverage and increase drainage capacity of Roseland Creek reduce the impacts to less than significant by minimizing to the extent feasible increases in peak surface runoff during storm events and by decreasing the risk of downstream flooding. After Mitigation: Less than Significant

AUGUST 30, 2005 PARSONS PAGE 3.8-13 BURBANK AVENUE ANNEXATION DRAFT SUBSEQUENT EIR HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY

IMPACT: 3.8-2. Future development within the Project boundary may reduce infiltration in a natural groundwater recharge zone.

Analysis: Significant The Department of Water Resources recognizes most of the Santa Rosa Plain as a potential groundwater recharge zone, including the Project area. It is estimated that less than 20 percent of the annexation area is impervious and does not provide natural groundwater recharge, so there are currently more than 90 acres of surface area providing recharge. Impervious coverage could increase to 41 percent (55 acres) at full buildout of the annexation area, which would reduce recharge area to 58 acres. This would result in a greater than 25 percent decrease in the pervious surface area, which reduces groundwater recharge. The impact is significant. Mitigation: 3.8-2. Implement groundwater recharge programs (Master EIR Mitigation Measure 3.2.2-2) During project review, the City shall encourage use of detention basins/ponds where feasible to partially offset the loss of groundwater recharge area within the Project area. Such artificial recharge programs shall be coordinated through the Sonoma County Water Agency and the North Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board to ensure a rational, consistent and systematic approach. Maintenance of the detention basin/ponds and potential for long-term accumulation of pollutants in these facilities shall be addressed in the design of mitigation programs that include basins/ponds. In addition, implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.8-1a, above, would reduce impacts to less than significant. The partial offset of groundwater recharge loss and the implementation measures designed to reduce impervious surfaces reduce the effects of a reduction of groundwater recharge. After Mitigation: Less than Significant

IMPACT: 3.8-3: Project construction activities for future privately or publicly sponsored infrastructure projects may result in short-term or long-term increases in erosion.

Analysis: Significant Project construction activities would encompass areas substantially greater than the one-acre threshold above which mitigation is required. Increased sedimentation to the Russian River or any of its tributaries would be a significant impact. Soil erosion could occur if precipitation of sufficient intensity occurred during phases of construction in which areas of disturbed soil were left exposed. Grading activities at a construction site could adversely affect downstream water quality through erosion, the transport of sediments and dissolved constituents entering the natural receiving waters and increasing turbidity and contaminant load.

AUGUST 30, 2005 PARSONS PAGE 3.8-14 BURBANK AVENUE ANNEXATION DRAFT SUBSEQUENT EIR HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY

Mitigation: 3.8-3 Develop and implement an erosion and sediment control program. Erosion control measures identified in the Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan and the Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan reduce soil loss from construction sites and stabilize soils. General grading activities, including those related to construction, are regulated by Chapter 79 of the CBC. The specific design of the erosion and sediment transport control plan would be based on the actual conditions at the sites where the grading and construction was to occur. These erosion and sediment transport control structures need to be in place prior to the onset of seasonal rains. If grading or construction is to occur during the wet season, the project will require an erosion and sediment transport control plan, designed by an erosion control professional, or landscape architect or civil engineer specializing in erosion control, that shall meet the following objectives for the grading and construction period of projects proposed for the Southwest Plan Area. During the installation of the erosion and sediment transport control structures, the erosion control professional shall be on the site to supervise the implementation of the designs, and the maintenance of the facilities throughout the demolition, grading and construction period. Implementation of erosion control measures identified further in Mitigation Measure 3.7-3a, along with compliance with the City’s NPDES permit from the RWQCB (Mitigation Measure 3.7-3b) would reduce soil loss from construction sites, stabilize soils and thereby reduce the impact to less than significant. After Mitigation: Less than Significant

IMPACT: 3.8-4. Increased runoff from additional impermeable surfaces may lower the quality of stormwater runoff.

Analysis: Significant Major contributors of contaminants to runoff and infiltrating groundwater in developed areas are the streets and gutters and other impervious areas directly connected to streets or storm drains. Between rainstorms materials accumulate on these surfaces in a variety of ways: for example, debris dropped or scattered by individuals; wastes and dirt from construction, renovation, and demolition; fecal droppings from dogs, birds, and other animals; remnants of household refuse dropped during collection or scattered by animals or wind; dirt, oil, tire and exhaust residue contributed by automobiles; and fallout of air-borne particles. Solids tend to build up most rapidly during the first 48 to 72 hours after a major rainfall. During subsequent rainfall, water may take several paths when it reaches the ground surface. As water fills surface depressions, it seeps into the ground; a film of water builds up on the ground surface. Once this film is of sufficient depth, the water begins to flow down slope. This initial discharge of a storm is referred to as the initial flow. The initial flow of each storm often contains the highest concentrations of pollutants, but this is not always the case because the

AUGUST 30, 2005 PARSONS PAGE 3.8-15 BURBANK AVENUE ANNEXATION DRAFT SUBSEQUENT EIR HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY

phenomenon is dependent on the duration of the preceding dry weather period, rainfall patterns, rainfall intensity, the chemistry of individual pollutants, and site- specific conditions. The accumulation of urban pollutants would be a significant impact because uncontrolled overland flow from paved surfaces and landscaped areas would carry many of the above-listed contaminants, thereby contributing to the deterioration of the quality of storm-water runoff. The eventual result would be the deterioration of water quality in wetlands within the Project area. Reaches of drainage-ways downstream from drainage ways, such as Roseland Creek that would carry stormwater runoff to Laguna de Santa Rosa, and eventually to the lower reach of the Russian River, would be subject to water quality deterioration. The impact from stormwater runoff is therefore found to be significant. Mitigation: 3.8-4: Develop a Standard Urban Stormwater Mitigation Plan (SUSMP) (Redevelopment EIR Mitigation Measure 3.3.2-4 revised) The applicant shall develop a Standard Urban Stormwater Mitigation Plan (SUSMP) as part of the annexation and buildout of the Project area. To meet current regulations the SUSMP shall include stormwater runoff Best Management Practices (BMPs) sufficient to infiltrate and treat 85 percent of the runoff from development through a combination of structural or treatment control measures. The applicant shall determine the anticipated peak storm runoff to determine the amount of runoff necessary to control and treat. Effectiveness of the BMPs shall be calculated as part of the SUSMP to illustrate the ability of the measures to meet the North Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board’s standards for the Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) and Section 401 Water Quality Certification. If the proposed BMPs do not meet the 85 percent treatment standard then additional BMPs shall be included in the SUSMP. Examples of additional BMPs include: • Increasing the size or number of proposed BMPs. • Vegetated Detention Pond(s). • Oil/Water Separator(s). • Presettling/sedimentation basin(s). • Install easily cleanable sediment catch basins, debris screens, and grease separators or similar water quality protection devices (i.e. vegetated swales, buffer strips, detention pond areas) in the channels and drainage facilities serving the entire Project area. Ensure maintenance of the facilities through in-lieu fees paid to the City, and or the establishment of homeowner associations for privately sponsored projects. In addition, the mitigation measures 3.8-1a, 3.8-1b, and 3.8-3, as described above, and mitigation measure 3.7-3b from Section 3.7, Geology, would also apply.

AUGUST 30, 2005 PARSONS PAGE 3.8-16 BURBANK AVENUE ANNEXATION DRAFT SUBSEQUENT EIR HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY

Development and implementation of a SUSMP designed to control and treat 85 percent of the stormwater runoff from development of the Project area will be effective at reducing the impact on water quality to less than significant. After Mitigation: Less than Significant

3.8-5 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS

As discussed in the Redevelopment EIR, approximately 49 percent of the Southwest Plan Area could be developed and covered by impervious surfaces at buildout. This reflects an increase from the existing condition of about 30 percent impervious coverage. The Burbank annexation was included as part of the calculation presented in the Master EIR. Measures to minimize impervious surface, detain stormwater and maintain recharge, and to employ BMPs to manage stormwater would reduce project impacts to less than significant, both on a project and cumulative level. A drainage study of the Santa Rosa area was prepared in 2004 (City of Santa Rosa 2004) and includes a detailed hydrologic model used to estimate both existing and future design storm flows for a 16.3-square-mile area, including the Roseland Creek Upper Reach to which the Project area drains. The purpose of the hydrologic analysis was to determine if the drainage facilities in the area are capable of containing flows from a 100-year storm event. The analysis included future hydrologic conditions based on the City’s Southwest and Southeast Area Plans, the County’s general plan, and criteria from the Santa Rosa Waterways Plan (1996). Results from the drainage study indicate existing drainage facilities along Roseland Creek do not provide sufficient capacity to accommodate the 100-year storm event based on future hydrologic conditions. About 16,500 linear feet of Roseland Creek are projected to flood during the 100- year storm under future conditions, including buildout of the Project area. The drainage study identifies needed drainage improvements within all reaches of Roseland Creek. In the vicinity of the Project area, in the upper reach of Roseland Creek, no channel improvements are recommended, but replacement of culverts at Stony Point Road, Burbank Avenue, McMinn Avenue, and three culverts upstream of the Project area is recommended. Cumulative development in the project area is projected to exceed the capacity of existing drainage facilities along Roseland Creek. However, Mitigation Measure 3.8-1b calls for implementation of drainage structure improvements that would be required to handle cumulative flows, including enlargement of culverts in the Project area and improvements of flood control channels downstream of the Project area. Stormwater management measures would be required for all development within the Southwest Plan Area, and would be expected to reduce all impacts to less than significant.

3.8-6 REFERENCES

Bay Area Stormwater Management Agencies Association. 1999. Start at the Source, Design Guidance Manual for Stormwater Quality Protection.

AUGUST 30, 2005 PARSONS PAGE 3.8-17 BURBANK AVENUE ANNEXATION DRAFT SUBSEQUENT EIR HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY

California Department of Water Resources (DWR). 2003. Evaluation of Groundwater Resources, Sonoma County, Volume 2, Santa Rosa Plain, Bulletin 118.

City of Santa Rosa. 2004. Southern Santa Rosa Area Drainage Study. March.

City of Santa Rosa. 2002. Santa Rosa 2020: General Plan. June.

City of Santa Rosa. 2002. Santa Rosa Area Urban Runoff and Storm Water NPDES Permit Standard Urban Storm Water Mitigation Plan (SUSMP). September.

City of Santa Rosa. 1994. Southwest Santa Rosa Area Plan EIR. April

City of Santa Rosa. 2000. Southwest Santa Rosa Redevelopment Plan EIR. May

Regional Water Quality Control Board, North Coast Region (RWQCB), 2001. Waste Discharge Requirements for the City of Santa Rosa, the County of Sonoma, and the Sonoma County Water Agency Storm Water Discharges from Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems. Order No. R1-2003-0062; NPDES No. CA0025054. September.

AUGUST 30, 2005 PARSONS PAGE 3.8-18 BURBANK AVENUE ANNEXATION DRAFT SUBSEQUENT EIR VEGETATION, WILDLIFE, AND HABITAT 3.9 VEGETATION, WILDLIFE, AND HABITAT

This section identifies Project impacts to biological resources. Analysis includes potential effects to special-status plant and wildlife species and their habitats, trees, riparian habitat, and wetlands.

Data on biological resources previously compiled for the Southwest Santa Rosa Area Plan Final Environmental Impact Report (March 1994) (Master EIR) and the Southwest Redevelopment Plan EIR (May 2000) (Redevelopment EIR) are incorporated by reference into this document. Information contained in this existing literature was updated and expanded for this analysis based on field surveys conducted in March 2003 and again in September 2003 and review of new data.

3.9-1 SETTING

Location and General Site Characteristics

In general, the site is located in the Northern California Coast ecological sub-region along its southern-most border. Development densities are higher and vegetation is more fragmented along the southern portion of this region where historical land uses have included grazing, agriculture and urban and residential use. The City of Santa Rosa lies within the grasslands and plains characteristic of the western coastline and extends to the gentle hills and valleys leading up to the foothills of the mountains to the east. Santa Rosa Creek and several of its tributaries traverse the middle of the City. These tributaries and streams and their floodplains have been modified for flood protection purposes but continue to support wildlife. These riparian corridors create interconnected greenways that support ecologically valuable resources for a variety of plants and animals. Wildlife habitats and plant communities throughout the City include vernal pools, grasslands, oak woodlands, and stands of coniferous trees along the foothills.

The Project area consists of small horse pastures, grazed pasture land, abandoned walnut orchards and rural residences. Roseland Creek, a seasonal creek, flows southwesterly through the northern half of the Project area to join the Laguna de Santa Rosa near the Highway 116 intersection with Bloomfield Road.

Wildlife Habitats and Plant Communities

Wildlife Habitat

Wildlife habitat provides cover, food, and water necessary to meet the biological requirements of one or more individuals of an animal species. Changes in habitats and changes in essential habitat elements that relate to reproduction, foraging, and cover requirements may impact abundance, distribution, diversity, and interactions between wildlife species.

AUGUST 30, 2005 PARSONS PAGE 3.9-1 BURBANK AVENUE ANNEXATION DRAFT SUBSEQUENT EIR VEGETATION, WILDLIFE, AND HABITAT

Aquatic Habitat

Vernal Pools

Vernal pools are shallow depressions occurring in grassland and some woodland habitats that fill with water from the winter rains and slowly dry up during the summer. Vernal pools are found throughout California where soil conditions are favorable to their formation. The nature of vernal pools provides the ingredients for this unique system of vegetation. Many of the areas where vernal pools occur have been heavily grazed, and yet introduced species have not come to dominate these habitats as much as they have in other associated grasslands habitats.

Plant species composition varies greatly from pool to pool, but most are native annual grasses and forbs unique to the vernal pool habitat; many species are on federal and state threatened and endangered species lists. Vernal pools are common in the Santa Rosa Plain and both the Master EIR and Redevelopment EIR identify vernal pools within the Project area, but detailed site surveys have not been performed to confirm their presence. However, based on surveys of portions of the project area for which access is available, combined with review of aerial photographs and surveys done from the boundaries of properties to which access was not available, it appears that there are no vernal pools within the Project area.

Riparian Habitat

Roseland Creek is seasonal, low-gradient, and mostly channelized along its length. In the Project area, the creek is in a natural state until it reaches the property at 1727 Burbank Area, but is contained in an earthen trapezoidal channel downstream from that point. In unshaded areas (e.g., at the Burbank Avenue crossing), the stream channel is filled with cattail, or weeds such as curly dock, Harding grass, and perennial ryegrass, and the banks are often covered with dense stands of Himalayan blackberry. In shaded areas the stream channel is more open, revealing small riffles and glides, and a streambed consisting of cobble, concrete debris, gravel, sand, and silt. Shade is provided by a mixture of riparian trees in various stages of maturity, including Oregon ash, California walnut, arroyo willow, and valley oak, and scattered introduced trees such as blue gum Eucalyptus and old fruit trees. (MSC, 2004a). During the dry season the stream dries up completely.

Plant Communities

Plant communities in the annexation area include remnant patches of valley oak woodland, riparian woodland, and annual grassland, as shown in Figure 3.9-1. Vernal pools in the project area have not been mapped and are not shown in Figure 3.9-1.

Valley Oak Woodland

The dominant species in this community is the deciduous valley oak. Valley oaks grow on flat, deep alluvial soils. The oak woodland areas include mature forests of large valley oaks and regenerating areas with many small, young valley oaks mixed with

AUGUST 30, 2005 PARSONS PAGE 3.9-2 SOURCE: P

ARSONS &MERRITT ROSE

BURBANK SMITHCONSUL AG OW TING AG R

OW W

AG

R

O

S

E

L A

N

D

C

R AG

E

E K R AG W AG AG AG R W AG OW AG AG AG AG

ST AG

ONY

PO

IN

T AG AG AG AG AG AG

BURBANK AG AG AG AG AG RN HEA

LEGEND

HEA OW = VALLEY OAK WOODLAND R

N RW = RIPARIAN WOODLAND AG = ANNUAL GRASSLAND

CITY OF SANTA ROSA PARSONS BURBANK AVENUE VEGETATION MAP ANNEXATION EIR Figure 3.9-1 BURBANK AVENUE ANNEXATION DRAFT SUBSEQUENT EIR VEGETATION, WILDLIFE, AND HABITAT

orchard remnants (especially walnut) and ornamental trees and shrubs. High quality stands of regenerating valley oak woodland occur in three locations north of Roseland Creek. Natural oak regeneration is minimal in California; therefore these areas are of importance (Redevelopment EIR, 2000).

Riparian Woodland

Where Roseland Creek follows its natural channel, it is surrounded by a fairly mature riparian forest consisting of large valley oak, along with Oregon ash, arroyo willow, California walnut and California buckeye, with an understory of blackberry and poison oak. Because riparian forests and woodlands are usually associated with a permanent or intermittent water supply, they provide food, water, and shelter for many wildlife species.

Annual Grassland

The annual grassland areas are covered with introduced annual grasses and herbaceous weeds, with occasional shrubs (e.g., coyote bush, wild rose, poison oak, Himalayan blackberry) (MSC, 2004b). Grassland habitat offers an abundance of food for prey species. However, it provides little wildlife shelter.

Special-status Species Special-status species are those plants and animals listed as threatened or endangered under state and/or federal Endangered Species Acts, candidate species, California Department of Fish & Game Species of Concern, and California Native Plant Society listed species. State species are those identified as protected under the State of California Endangered Species Act, California Administrative Code, Title 14, Section 670.5; and plants that are considered by the California Native Plant Society (CNPS) to be rare, threatened, or endangered in California. The Federal Endangered Species Act provides regulations regarding wildlife (50 CFR 17.11) and plants (50 CFR 17.12). Special-status species also include sensitive species. Sensitive species are those plants and animals identified by the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) as species of special concern, plants identified under the CDFG Plant Protection Act considered to be sensitive due to their declining numbers or habitats in California, and trees worthy of protection under the Santa Rosa Tree Protection Ordinance. Species of special concern are animals and plants not listed under the federal or the state Endangered Species Act, but whose numbers are declining or which have a historically low population such that existing threats may result in listing.

Existing data were reviewed to determine the historic occurrence of special-status species and habitats in the vicinity of the Project site. Information reviewed includes records from the CDFG Natural Diversity Data Base (CNDDB), CNPS Electronic Inventory, and lists provided by the USFWS and CDFG (CNPS, 2004; CDFG, 2004; USFWS, 2004).

Many of the species that are listed occur at elevations and/or in habitat types that do not occur on the Project site. The site’s potential to provide suitable habitat is identified in the following tables (Tables 3.9-1 and 3.9-2) with a short explanation.

AUGUST 30, 2005 PARSONS PAGE 3.9-4 BURBANK AVENUE ANNEXATION DRAFT SUBSEQUENT EIR VEGETATION, WILDLIFE, AND HABITAT

Table 3.9-1

Special-Status Plant Species Potentially Occurring within the Project Vicinity

Status Bloom Elevational Occurrences Species Federal State CNPS Habitat Description Period Range Allium peninsulare var. FSLC -- 1B Cismontane woodland, valley and May- 100-300 m No suitable habitat is present franciscanum foothill grassland often on clayey June at the Project site. Additional Franciscan onion serpentinite. surveys not recommended. Alopecurus aequalis var. FE -- 1B Freshwater marshes and swamps May-July 5-210 m No suitable habitat is present sonomensis and riparian scrub. at the Project site. Additional Sonoma alopecurus surveys not recommended. Amorpha californica var. FSLC -- 1B Openings in broadleaved upland April- 150-2,000 m No suitable habitat is present napensis forest, chaparral, and cismontane July at the Project site. Additional Napa false indigo woodland. surveys not recommended. Amsinckia lunaris FSLC -- 1B Coastal bluff scrub, cismontane March- 3-500 m Suitable habitat is present at bent-flowered fiddleneck woodland, valley and foothill June the Project site. grassland. Arctostaphylos canescens ssp. FSLC -- 1B Chaparral, lower montane January - 180-1675 m No suitable habitat is present sonomensis coniferous forest sometimes on April at the Project site. Additional Sonoma manzanita serpentinite. surveys not recommended. Arctostaphylos densiflora FSC SE 1B Chaparral on acid marine sand. February 50-120 m No suitable habitat is present Vine Hill manzanita - April at the Project site. Additional surveys not recommended. Arctostaphylos stanfordiana FSC -- 1B Chaparral on rhyolite or cismontane February 75-370 m No suitable habitat is present ssp. decumbens woodland on a variety of substrates. -April at the Project site. Additional Rincon manzanita surveys not recommended.

AUGUST 30, 2005 PARSONS PAGE 3.9-5 BURBANK AVENUE ANNEXATION DRAFT SUBSEQUENT EIR VEGETATION, WILDLIFE, AND HABITAT

Table 3.9-1

Special-Status Plant Species Potentially Occurring within the Project Vicinity

Status Bloom Elevational Occurrences Species Federal State CNPS Habitat Description Period Range Astragalus clarianus FE ST 1B Openings in chaparral, cismontane March- 75-275 m No suitable habitat is present Clara Hunt’s milk-vetch woodland, valley and foothill grass- May at the Project site. Additional land on serpentinite or volcanic surveys not recommended. rocky clay. Astragalus pycnostachyus var FSLC -- -- Coastal marshes and seeps April- 0-30 m No suitable habitat is present pycnostachyus October at the Project site. Additional marsh milkvetch surveys not recommended. Balsamorhiza macrolepis var. FSLC -- 1B Grassy slopes, cismontane March- 90-1400 m No suitable habitat is present macrolepis woodlands, and chaparral; June at the Project site. Additional Big-scale balsamroot sometimes on serpentine surveys not recommended. Blennosperma bakeri FE SE 1B Valley and foothill grassland March- 10-110 m Suitable habitat is present at Sonoma Sunshine (mesic), vernal pools. May the Project site. Brodiaea californica var. FSLC -- 1B Broadleaved upland forest, May-July 110-915 m No suitable habitat is present leptandra chaparral, lower montane coniferous at the Project site. Additional Narrow-anthered California forest. surveys not recommended. brodiaea Calamagrostis bolanderi FSLC -- 1B Bogs and fens, closed cone May– 0–305 m No suitable habitat is present Bolander’s reed grass coniferous forest, coastal scrub, Aug at the Project site. Additional meadows (mesic); marshes and surveys not recommended. swamps (freshwater); north coast coniferous forest. Calamagrostis crassiglumis FSC -- 2 Coastal scrub, marshes and swamps. May-July 10-45 m No suitable habitat is present Thurber’s reed grass at the Project site. Additional surveys not recommended.

AUGUST 30, 2005 PARSONS PAGE 3.9-6 BURBANK AVENUE ANNEXATION DRAFT SUBSEQUENT EIR VEGETATION, WILDLIFE, AND HABITAT

Table 3.9-1

Special-Status Plant Species Potentially Occurring within the Project Vicinity

Status Bloom Elevational Occurrences Species Federal State CNPS Habitat Description Period Range Calystegia collina ssp. FSLC -- -- Chaparral serpentine soils in Lake, April- 0-600 m No suitable habitat is present oxyphylla Mendocino, Napa and Sonoma June at the Project site. Additional Mt Saint Helena morning-glory counties surveys not recommended. Campanula californica FSC -- 1B Bogs and fens, closed-cone June- 1-405 m No suitable habitat is present Swamp harebell coniferous forest, coastal prairie, October at the Project site. Additional meadows and seeps, marshes and surveys not recommended. swamps, North Coast coniferous forest. Carex albida FE SE 1B Bogs and fens, marshes and May-July 15-90 m No suitable habitat is present White sedge swamps. at the Project site. Additional surveys not recommended. Castilleja uliginosa -- SE 1A Freshwater marshes and swamps. June-July 60 m No suitable habitat is present Pitkin Marsh Indian paintbrush at the Project site. Additional surveys not recommended. Ceanothus confusus FSC -- 1B Closed-cone coniferous forest, February 75-1065 m No suitable habitat is present Rincon Ridge ceanothus chaparral, cismontane woodland on -April at the Project site. Additional volcanics or serpentinite. surveys not recommended. Ceanothus divergens FSC -- 1B Chaparral on rocky serpentinites or February 170-1065 m No suitable habitat is present Calistoga ceanothus volcanics. -March at the Project site. Additional surveys not recommended. Ceanothus foliosus var. FSC -- 1B Chaparral. March- 45-305 m No suitable habitat is present vineatus May at the Project site. Additional Vine Hill ceanothus surveys not recommended.

AUGUST 30, 2005 PARSONS PAGE 3.9-7 BURBANK AVENUE ANNEXATION DRAFT SUBSEQUENT EIR VEGETATION, WILDLIFE, AND HABITAT

Table 3.9-1

Special-Status Plant Species Potentially Occurring within the Project Vicinity

Status Bloom Elevational Occurrences Species Federal State CNPS Habitat Description Period Range Ceanothus sonomensis -- -- 1B Chaparral on sand, serpentinites or February 215-800 m No suitable habitat is present Sonoma ceanothus volcanics. -April at the Project site. Additional surveys not recommended. Chorizanthe valida FE SE 1B Coastal prairie in sandy soils, likely June- 10-50 m No suitable habitat is present Sonoma spineflower extinct in Sonoma County. August at the Project site. Additional surveys not recommended. Clarkia imbricata FE SE 1B Chaparral, valley and foothill June- 50-75 m No suitable habitat is present Vine Hill clarkia grassland on acidic sandy loam. August at the Project site. Additional surveys not recommended. Delphinium luteum FE Rare 1B North-facing rocky slopes in March- 0-100 m No suitable habitat is present Yellow larkspur chaparral, coastal prairie, and May at the Project site. Additional coastal scrub. surveys not recommended. Downingia pusilla -- -- 2 Valley and foothill grassland March- 1-445 m Suitable habitat is present at Dwarf downingia (mesic) and vernal pools. May the Project site. Erigeron biolettii -- -- 3 Broadleafed upland forest, June- 30-1,100 m No suitable habitat is present Streamside daisy cismontane woodland, and North Sept. at the Project site. Additional Coast coniferous forest in rocky, surveys not recommended. mesic settings. Erigeron serpentinus -- -- 1B Chaparral (serpentinite, seeps). May- 60-670 m No suitable habitat is present Serpentine daisy August at the Project site. Additional surveys not recommended. Eryngium constancei FE SE 1B Vernal pools. April- 460-855 m Suitable habitat is present at Loch Lomond button-celery June the Project site.

AUGUST 30, 2005 PARSONS PAGE 3.9-8 BURBANK AVENUE ANNEXATION DRAFT SUBSEQUENT EIR VEGETATION, WILDLIFE, AND HABITAT

Table 3.9-1

Special-Status Plant Species Potentially Occurring within the Project Vicinity

Status Bloom Elevational Occurrences Species Federal State CNPS Habitat Description Period Range Fritillaria liliacea FSC -- 1B Cismontane woodland, coastal February 3-410 m No suitable habitat is present Fragrant fritillary prairie, coastal scrub, and valley and -April at the Project site. Additional foothill grasslands, often surveys not recommended. serpentinite. Hemizonia congesta ssp. -- -- 3 Coastal scrub, valley and foothill April- 25-425 m No suitable habitat is present leucocephala grassland, serpentinite. October at the Project site. Additional Hayfield tarplant surveys not recommended. Horkelia tenuiloba FSLC -- 1B Broadleaved upland forest, openings May-July 50-500 m No suitable habitat is present Thin-lobed horkelia in chaparral on sandy substrate. at the Project site. Additional surveys not recommended. Lasthenia burkei FE SE 1B Meadows and seeps and vernal April- 15-600 m Suitable habitat is present at Burke’s goldfields pools. June the Project site. Lasthenia macrantha ssp bakeri FSLC SE 1B Closed-cone coniferous forest March- 60-520 m No suitable habitat is present Baker’s goldfields (openings), coastal scrub June at the Project site. Additional surveys not recommended. Layia septentrionalis -- -- 1B Chaparral, cismontane woodland, April- 100-1095 m No suitable habitat is present Colusa layia valley and foothill grassland on May at the Project site. Additional sandy or serpentine substrates. surveys not recommended. Legenere limosa FSC -- 1B Vernal pools. April- 1-880 m Suitable habitat is present at Legenere June the Project site. Lessingia hololeuca -- -- 3 Broadleafed upland forest, coastal June- 15-305 m No suitable habitat is present Woolly-headed lessingia scrub, lower montane coniferous October at the Project site. Additional forest, and valley and foothill surveys not recommended. grassland / clay, serpentinite

AUGUST 30, 2005 PARSONS PAGE 3.9-9 BURBANK AVENUE ANNEXATION DRAFT SUBSEQUENT EIR VEGETATION, WILDLIFE, AND HABITAT

Table 3.9-1

Special-Status Plant Species Potentially Occurring within the Project Vicinity

Status Bloom Elevational Occurrences Species Federal State CNPS Habitat Description Period Range Lilium pardalinum ssp. FE SE 1B Cismontane woodland, meadows June-July 35-65 m No suitable habitat is present pitkinense and seeps and freshwater marshes at the Project site. Additional Pitkin Marsh lily and swamps. surveys not recommended. Limnanthes vinculans FE SE 1B Meadows and seeps, valley and April- 15-305 m Suitable habitat is present at Sebastopol meadowfoam foothill grassland and vernal pools. May the Project site. Linanthus jepsonii FSLC -- 1B Chaparral, cismontane woodland April- 100-500 m No suitable habitat is present Jepson’s linanthus usually on volcanic substrates. May at the Project site. Additional surveys not recommended. Lupinus sericatus FSLC -- 1B Broadleaved upland forest, March- 275-1525 m No suitable habitat is present Cobb Mountain lupine chaparral, cismontane woodland, June at the Project site. Additional lower montane coniferous forest. surveys not recommended. Micropus amphibolus -- -- 3 Broadleafed upland forest, April- 45-825 m No suitable habitat is present Mt. Diablo cottonweed chaparral, cismontane woodland, May at the Project site. Additional and valley and foothill grassland in surveys not recommended. rocky areas. Microseris paludosa FSLC -- 1B Closed-cone coniferous forest, April- 5-300 m Suitable habitat is present at marsh microseris cismontane woodland, coastal June the Project site. scrub, valley and foothill grassland Monardella villosa ssp. globosa FSLC -- 1B Openings in chaparral, cismontane June-July 185-600 m No suitable habitat is present Robust monardella woodland and coastal scrub. at the Project site. Additional surveys not recommended.

AUGUST 30, 2005 PARSONS PAGE 3.9-10 BURBANK AVENUE ANNEXATION DRAFT SUBSEQUENT EIR VEGETATION, WILDLIFE, AND HABITAT

Table 3.9-1

Special-Status Plant Species Potentially Occurring within the Project Vicinity

Status Bloom Elevational Occurrences Species Federal State CNPS Habitat Description Period Range Navarretia leucocephala ssp. FSC -- 1B Cismontane woodland, lower May-July 15-1,740 m Suitable habitat is present at bakeri montane coniferous forest, the Project site. Baker’s navarretia meadows, valley and foothill grassland, and vernal pools, in mesic settings. Navarretia leucocephala ssp. FE SE 1B Volcanic ash flow-type vernal May- 30-950 m No suitable habitat is present plieantha pools. June at the Project site. Additional Many-flowered navarretia surveys not recommended. Penstemon newberryi var. -- -- 1B Chaparral on rocky substrates. April- 700-1370 m No suitable habitat is present sonomensis August at the Project site. Additional Sonoma beardtongue surveys not recommended. Perideridia gairdneri ssp FSC -- -- Broad-leafed upland forest and June- 0-365 m No suitable habitat is present gairdneri chaparral October at the Project site. Additional Gairdner’s yampah surveys not recommended Plagiobothrys strictus FE ST 1B Meadows, valley and foothill March- 90-160 m No suitable habitat is present Calistoga popcorn-flower grassland, vernal pools in alkaline June at the Project site. Additional areas near thermal springs. surveys not recommended. Pleuropogon hooverianus FSC ST 1B Broadleafed upland forest meadows, May- 10-635 m No suitable habitat is present North Coast semaphore grass north coast coniferous forest/open August at the Project site. Additional areas, mesic. surveys not recommended. Poa napensis FE SE 1B Meadows and seeps and valley and May- 100-200 m No suitable habitat is present Napa blue grass foothill grassland usually on August at the Project site. Additional alkaline substrates near hot springs. surveys not recommended.

AUGUST 30, 2005 PARSONS PAGE 3.9-11 BURBANK AVENUE ANNEXATION DRAFT SUBSEQUENT EIR VEGETATION, WILDLIFE, AND HABITAT

Table 3.9-1

Special-Status Plant Species Potentially Occurring within the Project Vicinity

Status Bloom Elevational Occurrences Species Federal State CNPS Habitat Description Period Range Potentilla hickmanii FE SE 1B Coastal bluff scrub, closed cone April- 10-135 m No suitable habitat is present Hickmans cinquefoil coniferous forest meadows (vernally August at the Project site. Additional mesic), marshes and swamps surveys not recommended (freshwater). Rhynchospora alba -- -- 2 Bogs and fens, meadows, marshes July- 60-2,040 m No suitable habitat is present White beaked-rush and swamps (freshwater) August at the Project site. Additional surveys not recommended. Rhynchospora californica FSC -- 1B Bogs and fens, lower montane May-July 45-1,010 m No suitable habitat is present California beaked-rush coniferous forest, meadows and at the Project site. Additional seeps and marshes and swamps. surveys not recommended. Rhynchospora capitellata -- -- 2 Lower montane coniferous forest, July- 455-2,000 m No suitable habitat is present Brownish beaked-rush meadow, marshes and swamps, August at the Project site. Additional upper montane coniferous surveys not recommended. forest/mesic. Rhynchospora globularis var. -- -- 2 Marshes and swamps. July- 45-60 m No suitable habitat is present globularis August at the Project site. Additional Round-headed beaked-rush surveys not recommended. Sidalcea oregana ssp. valida FE SE 1B Marshes and swamps. June- 115-150 m No suitable habitat is present Kenwood Marsh checkerbloom Sept. at the Project site. Additional surveys not recommended. Trifolium amoenum FE -- 1B Coastal bluff scrub, valley and April- 5-415 m No suitable habitat is present showy Indian clover foothill grassland sometimes on June at the Project site. Additional serpentinite. surveys not recommended.

AUGUST 30, 2005 PARSONS PAGE 3.9-12 BURBANK AVENUE ANNEXATION DRAFT SUBSEQUENT EIR VEGETATION, WILDLIFE, AND HABITAT

Table 3.9-1

Special-Status Plant Species Potentially Occurring within the Project Vicinity

Status Bloom Elevational Occurrences Species Federal State CNPS Habitat Description Period Range Trifolium buckwestiorum -- -- 1B Broadleafed upland forest, April- 105-610 m No suitable habitat is present Santa Cruz clover cismontane woodland, coastal October at the Project site. Additional prairie/margins surveys not recommended. Trifolium depauperatum var. FSC -- 1B Marshes and swamps, valley and April- 0-300 m No suitable habitat is present hydrophilum foothill grassland and vernal pools, June at the Project site. Additional saline clover usually on alkaline substrates. surveys not recommended. Viburnum ellipticum -- -- 2 Chaparral, cismontane woodland, May- 215-1,400 m No suitable habitat is present Oval-leaved viburnum lower montane coniferous forest June at the Project site. Additional surveys not recommended.

AUGUST 30, 2005 PARSONS PAGE 3.9-13 BURBANK AVENUE ANNEXATION DRAFT SUBSEQUENT EIR VEGETATION, WILDLIFE, AND HABITAT

Status: Federal FE Listed as endangered under the Federal Endangered Species Act (FESA) FSC Species of concern as identified by the USFWS FT = Listed as threatened under the Federal Endangered Species Act State SE Listed as endangered under the California Endangered Species Act (CESA) ST Listed as threatened under the CESA CSC Species of concern as identified by the CDFG CNPS 1A Plant species presumed extinct in California 1B Plant species considered rare, threatened, or endangered in CA or elsewhere 2 Plant species that are rare, threatened, or endangered in CA, but more common elsewhere 3 Plant species that lack necessary information to assign them to a listing status 4 Plant species that have a limited distribution or that are infrequent throughout a broader area in CA, a watch list Habitat Description: In accordance with CNPS 2001

AUGUST 30, 2005 PARSONS PAGE 3.9-14 BURBANK AVENUE ANNEXATION DRAFT SUBSEQUENT EIR VEGETATION, WILDLIFE, AND HABITAT

Table 3.9-2

Special-Status Wildlife Species Potentially Occurring within the Project Vicinity

Status Species Federal State Habitat Association Occurrences Invertebrates Carterocephalus palaemon magnus FSC -- There are currently no CNDDB records. C. palaemon occurs No suitable habitat on site; no Sonoma arctic skipper along forest edges and clearings, and grassy meadows. additional surveys required.

Hydrochara rickseckeri FSC -- Aquatic habitats in the San Francisco Bay. No suitable habitat on site; no Ricksecker’s water scavenger additional surveys required. beetle Hydroporus leechi FSC -- Previously considered limited to aquatic habitats the San No suitable habitat on site; no Leech’s skyline diving beetle Francisco Bay Area. Now believed to be distributed widely additional surveys required. throughout the western United States Linderiella occidentalis FSC -- Seasonal pools in unplowed grasslands with alluvial soils No suitable habitat on site; no California linderiella fairy shrimp underlain by hardpan or sandstone depressions. Conservation additional surveys required. measures addressed under proposed critical habitat Syncaris pacifica FE SE Found in low elevation, low gradient streams where riparian No suitable habitat on site; no California freshwater shrimp cover is moderate to heavy. Associated with shallow pools additional surveys required. away from main stream flow. Endemic to Marin, Napa, and There are no records of fresh- Sonoma counties. water shrimp in Roseland Creek (Merritt-Smith Consulting 2004a)

AUGUST 30, 2005 PARSONS PAGE 3.9-15 BURBANK AVENUE ANNEXATION DRAFT SUBSEQUENT EIR VEGETATION, WILDLIFE, AND HABITAT

Table 3.9-2

Special-Status Wildlife Species Potentially Occurring within the Project Vicinity

Status Species Federal State Habitat Association Occurrences Fish Hypomesus transpacificus FT -- Inhabits the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta and seasonally No suitable habitat on site; no delta smelt inhabits Suisun Bay, Carquinez Strait, and San Pablo Bay. additional surveys required. Fish Species is seldom found at salinities above 10 PPT, and is most unlikely to go upstream in often found at salinities below 2 PPT. Spawning appears to Roseland Creek to the Project occur in side channels and sloughs in the middle reaches of the area because there is no spawning Delta. and rearing habitat there (Merritt- Smith Consulting 2004a) Hysterocarpus traski pomo FSC CSC Most coastal streams and rivers of Sonoma County. No suitable habitat on site; no Russian River tule perch additional surveys required. Fish unlikely to go upstream in Roseland Creek to the Project area because there is no spawning and rearing habitat there (Merritt- Smith Consulting 2004a) Lampetra tridentata FSC -- Most coastal streams and rivers of California. No suitable habitat on site; no Pacific lamprey additional surveys required. Fish unlikely to go upstream in Roseland Creek to the Project area because there is no spawning and rearing habitat there (Merritt- Smith Consulting 2004a)

AUGUST 30, 2005 PARSONS PAGE 3.9-16 BURBANK AVENUE ANNEXATION DRAFT SUBSEQUENT EIR VEGETATION, WILDLIFE, AND HABITAT

Table 3.9-2

Special-Status Wildlife Species Potentially Occurring within the Project Vicinity

Status Species Federal State Habitat Association Occurrences Oncorhynchus kisutch FT SE Requires beds of loose, silt-free, well-oxygenated coarse gravel No suitable habitat on site; no Coho salmon - Central California for spawning. After hatching, juveniles must spend their first additional surveys required. Fish ESU (Evolutionary Significant summer in the freshwater rearing areas, so the stream must unlikely to go upstream in Unit) have either perennial flow or cool intermittent pools with Roseland Creek to the Project subsurface flow, shade, food, and shelter during the dry season. area because there is no spawning Federal listing is for populations between Punta Gorda and San and rearing habitat there (Merritt- Lorenzo River; current state listing (SE) is only for populations Smith Consulting 2004a) south of the San Francisco Bay; populations within and north of San Francisco Bay are now proposed for state listing as endangered. Oncorhynchus kisutch FT -- Found in many of the short, coastal drainages from the Oregon No suitable habitat on site; no Coho salmon - Central valley border south to Monterey Bay. In the larger coastal drainages, additional surveys required. Fish it is found primarily in the lower sections. The Federal listing unlikely to go upstream in is limited to naturally spawning populations in streams Roseland Creek to the Project between Punta Gorda, Humboldt County and the San Lorenzo area because there is no spawning River, Santa Cruz County. The State listing is limited to Coho and rearing habitat there (Merritt- south of San Francisco Bay. Smith Consulting 2004a) Oncorhynchus mykiss irideus FT -- Extends from the Russian River, south to Soquel Creek and to, No suitable habitat on site; no Central California Coast Steelhead but not including, Pajaro River. Also in San Francisco and San additional surveys required. Fish ESU Pablo Bay basins, including the Petaluma River and its unlikely to go upstream in tributaries. Roseland Creek to the Project area because there is no spawning and rearing habitat there (Merritt- Smith Consulting 2004a)

AUGUST 30, 2005 PARSONS PAGE 3.9-17 BURBANK AVENUE ANNEXATION DRAFT SUBSEQUENT EIR VEGETATION, WILDLIFE, AND HABITAT

Table 3.9-2

Special-Status Wildlife Species Potentially Occurring within the Project Vicinity

Status Species Federal State Habitat Association Occurrences Oncorhynchus mykiss FT -- Extends from the Russian River, south to Soquel Creek and to, No suitable habitat on site; no Central valley steelhead but not including, Pajaro River. Also in San Francisco and San additional surveys required. Fish Pablo Bay basins. unlikely to go upstream in Roseland Creek to the Project area because there is no spawning and rearing habitat there (Merritt- Smith Consulting 2004a) Oncorhynchus tshawytscha FT -- Adult numbers depend on pool depth and volume, amount of No suitable habitat on site; no California coastal chinook salmon cover, and proximity to gravel. Includes only naturally additional surveys required. Fish spawned coastal spring and fall Chinook salmon between unlikely to go upstream in Redwood Creek in Humboldt County and the Russian River in Roseland Creek to the Project Sonoma County. Requires clean, cold water over gravel beds area because there is no spawning with water temperatures between 6-14ºC for spawning. and rearing habitat there (Merritt- Smith Consulting 2004a) Oncorhynchus tshawytscha FC -- Spawning requirements similar to those for coho or steelhead, No suitable habitat on site; no Central Valley fall/late fall-run but larger gravels may be used, as chinook may reach much additional surveys required. Fish chinook salmon larger size than coho or steelhead. unlikely to go upstream in Roseland Creek to the Project area because there is no spawning and rearing habitat there (Merritt- Smith Consulting 2004a) Oncorhynchus tshawytscha FT -- Chinook spawning requirements are similar to those of coho No suitable habitat on site; no Central Valley spring-run Chinook and steelhead, but larger gravels may be used, as chinook may additional surveys required. Fish salmon reach much larger size than coho or steelhead. Unlike unlikely to go upstream in steelhead or coho, chinook fry begin moving downstream Roseland Creek to the Project immediately after emerging from the gravel, and do not spend area because there is no spawning their first summer near where they were spawned. and rearing habitat there (Merritt- Smith Consulting 2004a)

AUGUST 30, 2005 PARSONS PAGE 3.9-18 BURBANK AVENUE ANNEXATION DRAFT SUBSEQUENT EIR VEGETATION, WILDLIFE, AND HABITAT

Table 3.9-2

Special-Status Wildlife Species Potentially Occurring within the Project Vicinity

Status Species Federal State Habitat Association Occurrences Oncorhynchus tshawytscha FE -- Spawning requirements similar to those for coho or steelhead, No suitable habitat on site; no winter-run Chinook salmon but larger gravels may be used, as chinook may reach much additional surveys required. Fish larger size than coho or steelhead. unlikely to go upstream in Roseland Creek to the Project area because there is no spawning and rearing habitat there (Merritt- Smith Consulting 2004a) Pogonichthys macrolepidotus FSC -- Inhabits slow moving rivers, dead end sloughs, and low- No suitable habitat on site; no Sacramento splittail salinity (up to 18 ppt.) estuarine areas. Requires submerged additional surveys required. aquatic plants or flooded terrestrial vegetation for spawning and foraging for young. Spirinchus thaleichthys FSC -- Found close to shore in streams and estuaries, then moves to No suitable habitat on site; no Longfin smelt coastal streams to spawn. additional surveys required Amphibians Ambystoma californiense FT -- Annual grasslands and grassy understory of valley-foothill Suitable habitat exists on site. California tiger salamander hardwood communities in central and northern California. Requires underground refuges, especially ground squirrel burrows, and vernal pools or other seasonal water sources for breeding.

AUGUST 30, 2005 PARSONS PAGE 3.9-19 BURBANK AVENUE ANNEXATION DRAFT SUBSEQUENT EIR VEGETATION, WILDLIFE, AND HABITAT

Table 3.9-2

Special-Status Wildlife Species Potentially Occurring within the Project Vicinity

Status Species Federal State Habitat Association Occurrences Scaphiopus hammondii FSC CSC Most commonly associated with grassland communities; Suitable habitat is present along Western spadefoot toad however, valley-foothill hardwood woodlands may also be Roseland Creek provided that utilized. Breeding occurs in shallow temporary pools. predatory fish are absent. However, there are no confirmed records of this species occurring in Sonoma County. The nearest known extant populations are in Sacramento County. It is thus assumed not to be present on site. Rana aurora aurora FSC -- Inhabits humid forests, woodlands, grasslands, and streamsides All red-legged frogs in Sonoma Northern red-legged frog in northwestern California. Generally associated with County are now considered to be permanent water, but may occur far from water, in damp California red-legged frogs woods and meadows, during the non-breeding season. (Merritt-Smith Consulting 2004a); no additional surveys required. Rana aurora draytonii FT CSC Significant numbers occur in small coastal freshwater Not within designated critical California red-legged frog drainages, ponds, and man-made stock ponds. Summer habitat habitat area, and frogs have not includes spaces under boulders, organic debris, downed trees been found in Roseland Creek or logs, abandoned sheds or small mammal burrows. (Merritt-Smith Consulting 2004a); no additional surveys required.

AUGUST 30, 2005 PARSONS PAGE 3.9-20 BURBANK AVENUE ANNEXATION DRAFT SUBSEQUENT EIR VEGETATION, WILDLIFE, AND HABITAT

Table 3.9-2

Special-Status Wildlife Species Potentially Occurring within the Project Vicinity

Status Species Federal State Habitat Association Occurrences Rana boylii FSC CSC Partly shaded, shallow streams with riffles and rocky substrates No reports of frogs in Roseland Foothill yellow-legged frog in a variety of vegetation communities. Creek (personal communication, Bill Cox, Department of Fish and Game) and do not typically occur in creeks that go completely dry in the summer (Merritt-Smith Consulting 2004a); no additional surveys required. Reptiles Clemmys marmorata marmorata FSC CSC Aquatic habitats of ponds, marshes, rivers, streams, irrigation Not observed in Roseland Creek, Northwestern pond turtle ditches that have abundant emergent or riparian vegetation. which lacks deep perennial pools Basking sites and suitable upland egg-laying sites (sandy banks that the turtles prefer (Merritt- or grassy open fields) are needed. Smith Consulting 2004a); no additional surveys required. Phrynosoma coronatum frontale FSC CSC Found in a variety of habitats including scrubland, grassland, Suitable habitat exists on site; California horned lizard coniferous forest, and broadleaved forests. Common in however the lizard is believed to lowlands along sandy washes where low shrubs provide cover. have been extirpated from Sonoma County. It is assumed not to be present on site. Birds Accipiter cooperi -- CSC Most commonly associated with dense stands of live oak, Suitable habitat exists on site. Cooper’s hawk riparian deciduous or other forest communities near water. Agelaius tricolor FSC CSC Inhabits cattail marshes, marshy meadows, and rangeland. A Foraging habitat is present on Tricolored blackbird highly colonial species, it is most numerous in the Central site; however, breeding habitat is Valley and vicinity of California. not present.

AUGUST 30, 2005 PARSONS PAGE 3.9-21 BURBANK AVENUE ANNEXATION DRAFT SUBSEQUENT EIR VEGETATION, WILDLIFE, AND HABITAT

Table 3.9-2

Special-Status Wildlife Species Potentially Occurring within the Project Vicinity

Status Species Federal State Habitat Association Occurrences Amphispiza belli belli FSC CSC Inhabits coastal sagebrush, chaparral, and dry foothills. No suitable habitat on site; no Bell’s sage sparrow additional surveys required. Athene cunicularia hypugea FSC CSC Open, dry annual or perennial grasslands, deserts, and Suitable habitat exists on site. Western burrowing owl scrublands with low-growing vegetation. Subterranean nester, dependent upon burrowing mammals, most notably, the California ground squirrel. Baeolophus inornatus FSLC -- Warm, dry oak woodland Suitable habitat exists on site. oak titmouse Brachyramphus marmoratus FT -- Live at sea when not nesting. Tend to nest in mature, inland No suitable habitat on site; no Marbled murrelet conifer stands additional surveys required. Buteo regalis (wintering) FSC CSC A winter migrant that commonly inhabits grasslands, prairies, Suitable habitat exists on site. Ferruginous hawk and brushy open country. Circus cyaneus -- CSC Coastal salt marsh, fresh-water marsh, and grasslands. Nests No suitable habitat exists on site; Northern harrier on ground in shrubby vegetation, usually at marsh edge. no additional surveys required. Chaetura vauxi FSC -- Migratory in Bay Area; prefers redwood and Douglas-fir No suitable habitat exists on site; Vaux’s swift communities; nests are typically placed in large hollow trees no additional surveys required. and snags. Forages high over canopy and low above rivers and lakes Coccyzus americanus occidentalis FC SE Nests in riparian jungles of willow, often mixed with Suitable habitat exists on site; Western yellow-billed cuckoo cottonwoods, with a lower story of blackberry, nettles, or wild however the cuckoo is believed to grape have been extirpated from all of the Bay Area, and is thus assumed not to occur on site.

AUGUST 30, 2005 PARSONS PAGE 3.9-22 BURBANK AVENUE ANNEXATION DRAFT SUBSEQUENT EIR VEGETATION, WILDLIFE, AND HABITAT

Table 3.9-2

Special-Status Wildlife Species Potentially Occurring within the Project Vicinity

Status Species Federal State Habitat Association Occurrences Cypseloides niger FSC -- Summer/nesting in Bay Area with specific requirements; nests No suitable habitat exists on site; black swift in small colonies in moist environments adjacent to or behind no additional surveys required. waterfalls in narrow, high-walled canyons; montane or sea- bluffs above surf. Nests on tall, wet cliffs, usually behind waterfalls. Primarily confined to coastal areas along the west coast of North America Elanus leucurus FSC CFP Forages in open grasslands, meadows, and marshes, near Suitable habitat exists on site. White-tailed kite isolated dense-topped trees used for perching and nesting. Empidonax traillii brewsteri -- SE A spring and fall migrant at lower elevations, primarily in No suitable habitat exists on site Little willow flycatcher riparian habitats from central/coastal California north. as the flycatcher typically Breeding is now primarily limited to the Sierra Nevada and requires perennial streams and Cascade Ranges. This species typically breeds in willow- Roseland Creek dries up dominated riparian vegetation along perennial streams in moist completely in summer; no meadows or spring-fed or boggy areas. additional surveys required. Eremophila alpestris actia -- CSC Inhabits short-grass prairie, “bald” hills, mountain meadows, No suitable habitat exists on site; California horned lark open coastal plains, fallow grain fields, and alkali flats of no additional surveys required. California’s coastal regions, chiefly from Sonoma County to San Diego County, and main part of San Joaquin Valley. Falco peregrinus anatum FD SE Inhabits open country, breeding near rivers, wetlands, lakes, or No suitable habitat exists on site; American peregrine falcon other aquatic features, nests on cliffs, banks, dunes, mounds, no additional surveys required. and human-made structures. Falco mexicanus FSC -- Generally breed on cliffs and rock outcrops and forage in No suitable habitat exists on site; Prairie falcon adjacent hills, canyons and mountains of arid grasslands and no additional surveys required. shrub steppes

AUGUST 30, 2005 PARSONS PAGE 3.9-23 BURBANK AVENUE ANNEXATION DRAFT SUBSEQUENT EIR VEGETATION, WILDLIFE, AND HABITAT

Table 3.9-2

Special-Status Wildlife Species Potentially Occurring within the Project Vicinity

Status Species Federal State Habitat Association Occurrences Haliaeetus leucocephalus FT SE Inhabits ocean shorelines, lake margins, and river courses for No suitable habitat exists on site; Bald eagle both nesting and wintering. Nests are typically located within no additional surveys required. 1 mile of water. Lanius ludovicianus FSC CSC Inhabits open environments, including grasslands, agricultural Suitable habitat exists on site. Loggerhead shrike lands, open shrublands, and open woodlands. Melanerpes lewis FSC -- Interior open woodlands, uncommon on the coast. No suitable habitat exists on site; Lewis’ woodpecker no additional surveys required. Numenius americanus FSC -- Winter solitary or flocking migrant along California coast, and No suitable habitat on site; no Long-billed curlew Central and Imperial Valleys; prefers large coastal estuaries, additional surveys required. upland herbaceous areas, and croplands Nest in large tracts of open grasslands with low vegetative cover and wet meadows nearby. Selasphorus rufus FSC -- Seasonal (Neotropical) migrant in Bay Area; occupies wide Suitable habitat exists on site. Rufous hummingbird variety of habitats with nectar-producing flowers, valley foothill hardwood and coniferous forests, chaparral, and riparian habitats. Selasphorus sasin FSC -- Summer/nesting and seasonal (Neotropical) migrant along Suitable habitat exists on site. Allen’s hummingbird coast and coastal mountains, including Bay Area; requires nectar-producing flowers in coastal scrub, valley foothill hardwoods and riparian habitats. Sterna antillarum browni FE -- Coastal beaches and estuaries near shallow waters with good No suitable habitat on site; no California least tern visibility for long distances additional surveys required.

AUGUST 30, 2005 PARSONS PAGE 3.9-24 BURBANK AVENUE ANNEXATION DRAFT SUBSEQUENT EIR VEGETATION, WILDLIFE, AND HABITAT

Table 3.9-2

Special-Status Wildlife Species Potentially Occurring within the Project Vicinity

Status Species Federal State Habitat Association Occurrences Strix occidentalis caurina FT -- An inhabitant of old growth forests or mixed stands of old No suitable habitat on site; no Northern spotted owl growth and mature trees. Associated with high, multistory additional surveys required. canopies dominated by large trees, many trees with cavities or broken tops, woody debris and space under the canopy. Toxostoma redivivum FSC -- A common resident of foothills and lowlands in cismontane Suitable habitat exists on site. California thrasher California. Occupies moderate to dense chaparral habitats and, to a lesser extent, thickets in young or open valley foothill riparian habitat Mammals Aplodontia rufa phaea FSC CSC Coastal area of Point Reyes in areas of springs or seepages. No suitable habitat on site; no Point Reyes mountain beaver Associated with north facing slopes of hills and gullies in areas additional surveys required. with significant vegetative cover. Antrozous pallidus -- CSC Roosts in caves, mine tunnels, crevices in rocks, buildings, and Suitable habitat exists on site. pallid bat trees in a variety of habitats. Corynorhinus townsendii FSC CSC Occupies the humid, coastal regions of northern and central Suitable habitat exists on site. townsendii California, in a wide variety of habitats. Roosts in caves, Pacific western big-eared bat buildings, and mine tunnels. This species is highly sensitive to human disturbance at roosting, maternity, and hibernacula sites. Eumops perotis californicus FSC CSC Many open, semi-arid to arid habitats, including coniferous and Suitable habitat exists on site. greater western mastiff-bat deciduous woodlands, coastal scrub, grasslands, chaparral; roosts in crevices of cliff faces, in high buildings, and in trees and tunnels

AUGUST 30, 2005 PARSONS PAGE 3.9-25 BURBANK AVENUE ANNEXATION DRAFT SUBSEQUENT EIR VEGETATION, WILDLIFE, AND HABITAT

Table 3.9-2

Special-Status Wildlife Species Potentially Occurring within the Project Vicinity

Status Species Federal State Habitat Association Occurrences Myotis evotis FSC -- May be found in a variety of brush, woodland, and forest Suitable habitat exists on site. long-eared myotis bat communities, from sea level to about 9,000 feet; shows a preference toward coniferous woodlands and forests. Nursery colonies located in buildings, crevices, spaces under bark, snags; night roosting in caves. Myotis thysanodes FSC -- May be found in a variety of environments; valley and foothill Suitable habitat exists on site. fringed myotis bat hardwood, hardwood-conifer and pinyon-juniper woodland provide optimal habitat. Maternity colonies and roosts located in caves, mines, buildings, and crevices. Myotis volans FSC -- This species is most commonly associated with woodland and Suitable habitat exists on site. long-legged myotis bat forest communities above 4,000 feet. However, may also forage in chaparral, coastal scrub, Great Basin shrub habitats, and in early successional stages of woodlands and forests. Occurrence records ranges from sea level to 11,400 feet. Roosts in rock crevices, buildings, under tree bark, in snags, mines, and caves. Myotis yumanensis FSC -- Optimal environments include open forests and woodlands in Suitable habitat exists on site. Yuma myotis bat proximity to bodies of water used for foraging; maternity colonies in caves, mines, crevices, and buildings. Reithrodontomys raviventris FE SE Only in the saline emergent wetlands of San Francisco Bay and No suitable habitat on site; no Salt marsh harvest mouse its tributaries. Pickleweed is primary habitat. Requires higher additional surveys required. areas in order to escape floods Zapus trinotatus orarius FSC CSC Appears to be restricted to the Point Reyes Peninsula. No suitable habitat on site; no Point Reyes jumping mouse Associated with bunch grass marshes in upland areas, that are additional surveys required. safe from continuous inundation

AUGUST 30, 2005 PARSONS PAGE 3.9-26 BURBANK AVENUE ANNEXATION DRAFT SUBSEQUENT EIR VEGETATION, WILDLIFE, AND HABITAT

Status: Federal -- = No designation FE = Listed as endangered under the Federal Endangered Species Act FT = Listed as threatened under the Federal Endangered Species Act FC = Candidate species for listing under the Federal Endangered Species Act FSC/FSLC = Species of concern or of local concern as identified by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service FD = Species that has been federally delisted State -- = No designation SE = Listed as endangered under the California Endangered Species Act ST = Listed as threatened under the California Endangered Species Act CSC = Species of concern as identified by the California Department of Fish and Game CFP = Listed as fully protected by the California Fish and Game Code * = Although not formally designated a listed species, the species is monitored as a “special animal” by the CNDDB Habitat and Potential Occurrence: California Natural Diversity Data Base (CDFG 2002) Santa Rosa 2020: General Plan Draft EIR

AUGUST 30, 2005 PARSONS PAGE 3.9-27 BURBANK AVENUE ANNEXATION DRAFT SUBSEQUENT EIR VEGETATION, WILDLIFE, AND HABITAT

This page left intentionally blank.

AUGUST 30, 2005 PARSONS PAGE 3.9-28 BURBANK AVENUE ANNEXATION DRAFT SUBSEQUENT EIR VEGETATION, WILDLIFE, AND HABITAT

Plant and Wildlife Species with Potentially Suitable Habitat on the Project Site

Based upon the evaluation of species occurring in the vicinity of the Project site, the following species were identified as potentially having suitable habitat on the Project site. This potential was further evaluated during field surveys of the site, and the results are presented below.

Bent-flowered Fiddleneck

Bent-flowered fiddleneck (Amsinckia lunaris) is an annual herb in the borage family (Boraginaceae). Flowers are bright yellow and bloom March through June. This species occurs in valley and foothill grassland, cismontane woodland, and coastal bluff scrub. Bent-flowered fiddleneck are thought to occur in eleven counties in California, with limited known occurrences in Sonoma County (CNPS 2003).

Non-native grassland habitats that could support bent-flowered fiddleneck are located along the project corridor.

Sonoma Sunshine

Sonoma sunshine (Blennosperma bakeri), also known as Baker’s stickyseed, is a small annual herb in the sunflower family (Asteraceae). The plant reaches approximately 12 inches in height and has alternate, narrow hairless leaves. Flowers are yellow, daisy-like disks with red stigmas that bloom March through April (USFWS 2003; Hickman 1993).

Habitat for the Sonoma sunshine is limited to valley and foothill grasslands and vernal pools in Sonoma County (CNPS 2003). Within its range, at least 30 percent of the historic occurrences of Sonoma sunshine have been eliminated. Remaining populations are threatened with urbanization, irrigation and conversion of for agricultural uses (CNPS 2003; CDFG 2000). Expansion of the City of Santa Rosa westward threatens over 50 percent of the remaining Sonoma sunshine habitat (CDFG 2000).

Sonoma sunshine was listed as endangered by the federal government in 1991 and the state of California in 1992. Currently there is no critical habitat designated for this species and a vernal pool ecosystem recovery program involving the species is under development (USFWS 2003).

Suitable habitat for the Sonoma sunshine is found in the grasslands within and adjacent to the project footprint.

Dwarf downingia (Downingia pusilla)

Dwarf downingia is an annual herb that blooms from March to May and belongs to the family Campanulaceae (CNPS 2001). Morphologically, Dwarf downingia can be distinguished by its small flowers, measuring approximately 4mm in diameter, and upright stems, ranging from 3cm to 15cm in length. The floral coloration of Dwarf

AUGUST 30, 2005 PARSONS PAGE 3.9-29 BURBANK AVENUE ANNEXATION DRAFT SUBSEQUENT EIR VEGETATION, WILDLIFE, AND HABITAT

downingia varies geographically, exhibiting white corollas north of San Francisco and blue corollas in the central valley (NatureServe 2003).

Suitable habitat of Dwarf downingia includes vernal pools, seasonal wetlands, and mesic grasslands in Sonoma County and elsewhere. Specifically, areas known to house Dwarf downingia include vernal pools of the interior Coast Range valleys in Napa and Sonoma Counties Dwarf downingia grows in a variety of soil types and prefers locations free of vegetative cover. Dwarf downingia self-pollinates and utilizes the standing water of its vernal pool and/or wetland habitat for seed germination and dispersal.

Due to the fact that Dwarf downingia has no state or federal listing, critical habitat has not been designated and a recovery plan has not been written for this plant. Although Dwarf downingia is not listed, it co-occurs with several federally listed vernal pool plants and animals. This co-occurrence has caused many Dwarf downingia populations to fit under umbrellas of proposed critical habitat proposed for rare and threatened plants by the USFWS.

Loch Lomond button-celery

Loch Lomond button-celery (Eryngium constancei), also known as Loch Lomond coyote-thistle, is a perennial herb of the carrot family (Apiaceae). It annually produces slender, leafless flowering stalks up to 12 inches from a basal rosette of four to eight inch leaves. The downy, white hairs covering the flowering stalks separate it from other species in the same genus (Hickman 1993).

Loch Lomond button celery is associated with vernal pools in Lake and Sonoma counties, though it is only known from three occurrences. It is currently listed as both a state and federally endangered species (CNPS 2001)

Burke’s goldfields

Burke’s goldfields (Lasthenia burkei) are a small annual herb in the sunflower family (Asteraceae) with narrow, opposite leaves on simple or branching stems that stand less than 30 centimeters high. Small heads of yellow flowers bloom April through June and seeds are dispersed via pappus (a seed appendage that acts like a parachute) (CDFG 2000b; Hickman 1993).

Burke’s goldfields are associated with seeps and meadows, and especially vernal pools within Lake, Mendocino, and Sonoma counties (CNPS 2003; USFWS 2003b). Historically, 39 populations of Burke’s goldfields were known to occur in sites in the Cotati Valley (at the southern end of the Santa Rosa plain). Currently, less than 30 percent of the species historical occurrences remain (CDFG 2000b). The species now ranges from north of the community of Windsor to east of the city of Sebastopol (USFWS 2003b).

Damage or destruction of vernal pools, the foremost Burke’s goldfields habitat, can occur quickly and have long lasting effects due to the dependency of the pools upon an intact durapan. Primary threats to the species come from urbanization, conversion of land for

AUGUST 30, 2005 PARSONS PAGE 3.9-30 BURBANK AVENUE ANNEXATION DRAFT SUBSEQUENT EIR VEGETATION, WILDLIFE, AND HABITAT

agricultural use, irrigation, highway widening, sheep and cattle grazing, and off-highway vehicle use (CDFG 2000b; CNPS 1994; USFWS 2003b).

Burke’s goldfields were listed as endangered by the State of California in 1979 and the federal government in 1991. There is no critical habitat designated for the species at this time and a vernal pool ecosystem recovery plan that would include the species is under development (USFWS 2003c).

Legenere

Legenere (Legenere limosa) is an annual herb in the bluebell family (Campanulaceae). The main stems can reach from 4 to 12 inches long and are decumbent (lie on the ground). Secondary branches are erect and small, white flowers bloom between April and June (Hickman 1993).

Legenere is associated with vernal pools found in thirteen California counties, including Sonoma County (USFWS 2003c, CNPS 1994). Many historical occurrences of legenere have been extirpated (CNPS 2003) and of the forty-two known extant occurrences, the majority, over twenty, are found in Sacramento County. The other area of concentration of the species, with ten occurrences, is found in Solano County (USFWS 2003c). Other, sparser, populations are found in Lake, Napa, San Mateo, and Sonoma counties (CNPS 2003).

The federal government lists legenere as a species of concern and a vernal pool ecosystem recovery plan that would include the species is under development. The CNPS lists legenere as a 1B rare species and cites the primary threats to the species as cattle grazing, and urban development.

Sebastopol Meadowfoam

Sebastopol meadowfoam (Limnanthes vinculans) is a small, multi-stemmed annual herb in the false mermaid family (Limnanthaceae). Leaves on the mature plant have three to five undivided narrow leaflets. Small, bell-shaped white flowers bloom in April and May (USFWS 2003d, CNPS 1994).

Sebastopol meadowfoam is associated with mesic meadows and seeps, moist valley foothills and grasslands, and vernal pools in Sonoma County (CNPS 2003, CDFG 2000c).

Historically, the species was known in Sonoma and Napa counties, however, the Napa County population is thought extirpated. Most current occurrences of the species are found in the drainage of the Laguna de Santa Rosa on private land (CDFG 2000c).

Sebastopol meadowfoam was listed as endangered by the state of California in 1979 and by the federal government in 1991. There is no critical habitat designated for the species and a vernal pool ecosystem recovery plan, which would include the species, is under development (USFWS 2003d). Primary threats to Sebastopol meadowfoam are

AUGUST 30, 2005 PARSONS PAGE 3.9-31 BURBANK AVENUE ANNEXATION DRAFT SUBSEQUENT EIR VEGETATION, WILDLIFE, AND HABITAT

residential and commercial development, changes in hydrology, cattle grazing, and off road vehicle use (CDFG 2000c)

Marsh Microseris

Marsh microseris (Micoroseris paludosa) is a perennial herb in the sunflower family (Astericeae) with pinnately lobed leaves. The plant produces five or more yellow, rayed flowers that bloom between April and June (Hickman 1993). Marsh microseris habitat consists of closed-cone conifer forests, cismontane woodlands, and valley and foothill grasslands in several California counties, including Sonoma County (CNPS 2003). Historically, the marsh microseris occurred in eight California counties. The species is thought extirpated from two of those counties completely as well as extirpated from occurrences in other counties (CNPS 2003)

Potential habitat for marsh microseris occurs in the non-native grasslands within the Project area. Occurrences of marsh microseris have been recorded in the western Santa Rosa plains near Todd Road and Stony Point Road (CNPS 2000).

Baker’s Navarretia

Baker’s navarretia (Navarretia leucocephala spp. Bakeri) is an erect, 2 to 10 cm tall annual herb in the phlox family (Polemoniaceae). Bracts (leaf like structures) support the white to blue flowers in a ball-like cluster. These flowers produce 2 – 4 seeds and bloom between May and July (CNPS 1994; Hickman 1993).

Baker’s naverretia occurs in cismontane woodland, meadows and seeps, valley foothills and grasslands, and vernal pools. Known populations are found in eight California counties, including Napa, Lake, Marin, and Sonoma counties (CNPS 2003). The CNPS lists the species as a 1B rare species and cites its primary threats as urban and commercial development as well as agricultural practices.

There is potential habitat for Baker’s navarretia in the non-native grassland habitats found in the project corridor.

California Tiger Salamander

California tiger salamanders (CTS) in Sonoma County breed in vernal pools and roadside ditches, generally those greater than about eight inches in depth during the wet season, and retaining water for three months or more. Adults use upland habitats, and burrows made by gophers, voles, and moles are the primary element required by CTS in Sonoma County for aestivation (summer dormancy) in uplands. After transforming from larvae at breeding sites into air-breathing juveniles with the adult form, juveniles leave their natal pools at night and migrate varying distances away from the natal pools, then enter burrows (sometimes desiccation fissures, as well as underground pipes, culverts, and the like) where they live for 5-6 or more years before returning to the pools to breed for the first time (Trenham, et al 2000; USFWS 2002). Most of the undeveloped land within the annexation area represents upland habitat potentially suitable for aestivation by adult and juvenile CTS (see Figure 3.9-2).

AUGUST 30, 2005 PARSONS PAGE 3.9-32 CITY OF SANTA ROSA POTENTIAL CALIFORNIA TIGER PARSONS BURBANK AVENUE ANNEXATION EIR SALAMANDER HABITAT Figure 3.9-2 BURBANK AVENUE ANNEXATION DRAFT SUBSEQUENT EIR VEGETATION, WILDLIFE, AND HABITAT

No vernal pools or ditches suitable for CTS breeding have been observed within the proposed annexation area. The Roseland Creek channel within the annexation area contains water long enough into spring to allow CTS larvae to reach transformation, if CTS adults bred there. However, introduced crayfish, mosquitofish, and threespine stickleback have been found in the creek within the annexation area, all potential predators to the CTS larvae. Therefore, CTS breeding within the Project area is highly unlikely (MSC, 2004b).

However, there are two known breeding sites located outside of, but within 2 kilometers (the currently accepted dispersal range of CTS from breeding sites) of the annexation area: one to the southwest and one to the south (See Figure 3.9-3). Either of the breeding sites is well within the dispersal range of any CTS that may live anywhere within the annexation area. In order to reach the pools some CTS within the annexation area would have to cross either the natural or channelized portion of Roseland Creek. According to the USFWS, tiger salamanders found within the region and county are found to use intermittent streams and even roadside drainage ditches to reach breeding habitats. Aquatic habitat on the proposed project sites includes the Roseland Creek channel. A known CTS breeding habitat is located at Southwest Community Park across Hearn Avenue at the southern terminus of Burbank Avenue (USFWS, 2003). Therefore, it does not appear that Roseland Creek is a barrier to movement for CTS. Similarly, Hearn Avenue, which has a curb and sidewalk along the south side of the street along the Southwest Community Park, is not considered a barrier to movement for salamanders going to or from the breeding area in the park, although the threat of a tiger salamander being run over by an automobile on Hearn Avenue is likely (MSC, 2004b).

Coopers Hawk

Cooper’s hawk (Accipiter cooperi) is currently designated as a State species of special concern. It is primarily an inhabitant of dense stands of live oak, riparian deciduous or other forested environments near water (Zeiner et al. 1990). This species is also being increasingly found in urban areas where tall trees exist for nest sites (Kaufman 1996). Cooper’s hawks typically forage in broken woodlands and habitat edges, feeding mostly on birds and small mammals (Kaufman 1996, Zeiner et al. 1990). The breeding season extends from March through August, with peak activity from May through July (Zeiner et al. 1990). Suitable habitat exists on site.

Tri-colored Blackbird

The tricolored blackbird is designated as a species of special concern by the CDFG and as a species of concern by the USFWS. Tri-colored blackbird (Agelaius tricolor) occurs in suitable habitat throughout much of the Central Valley and foothills of California, and along the coast from approximately Mendocino County to northern Baja California, Mexico. This colonial species is a year-round resident in marshes, wet meadows, rice fields, and rangelands. Tri-colored blackbirds require large tracts of tules, cattails, or blackberries for their nesting colonies. Much of the historic habitat for this species has

AUGUST 30, 2005 PARSONS PAGE 3.9-34 Source: LSA 2004

CITY OF SANTA ROSA California Tiger Salamander Occurrences PARSONS B URBANK AVENUE ANNEXATION EIR and USFWS Potential Range Figure 3.9-3 BURBANK AVENUE ANNEXATION DRAFT SUBSEQUENT EIR VEGETATION, WILDLIFE, AND HABITAT

been diminished due to the conversion of marshes to agriculture and urban development. Nesting habitat is not present on site, but foraging habitat may occur.

Rufous Hummingbird

The rufous hummingbird (Selasphorus rufus) is a federal species of concern. It is a common migrant and uncommon, summer resident of California but is found north into northern Nevada, Oregon Washington, Idaho, and western Canada. While a common breeder in the Pacific Northwest, it has been observed breeding in the Klamath Region in recent years. Most post-breeders migrate south through the Cascade and Sierra Nevada in summer. The species is found in a variety of habitats that support the nectar producing flowers upon which it feeds. It is known from montane meadows and aspen thickets into coniferous, hardwood, chaparral, valley foothill and riparian plant communities.

Western Burrowing Owl

The western burrowing owl (Athens cunicularia hypugaea) inhabits open upland habitats with well-drained, level to gently sloping areas characterized by sparse vegetation, including bare and over-grazed soils (Haug et al. 1993; Trulio 2000; Dechant et al. 2001). Key factors in sustaining western burrowing owl populations are short, sparse vegetation, abundant prey resources, and availability of burrows as nest and roost sites (Dechant et al. 2001).

The burrowing owl is a species of management concern by both USFWS and CDFG, and is protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. Under CEQA guidelines, rare species must be considered in project planning regardless of formal listing as endangered or threatened. The burrowing owl qualifies as it is considered rare, restricted in distribution, or declining throughout its California range according to CDFG.

It is estimated that 167 nesting pairs (about 1.8 percent of the total California population) occur in the San Francisco Bay Area, which represents a decline of 50 percent since the mid-1980s. The majority of nesting and wintering populations occur in the Imperial Valley (71 percent) and Central Valley (24 percent) (Santa Cruz Predatory Bird Research Group 2002). Population declines in the Bay Area appear to have abated in recent years (DeSante et al. 1997).

Historically, resident and wintering burrowing owls were common in central and southern California deserts, grasslands, and other open, upland habitats (Small 1994). Urbanization and agricultural conversion have eliminated large tracts of burrowing owl habitat and fragmented the remainder (Haug et al. 1993; Schulz 1997; Dechant 2001). However, burrowing owls exhibit a high level of tolerance to human disturbance and will nest or roost in urban and metropolitan areas (Haug et al. 1993). The project site contains potentially suitable habitat.

Oak Titmouse

The oak titmouse, formerly the plain titmouse, is a resident of dry oak woodlands from southern Oregon to northern Baja California. Due to recent declines in local populations,

AUGUST 30, 2005 PARSONS PAGE 3.9-36 BURBANK AVENUE ANNEXATION DRAFT SUBSEQUENT EIR VEGETATION, WILDLIFE, AND HABITAT

the oak titmouse is listed federally as a species of local concern. Loss of habitat is considered the primary reason for the decline of this species. This is due primarily to loss of dead standing trees, live trees with dead limbs or diseased trees, reducing the number of cavities available for nesting. Oak woodlands on the project site could provide habitat.

Ferruginous Hawk

The ferruginous hawk is named for its rusty brown shoulders, back, rump and legs. The heavy, thick-set bird is the largest hawk in North America. Ferruginous hawks breed from eastern Washington to southern Alberta and southern Saskatchewan, Canada, south to eastern Oregon, Nevada, northern and southeastern Arizona, northern New Mexico, northwest Texas, western Nebraska, western Kansas, and western Oklahoma. Ferruginous hawks do not nest in California, but are winter migrants along the coast of Sonoma County to San Diego County, eastward to the Sierra Nevada foothills and southeastern deserts. They forage over open terrain in plains and foothills where ground squirrels and other prey are available (Grinnell and Miller 1944).

Habitat loss is the major problem affecting ferruginous hawks. Cultivation, settlement, and resource exploration have reduced prairie grasslands and gopher populations. Without sufficient food, the hawks will not establish a nest. Populations of ferruginous hawks seem to have declined in most areas over their range, except in California where they appear to have increased significantly in the past decade (Desert U.S.A. Newsletter 2003). The project area contains suitable foraging habitat.

White-tailed Kite

White-tailed kite (formerly known as black-shouldered kite) (Elanus leucurus) is fully protected under the California Fish and Game Code. Take of this species, including removal of an active nest or disturbance that results in abandonment of a nest, is prohibited. The white-tailed kite occurs year-round in coastal and valley lowlands of California (Zeiner et al. 1990). The species can be found in association with the herbaceous and open stages of a variety of environments, including open grasslands, meadows, emergent wetlands, and farm country (Kaufman 1996, Zeiner et al. 1990). White-tailed kites feed primarily on small diurnal mammals, such as voles and house mice, with birds, insects, reptiles, and amphibians utilized to a lesser extent (Kaufman 1996, Zeiner et al. 1990). Nests are constructed near the top of dense oaks, willows, or other tree stands that are located adjacent to foraging areas (Zeiner et al. 1990). The breeding season extends from February to October, with peak activity occurring from May to August (Zeiner et al. 1990). Suitable nesting habitat exists on site.

Loggerhead Shrike

Loggerhead shrike (Lanius ludovicianus) is designated as a species of special concern by the CDFG and as a species of concern by the USFWS. The loggerhead shrike occurs in lowlands and foothills throughout California. The species inhabits open areas with scattered trees and scrub, and other available hunting perches, such as fences and wires. Open croplands and grasslands serve as important foraging areas. Common prey items include insects, small birds, mammals, amphibians, reptiles, and other invertebrates.

AUGUST 30, 2005 PARSONS PAGE 3.9-37 BURBANK AVENUE ANNEXATION DRAFT SUBSEQUENT EIR VEGETATION, WILDLIFE, AND HABITAT

Although the direct cause is not known, population declines have been recently noted for the species. Pesticides and habitat encroachment have been proposed as potential causes of this species decline. Suitable habitat exists on site.

Allen’s Hummingbird

The Allen’s hummingbird is a neotropical migrant, spending winters in southern Mexico and summers along coastal California. They are found throughout coastal chaparral, wooded canyons, gardens, mountain meadows, brushlands and Redwood forest edges.

California Thrasher

A common resident of foothills and lowlands in cismontane California, the California thrasher occupies moderate to dense chaparral habitats and, to a lesser extent, thickets in young or open valley foothill riparian habitat (Cody 1998). California thrashers do not adapt well to habitat modification and fragmentation, both of which lead directly to local declines in population. To a lesser extent, pesticide use on citrus crops also leads to declines in local populations. The California thrasher is currently listed as a federal species of concern.

Pallid Bat

The CDFG designates the pallid bat (Antrozous pallidus) as a species of special concern. The pallid bat inhabits a variety of habitats including grasslands, shrublands, woodlands, and forests from sea level up through mixed conifer forests. Pallid bats may make local movements on a seasonal basis; however, they are not considered to be migratory. This species hibernates during the winter months. During the day, pallid bats roost in buildings, rock crevices, caves, mines, and hollow trees. Suburban development of oak woodlands has lead to the decline of this species. The species may be present along Roseland Creek.

Pacific Western Big-eared Bat

The USFWS and the CDFG designate the Pacific Western big-eared (Corynorhinus townsendii) as a species of concern and species of special concern. Pacific Western big- eared bat is found along the Pacific coast from Northern California to Washington. It lives at elevations ranging from sea level to 3,500 feet and is dependent on cliffs, caves, and old mines for roosting, nursery, and hibernation sites. It has also been known to roost in buildings, especially on West Coast. The species may be present along Roseland Creek.

Greater Western Mastiff Bat

The USFWS and the CDFG designate the Greater Western mastiff (Eumops perotis californicus) as a species of concern and species of special concern. The distribution of the mastiff bat extends from southern California north to the Sierra Buttes. Mastiff bats occur in a variety of habitats from desert scrub to montane meadows. The species may be present along Roseland Creek.

AUGUST 30, 2005 PARSONS PAGE 3.9-38 BURBANK AVENUE ANNEXATION DRAFT SUBSEQUENT EIR VEGETATION, WILDLIFE, AND HABITAT

Long-eared Myotis Bat

The USFWS designates the long-eared myotis (Myotis evotis) as a species of concern. The relatively long black ears of the long-eared myotis are distinctive and dramatic in contrast with its paler body fur. These bats are endemic to the west, ranging from southwestern Canada, south through California into Baja, eastward through northern Arizona and New Mexico and north into the Dakotas. They are found predominantly in coniferous forests, typically only at higher elevations in southern areas (between 7,000 and 8,500 feet), but also occur down to sea level. From British Columbia to northern Arizona, they roost in tree cavities and beneath exfoliating bark in both living trees and dead snags. Pregnant western long-eared myotis often roost at ground level in rock crevices, fallen logs, and even in the crevices of sawed-off stumps, but they cannot rear young in such vulnerable locations. Long-eared myotis capture prey in flight, but also glean stationary insects from foliage or the ground. Their main diet appears to consist of moths, and their relatively quiet echolocation calls are well suited for sneaking up on prey undetected as well as for maneuvering through cluttered habitats.

Long-eared myotis bat has been designated by the USFWS as a species of special concern. Habitat loss is the primary factor in the decline of the historical population. The species may be present along Roseland Creek.

Fringed Myotis Bat

The USFWS designates the fringed myotis (Myotis thysanodes) as a species of concern. Named the fringed myotis because of the conspicuous fringe of hairs on its tail membrane, this bat ranges through much of western North America from southern British Columbia, Canada, south to Chiapas, Mexico and from Santa Cruz Island in California, east to the Black Hills of South Dakota. This species has been found in hot desert scrubland, grassland, xeric woodland, sage-grass steppe, mesic old-growth forest, and multi-aged subalpine coniferous and mixed-deciduous forest. Xeric woodlands (oak and piñon-juniper) appear to be the most commonly used.

The fringed myotis is a colonial-roosting species with colonies ranging from 10 to 2,000 individuals. Large colonies are exceedingly rare. Where available, caves, buildings, underground mines, rock crevices in cliff faces and other protected locations are used for maternity and night roosts, while hibernation has only been documented in buildings and underground mines. Tree-roosting has also been documented in large conifer snags in Oregon, in ponderosa snags in New Mexico, and in hollow redwood and giant sequoia trees in California. Maternity roosts have been found in sites that are generally cooler and wetter than is typical for most other vespertilionids. Riparian areas along lakes, streams and rivers are important foraging areas for the fringed myotis. The species may be present along Roseland Creek.

Long-legged Myotis Bat

The USFWS designates the long-legged myotis (Myotis volans) as a species of concern. The long-legged myotis is one of western America's most widely distributed bat species. It is found from the Tongass National Forest in Alaska, south, through all of the western

AUGUST 30, 2005 PARSONS PAGE 3.9-39 BURBANK AVENUE ANNEXATION DRAFT SUBSEQUENT EIR VEGETATION, WILDLIFE, AND HABITAT

U.S. and into the Baja peninsula, and also along the Sierra Madre Occidental in Mexico. Long-legged myotis are especially dependent on wooded habitats from piñon-juniper to coniferous forests, usually at elevations of 4,000 to 9,000 feet, although they may occur down to sea level. Radio-tracking studies have identified maternity roosts beneath bark and in other cavities. Most nursery colonies live in at least 100 year-old trees that provide crevices or exfoliating bark. These typically are located in openings or along forest edges where they receive a large amount of daily sun. Though maternity colonies are most often formed in tree cavities or under loose bark, they also are found in rock crevices, cliffs, and buildings. Long-legged myotis forage over ponds, streams, water tanks, and in forest clearings, often on moths. Few winter records exist in the West.

Long-legged myotis bat has been designated by the USFWS as a species of special concern. Loss of riparian habitats and the decline in permanent water sources in the southwest are the primary contributors to the species decline. The species may be present along Roseland Creek.

Yuma Myotis Bat

The USFWS designates the Yuma myotis (Myotis yumanensis) as a species of concern. The Yuma myotis is found throughout western North America, from British Columbia through Washington, Idaho, and western Montana, southern Wyoming, Colorado, New Mexico, West Texas and into Mexico. Occasionally roosting in mines or caves, these bats are most often found in buildings or bridges. Bachelors also sometimes roost in abandoned cliff swallow nests, but tree cavities were probably the original sites for most nursery roosts. These bats typically forage over water in forested areas. Although Yuma myotis feed predominantly over water, they eat a variety of insects that includes moths, froghoppers, leafhoppers, June beetles, ground beetles, midges, mosquitoes, muscid flies, caddisflies, and crane flies.

Yuma myotis bat has been designated by the USFWS as a species of special concern. Yuma myotis are threatened by loss of riparian habitats and the decline in permanent water sources. Species may be present along Roseland Creek.

3.9-2 REGULATORY FRAMEWORK

Federal Endangered Species Act

The Federal Endangered Species Act of 1973 (Act) recognized that many species of fish, wildlife, and plants are in danger of or threatened with extinction and established a national policy that all federal agencies should work toward conservation of these species. The Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of Commerce are designated in the Act as responsible for identifying endangered and threatened species and their critical habitats, carrying out programs for the conservation of these species, and rendering opinions regarding the impact of proposed federal actions on endangered species. The Act also outlines what constitutes unlawful taking, importation, sale, and possession of endangered species and specifies civil and criminal penalties for unlawful activities.

AUGUST 30, 2005 PARSONS PAGE 3.9-40 BURBANK AVENUE ANNEXATION DRAFT SUBSEQUENT EIR VEGETATION, WILDLIFE, AND HABITAT

Biological assessments are required under Section 7(c) of the Act if listed species or critical habitat may be present in the area affected by any major construction activity conducted by, or subject to issuance of a permit from, a federal agency as defined in Part 404.02. Under Section 7(a)(3) of the Act every federal agency is required to consult with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service or National Marine Fisheries Service on a proposed action if the agency determines that its proposed action may affect an endangered or threatened species.

Section 9 of the Federal Endangered Species Act prohibits the “take” of any fish or wildlife species listed under the FESA as endangered or threatened. Take, as defined by the FESA, means “to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or to attempt to engage in any such action.” However, Section 10 allows for the “incidental take” of endangered and threatened species of wildlife by non-Federal entities. Incidental take is defined by the FESA as take that is “incidental to, and not the purpose of, the carrying out of an otherwise lawful activity.” Section 10(a)(2)(A) requires an applicant for an incidental take permit to submit a “conservation plan” that specifies, among other things, the impacts that are likely to result from the taking and the measures the permit applicant will undertake to minimize and mitigate such impacts. Section 10(a)(2)(B) provides statutory criteria that must be satisfied before an incidental take permit can be issued.

To address endangered species issues within the Santa Rosa Plain, the City of Santa Rosa is participating in the Santa Rosa Plain Conservation Strategy Team. Members include representatives from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, California Department of Fish and Game, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, North Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board, Sonoma County and local cities, the Laguna Foundation, and representatives from the environmental and private landowner communities. The group’s purpose is to:

• Develop a habitat conservation strategy for California tiger salamander and listed plant species • Identify proposed areas for preservation • Develop guidance for proposed 2004 projects • Develop an implementation framework for the conservation strategy which identifies short- and long-term actions and milestones as needed • Establish development process predictability

Wetlands and Other Jurisdictional Waters of the U.S.

The CEQA Guidelines (1994) state that effects on the environment that conflict with adopted environmental plans or goals are normally regarded as significant. A “no net loss of wetland acreage or value” policy is established within both the state and federal executive branches (California Wetlands Conservation Policy 1993). Ditching, draining, or other activities which could alter the characteristic physical, chemical, biological or public interest values (as defined by 40 CFR 230 Subparts C-F) associated with wetlands and other waters of the U.S. are considered impacts under U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) authority.

AUGUST 30, 2005 PARSONS PAGE 3.9-41 BURBANK AVENUE ANNEXATION DRAFT SUBSEQUENT EIR VEGETATION, WILDLIFE, AND HABITAT

Placement of fill material in waters of the U.S. is regulated through Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA), under jurisdiction of the Corps. Waters defined under Section 404 include, but are not limited to, areas subject to the ebb and flow of the tide, streams, and wetlands (33 CFR §328.23[3]). The extent of the waters in streams is defined by elevations along the stream bank above which water normally does not rise (ordinary high water). Wetlands are defined as areas that are saturated or inundated by surface or ground water for a frequency and duration sufficient to support the prevalence of plants adapted for life in saturated soil conditions (33 CFR §328 [(b)b]).

The goal of the Clean Water Act is to maintain, restore, and enhance the physical, chemical, and biological integrity of the Nation’s waters. In reviewing proposed projects involving impacts to wetlands, the Corps requires no net loss of wetland functions and values. Compensatory mitigation for unavoidable impacts to wetlands permitted by the Corps requires replacement acreage, preferably in-kind and in the same watershed, sufficient to achieve the goal of no net loss. Replacement acreage is determined by the Corps based on the functions and values of the area being filled, the functions and values of the proposed mitigation site, and the likelihood of success of the proposed mitigation. Wetland mitigation may include restoration, creation, and/or preservation. The mitigation must be based on the functions and values of wetlands that are affected and the local opportunities to utilize these three approaches. Compensation should be completed before or concurrent with the impact, as near to the site of impact as practicable, and the mitigation site must be protected from subsequent loss or degradation.

Current policy statements issued by the Corps’ General Counsel assert that, “the Corps’ ecological judgment about the relationship between waters and their adjacent wetlands provides an adequate basis for legal judgment that adjacent wetlands may be defined as waters under the Act. In sum, the holding, the facts, and the reasoning of United States versus Riverside Bayview Homes continued to provide authority for the USEPA and the Corps to assert CWA jurisdiction over, inter alia, all of the traditional navigable waters, all interstate waters, and all tributaries to navigable or interstate waters, upstream to the highest reaches of the tributary systems, and over all wetlands adjacent to any and all of these waters.”

Migratory Bird Treaty Act

The federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) of 1918 (16 USC 703-711) makes it unlawful to take, possess, buy, sell, purchase, or barter any migratory bird listed in 50 CFR Part 10, including feathers or other parts, nests, eggs, or products, except as allowed by implementing regulations (50 CFR 21).

AUGUST 30, 2005 PARSONS PAGE 3.9-42 BURBANK AVENUE ANNEXATION DRAFT SUBSEQUENT EIR VEGETATION, WILDLIFE, AND HABITAT

California Environmental Quality Act

CEQA Guidelines - Section 15380

Rare or endangered species are defined in the CEQA Guidelines (Section 15380) as follows:

(a) “Species” as used in this section means a species or subspecies of animal or plant or variety of plant. (b) A species of animal or plant is: (1) “Endangered” when its survival and reproduction in the wild are in immediate jeopardy from one or more causes, including loss of habitat, change in habitat, overexploitation, predation, competition, disease, or other factors; or (2) “Rare” when either: (A) Although not presently threatened with extinction, the species is existing in such small numbers throughout all or a significant portion of its range that it may become endangered if its environment worsens; or (B) The species is likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range and may be considered “threatened” as that term is used in the Federal Endangered Species Act. (c) A species of animal or plant shall be presumed to be rare or endangered if it is listed in: (1) Sections 670.2 or 670.5, Title 14, California Administrative Code; or (2) Title 50, Code of Federal Regulations Sections 17.11 or 17.12 pursuant to the Federal Endangered Species Act as rare, threatened, or endangered. (d) A species not included in any listing identified in subsection (c) shall nevertheless be considered to be rare or endangered if the species can be shown to meet the criteria in subsection (b).

CDFG 1602 Lake and Streambed Alteration Agreement

Fish and Game Code section 1602 applies to all perennial, intermittent, and ephemeral rivers, streams, and lakes in the state. The Code requires any person, state or local governmental agency, or public utility to notify the Department before beginning any activity that will do one or more of the following: 1) substantially obstruct or divert the natural flow of a river, stream, or lake; 2) substantially change or use any material from the bed, channel, or bank of a river, stream, or lake; or 3) deposit or dispose of debris, waste, or other material containing crumbled, flaked, or ground pavement where it can pass into a river, stream, or lake.

AUGUST 30, 2005 PARSONS PAGE 3.9-43 BURBANK AVENUE ANNEXATION DRAFT SUBSEQUENT EIR VEGETATION, WILDLIFE, AND HABITAT

California Endangered Species Act

The California Endangered Species Act (Fish and Game Code Sections 2050-2098) established a State policy to conserve, protect, restore, and enhance any endangered species or any threatened species and its habitat. The Fish and Game Commission is charged with establishing a list of endangered and threatened species. State agencies must consult with the Department of Fish and Game to determine if a proposed Project is likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered or threatened species.

Section 2081 of the Fish and Game Code allows the “take” of a species listed as threatened or endangered by the California Endangered Species Act. Take is defined as any act that involves direct mortality or other actions that may result in adverse impacts when attempting to take individuals of a listed species. Under Section 2081, the State Department of Fish and Game may issue a permit to authorize take for scientific, educational or management purposes, or take that is incidental to otherwise lawful activities.

California Fish and Game Code Native Plant Protection Policy

The goals of the California Native Plant Protection Policy are as follows:

The intent of the Legislature and the purpose of this chapter (Chapter 10) are to preserve, protect, and enhance endangered or rare plants of this state (Section 1900). For purposes of this Chapter, a ‘native plant’ means a plant that grows in a wild uncultivated state which is normally found native to the plant life of this state (Section 1901).

The commission may adopt regulations governing the taking, possession, propagation, transportation, exportation, importation, or sale of any endangered or rare native plants. Such regulations may include, but shall not be limited to, requirements for persons who perform any of the foregoing activities to maintain written records and to obtain permits that may be issued by the department (Section 1907).

No person shall import into this state, or take, possess, or sell within this state, except as incident to the possession or sale of the real property on which the plant is growing, any native plant, or any part or product thereof, that the commission determines to be an endangered native plant or a rare native plant, except as otherwise provided in this chapter (Section 1908).

All state departments and agencies shall, in consultation with the department, utilize their authority in furtherance of the purposes of this chapter by carrying out programs for the conservation of endangered or rare native plants. Such programs include, but are not limited to, the identification, delineation, and protection of habitat critical to the continued survival of endangered or rare native plants (Section 1911).

AUGUST 30, 2005 PARSONS PAGE 3.9-44 BURBANK AVENUE ANNEXATION DRAFT SUBSEQUENT EIR VEGETATION, WILDLIFE, AND HABITAT

Santa Rosa General Plan

The Santa Rosa 2020: General Plan Open Space and Conservation Element provides the following policies and objectives regarding biological resources:

OSC-D Conserve wetlands, vernal pools, wildlife ecosystems, rare plant habitats, and waterways.

OSC-D-1 Utilize existing regulations and procedures to conserve wetland and rare plants.

OSC-D-2 Protect high quality wetlands and vernal pools from development or other activities as determined by the Vernal Pool Ecosystem Preservation Plan.

OSC-D-3 Preserve and restore the elements of wildlife habitats and corridors throughout the Planning Area.

OSC-D-4 Continue to consult with California Department of Fish and Game to identify significant environments. Identify priorities for acquisition or maintenance of open space areas based on biological and environmental concerns.

OSC-D-5 Consult with North Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board staff as part of the CEQA process for proposed developments to help them identify wetland and vernal pool habitat that has candidacy for restoration/protection based on actual and potential beneficial uses, and determine appropriate locations for mitigation banking.

OSC-D-8 Restore channelized waterways to a more natural condition which allows for more natural hydraulic functioning, including development of meanders, pools, riffles, and other stream features. Restoration should also allow for growth of riparian vegetation which effective stabilizes banks, screens pollutants from runoff entering the channel, enhances fisheries, and provides other opportunities for natural habitat restoration.

OSC-D-9 Ensure that construction adjacent to creek channels is sensitive to the natural environment. Ensure that natural topography and vegetation is preserved along the creek, and that construction activities do not disrupt or pollute the waterway.

OSC-D-11 New development along channelized waterways should allow for an ecological buffer zone between the waterway

AUGUST 30, 2005 PARSONS PAGE 3.9-45 BURBANK AVENUE ANNEXATION DRAFT SUBSEQUENT EIR VEGETATION, WILDLIFE, AND HABITAT

and development. This buffer zone should also provide opportunities for multi-use trails and recreation.

OSC-D-12 New development should maintain an adequate setback from channelized waterways to recognize the 100-year flood elevation, and allow for stream corridor restoration. Setbacks identified in the Zoning code should serve as minimum setbacks. Larger setbacks are encouraged in accordance with Restoration Concept Plans to meet restoration and enhancement goals.

OSC-D-13 Develop a Citywide Creek Master Plan that will identify opportunities for natural habitat restoration, enhancement of fisheries, protection of health and safety along creek channels, open space preservation, multi-use transportation routes, and recreation.

OSC-E Conserve significant vegetation and trees.

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 regenerate native oak trees.

OSC-E-4 Require incorporation of native plants into landscape plans for new development, where appropriate and feasible, especially in areas adjacent to open space areas or along waterways.

Santa Rosa Southwest Area Plan

The Santa Rosa Southwest Area Plan Natural Resource Conservation Element provides the following policies and objectives regarding biological resources:

Objective 1.1 Designate areas with state or federally listed endangered species as permanent open space.

Policy 1.1.1 Designate areas with known rare and endangered species as “open Space” on the Land Use Diagram.

Objective 2.1 Achieve no-net-loss of wetland acreage within the greater Santa Rosa plan area.

Policy 2.2.1 Utilize existing regulations and procedures, including subdivisions, zoning, design review, and environmental regulations to conserve wetlands in accordance with the federal policy of no-net-loss. Mitigation may take the form

AUGUST 30, 2005 PARSONS PAGE 3.9-46 BURBANK AVENUE ANNEXATION DRAFT SUBSEQUENT EIR VEGETATION, WILDLIFE, AND HABITAT

of: avoidance, clustered development, transfer of development rights, and/or compensatory mitigation such as restoration or creation.

Policy 2.2.2 Encourage off-site wetland mitigation be focused within or adjacent to areas identified as open space within the Southwest Area or outside the Urban Boundary where land costs are generally lower.

Objective 3.1 Maintain natural creek sections and where feasible restore modified creeks.

Policy 3.1.1 Incorporate riparian plant materials in the landscape plans for projects with creek frontage to compliment the natural environment.

Policy 3.1.2 Establish the City’s Creekside Setback as the minimum setback along creeks. Larger setbacks may be appropriate to preserve existing vegetation and wildlife.

Policy 3.1.3 Consider restoration efforts with individual projects along the creek or as part of Citywide Creek Master Plan proposed under General Plan Policy [OSC-D-13]

Objective 3.2 Preserve significant vegetation throughout the southwest.

Policy 3.2.1 Preserve trees, particularly oak and other eligible heritage trees, in accordance with the City’s Tree Preservation Ordinance.

Policy 3.2.3 Utilize seed from existing Oak trees in the vicinity as part of the landscaping plans for projects where appropriate.

Objective 3.3 Consider development of a Wetland habitat management Plan for southwest’s most valuable and biologically sensitive habitats.

Policy 3.3.2 Encourage compliance with the conceptual approach outlined in the Plan, i.e., focusing off-site wetland mitigation activities to areas within the “Preserve Area” identified in the Conceptual Wetland habitat management Plan in absence of a formally adopted plan.

Objective 3.4 Incorporate native plants into the approval of landscape plans for new development, particularly in areas which are on the fringes of open space areas, along creeks, and along the Ultimate Urban Boundary.

Santa Rosa Tree Ordinance

The City Tree Ordinance, Section 17-24.020, considers the following trees to be heritage trees and affords them protection:

• Valley oaks (Quercus lobata) 6 inches or greater in diameter • Live oaks (Quercus agrifolia) 18 inches or greater in diameter

AUGUST 30, 2005 PARSONS PAGE 3.9-47 BURBANK AVENUE ANNEXATION DRAFT SUBSEQUENT EIR VEGETATION, WILDLIFE, AND HABITAT

• Black oaks (Quercus kelloggii) 18 inches or greater in diameter • Oregon or white oaks (Quercus garryana) 18 inches or greater in diameter • Canyon oaks (Quercus chrysolepis) 18 inches or greater in diameter • Blue oaks (Quercus douglasii) 6 inches or greater in diameter • Interior live oaks (Quercus wislizenii) 18 inches or greater in diameter • Redwood (Sequoia sempervirens) 24 inches or greater in diameter • Bay (Umbellularia californica) 24 inches or greater in diameter • Madrone (Arbutus menziesii) 12 inches or greater in diameter • Buckeye (Aesculus californica) 6 inches or greater in diameter • Douglas fir (Pseudotsuga menzesii) 24 inches or greater in diameter • Red alder (Alnus oregona) 18 inches or greater in diameter • White alder (Alnus rhombifolia) 18 inches or greater in diameter • Big leaf maple (Acer macrophyllum) 24 inches or greater in diameter

The project area contains valley oaks, and buckeye is present in the riparian woodland along Roseland Creek.

3.9-3 EVALUATION CRITERIA WITH THRESHOLD OF SIGNIFICANCE

The evaluation criteria for Biological Resources are presented in Table 3.9-3. These criteria are drawn from CEQA requirements, along with relevant federal, State, and local regulations.

Table 3.9-3

Evaluation Criteria with Threshold of Significance – Biological Resources

As Measured by Threshold of Justification Evaluation Criteria Significance 1. The Project may result Number of Valley Substantial loss of Santa Rosa Tree Protection Ordinance in the loss of valley oaks Oaks lost, or acres valley oaks, or and Southwest Area Plan and acreage of of regenerating acreages, for which Master EIR 3.2.3-1 regenerating valley oaks oaks lost, as the replacement plantings Redevelopment EIR 3.2.3-1 and Valley Oak Woodland. result of project are not provided

activities according to the City’s Tree Ordinance 2. The Project may result Number of acres of Substantial loss of US Fish and Wildlife in the loss of Valley- Valley-Foothill valley foothill riparian Master EIR 3.2.3-2 Riparian Woodland woodland Foothill Riparian Redevelopment EIR 3.2.3-2 Woodland. lost

3. The Project may result Acres of vernal Substantial loss or CEQA in loss or alteration of pool/wetland alteration of vernal Clean Water Act pools or wetland habitat vernal pool or wetland habitat California Department of Fish and habitat. Game Code Master EIR 3.2.3-3 Redevelopment EIR 3.2.3-3

AUGUST 30, 2005 PARSONS PAGE 3.9-48 BURBANK AVENUE ANNEXATION DRAFT SUBSEQUENT EIR VEGETATION, WILDLIFE, AND HABITAT

Table 3.9-3

Evaluation Criteria with Threshold of Significance – Biological Resources

As Measured by Threshold of Justification Evaluation Criteria Significance 4. The Project and the Use of invasive Any use or introduction Southwest Santa Rosa Area Plan establishment of Project exotic plants in of invasive exotic Southwest Santa Rosa Redevelopment landscaping in areas near landscaping. species or domestic Plan existing wetlands may Landscaping animals to sensitive Master EIR 3.2.3-5 features that habitat areas inadvertently introduce Redevelopment EIR 3.2.3-5 exotic plants and domestic encourage

animals to sensitive domestic animal wetlands, thus decreasing use of wetlands habitat values. areas. 5. The Project may result Acres of grassland Substantial loss of FESA, CESA (Sections 2062 and in the loss of grassland grassland 2067), CEQA (Article 5, Section foraging area for sensitive 15065) bird species known to Southwest Santa Rosa Area Plan occur within the Project Master EIR 3.2.3-6 area. Redevelopment EIR 3.2.3-6 6. The Project may result a. Number of a. Substantial loss of or FESA, CESA (Sections 2062 and in the loss of or damage to individuals of a damage to individuals 2067), CEQA (Article 5, Section sensitive communities plant or wildlife of a plant or wildlife 15065), and California Native Plant and/or threatened and species that would species Protection Act (CDFG Code Sections endangered plants and be lost 1900-1913) animals and/or their b. Acres of Master EIR 3.2.3-7 habitat. occupied or b. Substantial loss of or Redevelopment 3.2.3-7 designated critical damage to designated habitat critical habitat 7. The Project may result a. Number of a. Substantial loss of or FESA, CESA (Sections 2062 and in the loss of California individuals that damage to individuals 2067), CEQA (Article 5, Section tiger salamander would be lost 15065), and California Native Plant individuals and/or habitat. Protection Act (CDFG Code Sections 1900-1913) b. Acres of habitat b. Substantial loss of or lost damage to California Master EIR 3.2.3-7 tiger salamander habitat Redevelopment EIR 3.2.3-7

8. The Project may cause Number of active Substantial loss of or California Department of Fish & Game loss of active nest sites of nesting sites damage to nest sites Code 3503 and 3513, Migratory Bird raptors or other migratory Treaty Act of 1918 birds. Redevelopment EIR 3.2.3-9

Source: Southwest Santa Rosa Area Plan EIR, Southwest Santa Rosa Redevelopment Plan EIR, Santa Rosa General Plan 2020 EIR

AUGUST 30, 2005 PARSONS PAGE 3.9-49 BURBANK AVENUE ANNEXATION DRAFT SUBSEQUENT EIR VEGETATION, WILDLIFE, AND HABITAT

3.9-4 IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES

IMPACT: 3.9-1. Implementation of the Project may result in the loss of valley oaks and acreage of regenerating valley oaks and Valley Oak Woodland.

Analysis: Significant Two principle threats to valley oaks are agricultural conversion and urban development, which continue to remove valley oaks throughout their range. Loss of valley oaks is of particular concern because of its limited distribution and because it is not regenerating adequately to sustain current stand levels over most of its range. Loss, fragmentation, or degradation of Valley Oak Woodlands is significant because valley oak habitats are known to support a wide variety of birds, amphibians, mammals, and invertebrates (Redevelopment EIR, May 2000).

Although valley oaks are not State or Federally listed, they are considered a sensitive species because they have been reduced in numbers or eliminated from much of their former range. The valley oak is a “Protected Tree of Special Significance” under Sonoma County’s Tree Protection and Replacement Ordinance No. 4014, and valley oak trees greater than six inches diameter at breast height (dbh) are designated as “Heritage Trees” by the City of Santa Rosa Tree Ordinance 17-24.020.

Construction activities associated with grading and filling could result in removal or damage to trees or their root systems. The root zone of a valley oak typically extends one-half the radius of the canopy beyond the drip line (the area on the ground beneath the canopy of the tree, plus one-half the canopy area).

There are many mature valley oaks and three areas of valley oak regeneration, totaling 12.5 acres of Valley Oak Woodland, within the Project area.

Mitigation: 3.9-1a. Preserve or replace trees in accordance with Chapter 17-24-Trees of the City Code (Master EIR Mitigation Measure 3.2.3-1a and Redevelopment EIR Mitigation Measure 3.2.3-1a as revised in this SEIR) Impacts to oaks shall be avoided and groups of mature valley oaks (greater than six inches dbh) shall be preserved wherever feasible. To ensure long-term preservation of oaks within the Southwest Area Plan, the area of natural oak regeneration shall be protected. All mature oaks would be subject to the following measures, which include measures for replacement of oaks for which preservation is demonstrated to be infeasible: 1. Each applicant for future development projects shall prepare a valley oak mitigation and monitoring plan, which will demonstrate that mature valley oaks are being preserved to the extent feasible and that measures are included in construction and design of the project to ensure long-term preservation of oaks. The City must approve removal of any protected trees.

AUGUST 30, 2005 PARSONS PAGE 3.9-50 BURBANK AVENUE ANNEXATION DRAFT SUBSEQUENT EIR VEGETATION, WILDLIFE, AND HABITAT

2. Each applicant shall comply with the requirements of the City’s Tree Ordinance concerning the replacement of any valley oaks, and other protected trees, that must be removed as a result of Project activities, or, with the agreement of the City, payment of the appropriate fee in lieu of planting the replacement trees. If planting of replacement trees is implemented to comply with the Ordinance, the trees shall either be planted on the Project site, or with the agreement of the City, on public property. 3. To preserve genetic integrity, future project sponsors should mitigate for loss of valley oaks by replanting oaks grown from acorns obtained locally. Loss of oak woodland should be compensated for by preserving in perpetuity three acres of woodland for each one acre lost to project activities (3:1, acre for acre ratio). The exact size and number of replacement trees should be determined by the California Department of Fish and Game (DFG) and the City, in consideration of the provisions of the Tree Ordinance. 4. Pre-construction consultation should be scheduled with the City and the DFG regarding design, siting, and construction measures that will avoid impacts to valley oaks and the development and implementation of a valley oak mitigation and monitoring plan. 5. A qualified biologist shall monitor valley oak trees during construction and the following spring. 6. A qualified biologist shall develop a revegetation plan for any valley oaks that must be removed, and monitor the growth and survival of the newly planted trees. Revegetation plans shall require monitoring newly transplanted trees for at least five years, and the replacement of all transplanted trees that die during the monitoring period.

Mitigation: 3.9-1b. Require application of Best Management Practices during construction (Master EIR Mitigation Measure 3.2.3-1b and Redevelopment EIR Mitigation Measure 3.2.3-1a as revised in this SEIR) Best Management Practices (BMPs) to reduce impacts to valley oaks shall be included in the plans and specifications for future development projects. The trees that shall be avoided and protected during construction include the oak woodland north of Roseland Creek (designated OW on Figure 3.9-1) and any isolated oak tree that has a diameter six inches or greater as measured 4.5 feet above the ground. The BMP’s shall include: • Construction drawings shall accurately locate areas to be avoided such as tree trunks and the root-protection zones; • Prior to construction the root-protection zone (1.5 times the canopy area) of sensitive trees shall be fenced using wire mesh fencing;

AUGUST 30, 2005 PARSONS PAGE 3.9-51 BURBANK AVENUE ANNEXATION DRAFT SUBSEQUENT EIR VEGETATION, WILDLIFE, AND HABITAT

• Construction staging areas shall be designated on plans, and parking, loading, and grading prohibited during all construction activities within root zones of all trees; • A pre-construction conference shall be held with future contractors to review BMPs and bonding and fines shall be required to ensure the replacement of any inadvertently damaged trees; • A tree specialist shall be consulted during design to accurately locate root protection zones and identify other specific measures that would limit potential indirect impacts on trees that may be encroached upon; and • A drainage plan shall be designed that will avoid oak trees.

Mitigation: 3.9-1c. Use tree preservation notes on all improvement, grading and building plans. In order to protect trees that will not be removed as part of the Project, the following tree preservation notes shall be on all improvement plans, grading plans and building plans: “Obtain a copy of and follow the guidelines contained in the General Tree Preservation Guidelines by Horticultural Associates. Contact Horticultural Associates at (707) 935-3911 or Department of Community Development at (707) 543-3258 for a copy of the Guidelines.” All trees to be preserved and trees to be removed shall be shown on improvement plans, grading plans and building plans. Implementation of these mitigation measures will avoid impacts to valley oaks and provide compensatory mitigation when impacts are unavoidable. The mitigation will therefore result in less-than-significant impacts to valley oaks and valley oak regeneration areas. After Mitigation: Less than Significant

IMPACT: 3.9-2. Implementation of the Project would result in the loss of Valley- Foothill Riparian Woodland.

Analysis: Significant Construction near Roseland Creek could result in a loss to Valley-Foothill Riparian Woodland, an important habitat. The designation criterion for habitat in Resource Category 2 is “habitat to be impacted is of high quality for evaluation species and is relatively scarce or becoming scarce on a national basis or in the ecoregion section.” The mitigation goal for habitat in Resource Category 2 is “no net loss of in-kind habitat value.” There are about 4.5 acres of riparian woodland within the Project area that could be affected by construction (see Figure 3.9-1). Mitigation: 3.9-2. Replace trees in accordance with Chapter 17-24-Trees of the City Code and require application of Best Management Practices during

AUGUST 30, 2005 PARSONS PAGE 3.9-52 BURBANK AVENUE ANNEXATION DRAFT SUBSEQUENT EIR VEGETATION, WILDLIFE, AND HABITAT

construction (Master EIR Mitigation Measure 3.2.3-2a and 3.2.3-1b; and Redevelopment EIR Mitigation Measure 3.2.3-1a as revised in this SEIR) To ensure long-term preservation of this habitat and the valuable wildlife corridor it provides, the following measures will be implemented: • Pre-construction consultations shall be scheduled by the City of Santa Rosa with the CDFG and the USFWS regarding design, siting, and construction measures that will avoid impacts to Valley-Foothill Riparian Woodland, and the development and implementation of a mitigation and monitoring plan. • A qualified biologist or arborist shall conduct a tree survey, which will quantify the number of trees to be removed and identify heritage trees. Understory shall be listed in square footage. The exact size and number of replacement trees and understory shall be determined by the CDFG and the City. • When riparian vegetation is lost as a result of project work, there shall be a 5:1 replacement ratio for all trees lost, using appropriately sized trees. A qualified biologist shall monitor the growth and survival of the newly planted trees. Revegetation plans shall require monitoring newly transplanted trees for at least five years, and the replacement of all transplanted trees that die during the period. There shall be a 90 percent success rate at the end of the five-year period. For riparian understory vegetation a 1:1 replacement rate shall be required by area. • A comprehensive riparian mitigation and monitoring plan shall be developed in consultation with a biologist. The Plan shall include 1) a list of exotic plants to be removed; 2) a planting palette with appropriate species as determined from the census of riparian vegetation; 3) a conceptual planting plan that shall include sufficient planting to restore the riparian functions of the disturbed area consistent with the census of vegetation; 4) performance criteria, including criteria for survival of the restoration plantings; and 5) procedures for maintenance and monitoring. The revegetation plan shall specify that replacement trees and understory plans originate from local sources. • To further protect riparian habitat, project design shall observe a 100-foot setback from creek banks or the outer limit of existing riparian woodland for all construction. The final design width of the setback will need to be negotiated with the DFG. • Where oaks or other protected or heritage trees are present in riparian woodland the City of Santa Rosa Tree Ordinance shall be followed. • A qualified biologist shall monitor trees during construction and the following spring. This mitigation measure in combination with Measures 3.9-1(a-c) will avoid impacts to Valley-Foothill Riparian Woodland and provide compensatory

AUGUST 30, 2005 PARSONS PAGE 3.9-53 BURBANK AVENUE ANNEXATION DRAFT SUBSEQUENT EIR VEGETATION, WILDLIFE, AND HABITAT

mitigation when impacts are unavoidable. The mitigation will therefore result in less-than-significant impact to riparian woodland areas. After Mitigation: Less than Significant

IMPACT: 3.9-3. Implementation of the Project would result in loss of vernal pool or wetland habitat.

Analysis: Significant The Redevelopment EIR (2000) identified two known and one probable vernal pool wetland within the Project area. A fourth area contains verified isolated wetlands (Corps 2002). Mitigation: 3.9-3a. Avoid or minimize impacts to wetland resources (Master Mitigation Measure 3.2.3-3a and Redevelopment EIR Mitigation Measure 3.2.3-3a) Impacts to wetland resources shall be avoided or minimized by: 1) relocation of all site improvements from wetlands subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to portions of the property without such wetlands; 2) minimizing or reducing the size and area of site improvements within such wetland areas; 3). restricting the size and areas of construction sites within such wetland areas; or 4. using Best Management Practices. In addition, the City has prepared an Administrative Draft Santa Rosa Plain Conservation Strategy, which describes current mitigation requirements on the Santa Rosa Plain and how proposed requirements address impacts to the affected species. Section 7.3 of the strategy discusses mitigation banking, which would be established to preserve existing occupied habitat of sensitive species to offset losses of habitat elsewhere.

3.9-3b. Preserve and create new wetland habitat offsite. (Master EIR Mitigation Measure 3.2.3-3b and Redevelopment EIR 3.2.3-3b Mitigation Measure as revised in this SEIR) For wetland impacts that cannot be avoided or minimized, future project developers will: 1. Provide compensatory mitigation for permanent impacts at a ratio of 2:1, that is, 2 acres of wetland/water habitat created for every acre filled, or at the ratio prescribed by the Corps of Engineers or State Department of Fish and Game. 2. Prepare a wetlands mitigation and monitoring plan in consultation with USFWS and CDFG. The plan would include detailed plans for construction of replacement wetlands, including a planting palette, a conceptual planting plan, performance criteria and procedures for maintenance and monitoring. 3. The mitigation and monitoring plan will be developed in sufficient detail to obtain a Section 404 permit to place fill in wetlands from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, or 1603 Streambed Alteration Agreement from the CDFG, as needed.

AUGUST 30, 2005 PARSONS PAGE 3.9-54 BURBANK AVENUE ANNEXATION DRAFT SUBSEQUENT EIR VEGETATION, WILDLIFE, AND HABITAT

3.9-3c. Transfer mitigation responsibilities to new property owners. The following conditions of approval (or similar conditions that have the same purpose and intent as determined by the Director of the Department of Community Development) shall be incorporated as part of the project approval: a. Advisement. The applicant, its successors, heirs, assigns or transferees are advised in writing that this approval or permit prior to the start of any construction may be subject to certain other clearances, approvals, permits, or authorizations by state and/or federal agencies. The applicant shall acknowledge in writing receipt of the above advisement.

b. Mitigation requirement. The City's approval or permit is valid only if the applicant, its successors, heirs, assigns or transferees, comply with the terms, conditions and mitigations set forth in any clearance, permit or approval except that any permit condition or mitigation that requires project redesign shall trigger a review by the City of Santa Rosa Director of Community Development to determine if the project as redesigned is consistent with the original approval. A project that the City determines is not consistent with the City approval shall not be granted subsequent entitlements, such as approval of improvement plans and final maps, but excluding grading or building permits of any type. Such a project would have to be resubmitted to the City and reviewed by the City as a new project, including the submittal of a new application and fees.

c. Power to stop work if violation occurs. Nothing in this approval shall prevent the City of Santa Rosa from exercising its power to stop work in instances where a violation of state or federal law is brought to the City's attention.

d. No building or grading permit of any type shall be issued by the City until a required federal or state, as applicable, clearance or authorization, with or without conditions, has been filed with the City.

3.9-3d. Obtain appropriate permits for fill of wetlands. (Master EIR Mitigation Measure 3.2.3-3b as modified below).

For wetland impacts that cannot be avoided or minimized, project developers will prepare a mitigation and monitoring plan in consultation with USFWS and CDFG to replace or restore lost wetland according standards set forth by these agencies, and obtain as necessary a Section 404 permit to place fill in wetlands from the USACE. If a Section 404 permit is required, a Section 401 certification or waiver will be obtained from the RWQCB. If wetlands are determined to be not jurisdictional, the RWQCB may establish Waste Discharge Requirements or provide a Waiver of Waste Discharge Requirements under the state Porter- Cologne Act. These mitigation measures will avoid impacts to vernal pools and wetlands, and provide compensatory mitigation when impacts are unavoidable. The mitigation

AUGUST 30, 2005 PARSONS PAGE 3.9-55 BURBANK AVENUE ANNEXATION DRAFT SUBSEQUENT EIR VEGETATION, WILDLIFE, AND HABITAT

will therefore result in less-than-significant impact to vernal pools and other jurisdictional wetland areas. After Mitigation: Less than Significant

IMPACT: 3.9-4. The Project and the establishment of Project landscaping in areas near existing wetlands may inadvertently introduce exotic plant pests and domestic animals to sensitive wetlands, thus decreasing habitat values.

Analysis: Significant Grading activities could result in the introduction of plant species adapted to disturbed areas into adjacent wetlands. Usually these are “opportunist” or weedy species that spread aggressively in naturalized areas and displace native plant species, diminish the wildlife habitat values of adjacent wetlands, and increase predation of native wildlife species by creating dense growth which masks the approach of predators. Such species may include French and Scotch broom and pampas grass. Residential uses, including the use of non-native landscaping, could also result in the introduction of exotic plants and animal species such as feral cats into wetland areas. Mitigation: 3.9-4. Use native plant species for reseeding and planting and implement control measures for domestic animals (Master EIR Mitigation Measure 3.2.3-5 and Redevelopment EIR Mitigation Measure 3.2.3-5 as revised in this SEIR) • Native plant species shall be used for reseeding and planting. • Control measures for domestic cats shall be implemented in accordance with wetlands mitigation and management plans or the Conceptual Wetland Habitat Management Plan for the Southwest Santa Rosa Plan Area prepared by EIP Associates (City of Santa Rosa 1994). • Graded and disturbed areas should be seeded with native grass species. • Prior to the approval of any future project, a buffer zone should be established between proposed development and any wetlands located near or on the property. Landscaping within the buffer zone should consist of native plants only. This mitigation measure will avoid or reduce the expansion of exotic plants and animals into wetlands. Therefore this impact has been reduced to less than significant. After Mitigation: Less than Significant

IMPACT: 3.9-5. Implementation of the Project may result in the loss of grassland foraging area for sensitive bird species known to occur within the Project area.

AUGUST 30, 2005 PARSONS PAGE 3.9-56 BURBANK AVENUE ANNEXATION DRAFT SUBSEQUENT EIR VEGETATION, WILDLIFE, AND HABITAT

Analysis: Significant Future development within the Project area will result in loss of grassland foraging area for the burrowing owl, ferruginous hawk, loggerhead shrike, and white-tailed kite. In addition, human activity, noise, and disturbance adjacent to grasslands could result in degradation of grassland habitat to the extent that it would become unsuitable. Mitigation: There is no feasible mitigation available. Because removal of grassland would reduce the foraging area available within the Project area this impact would remain potentially significant. After Mitigation: Significant and unavoidable.

IMPACT: 3.9-6. Implementation of the Project may result in the loss of or damage to sensitive communities and/or threatened and endangered plants and animals and/or their habitat.

Analysis: Significant Four Federal- and State-listed Endangered plant species (Sonoma Sunshine, Loch Lomand button-celery, Burke’s goldfields, and Sebastopol Meadowfoam) have the potential to occur within the annexation area. In addition, habitat is present for several plant and animal Federal Species of Concern and State Species of Special Concern within the annexation area. Mitigation measures are already included that would result in protection of riparian and valley oak woodland habitat, which provide habitat for sensitive wildlife species (see Mitigation Measures 3.9-1a and 3.9-2a. Additional mitigation is recommended below. Mitigation: 3.9-6. Implement sensitive species protection programs. Prior to development of any properties within the Project area, a qualified biologist shall conduct surveys to determine if sensitive plant or animal species are present. If sensitive species are present, they should be avoided, or relocated in consultation with California Department of Fish and Game and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service consistent with federal and State regulations. If any sensitive plant species would be affected by project construction they can be relocated to natural areas that would be preserved within the project area. If this is not feasible, off-site relocation would be employed, and habitat for species of concern would be preserved off site.

These mitigation measures, as well as Mitigation Measures 3.7-3a and b in Section 3.7, will avoid impacts to species where feasible and provide compensatory mitigation when impacts are unavoidable. The mitigation will therefore result in less-than-significant impacts to endangered or threatened species and their habitat. After Mitigation: Less than Significant

AUGUST 30, 2005 PARSONS PAGE 3.9-57 BURBANK AVENUE ANNEXATION DRAFT SUBSEQUENT EIR VEGETATION, WILDLIFE, AND HABITAT

IMPACT: 3.9-7. The Project may result in the loss of California tiger salamander individuals and/or habitat.

Analysis: Significant California tiger salamander (CTS) is a federally listed threatened species, and although suitable breeding habitat is not present, most of the undeveloped land in the Project area is upland habitat suitable for aestivation by adult and juvenile CTS. Future development within the Project area would adversely impact CTS populations. The impact includes loss of open space used by migrating adults, loss of burrows used by adults for aestivation, and increased likelihood of road kill of migrating adults. If CTS are present on the site they could be affected by construction activities. The project could also result in indirect impacts on CTS, including the creation of barriers to dispersal or movement away from existing breeding areas. CTS migratory pathways are generally straight-line movements into which are incorporated diversions to circumnavigate physical barriers. CTS that cross the sidewalks and manage to get down onto the roads cannot get back upon the other side of the road even if the curbs are less than 8 inches high. Mitigation 3.9-7a. Protect California tiger salamander during construction. Each project applicant will conduct consultation with USFWS to address potential impacts to and mitigation measures for CTS. The following measures are recommended to protect CTS from construction activity. Prior to pre-construction surveys, the construction area will be enclosed with a 3- foot high silt fence that will remain in place during construction. A qualified biologist will be present during fence installation. The fencing will be inspected daily by the biologist to verify that it is maintained in good repair. After the silt fence is installed, extant rain-filled ponds within the Project area will be seined for CTS larvae from March to May prior to construction. If relocation is required and approved by State and federal regulating agencies, any CTS larvae found during seining will be salvaged and relocated to appropriate existing or created CTS breeding ponds within approved mitigation banks, conservation easements, or otherwise protected areas. A USFWS-approved biologist shall survey the construction area for CTS a minimum of 48 and 24 hours before the onset of construction activities. If CTS of any life stage is found, the organism will be moved to a designated area by the approved biologist. The designated habitat area will be located either within the fenced area on the Project site or at an off-site location, as determined by USFWS. During construction, if CTS is observed within the construction area, construction activities within the area will be stopped immediately and until the CTS is moved to a designated area by a USFWS-approved biologist. No other individuals will handle CTS individuals.

AUGUST 30, 2005 PARSONS PAGE 3.9-58 BURBANK AVENUE ANNEXATION DRAFT SUBSEQUENT EIR VEGETATION, WILDLIFE, AND HABITAT

3.9-7b. Perform on-site monitoring during construction. A qualified biologist should be employed to monitor and/or implement construction mitigation measures and to report on compliance of contractors with mitigation requirements. Non-compliance with environmental requirements may result in temporary halting of construction activity to examine the noncompliance and prevent further resource damage. The biologist will implement the following measures: • Provide worker environmental awareness training for all construction personnel that identifies sensitive biological resources that may occur in or adjacent to construction areas and that addresses measures required to minimize Project impacts during construction and operation • Be present on site during initial construction activities to identify sensitive resources • Monitor mitigation construction near sensitive habitats and resources, e.g., Roseland Creek • Prohibit ground disturbance until sensitive areas are cleared • Be present during open trench work construction activities that require special attention in sensitive areas • Prepare construction monitoring and compliance reports that analyze the effectiveness of the mitigation measures

Mitigation: 3.9-7c. Preserve/enhance CTS aestivation habitat. There are two possible approaches for mitigation for loss of the remaining potential CTS aestivation habitat: on-site and/or off-site mitigation. The USFWS has identified variables that are critical in assessing CTS habitat quality, which include the following: • Size of the site • Past and current on-site land use • Surrounding land use • Traffic volumes on surrounding roads • On-site breeding ponds • Proximity of known CTS observations • Quality of aestivation habitat • Restoration potential as reflected by soils and current wetland/other vegetation • Potential significance of the site in the recovery of the CTS Based on the above criteria, on-site mitigation would not appear to be an ecologically suitable approach because mitigation must retain the existing habitat values over the long term. The avoidance of any part of the potential habitat in the Project area would not result in the preservation of a high-quality CTS aestivation site due to the ongoing urbanization of the surrounding land, the high and growing traffic volumes on surrounding roadways, and the lack of breeding

AUGUST 30, 2005 PARSONS PAGE 3.9-59 BURBANK AVENUE ANNEXATION DRAFT SUBSEQUENT EIR VEGETATION, WILDLIFE, AND HABITAT

ponds. On-site mitigation would also not be consistent with the project objectives which call for development in accordance with City General Plan Land Use Designations. Proposed development densities would not allow for retention of sufficient habitat to provide a suitable on-site mitigation area. The location of the Project in relationship to the suburban and urban environment of Santa Rosa decreases its value in the long-term recovery of CTS. The significance of the Project area in the recovery of CTS is marginal due to the isolation of the Property from sustainable CTS breeding habitats. The Project area would not be considered the best choice to develop a CTS mitigation site due to the lack of required criteria as outlined above. Therefore, off-site mitigation is proposed to offset the loss of potential CTS aestivation habitat. Areas being considered by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for developing CTS preserves within the general area of the City of Santa Rosa boundaries are: 1) the area around the 183-acre Wright Preservation Bank (between Hall and Occidental Roads west of Fulton Road); 2) the area bounded by Llano Road, the Santa Rosa urban boundary, Highway 12, and Colgan Creek; 3) lands around the City of Santa Rosa’s Kelly Farm south of Occidental Road and north of Highway 12; and 4) the artificial wetlands created adjacent to Alton Lane (in the northwestern part of Santa Rosa). All of these potential preserve areas would result in the preservation of high-quality CTS habitat Mitigation can be accomplished by acquiring by fee title or easement, an appropriate preserve site at the ratio of mitigation land to impacted land designated by the USFWS and undertaking any wetland restoration/creation that would be required. The USFWS currently requires mitigation at the following ratios: • Mitigation of 1:1 For projects with an impact on dispersal habitat, i.e., those that are greater than 2,200 feet and within 1.3 miles of a known breeding site(s). • Mitigation of 3:1 For projects with impact on breeding habitat, i.e., those that are within 500 feet of a known breeding site(s). • Mitigation of 2:1 For projects with an impact on upland habitat, i.e., those that are greater than 500 feet and within 2,200 feet of a known breeding site(s) or within 500 feet of an adult occurrence. Any mitigation site will require an endowment for long-term management and monitoring. Additionally, mitigation can be achieved either through individual mitigation sites or through mitigation banks. Individual mitigation shall meet or exceed the minimum performance standards/suitability requirements: (1) The mitigation site must be land within the CTS range on the Santa Rosa Plain and must be adequate in size and location to assure long-term viability. (2) The mitigation site must meet one of the following two standards:

AUGUST 30, 2005 PARSONS PAGE 3.9-60 BURBANK AVENUE ANNEXATION DRAFT SUBSEQUENT EIR VEGETATION, WILDLIFE, AND HABITAT

a. Contain known, occupied CTS breeding, aestivation, or dispersal habitat and/or known population or populations of federally listed plants; or represent potential CTS or plant habitat. With respect to potential CTS or plant habitat the site must exhibit, in the judgment of the FWS or DFG, reasonable potential for habitat restoration or enhancement. OR b. Be approved by the FWS and DFG and function as a buffer separating an existing or likely future preserve site from nearby incompatible land uses (e.g., areas without CTS habitat), be a corridor or link from one preserve site to another or one conservation area to another, or be open space that provides other specific and recognizable conservation value for listed species. (3) The mitigation site must be free of excessive land surface features (e.g., roads, parking lots, other hardened surfaces, or buildings or other structures or extensive hardscape) that cause a significant portion of the site to be unsuitable as CTS or plant habitat. Generally, no more than 15 percent of the land surface of any potential preserve site may include or be covered by such features unless it is to be restored as part of the preservation action. (4) The mitigation site shall not be isolated from other nearby CTS habitats (preserve or non-preserve) by incompatible land uses (e.g., hardscape) or other significant barriers to CTS movement and dispersal (e.g., Highway 101.) (5) The mitigation site shall not be inhabited by fish and bullfrogs or other non-native predatory species, unless, in the judgment of FWS and DFG, such species can be effectively removed or eradicated. (6) The mitigation site shall not be within the Laguna de Santa Rosa 100-year floodplain. (7) The mitigation site shall not exhibit history or evidence of the presence (storage or use) of hazardous materials on the surface of the site unless proof of removal or remediation can be provided. (8) The applicant/developer shall provide fee title or a conservation easement as required by DFG and FWS. The property shall be preserved for the benefit of the affected species, and any retained activities (i.e., agricultural) must be compatible with this purpose. (9) The applicant/developer shall provide a wetland creation plan, if wetlands are filled, as determined by USACE and RWQCB. (10) The applicant/developer shall provide a Mitigation and Monitoring Management Plan that contains, at minimum, the following components: a. The mitigation lands must be managed and monitored, and any necessary enhancements, as required by DFG and FWS, must be enforceable.

AUGUST 30, 2005 PARSONS PAGE 3.9-61 BURBANK AVENUE ANNEXATION DRAFT SUBSEQUENT EIR VEGETATION, WILDLIFE, AND HABITAT

b. The Mitigation and Monitoring Management Plan shall describe specific management actions necessary to manage, enhance, and preserve the resources protected and created on the site and monitoring that will be conducted to determine the success of created wetland and the status of the protected resources and effectiveness of specified management actions. c. Endowment: funding in an amount determined by the FWS shall be provided to assure long-term management and monitoring. (11) The applicant/developer shall meet any other mitigation requirements imposed by state and/or federal agencies with jurisdiction. a. If mitigation credits are purchased in lieu of individual mitigation sites, the credits must be from a mitigation bank approved by the CDFG and USFWS. Implementation of the above mitigation measures would protect CTS that may be present on site, and will result in off-site preservation of CTS habitat. Loss of habitat on site will occur with development of the project area. Based on the above criteria, on-site mitigation would not appear to be an ecologically suitable approach because the site would not retain the existing habitat values over the long term. The avoidance of any part of the potential habitat in the Project area also would not result in the preservation of a high-quality CTS aestivation site due to the ongoing urbanization of the surrounding land, the high and growing traffic volumes on surrounding roadways, and the lack of breeding ponds. Therefore, with the implementation of off-site mitigation, the Project would not result in a substantial reduction in high quality habitat acreage, or the number of individuals or restriction in the range of CTS. The off-site mitigation would result in the preservation and enhancement of high-quality CTS habitat. Impacts would be less than significant. After Mitigation: Less than significant.

IMPACT: 3.9-8: Implementation of the project may cause loss of active nest sites of raptors or other migratory birds.

Analysis: Significant Potential habitat for several birds listed as Federal Species of Concern and/or State Species of Special Concern exists within the annexation area. The yellow- billed cuckoo was last seen in Sonoma County in 1975, in the Copeland Creek area near Cotati (NDDB records); the species is generally considered to be extirpated from all of the Bay Area. Suitable breeding habitat exists on site for several raptors as well as western burrowing owl, rufous hummingbird and Allen’s hummingbird. Tricolored blackbird is associated with marsh habitats and requires dense emergents for its colonial nesting habit. The SCWA flood control channel along

AUGUST 30, 2005 PARSONS PAGE 3.9-62 BURBANK AVENUE ANNEXATION DRAFT SUBSEQUENT EIR VEGETATION, WILDLIFE, AND HABITAT

the western boundary of the annexation area lacks shade, and is consequently packed with bulrush, cattail, and other emergents, at least during the interval between channel maintenance activities. During such periods, it provides habitat potentially suitable for the tricolored blackbird. However, the tricolored blackbird has been reported in Sonoma County in recent decades only in areas along the lower Petaluma River (NDDB records). Mitigation: 3.9-8: Provide protection of nesting migratory birds (Redevelopment EIR Mitigation Measure 3.2.3-9) The removal of trees, shrubs, or grassland vegetation shall avoid the February 1 through August 31 bird nesting period. If no construction or tree removal is proposed during the nesting period, no surveys are required. If it is not feasible to avoid the nesting period, a survey for nesting birds shall be conduced by a qualified wildlife biologist no earlier than 45 days and no later than 20 days prior to the removal of trees, shrubs, grassland vegetation, or buildings, or grading or other construction activity. The area surveyed shall include all construction sites, access roads, and staging areas, as well as the areas within 150 feet outside the boundaries of these areas or as otherwise determined by the biologist. In the event that an active nest is discovered the areas to be disturbed, or in other habitats within 150 feet of construction boundaries, clearing and construction within 150 feet of shall be postponed for at least two weeks or until a wildlife biologist has determined that the young have fledged, the nest is vacated, and there is no evidence of second nesting attempts. This mitigation would avoid disturbing any potential active nests. After Mitigation: Less than Significant

3.9-5 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS

Mitigation included in the project and in the Redevelopment EIR would reduce impacts 3.9-1, 3.9-2, 3.9-3, 3.9-4, 3.9-6 and 3.9-8 to a less than significant level. Protection afforded to oaks, riparian woodlands, wetlands, sensitive plant species, raptors and other migratory birds through mitigation measures presented in this SEIR would reduce impacts to these resources to less than significant on a project level. Because similar mitigation measures are included in other projects that are proposed in the Southwest Plan Area, cumulative impacts to those resources are also expected to be less than significant.

IMPACT: Cumulative Impact 3.9-9. Future development in the Southwest Plan Area may result in the cumulative loss of grassland foraging area for sensitive bird species known to occur within the Project area.

Analysis: Significant

AUGUST 30, 2005 PARSONS PAGE 3.9-63 BURBANK AVENUE ANNEXATION DRAFT SUBSEQUENT EIR VEGETATION, WILDLIFE, AND HABITAT

Because there is no feasible mitigation for loss of grassland, this impact is considered significant on both a project and cumulative level. Development in the project area would contribute to cumulative loss of grassland in the Southwest Plan Area and would restrict the area available for foraging for sensitive raptors species, including sharp-shinned hawk and white-tailed kite.

Mitigation: There is no feasible mitigation available. After Mitigation: Significant and unavoidable.

IMPACT: Cumulative Impact 3.9-10 The Project, in combination with other development in Southwest Santa Rosa, would result in a substantial loss of California tiger salamander habitat.

Analysis: Significant

Although mitigation for other sensitive species is expected to reduce potential impacts to less than significant both on a project and cumulative level, cumulative effects on CTS are expected to be significant. Activities associated with the development of this Project could contribute further to the isolation of CTS breeding and aestivation habitats within the Burbank Avenue Annexation area and the entire Southwest Plan Area, thereby adversely affecting the long-term viability of the population in the area.

The CTS is an endemic California species that is native to Sonoma County, and at least 66 known breeding sites occur in the County (California Department of Fish and Game, as cited in Jennings 2004). The vast majority of the presently identified locations for CTS in Sonoma County are located within part of the Santa Rosa Plain, an area that has undergone a considerable amount of urban development during the past 25 years. The portion of the Plain that is known to historically contain CTS extends from just south of Cotati, north to the Santa Rosa Flood Control Channel (which lies directly west of the end of Collage Avenue), west to Laguna De Santa Rosa, and east to the vicinity of Hwy 101 (LSA Associates, as cited in Jennings 2004).

The approximately 3,800-acre Southwest Plan Area encompasses approximately 20 percent of the currently known extant CTS breeding sites (LSA Associates, as cited in Jennings 2004). The Plan area is composed of undeveloped remnant portions of former grassland/vernal pool habitats, which are bordered upon or broken up to a large degree by urban development, including roads, buildings, and flood control channels. Land use in the southwestern quarter of the Southwest Plan Area is planned to be a combination of low-density residential (2-8 units/acre), schools, and parks/open space. Denser residential and commercial areas are planned in the eastern and northern quarters of the Southwest Plan Area where infrastructure like roads and power lines are more integrated with existing conditions. Like many isolated yet undeveloped areas in Sonoma County, the current open space in the Southwest Plan Area has historically been used for

AUGUST 30, 2005 PARSONS PAGE 3.9-64 BURBANK AVENUE ANNEXATION DRAFT SUBSEQUENT EIR VEGETATION, WILDLIFE, AND HABITAT

agricultural pursuits, including livestock grazing, dairy farms, and fruit/nut production. Existing land-use practices common to agriculture (i.e. discing, mowing, irrigating, and grazing) as well as fire-control measures have disturbed the vegetation, hydrology and topography within much of the Southwest Plan Area.

The remaining vacant open space is currently dominated by ruderal habitat (non- native grassland), the habitat type typically associated with human occupation and intense disturbance (Jennings 2004). The most abundant and widespread plant species found in the Southwest Plan Area is Italian rye grass (Lolium multiflorum). Harding grass (Phalaris aquatica), an invasive, introduced bunchgrass, now occupies a significant amount of acreage within the Southwest Plan Area, and is expected to continue increasing in density in grazing areas as it has been doing throughout the Santa Rosa Plain over the past 20 years.

Approximately 1,200 acres of potential CTS aestivation habitat currently remain within the Southwest Plan Area (Jennings 2004). The rest of the 2,600 acres has already been developed. The present amount (acreage) of seasonal wetlands within this remaining undeveloped area is currently unknown; however, only about 25 distinct ponds and drainage ditches are considered potentially suitable for CTS breeding, with the majority of those being present on lands of the former Santa Rosa Air Center in the southwest corner of the Plan area (Jennings 2004). The remaining CTS breeding habitat is marginal with very few known breeding ponds being deep enough to hold water for sufficient periods of time to allow for CTS to complete metamorphosis during years of less than average rainfall (Jennings 2004). Additionally, current human activities such as allowing domestic waterfowl and chickens to forage in vernal pool habitats, the ditching of fields to drain excess water, the dumping of livestock manure in vernal pools, and the spread and establishment of Harding grass via domestic livestock, have all negatively affected CTS populations in the area (Jennings 2004).

The isolated and artificially constructed CTS breeding pond at Southwest Community Park has not had any successful recruitment of juvenile CTS into the population during the past three years due to low water levels and the resulting consumption of all CTS larvae by avian predators (Jennings 2004).

Mitigation 3.9-10. Create California tiger salamander habitat outside of the Southwest Plan Area. Creation and preservation of large areas of CTS habitat outside the Southwest Plan Area, within Sonoma County, would reduce impacts to this species. Four of the focal points being considered by the USFWS for developing CTS preserves are within the general area of the City of Santa Rosa boundaries: 1) the area around the 183-acre Wright Preservation Bank (between Hall and Occidental Roads west of Fulton Road); 2) the area bounded by Llano Road, the Santa Rosa urban boundary, Highway 12, and Colgan Creek; 3) lands around the City of Santa Rosa’s Kelly Farm south of Occidental Road and north of Highway 12; and

AUGUST 30, 2005 PARSONS PAGE 3.9-65 BURBANK AVENUE ANNEXATION DRAFT SUBSEQUENT EIR VEGETATION, WILDLIFE, AND HABITAT

4) the artificial wetlands created adjacent to Alton Lane (in the northwestern part of Santa Rosa).

The USFWS and the CDFG have been working with the Conservation Strategy Team consisting of U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, North Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board, local agencies, and representatives from the Laguna de Santa Rosa Foundation, environmental community, and private landowners. This team assembled and reviewed information relating to local land use and development patterns and biological consideration for the conservation of CTS, listed plants, and their habitats. The goal of the team is to develop a proposed long-term conservation strategy for the Santa Rosa Plain.

The USFWS’ current approach to mitigation is intended to create contiguous or connected preserve areas outside the existing urban growth boundaries on the Santa Rosa Plain that are needed to counteract the ongoing fragmentation of habitat. Development of a network of preserves should provide increased conservation benefits as compared to the prior piecemeal approach to individual project mitigation. Preservation of contiguous or connected habitat, subject to management and monitoring practices designed to enhance that habitat, should result in more extensive, high-quality habitat. Focusing mitigation in the most suitable areas outside the urban growth boundaries also is likely to encourage the restoration or creation of new habitats on adjacent marginal or unoccupied parcels. This would minimize fragmentation that would result without a coordinated approach and would result in additional viable CTS habitat in suitable areas, providing the opportunity for the long-term increases in the CTS population on the Santa Rosa Plain.

Therefore, the USFWS, the expert agency with regulatory jurisdiction over the species, has determined that the application of the interim mitigation program it has developed for all projects on the Santa Rosa Plain (presented as Mitigation Measure 3.9-7c) will result in a net benefit to the species. Based on this determination, implementation of the interim mitigation program will render the contribution of the project less than cumulatively considerable and that the incremental effects of the project would be less than significant.

After Mitigation: Less than Significant

IMPACT: Cumulative Impact 3.9-11: The Project, in combination with other development in Southwest Santa Rosa, could result in a substantial reduction in the number and range of California tiger salamanders.

Analysis: Significant

Activities associated with proposed developments, including the Burbank Avenue Annexation, within the Southwest Area Plan could result in direct impacts to CTS

AUGUST 30, 2005 PARSONS PAGE 3.9-66 BURBANK AVENUE ANNEXATION DRAFT SUBSEQUENT EIR VEGETATION, WILDLIFE, AND HABITAT

by eliminating up to half of the known and potentially suitable breeding ponds, as well as eliminating approximately half (600 acres) of the potentially suitable aestivation habitat available around these ponds based on the proximity of the developments within the Plan area. Further direct impacts to CTS would be caused by roadways and drainage ditches which result in direct mortality to juvenile and/or adult CTS moving about within the Plan area during winter rains. In summary, remaining CTS populations within the Southwest Plan Area will probably disappear within the next 25 years with present development plans, land use, and weather patterns. The exception may be CTS populations in the core area of low density residential (2-8 units/acre), schools, and parks/open space on the southwestern quarter of the Southwest Plan Area where CTS continue to successfully reproduce and recruit into the population during most normal or better than normal rainfall years. Efforts to preserve CTS within the Southwest Plan Area should be concentrated within the southwester quarter core area to preserve all current wetlands and adjacent aestivation habitat.

Development in the Southwest Plan Area could also result in indirect impacts to CTS, including creation of barriers, such as the extension of Northpoint Parkway, to dispersal or movement away from or toward breeding ponds, or the creation of underground flood control structures.

Impacts from the proposed Project, when considered in conjunction with impacts from other projects in Southwest Santa Rosa, have the potential to result in a collective (or cumulative) adverse effect to the environment that are of greater significance than the individual impact(s) of the proposed project. Specifically, activities associated with the development of the Southwest Area Plan could contribute further to the isolation of CTS breeding and aestivation habitats known to occur at Southwest Community Park, along Ludwig Avenue, along South Wright Road, and within the former Santa Rosa Air Center area of southwest Santa Rosa, thereby adversely affecting the long-term viability of CTS populations in the area.

Mitigation: As discussed in Mitigation Measure 3.9-10, the USFWS’ current approach to mitigation is intended to create contiguous or connected preserve areas outside the existing urban growth boundaries on the Santa Rosa Plain that are needed to counteract the ongoing fragmentation of habitat. Development of a network of preserves should provide increased conservation benefits as compared to the prior piecemeal approach to individual project mitigation. Preservation of contiguous or connected habitat, subject to management and monitoring practices designed to enhance that habitat, should result in more extensive, high-quality habitat. Focusing mitigation in the most suitable areas outside the urban growth boundaries also is likely to encourage the restoration or creation of new habitats on adjacent marginal or unoccupied parcels. This would minimize fragmentation that would result without a coordinated approach and would result in additional viable CTS habitat in suitable areas, providing the opportunity for the long-term increases in the CTS population on the Santa Rosa Plain, and would result in a net benefit to the species.

AUGUST 30, 2005 PARSONS PAGE 3.9-67 BURBANK AVENUE ANNEXATION DRAFT SUBSEQUENT EIR VEGETATION, WILDLIFE, AND HABITAT

Therefore, implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.9-10 (create suitable offsite habitat), along with the interim mitigation measures presented in Mitigation Measure 3.9-7c, will render the contribution of the project less than cumulatively considerable and that the incremental effects of the project would be less than significant. Further, implementation of Mitigation Measures 3.9-7a (Protect California tiger salamander during construction) and 3.9-7b (Perform on-site monitoring during construction), would help reduce direct impacts to CTS during construction of projects in the Southwest Plan Area to less than significant.

After Mitigation: Less than significant.

3.9-6 REFERENCES

California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG). 2004. Natural Diversity Data Base ELMLISTS Report. May 3.

California Native Plant Society (CNPS). 2004. Full Data Report for the Selected Plants Burbank. April 28

City of Santa Rosa. 2002. Santa Rosa 2020: General Plan EIR. June 18.

City of Santa Rosa. 1994. Southwest Area Plan. September 6, 1994.

City of Santa Rosa. 1994. Southwest Area Plan Final EIR. EIP Associates. April.

City of Santa Rosa. 1993. Conceptual Wetland Habitat Management Plan for Southwest Santa Rosa Area Plan. EIP Associates. September

City of Santa Rosa. 2000. Southwest Santa Rosa Redevelopment Plan EIR. EIP Associates. May.

City of Santa Rosa. 1993. Conceptual Wetlands Habitat Management Plan for the Southwest Santa Rosa Area Plan. September.

Cody, M.L. 1998. California Thrasher (Toxostoma redivivum). In Birds of North America No. 323, A. Poole and F. Gill (eds). The Birds of North America, Philadelphia, PA.

Dechant, J.A., M.L. Sondreal, D.H. Johnson, L.D. Igl, C.M. Goldale, P.A. Rabie, and B.R. Euliss. 2001. Effects of Management Practices on Grassland Birds: Burrowing Owl. Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center, Jamestown, ND.

DeSante D.F., E.D. Ruhlen, S.L. Adamany, K.M. Burton, and S. Amin. 1997. A census of burrowing owls in central California. Journal of Raptor Research Report 9:38-48.

Desert USA Newsletter. Updated 2003. Text By Damian Fagan. http://www.desertusa.com/mag00/feb/papr/hawk.html.

AUGUST 30, 2005 PARSONS PAGE 3.9-68 BURBANK AVENUE ANNEXATION DRAFT SUBSEQUENT EIR VEGETATION, WILDLIFE, AND HABITAT

Golden Bear BioStudies. 2003a. Biological Assessment: 1027 McMinn Avenue and 1360, 1370, and 1400 Burbank Avenue, Santa Rosa. July 28, 2003.

Golden Bear BioStudies. 2003b. Biological Assessment: 1780 Burbank Avenue, Santa Rosa. August 13, 2003.

Grinnell, J., and A.H Miller. 1944. The Distribution of Birds of California. Copper Ornithological Club. Berkeley, California, U.S.A.

Haug, E.A., B.A. Milsap, and M.S. Martell. 1993. Burrowing owl (Speotyto cunicularia). In Birds of North America, No. 61; A. Poole and F. Gill, eds.). The Birds of North America, Philadelphia, PA.

Jennings, Mark. 2004. Technical Memorandum: Cumulative Analysis and Mitigation Ratios for California Tiger Salamanders in the Southwest Plan Area, Santa Rosa, CA. September

Merritt Smith Consulting. 2004a. Burbank Annexation, Aquatic Biological Assessment, Roseland Creek. May.

Merritt Smith Consulting. 2004b. Burbank Annexation, Wildlife Habitat Assessment. June.

Santa Cruz Predatory Bird Research Group. 2002. Burrowing Owl Conservation in California. Santa Cruz Predatory Bird Research Group, Long Marine Lab, University of California, Santa Cruz. http://www2.ucsc.edu/scpbrg/owls.htm

Schulz, T.A. 1997. Observations, Resightings, and Encounters of Rehabilitated, Orphaned, and Relocated Burrowing Owls. Journal of Raptor Research Report 9:128-131.

Small, A. 1994. California Birds: Their Status and Distribution. IBIS Publishing Company, Vista, CA.

Trulio, L.A. 2000. Western Burrowing Owl Athene (Speotyto) cunicularia hypugaea. Pp. 362- 365. In P.R. Olofson (ed.), Baylands Ecosystem Species and Community Profiles: Life Histories and Environmental Requirements of Key Plants and Wildlife. San Francisco Bay Area Wetlands Ecosystem Goals Project, San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board, Oakland, CA.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 2002. Correspondence to Larry Stromberg, regarding File Number 22495N, dated August 26, 2002.

U. S. Department of Agriculture Soil Conservation Service. 1972. Soil Survey of Sonoma County. USDA Forest Service and Soil Conservation Service.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2003. Letter from Cay Goude, USFWS, dated 28 October 2003 in response to request for "Not likely to affect" determination for properties at 1027 McMinn Ave., and 1360, 1370, and 1400 Burbank Ave.

AUGUST 30, 2005 PARSONS PAGE 3.9-69 BURBANK AVENUE ANNEXATION DRAFT SUBSEQUENT EIR VEGETATION, WILDLIFE, AND HABITAT

USFWS, 2004. Species List for Burbank Project, Sonoma County, California. May 4, 2004

USFWS and CDFG, 2005. Joint Letter to Mr. Jeffrey C. Kolin, City Manager, City of Santa Rosa, to “provide guidance to local jurisdictions regarding USFWS and CDFG current approach to mitigate for potential impacts to CTS… in the Santa Rosa Plain.” June 29.

AUGUST 30, 2005 PARSONS PAGE 3.9-70 BURBANK AVENUE ANNEXATION DRAFT SUBSEQUENT EIR AIR QUALITY

3.10 AIR QUALITY

The section evaluates the potential environmental air quality impacts associated with the Burbank Avenue Annexation project. This air quality analysis was prepared in accordance with the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) CEQA Guidelines1. 3.10-1 SETTING

Air Pollution and Air Quality Standards

The Federal and California Clean Air Acts establish ambient air quality standards for different pollutants. National ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) were established by the federal Clean Air Act of 1970 (amended in 1977 and 1990) for six criteria pollutants. These criteria pollutants include carbon monoxide (CO), ozone (O3), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), particulate matter with a diameter less than 10 microns (PM10), sulfur dioxide (SO2), and lead (Pb). Recently, EPA added fine particulate matter or PM2.5 as a criteria pollutant. Air quality studies generally focus on five pollutants that are most commonly measured and regulated: CO, O3, NO2, SO2, and suspended particulate, i.e., PM10 and PM2.5.

California established ambient air quality standards as early as 1969 through the Mulford-Carrol Act. Pollutants regulated under the California Clean Air Act are similar to those regulated under the Federal Clean Air Act. In many cases, California standards are more stringent than the national ambient air quality standards. Federal and State air quality standards are shown in Table 3.10-1. Both the national and California ambient air quality standards have been adopted by the BAAQMD.

Carbon Monoxide. CO, a colorless and odorless gas, interferes with the transfer of oxygen to the brain. It can cause dizziness and fatigue, and can impair central nervous system functions. CO is emitted almost exclusively from the incomplete combustion of fossil fuels. Automobile exhaust and residential wood burning in fireplaces and woodstoves emit most of the CO in the Bay Area. CO is a non-reactive air pollutant that dissipates relatively quickly, so ambient CO concentrations generally follow the spatial and temporal distributions of vehicular traffic. The highest CO concentrations measured in the Bay Area are typically recorded during the winter.

Ozone. O3, a colorless toxic gas, is the chief component of urban smog. O3 enters the blood stream and interferes with the transfer of oxygen, depriving sensitive tissues in the heart and brain of oxygen. O3 also damages vegetation by inhibiting growth. Although O3 is not directly emitted, it forms in the atmosphere through a chemical reaction between reactive organic gas (ROG) and nitrogen oxides (NOX) under sunlight. ROG and NOX are primarily emitted from automobiles and industrial sources. O3 is present in relatively high concentrations within portions of the Bay Area. Highest O3 concentrations occur during summer and early autumn, on days with low wind speeds or stagnant air, warm temperatures, and cloudless skies.

1 Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD). 1999. BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines: Assessing the Air Quality Impacts of Projects and Plans. December.

AUGUST 30, 2005 PARSONS PAGE 3.10-1 BURBANK AVENUE ANNEXATION DRAFT SUBSEQUENT EIR AIR QUALITY

Table 3.10-1

California and National Ambient Air Quality Standards

(b) Averaging California National Standards Pollutant Time Standards (a) Primary (c,d) Secondary (c,e) 0.08 ppm 8-hour — — (176µg/m3) Ozone 0.09 ppm 0.12 ppm 1-hour Same as primary (180 µg/m3) (235 µg/m3) 9 ppm 9 ppm 8-hour — (10 mg/m3) (10 mg/m3) Carbon monoxide 20 ppm 35 ppm 1-hour — (23 mg/m3) (40 mg/m3) 0.053 ppm Annual — Same as primary (100 µg/m3) Nitrogen dioxide 0.25 ppm 1-hour — — (470 µg/m3) 0.03 ppm Annual — — (80 µg/m3) 0.04 ppm 0.14 ppm 24-hour — (105 µg/m3) (365 µg/m3) Sulfur dioxide 0.5 ppm 3-hour — — (1,300 µg/m3) 0.25 ppm 1-hour — — (655 µg/m3) Annual 30 µg/m3 50 µg/m3 Same as primary PM10 (geometric mean) (arithmetic mean) 24-hour 50 µg/m3 150 µg/m3 Same as primary Annual — 15 µg/m3 PM2.5 24-hour — 65 µg/m3 Calendar quarter — 1.5 µg/m3 Same as primary Lead 30-day average 1.5 µg/m3 — —

Source: California Air Resources Board 2004. (a) California standards for ozone, carbon monoxide (except Lake Tahoe), sulfur dioxide (1-hour and 24-hour), nitrogen dioxide, and PM10 are values that are not to be exceeded. (b) National standards other than for ozone and those based on annual averages or annual arithmetic means are not to be exceeded more than once a year. (c) Concentration expressed first in units in which it was promulgated. Equivalent units given in parentheses are based upon a reference temperature of 25ºC and a reference pressure of 760 torr. (d) Primary standards: Levels of air quality necessary, with an adequate margin of safety to protect the public health. (e) Secondary standards: Levels of air quality necessary to protect the public welfare from any known or anticipated adverse effects of a pollutant.

AUGUST 30, 2005 PARSONS PAGE 3.10-2 BURBANK AVENUE ANNEXATION DRAFT SUBSEQUENT EIR AIR QUALITY

Nitrogen Dioxide. NO2, a reddish-brown gas, irritates the lungs. It can cause breathing difficulties at high concentrations. Like O3, NO2 is not directly emitted, but is formed through a reaction between nitric oxide (NO) and atmospheric oxygen. NO and NO2 are collectively referred to as nitrogen oxides (NOx) and are major contributors to O3 formation. NO2 also contributes to the formation of PM10 (see discussion of PM10 below). Levels of NO2 in the Bay Area are relatively low.

Sulfur Oxides. Sulfur oxides, primarily SO2, are a product of high-sulfur fuel combustion. The main sources of SO2 are coal and oil used in power stations, in industries, and for domestic heating. Industrial chemical manufacturing is another source of SO2. SO2 is an irritant gas that attacks the throat and lungs. It can cause acute respiratory symptoms and diminished ventilator function in children. Due to the lack of sources, SO2 is found at low concentrations in the North Bay region.

Suspended Particulate Matter. Particulate matter pollution consists of very small liquid and solid particles suspended in the air, which can include smoke, soot, dust, salts, acids, and metals. Particulate matter also forms when industry and gases emitted from motor vehicles undergo chemical reactions in the atmosphere. Respirable particulate matter (PM10) and fine particulate matter (PM2.5) represent fractions of particulate matter. PM10 refers to particulate matter less than 10 microns in diameter, about one/seventh the thickness of a human hair. PM2.5 refers to particulate matter that is 2.5 microns or less in diameter. Major sources of PM10 include motor vehicles; wood burning stoves and fireplaces, dust from construction, landfills, and agriculture; wildfires and brush/waste burning, industrial sources, windblown dust from open lands, and atmospheric chemical and photochemical reactions. PM2.5 results primarily from diesel fuel combustion (from motor vehicles, power generation, industrial facilities), residential fireplaces, and wood stoves. In addition, PM2.5 is formed in the atmosphere from gases such as SO2, NOx, and volatile organic compounds. PM10 and PM2.5 pose a greater health risk than larger-size particles. When inhaled, these tiny particles can penetrate the human respiratory system’s natural defenses and damage the respiratory tract. PM10 and PM2.5 can increase the number and severity of asthma attacks, cause or aggravate bronchitis and other lung diseases, and reduce the body’s ability to fight infections. Whereas larger particles tend to collect in the upper portion of the respiratory system, PM2.5 is so tiny that it can penetrate deeper into the lungs and damage lung tissues. Suspended particulates also damage and discolor surfaces on which they settle, as well as produce haze and reduce regional visibility.

Toxic Air Contaminants (TAC)

TACs are a broad class of compounds known to cause morbidity or mortality (usually because they cause cancer) and include, but are not limited to, the criteria air pollutants listed above. TACs are found in ambient air, especially in urban areas, and are caused by industry, agriculture, fuel combustion, and commercial operations (e.g., dry cleaners). TACs are typically found in low concentrations, even near their source (e.g., benzene near a freeway). Because chronic exposure can result in adverse health effects, TACs are regulated at the regional, state, and federal level. Diesel exhaust is the predominant TAC in urban air and is estimated to represent about two-thirds of the cancer risk from TACs (based on the statewide average). Diesel exhaust

AUGUST 30, 2005 PARSONS PAGE 3.10-3 BURBANK AVENUE ANNEXATION DRAFT SUBSEQUENT EIR AIR QUALITY

is a complex mixture of gases, vapors and fine particles. This complexity makes the evaluation of health effects of diesel exhaust a complex scientific issue. Some of the chemicals in diesel exhaust, such as benzene and formaldehyde, have been previously identified as TACs by the ARB, and are listed as carcinogens either under the state's Proposition 65 or under the federal Hazardous Air Pollutants program. California has adopted a comprehensive diesel risk reduction program. The U.S. EPA has adopted low sulfur diesel fuel standards that will reduce diesel particulate matter substantially. These go into effect in June 2006.

In cooler weather, smoke from residential wood combustion can be a source of TACs. Localized high TAC concentrations can result when cold stagnant air traps smoke near the ground and, with no wind, the pollution can persist for many hours. This occurs in sheltered valleys during the winter. Wood smoke also contains a significant amount of PM10 and PM2.5. Wood smoke is an irritant and is implicated in worsening asthma and other chronic lung problems.

Air Pollution Potential

The clear skies with relatively warm conditions that are typical in summer combine with localized air pollutant emissions to elevate O3 levels. Air quality standards for O3 traditionally are exceeded when relatively stagnant conditions occur for periods of several days during the warmer months of the year. Weak wind flow patterns combined with strong inversions substantially reduce normal atmospheric mixing. Key components of ground-level O3 formation are sunlight and heat; therefore, significant O3 formation only occurs during the months from late spring through early fall. Air pollution potential in the project area is not as high as other parts of the Bay Area because winds generally do not transport enough of the precursor pollutants into that area (highest concentrations occur at monitoring stations in the eastern and southern portions of the Bay Area that are usually downwind of the major urban areas). However, pollutants emitted in the Santa Rosa area can be transported down-wind and contribute to air quality problems in those areas. Light winds that are common in winter combine with strong surface- based inversions caused by cold air trapped near the surface, to trap pollutants such as particulates (e.g., wood smoke) and carbon monoxide. This can lead to localized high concentrations of these pollutants.

Air Monitoring Data

The BAAQMD monitors air quality conditions at over 30 locations throughout the Bay Area. The Santa Rosa Monitoring Station on Fifth Street is the station most representative of the project site. Criteria pollutants monitored include O3, CO, NO2, hydrocarbons, PM10, and PM2.5. The gaseous pollutants (i.e., O3, CO and NO2) are monitored continuously while particulate matter (i.e., PM10 and PM2.5) are sampled for 24-hours every sixth day. A summary of the data recorded at this station is shown in Table 3.10-2 for the period 1999 through 2003.

No exceedances of the NAAQS for O3 (1- or 8-hour concentrations) were recorded at this station. Measured concentrations of CO and NO2 did not exceed the NAAQS or CAAQS between the years 1998 and 2002. However, measured concentrations of O3 and PM10 exceeded the State standards during the 5-year period. The State standard for O3 was exceeded on one day in 1999 and one day in 2003. The State standard for PM10 was exceeded on zero to four

AUGUST 30, 2005 PARSONS PAGE 3.10-4 BURBANK AVENUE ANNEXATION DRAFT SUBSEQUENT EIR AIR QUALITY sampling days annually during the period 1999 through 2003. There was one exceedance of the NAAQS for PM2.5 in 2001.

Data from all stations throughout the Bay Area indicate that the national ambient air quality standard for O3 concentrations was exceeded on 1 to 3 days annually for the 1-hour standard and 4 to 9 days annually for the 8-hour standard. The more stringent State O3 standard was exceeded on 12 to 20 days annually. The State PM10 standard was exceeded on 6 to 12 sampling days annually and the PM2.5 National standard was exceeded on 1 to 5 days annually.

Table 3.10-2

Highest Measured Air Pollutant Concentrations

Average Measured Air Pollutant Levels Pollutant Time 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003* Santa Rosa 1-Hour 0.10 ppm 0.08 ppm 0.09 ppm 0.08 ppm 0.10 ppm Ozone (O3) 8-Hour 0.08 ppm 0.06 ppm 0.06 ppm 0.06 ppm 0.08 ppm

Carbon Monoxide (CO) 8-Hour 3.4 ppm 3.1 ppm 2.4 ppm 2.1 ppm 1.8 ppm

1-Hour 0.07 ppm 0.05 ppm 0.06 ppm 0.05 ppm 0.06 ppm Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2) Annual 0.014ppm 0.013ppm 0.013ppm 0.013ppm 0.012ppm 1-Hour 55 µg/m3 40 µg/m3 76 µg/m3 51 µg/m3 39 µg/m3 Fine Particulate Matter (PM2.5) Annual NA 10 µg/m3 11 µg/m3 11 µg/m3 9 µg/m3 Respirable Particulate Matter 24-Hour 57 µg/m3 46 µg/m3 78 µg/m3 64 µg/m3 34 µg/m3 3 3 3 3 (PM10) Annual NA 18 µg/m 18 µg/m 18 µg/m 17 µg/m Bay Area (Basin Summary) 1-Hour 0.16 ppm 0.15 ppm 0.13 ppm 0.16 ppm 0.13 ppm Ozone (O3) 8-Hour 0.12 ppm 0.11 ppm 0.10 ppm 0.11 ppm 0.10 ppm Carbon Monoxide (CO) 8-Hour 5.9 ppm 6.3 ppm 5.1 ppm 4.5 ppm 4.0 ppm 1-Hour 0.13 ppm 0.11 ppm 0.11 ppm 0.08 ppm 0.09 ppm Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2) Annual 0.026ppm 0.025ppm 0.024ppm 0.014ppm 0.021ppm 1-Hour NA NA NA 77 ug/m3 56 ug/m3 Fine Particulate Matter (PM2.5) Annual NA NA NA 14 ug/m3 11.7 ug/m3 Respirable Particulate Matter 24-Hour 114µg/m3 76 µg/m3 109 µg/m3 84 µg/m3 60 µg/m3 3 3 3 3 3 (PM10) Annual 25 ug/m 24 ug/m 26 ug/m 25 ug/m 25 ug/m

Source: California Air Resources Board 2004. * Partial data set for some pollutants Note: ppm = parts per million Values reported in bold exceed ambient air quality standard NA = data not available.

AUGUST 30, 2005 PARSONS PAGE 3.10-5 BURBANK AVENUE ANNEXATION DRAFT SUBSEQUENT EIR AIR QUALITY

Air Quality Regulations

The Federal Clean Air Act governs air quality in the U.S.. In addition to being subject to federal requirements, air quality in California is also governed by more stringent regulations under the California Clean Air Act. At the Federal level, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA) administers the Clean Air Act (CAA). The California Clean Air Act is administered by the California Air Resources Board (CARB) at the State level and by the Air Quality Management Districts at the regional and local levels. The Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) regulates air quality at the regional level, which includes much of the nine-county Bay Area.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. The USEPA is responsible for enforcing the Federal CAA. The USEPA is also responsible for establishing National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). The NAAQS are required under the 1977 CAA and subsequent amendments. The USEPA regulates emission sources that are under the exclusive authority of the federal government, such as aircraft, ships, and certain types of locomotives. The agency has jurisdiction over emission sources outside state waters (e.g., beyond the outer continental shelf) and establishes various emission standards, including those for vehicles sold in states other than California. Automobiles sold in California must meet the stricter emission standards established by the CARB.

California Air Resources Board. The CARB, part of the California Environmental Protection Agency, is responsible for meeting the state requirements of the Federal CAA, administering the California CAA, and establishing the California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS). The California CAA, as amended in 1992, requires all air districts in the State to endeavor to achieve and maintain the California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS). The CAAQS are more stringent than the corresponding federal standards and incorporate additional standards for sulfates, hydrogen sulfide, vinyl chloride and visibility reducing particles. The CARB regulates mobile air pollution sources, such as motor vehicles. The agency is responsible for setting emission standards for vehicles sold in California and for other emission sources, such as consumer products and certain off-road equipment. The CARB established passenger vehicle fuel specifications, which became effective on March 1996. The CARB oversees the functions of local air pollution control districts and air quality management districts, which in turn administer air quality activities at the regional and county level. The CARB also monitors ambient air quality throughout the State.

Bay Area Air Quality Management District. In 1955, the California Legislature created the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD). The agency is primarily responsible for assuring that the National and State ambient air quality standards are attained and maintained in the Bay Area. The BAAQMD is also responsible for adopting and enforcing rules and regulations concerning air pollutant sources, issuing permits for stationary sources of air pollutants, inspecting stationary sources of air pollutants, responding to citizen complaints, monitoring ambient air quality and meteorological conditions, awarding grants to reduce motor vehicle emissions, conducting public education campaigns, as well as many other activities. The BAAQMD does not have authority to regulate emissions from motor vehicles.

AUGUST 30, 2005 PARSONS PAGE 3.10-6 BURBANK AVENUE ANNEXATION DRAFT SUBSEQUENT EIR AIR QUALITY

Attainment Status for State and Federal Ambient Air Quality Standards

Areas that do not violate ambient air quality standards are considered to have attained the standard. Violations of ambient air quality standards are based on air pollutant monitoring data and are judged for each air pollutant. The Bay Area as a whole does not meet State or Federal ambient air quality standards for ground level O3 and State standards for fine particulate matter. For O3, the entire Bay Area is designated non-attainment at both the federal and state levels.

Under the Federal CAA, the US EPA has designated the region as moderate non-attainment for ground level O3. However, the US EPA has recognized that the region has not violated the 1- hour O3 standard over the last three years (2000-2003) and has proposed to redesignate the Bay Area as a maintenance area. This is the first step towards designating the Bay Area as attainment of that standard. However, US EPA has recently classified the region as marginally non- attainment for the more stringent 8-hour O3 standard. EPA requires the region to adopt a plan that will bring it into attainment with that standard by 2007. The Bay Area has met the CO standards for over a decade and is classified attainment maintenance by the US EPA. The US EPA grades the region unclassified for all other air pollutants, which include PM10 and PM2.5. US EPA is planning to designate the region as attainment or unclassified for PM2.5, based on available monitoring data. A formal designation is expected in late 2004.

At the State level, the region is considered serious non-attainment for ground level O3 and non- attainment for PM10. California ambient air quality standards are more stringent than the national ambient air quality standards. The region is required to adopt plans on a triennial basis that show progress towards meeting the State O3 standard. The area is considered attainment or unclassified for all other pollutants.

Regional Air Quality Planning

The BAAQMD along with the other regional agencies (i.e., Association of Bay Area Governments and the Metropolitan Transportation Commission) has prepared an Ozone Attainment Plan to address the federal standard for O3. A Carbon Monoxide Maintenance Plan was also prepared in 1994 to demonstrate how the federal carbon monoxide standard will be maintained. The Bay Area Clean Air Plan was prepared to address the more stringent requirements of the California Clean Air Act with respect to O3. This plan includes a comprehensive strategy to reduce emissions from stationary, area, and mobile sources. The plan objective is to indicate how the region would make progress toward attaining the stricter state air quality standards, as mandated by the California Clean Air Act. The plan is designed to achieve a region-wide reduction of O3 precursor pollutants through the expeditious implementation of all feasible measures. Air quality plans addressing the California Clean Air Act are developed every three years. The latest plan (Bay Area 2000 Clean Air Plan) was prepared in 2000. The plan proposes implementation of transportation control measures (TCMs) and programs such as Spare the Air. Spare the Air is a public outreach program designed to educate the public about air pollution in the Bay Area and promote individual behavior changes that improve air quality. Some of these measures or programs rely on local governments for implementation.

A key element in air quality planning is to make reasonably accurate projections of future human activities that are related to air pollutant emissions. Most important is vehicle activity. The

AUGUST 30, 2005 PARSONS PAGE 3.10-7 BURBANK AVENUE ANNEXATION DRAFT SUBSEQUENT EIR AIR QUALITY

BAAQMD uses population projections made by the Association of Bay Area Governments and vehicle use trends made by the Metropolitan Transportation Commission to formulate future air pollutant emission inventories. The basis for these projections comes from cities and counties. In order to provide the best plan to reduce air pollution in the Bay Area, accurate projections from local governments are necessary. When General Plans are not consistent with these projections, they cumulatively reduce the effectiveness of air quality planning in the region. 3.10-2 RELEVANT PLANS AND POLICIES

City of Santa Rosa General Plan 2020

The General Plan, adopted in 2002, is designed to accommodate a total City population of approximately 195,300 persons by the year 2020 (Santa Rosa 2020 General Plan, 2002). With population growth comes more motor vehicle use, consumer products use, and burning of fossil fuels, so air emissions may increase. Much of the increase is expected to be offset by decreases in emission rates of motor vehicles. However, these increases could lead to more frequent and severe violations of air quality standards. Therefore, the EIR for the General Plan incorporates a wide range of mitigations that can reduce air quality impacts. Mitigations in the General Plan are broad in scope, and the City expects each specific project to implement measures appropriate to the site, scale of activity, and other relevant factors. The specific air quality General Plan mitigations incorporated into this Project are stated in the impacts section of this analysis and are listed below. Other General Plan mitigations incorporated into this Project that relate to air quality such as land use, urban design, housing, transportation, and public safety are described in the impacts section of this analysis.

Goal OSC-G: Take appropriate actions to help Santa Rosa and the larger Bay Area region achieve and maintain all ambient air quality standards.

OSC-G-1 Review all new construction projects and require dust abatement actions as contained in the CEQA Handbook of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District.

OSC-G-2 Budget for clean fuels and vehicles in the City’s long-range capital expenditure plans, to replace and improve the existing fleet of gasoline and diesel powered vehicles. Initiate a policy to make its fleet among the cleanest in the North Bay by: o Purchasing electric vehicles wherever possible, and especially for stop-and-go units such as parking meter readers. o Purchasing electric or hybrid electric fleet vehicles for general staff use, especially for building inspectors and other uses primarily within the City. o Purchasing alternative fuel vehicles, such as natural gas, as the existing diesel-fuel fleet is replaced. Alternative, purchase diesel vehicles only if they meet or exceed emission specifications for available natural gas fuel vehicles. o Purchasing biodiesel fuel for use by the City diesel truck fleet.

AUGUST 30, 2005 PARSONS PAGE 3.10-8 BURBANK AVENUE ANNEXATION DRAFT SUBSEQUENT EIR AIR QUALITY

o As possible, use low-NOx fuel additives, such as Purinox, in all diesel vehicles. OSC-G-3 Develop a program to reduce particulate matter emission from wood burning appliances.

City of Santa Rosa Ordinance No. 3567

The Santa Rosa City Council adopted Ordinance No. 3567, regulating the installation of wood burning appliances and operation of non-certified wood heaters in 2002 (City Code, Chapter 17- 35, Sec. 17-35.010 et seq.). The ordinance specifies the type of wood-burning appliances that may be installed and maintained within the City and bans the use of non-certified wood-burning appliances after June 1, 2004. This ordinance is intended to reduce PM10 emissions from wood burning devices.

Southwest Santa Rosa Area Plan

There are no specific air quality policies included in the Southwest Santa Rosa Area Plan. Air quality issues are addressed in the General Plan and cover the southwest area. 3.10-3 EVALUATION CRITERIA WITH THRESHOLD OF SIGNIFICANCE

Table 3.10-1, below, provides the criteria used to evaluate potential air quality impacts of this Project.

Table 3.10-3

Evaluation Criteria with Threshold of Significance – Air Quality

Threshold of Evaluation Criteria As Measured by Significance Justification

1. Construction of the Size of construction Increased criteria air Bay Area Air Quality Management District Project may result in area, duration of pollutant or toxic air CEQA Guidelines for Assessing Impacts of construction-related construction, and contaminant levels Projects and Plans (pgs. 13-15 and 60) emissions that exceed proximity of exceeding air quality federal and/or State air receptors standards Bay Area Air Quality Management District quality standards or CEQA Guidelines for Assessing Impacts of conflict with regional air Emissions of Projects and Plans (pg. 16) quality planning efforts. Reactive Organic Compounds, Nitrogen Santa Rosa General Plan EIR 4.1.4-B Oxides, Sulfur Master EIR 3.2.4-1 Dioxide, and Redevelopment EIR 3.2.4-1 Particulates

AUGUST 30, 2005 PARSONS PAGE 3.10-9 BURBANK AVENUE ANNEXATION DRAFT SUBSEQUENT EIR AIR QUALITY

Table 3.10-3

Evaluation Criteria with Threshold of Significance – Air Quality

Threshold of Evaluation Criteria As Measured by Significance Justification

2. Project development Modeled Greater than 9.0 parts Bay Area Air Quality Management District may result in cumulative concentrations of per million for 8-hour CEQA Guidelines for Assessing Impacts of CO concentration carbon monoxide* averaging periods Projects and Plans (pg. 16-18) increases at intersections and along arterial Santa Rosa General Plan EIR 4.1.4-A corridors and freeway Master EIR 3.2.4-2 mainlines. Redevelopment EIR 3.2.4-2

3. The Project may Estimated emissions Emissions great than 80 Bay Area Air Quality Management District contribute to increased of ROG, NOx, and lbs/day CEQA Guidelines for Assessing Impacts of vehicular, home heating, PM10 Projects and Plans home cooling, and wood burning emissions. Master EIR 3.2.4-3

4. The Project may Risk associated with Probability of Bay Area Air Quality Management District expose people to emissions of toxic air contracting cancer for CEQA Guidelines for Assessing Impacts of substantial levels of contaminants maximally exposed Projects and Plans (pg. 18) toxic air contaminants. individual (MEI) exceeds ten in one Master EIR 3.2.4-4 million or exposure to non-carcinogenic toxic air contaminants would result in a Hazard Index greater than 1 for the MEI

Source: Southwest Santa Rosa Area Plan EIR, Southwest Santa Rosa Redevelopment Plan EIR, Santa Rosa General Plan 2020 EIR * A project, such as this, is considered to have a less than significant impact on carbon monoxide concentrations if it would 1) result in daily carbon monoxide emissions less than 550 pounds, 2) traffic impacts would not be substantial at intersections operating at Level of Service D, E, or F now and in the future, and 3) traffic on nearby arterial roadways would increase by less than 10%.

3.10-4 IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES

IMPACT: 3.10-1. Construction of the Project may result in construction-related emissions that exceed federal and/or State air quality standards or conflict with regional air quality planning efforts.

Analysis: Significant Construction activities, mostly grading and paving, for individual projects would generate air pollutant emissions. The most substantial air pollutant would be dust,

AUGUST 30, 2005 PARSONS PAGE 3.10-10 BURBANK AVENUE ANNEXATION DRAFT SUBSEQUENT EIR AIR QUALITY

of which PM10 is a component. Wind erosion and disturbance to exposed areas would also be sources of dust emissions. If uncontrolled, these emissions could lead to both health and nuisance impacts to new and existing residences. The BAAQMD has identified reasonable and feasible dust control measures. If implemented properly, such mitigation measures would prevent visible dust clouds from spreading beyond the construction site and affecting residences. Without proper implementation of these control measures, this impact would be considered significant. Mitigation: 3.10-1. Implement control measures for construction and demolition-related air emissions (Master EIR and Redevelopment EIR Mitigation Measure 3.2.4-1) Each project sponsor is responsible for ensuring that the contractor reduces particulate, ROC, NOx, and CO emissions by complying with the air pollution control strategies developed by the BAAQMD and the Regional Water Quality Control Board under the City’s NPDES permit. Each project sponsor and contractor shall implement the following control measures based on the BAAQMD guidelines and the NPDES permit (RWQCB, 2001): For all construction sites: • Control construction-related materials, wastes, spills or residues at the project site to avoid discharge to streets, drainage facilities, receiving waters, or adjacent properties by wind. • Cover all trucks hauling construction and demolition debris from the site. • Water on a continuous as-needed basis all earth surfaces during clearing, grading, earthmoving, and other site preparation activities. • Use watering to control dust generation during demolition or structures or break-up of pavement. • Pave, apply water three times daily, or apply (non-toxic) soil stabilizers on all unpaved parking areas and staging areas. • Sweep daily (with water sweepers) all paved areas and staging areas. • Provide daily clean-up of mud and dirt carried onto paved streets from the site. • Renovation, demolition activities, removal or disturbance of any materials that contain asbestos, lead paint or other hazardous pollutants will be conducted in accordance with BAAQMD rules and regulations. • Properly maintain all construction equipment. • Reduce equipment idling time. For construction sites near sensitive receptors: • Install wheel washers for all existing trucks, or wash off the tires or tracks of trucks and equipment leaving the site.

AUGUST 30, 2005 PARSONS PAGE 3.10-11 BURBANK AVENUE ANNEXATION DRAFT SUBSEQUENT EIR AIR QUALITY

• Suspend dust-producing activities during periods when instantaneous gusts exceed 25 mph when dust control measures are unable to avoid visible dust plumes. • Limit the area subject to excavation, grading and other construction or demolition activity at any one time. For sites greater than four acres: • Apply soil stabilizers to previously graded portions of the site inactive for more than ten days or cover or seed these areas. • Water or cover stockpiles of debris, soil, sand, or other materials that can be blown by the wind. • Limit traffic speeds on unpaved roads to 15 mph. • Replant vegetation in disturbed areas as quickly as possible. The control measures above are consistent with those prescribed by the BAAQMD. Additional control measures are also included that would ensure the impact is reduced to a less-than-significant level. After Mitigation: Less than Significant IMPACT: 3.10-2. Project development may result in cumulative CO concentration increases at intersections and along arterial corridors and freeway mainlines.

Analysis: Less than Significant Carbon monoxide concentrations in the Project area are fairly low. The highest 8- hour concentration measured in Santa Rosa over the last five years is 3.4 ppm, which is well below the standard of 9.0 ppm. The BAAQMD provides guidance for evaluating the significance of projects with respect to air quality impacts. Under the BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines, carbon monoxide impacts are less than significant for projects that have emissions less than 550 pounds per day and have little or no effect on traffic congestion. This project is considered to have a less than significant impact on carbon monoxide concentrations since it would 1) result in daily carbon monoxide emissions less than 550 pounds, and 2) traffic on nearby arterial roadways would increase by less than 10 percent. Since the project meets these criteria, dispersion modeling is not necessary to identify that impacts to sensitive receptors (e.g., residences) are less than significant. Mitigation: No mitigation is necessary. IMPACT: 3.10-3. The Project may contribute to increased vehicular, home heating, home cooling, and wood burning emissions.

Analysis: Less than Significant

The region currently exceeds State standards for O3 and PM10. Ozone precursor pollutants (i.e., reactive organic gases [ROG] and nitrogen oxides [NOx]) and PM10 are considered pollutants that affect the entire region. Emissions of O3

AUGUST 30, 2005 PARSONS PAGE 3.10-12 BURBANK AVENUE ANNEXATION DRAFT SUBSEQUENT EIR AIR QUALITY

precursor pollutants in the Project area could contribute to O3 formation at downwind areas that experience unhealthy O3 levels. Emissions of PM10 or pollutants that lead to secondary formation of PM10 could affect both local air quality and air quality in downwind areas. Without annexation of the area, development may not happen. Therefore, emissions of air pollutants that affect regional air quality associated with development of the annexation area were predicted using the URBEMIS2002 model. The California Air Resources Board made URBEMIS2002 version 7.5 available in July 2004. The model combines proposed land use development scenarios with vehicle emissions factors developed by the California Air Resources Board’s EMFAC2002 motor vehicle emissions model. Indirect emissions include emissions from project generated traffic and area sources such as natural gas combustion for space and water heating, landscape equipment, and consumer products. Emissions were calculated for the summer season, when ozone levels are highest. Emissions of PM10 from mobile sources are not affected substantially from season to season. Results of the URBEMIS2002 modeling indicate that build-out of the plan would result in emissions of 32 pounds per day of ROG, 26 pounds per day of NOx, and 75 pounds per day of PM10. These emissions would not exceed the BAAQMD’s thresholds of 80 pounds per day. As a result, build-out of the annexation plan is considered to have a less-than-significant impact on regional air quality. Mitigation: No mitigation is necessary. IMPACT: 3.10-4. The Project may expose people to substantial levels of toxic air contaminants (TACs).

Analysis: Significant Diesel exhaust, a known toxic air contaminant, from construction equipment could expose existing and future residents to substantial levels of toxic air contaminants for short periods of time. Although concentrations of diesel particulate matter would likely be too low to result in significant exposures, control measures to reduce levels should be implemented during construction. In addition, emissions of volatile organic compounds, which may contain toxic air contaminants, from asphalt coatings should be applied in accordance with BAAQMD regulations and guidelines. Mitigation: 3.10-4. Reduce diesel exhaust emissions from construction equipment to comply with the Bay Area Air Quality Management District Air Pollution Control Strategies (Master EIR Mitigation Measure 3.2.4-4) The potential air quality impacts from toxic air containments emissions from construction equipment and operations will be reduced with compliance with the Bay Area Air Quality Management District air pollution control strategies. Construction firms shall be contracted to post signs of possible health risk during construction. The developer is responsible for compliance with the Bay Area AQMD rule regarding cutback and emulsified asphalt paving materials. In

AUGUST 30, 2005 PARSONS PAGE 3.10-13 BURBANK AVENUE ANNEXATION DRAFT SUBSEQUENT EIR AIR QUALITY

addition, the construction contractors will implement a plan to use newer construction equipment, manufactured during or after 1996, that meets the NOx emissions standard of 6.9 grams per brake-horsepower hour for conducted within 200 feet of residences. Implementation of the mitigation measures above would ensure that existing and future residences are not exposed to substantial levels of toxic air contaminants. After Mitigation: Less than Significant

3.10-5 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS

Cumulative air quality impacts are evaluated based on both a quantification of the Project-related air quality impacts and the consistency of the Project with local and regional air quality plans (i.e., the Santa Rosa 2020: General Plan and the 2000 Bay Area Clean Air Plan). At the local level, future cumulative traffic conditions would not result in any violation of the carbon monoxide standard (see Impact #2). As a result, there would not be a cumulative impact to local air quality. Emissions associated with the Project are predicted to be below the significant thresholds established by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District, and therefore, would not result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the Project region is nonattainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (see Impact #3). The Santa Rosa General Plan EIR has addressed the cumulative effects of General Plan build-out, which include the proposed Burbank Avenue Area annexation (see Impact #1). That EIR identified the potential of proposed General Plan development to increase air pollutants as significant. As a result, cumulative development under the General Plan would present a potentially significant impact. Implementation of the General Plan air quality policies would reduce degradation of ambient air quality. Mitigation effectiveness would be based on how quickly the City could develop new programs (e.g., clean fuels, completing bike lane network), the effort to maintain new and exiting programs, and strictness of application. The Southwest Santa Rosa Redevelopment Plan EIR identified mitigation measures to reduce Project area emissions. Each developer is responsible prior to Final Map approval for developing tree planting programs, improving the thermal integrity of buildings, and reducing the thermal load with automated time clocks or occupant sensors, and landscaping with native drought-resistant species to reduce water consumption and to provide passive solar benefits. Developers shall only install gas-burning (or any other clean fuel burning) fireplaces in new Project residential dwellings. New fireplaces for existing residential dwellings in the Project area shall only be gas-burning (or any other clean fuel burning) fireplaces. With implementation of the mitigation measures listed above, build-out of the Southwest Santa Rosa Development plan area would result in less-than-significant impacts since (1) growth within the area would be consistent with General Plan assumptions and (2) development would incorporate the mitigation measures previously identified to reduce future emissions to less-than- significant levels.

AUGUST 30, 2005 PARSONS PAGE 3.10-14 BURBANK AVENUE ANNEXATION DRAFT SUBSEQUENT EIR AIR QUALITY

3.10-6 REFERENCES

BAAQMD. 1999. BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines, Assessing the Air Quality Impacts of Projects and Plans. December.

California Air Resources Board. 2002. 2002 Air Quality Almanac - Emissions and Air Quality - Chapter 5-Toxic Air Contaminant Emissions, Air Quality, and Health Risk http://www.arb.ca.gov/aqd/almanac/almanac02/pdf/chap502.pdf

California Air Resources Board. 2002. Urbemis 2001 for Windows.

California Energy Commission. 1993. Energy Aware Planning Guide.

City of Santa Rosa. 2002. Santa Rosa 2020: General Plan EIR. June.

City of Santa Rosa. 1994. Southwest Santa Rosa Area Plan Final EIR. EIP Associates. April.

City of Santa Rosa. 2000. Southwest Santa Rosa Redevelopment Plan EIR. EIP Associates. May.

Regional Water Quality Control Board, North Coast Region (RWQCB), 2001. Waste Discharge Requirements for the City of Santa Rosa, the County of Sonoma, and the Sonoma County Water Agency Storm Water Discharges from Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems. Order No. R1-2003-0062; NPES No. CA0025054. September.

AUGUST 30, 2005 PARSONS PAGE 3.10-15 BURBANK ANNEXATION DRAFT SUBSEQUENT EIR NOISE

3.11 NOISE

This SEIR section evaluates the potential for noise impacts resulting from the annexation of the area along Burbank Avenue between Hearn Avenue and just south of Hughes Avenue in Santa Rosa, California. This analysis presents a discussion of the fundamentals of environmental acoustics, noise policies and standards applicable to the project, the results of noise monitoring in the project area, potential noise impacts resulting from the project, and mitigation measures to reduce identified impacts to a less than significant level. 3.11-1 SETTING

Fundamental of Acoustics

Noise is defined as unwanted sound. Airborne sound is a rapid fluctuation of air pressure above and below atmospheric pressure. Sound levels are usually measured and expressed in decibels (dB) with 0 dB corresponding roughly to the threshold of hearing. Decibels and other technical terms are defined in Table 3.11-1.

Table 3.11-1

Definitions of Acoustical Terms

Term Definitions Decibel, dB A unit describing the amplitude of sound, equal to 20 times the logarithm to the base 10 of the ratio of the pressure of the sound measured to the reference pressure, which is 20 micropascals (20 micronewtons per square meter). Frequency, Hz The number of complete pressure fluctuations per second above and below atmospheric pressure. A-Weighted Sound The sound pressure level in decibels as measured on a sound level meter using the A- Level, dBA weighting filter network. The A-weighting filter de-emphasizes the very low and very high frequency components of the sound in a manner similar to the frequency response of the human ear and correlates well with subjective reactions to noise. All sound levels in this report are A-weighted.

L01, L10, L50, L90 The A-weighted noise levels that are exceeded 1%, 10%, 50%, and 90% of the time during the measurement period. Equivalent Noise The average A-weighted noise level during the measurement period. Level, Leq Community Noise The average A-weighted noise level during a 24-hour day, obtained after addition of 5 Equivalent Level, decibels in the evening from 7:00 pm to 10:00 pm and after addition of 10 decibels to CNEL sound levels in the night between 10:00 pm and 7:00 am. Day/Night Noise The average A-weighted noise level during a 24-hour day, obtained after addition of 10 Level, Ldn decibels to levels measured in the night between 10:00 pm and 7:00 am.

Lmax, Lmin The maximum and minimum A-weighted noise level during the measurement period.

AUGUST 30, 2005 PARSONS PAGE 3.11-1 BURBANK ANNEXATION DRAFT SUBSEQUENT EIR NOISE

Table 3.11-1

Ambient Noise The composite of noise from all sources near and far. The normal or existing level of Level environmental noise at a given location. Intrusive That noise which intrudes over and above the existing ambient noise at a given location. The relative intrusiveness of a sound depends upon its amplitude, duration, frequency, and time of occurrence and tonal or informational content as well as the prevailing ambient noise level.

Source: Illingworth & Rodkin, Inc. Acoustics / Air Quality

Most of the sounds which we hear in the environment do not consist of a single frequency, but rather a broad band of frequencies, with each frequency differing in sound level. The intensities of each frequency add together to generate a sound. The method commonly used to quantify environmental sounds consists of evaluating all of the frequencies of a sound in accordance with a filter that reflects the fact that human hearing is less sensitive at low frequencies and extreme high frequencies than in the frequency mid-range. This is called "A" weighting, and the decibel level so measured is called the A-weighted sound level (dBA). In practice, the level of a sound source is conveniently measured using a sound level meter that includes an electrical filter corresponding to the A-weighting curve. Typical A- weighted levels measured in the environment and in industry are shown in Table 3.11-2 for different types of noise.

Table 3.11-2

Typical Sound Levels Measured in the Environment and Industry

At a Given Distance A-Weighted Sound Noise Subjective From Noise Source Level in Decibels Environments Impression 140 Civil Defense Siren (100') 130 Jet Takeoff (200') 120 Pain Threshold 110 Rock Music Concert Pile Driver (50') 100 Very Loud Ambulance Siren (100') 90 Boiler Room Freight Cars (50') Printing Press Plant Pneumatic Drill (50') 80 In Kitchen With Garbage Disposal Running Freeway (100') 70 Moderately Loud Vacuum Cleaner (10') 60 Data Processing Center

AUGUST 30, 2005 PARSONS PAGE 3.11-2 BURBANK ANNEXATION DRAFT SUBSEQUENT EIR NOISE

Table 3.11-2

Typical Sound Levels Measured in the Environment and Industry

At a Given Distance A-Weighted Sound Noise Subjective From Noise Source Level in Decibels Environments Impression Department Store Light Traffic (100') 50 Private Business Office Large Transformer (200') 40 Quiet Soft Whisper (5') 30 Quiet Bedroom 20 Recording Studio 10 Threshold of Hearing

Source: Illingworth & Rodkin, Inc. Acoustics / Air Quality

Although the A-weighted noise level may adequately indicate the level of environmental noise at any instant in time, community noise levels vary continuously. Most environmental noise includes a conglomeration of noise from distant sources which create a relatively steady background noise in which no particular source is identifiable. To describe the time- varying character of environmental noise, the statistical noise descriptors, L01, L10, L50, and L90, are commonly used. They are the A-weighted noise levels equaled or exceeded during 1%, 10%, 50%, and 90% of a stated time period. A single number descriptor called the Leq is also widely used. The Leq is the average A-weighted noise level during a stated period of time.

In determining the daily level of environmental noise, it is important to account for the difference in response of people to daytime and nighttime noises. During the nighttime, exterior background noises are generally lower than the daytime levels. However, most household noise also decreases at night and exterior noise becomes very noticeable. Further, most people sleep at night and are very sensitive to noise intrusion. To account for human sensitivity to nighttime noise levels, a descriptor, Ldn or DNL (day/night average sound level), was developed. The Ldn divides the 24-hour day into the daytime of 7:00 AM to 10:00 PM and the nighttime of 10:00 PM to 7:00 AM. The nighttime noise level is weighted 10 dB higher than the daytime noise level. The Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) is another 24-hour average which includes both an evening and nighttime weighting.

The thresholds for speech interference indoors are about 45 dBA if the noise is steady and above 55dBA if the noise is fluctuating. Outdoors the thresholds are about 15 dBA higher. Steady noise of sufficient intensity (above 35 dBA) and fluctuating noise levels above about 45 dBA have been shown to affect sleep. Interior residential standards for multi-family dwellings are set by the State of California at 45 dBA Ldn. Typically, the highest steady traffic noise level during the daytime is about equal to the Ldn and nighttime levels are 10 dBA lower. The standard is designed for sleep and speech protection and most jurisdictions

AUGUST 30, 2005 PARSONS PAGE 3.11-3 BURBANK ANNEXATION DRAFT SUBSEQUENT EIR NOISE apply the same criterion for all residential uses. Typical structural attenuation is 12-17 dBA with open windows. With closed windows in good condition, the noise attenuation factor is around 20 dBA for an older structure and 25 dBA for a newer dwelling. Sleep and speech interference is therefore possible when exterior noise levels are about 57-62 dBA Ldn with open windows and 65-70 dBA Ldn if the windows are closed. Levels of 55-60 dBA are common along collector streets and secondary arterials, while 65-70 dBA is a typical value for a primary/major arterial. Levels of 75-80 dBA are normal noise levels at the first row of development outside a freeway right-of-way. In order to achieve an acceptable interior noise environment, bedrooms facing secondary roadways need to be able to have their windows closed; those facing major roadways and freeways typically need special glass windows.

Attitude surveys are used for measuring the annoyance felt in a community for noises intruding into homes or affecting outdoor activity areas. In these surveys, it was determined that the causes for annoyance include interference with speech, radio and television, house vibrations, and interference with sleep and rest. The Ldn as a measure of noise has been found to provide a valid correlation of noise level and the percentage of people annoyed. People have been asked to judge the annoyance caused by aircraft noise and ground transportation noise. There continues to be disagreement about the relative annoyance of these different sources. When measuring the percentage of the population highly annoyed, the threshold for ground vehicle noise is about 55 dBA Ldn. At an Ldn of about 60 dBA, approximately 2 percent of the population is highly annoyed. When the Ldn increases to 70 dBA, the percentage of the population highly annoyed increases to about 12 percent of the population. There is, therefore, an increase of about 1 percent per dBA between an Ldn of 60- 70 dBA. Between an Ldn of 70-80 dBA, each decibel increase increases by about 2 percent the percentage of the population highly annoyed. People appear to respond more adversely to aircraft noise. When the Ldn is 60 dBA, approximately 10 percent of the population is believed to be highly annoyed. Each decibel increase to 70 dBA adds about 2 percentage points to the number of people highly annoyed. Above 70 dBA, each decibel increase results in about a 3 percent increase in the percentage of the population highly annoyed.

Although the A-weighted noise level may adequately indicate the level of environmental noise at any instant in time, community noise levels vary continuously. Most environmental noise includes a conglomeration of noise from distant sources which create a relatively steady background noise in which no particular source is identifiable. To describe the time- varying character of environmental noise, the statistical noise descriptors, L01, L10, L50, and L90, are commonly used. They are the A-weighted noise levels equaled or exceeded during 1-, 10-, 50-, and 90-percent of a stated time period. A single number descriptor called the Leq is also widely used. The Leq is the average A-weighted noise level during a stated period of time.

In determining the daily level of environmental noise, it is important to account for the difference in response of people to daytime and nighttime noises. During the nighttime, exterior background noises are generally lower than the daytime levels. However, most household noise also decreases at night and exterior noise becomes very noticeable. Further, most people sleep at night and are very sensitive to noise intrusion. To account for human sensitivity to nighttime noise levels, a descriptor, Ldn or DNL (day/night average sound level), was developed. The Ldn divides the 24-hour day into the daytime of 7:00 AM to

AUGUST 30, 2005 PARSONS PAGE 3.11-4 BURBANK ANNEXATION DRAFT SUBSEQUENT EIR NOISE

10:00 PM and the nighttime of 10:00 PM to 7:00 AM. The nighttime noise level is weighted 10 dB higher than the daytime noise level. The Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) is another 24-hour average which includes both an evening and nighttime weighting.

The thresholds for speech interference indoors are about 45 dBA if the noise is steady, and above 55 dBA if the noise is fluctuating. Outdoors the thresholds are about 15 dBA higher. Steady noise of sufficient intensity (above 35 dBA) and fluctuating noise levels above about 45 dBA have been shown to affect sleep. Interior residential standards for multi-family dwellings are set by the State of California at 45 dBA Ldn. Typically, the highest steady traffic noise level during the daytime is about equal to the Ldn and nighttime levels are 10 dBA lower. The standard is designed for sleep and speech protection, and most jurisdictions apply the same criterion for all residential uses. Typical structural attenuation is 12-17 dBA with open windows. With closed windows in good condition, the noise attenuation factor is around 20 dBA for an older structure and 25 dBA for a newer dwelling. Sleep and speech interference is therefore possible when exterior noise levels are about 57-62 dBA Ldn with open windows and 65-70 dBA Ldn if the windows are closed. Levels of 55-60 dBA are common along collector streets and secondary arterials, while 65-70 dBA is a typical value for a primary/major arterial. Levels of 75-80 dBA are normal noise levels at the first row of development outside a freeway right-of-way. In order to achieve an acceptable interior noise environment, bedrooms facing secondary roadways need to be able to have their windows closed; those facing major roadways and freeways typically need special glass windows.

Attitude surveys are used for measuring the annoyance felt in a community for noises intruding into homes or affecting outdoor activity areas. In these surveys, it was determined that the causes for annoyance include interference with speech, radio and television, house vibrations, and interference with sleep and rest. The Ldn as a measure of noise has been found to provide a valid correlation of noise level and the percentage of people annoyed. People have been asked to judge the annoyance caused by aircraft noise and ground transportation noise. There continues to be disagreement about the relative annoyance of these different sources. When measuring the percentage of the population highly annoyed, the threshold for ground vehicle noise is about 55 dBA Ldn. At an Ldn of about 60 dBA, approximately 2 percent of the population is highly annoyed. When the Ldn increases to 70 dBA, the percentage of the population highly annoyed increases to about 12 percent of the population. There is, therefore, an increase of about 1 percent per dBA between an Ldn of 60- 70 dBA. Between an Ldn of 70-80 dBA, each decibel increase increases the percentage of the population highly annoyed by about 2 percent.

Existing Noise Environment

The proposed annexation area is bounded by single family residential areas, rural residential areas and vacant lands. The noise environment at the project site is primarily the result of local traffic along Burbank Avenue and Hearn Avenue.

Noise measurements were conducted along Burbank Avenue within the Project area June 18 through 23, 2004. One long-term noise measurement was conducted at a distance of about 60 feet from the centerline of Burbank Avenue. The noise environment at this location resulted primarily from local vehicular traffic, distant traffic and some contribution from

AUGUST 30, 2005 PARSONS PAGE 3.11-5 BURBANK ANNEXATION DRAFT SUBSEQUENT EIR NOISE general aviation aircraft overflights. The representative noise level (day-night average) was about 60 dBA Ldn. No substantial non-vehicular noise sources were identified during the site visit when noise measurements were conducted. Burbank Avenue is currently a rural type road where vehicles travel at varying speeds.

Future Noise Environment

Traffic noise is the primary source of noise currently affecting the annexation area. Future growth in the area would lead to changes in traffic along roadways serving the area.

Burbank Avenue

Traffic levels would increase along Burbank Avenue and roadways serving the annexation area. Burbank Avenue would be improved to a 2-lane collector road. Traffic levels would increase; however, improvement of pavement conditions is likely to result in lower noise generation from vehicle passbys. Control of traffic speeds would also reduce traffic noise. Traffic noise modeling, which assumed 600 peak-hour vehicles per hour at 30 miles per hour and average pavement type, indicates that noise levels from traffic on Burbank Avenue would be about 61-62 dBA Ldn at 50 feet from the edge of the Burbank Avenue travel way. Noise levels would be less than 60 dBA Ldn at distances of 70 feet or further from the roadway.

Hearn Avenue

Hearn Avenue would remain a 2-lane collector road. Traffic noise levels along Hearn Avenue are modeled to be about 63 dBA Ldn at 50 feet from the edge of the roadway. Future traffic noise levels are anticipated to remain about the same.

Future North Point Parkway

The Santa Rosa 2020 General Plan includes plans to extend North Point Parkway as a 4-lane arterial roadway to the intersection of Burbank Avenue and Hearn Avenue. As a result, the future extension would cut through several parcels within the Project area. It would be a new source of traffic noise. Traffic noise modeling indicates that North Point Parkway would generate noise levels of about 65 dBA Ldn at 50 feet from the edge of the roadway and about 60 dBA Ldn at distances of 100 feet from the roadway. The traffic noise modeling assumed average pavement type and travel speeds of 35 miles per hour. 3.11-2 RELEVANT PLANS AND POLICIES

The State of California and the City of Santa Rosa establish regulations, plans, and policies which are designed to limit noise exposure at noise sensitive land uses. These include; (1) the State CEQA Guidelines, Appendix G; (2) the California State Building Code; (3) the Santa Rosa 2020: General Plan Noise and Safety Element, and (4) the City’s Noise Ordinance (Chapter 17-16 of City Code).

AUGUST 30, 2005 PARSONS PAGE 3.11-6 BURBANK ANNEXATION DRAFT SUBSEQUENT EIR NOISE

CEQA Guidelines

The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) has established guidelines to evaluate the significance of effects of environmental noise attributable to a proposed project. CEQA asks the following applicable questions:

Would the project result in:

• Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local General Plan or Noise Ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies?

• A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project?

• A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project?

Title 24, Part 2, of the State Building Code

New multi-family housing in California is subject to the environmental noise limits set forth in Title 24, Part 2, of the State Building Code. The noise limit is a maximum interior noise level of 45 dBA Ldn. Where exterior noise levels exceed 60 dBA Ldn, a report must be submitted with the building plans describing the noise control measures which have been incorporated into the design of the project to meet the noise limit.

City of Santa Rosa General Plan

The City of Santa Rosa noise and land use compatibility guidelines consider single-family residential land uses “normally acceptable” in noise environments of 60 dBA Ldn or less. Multi-family residential land uses are considered “conditionally acceptable” in noise environments between 65 dBA Ldn and 70 dBA Ldn. In noise environments greater than 70 dBA Ldn but less than 75 dBA Ldn, residential land uses are considered “normally unacceptable”. Residential land uses are considered “clearly unacceptable” in noise environments exceeding 75 dBA Ldn.

The City of Santa Rosa has also established policies in the Noise and Safety Element of the General Plan in order to achieve the goal of maintaining an acceptable community noise level. The following policies are applicable to the proposed project:

Goal NS-B: Maintain an acceptable community noise level to protect the health and comfort of people living, working, and/or visiting in Santa Rosa, while maintaining a visually appealing community.

NS-B-1 Do not locate noise-sensitive uses in proximity to major noise sources.

AUGUST 30, 2005 PARSONS PAGE 3.11-7 BURBANK ANNEXATION DRAFT SUBSEQUENT EIR NOISE

NS-B-2 Encourage residential developers to provide buffers other than sound walls, where practical. Allow sound walls only when projected (2020) noise levels at a site exceed land use compatibility standards…

NS-B-4 Require new projects in the following categories to submit an acoustical study, prepared by a qualified acoustical consultant:

• All new (residential) projects proposed for areas with existing noise above 60 dBA DNL (same as Ldn). Mitigation shall be sufficient to reduce noise levels below 45 dBA DNL in habitable rooms and 60 dBA DNL in private and shared recreational facilities.

NS-B-5 Pursue measures to reduce noise impacts primarily through site planning. Engineering solutions for noise mitigation, such as sound walls, are the least desirable alternative.

NS-B-8 Adopt mitigations, including reduced speed limits, improved paving texture, and traffic controls, to reduce noise to normally acceptable levels in areas where noise standards may be exceeded (e.g., where homes front arterial roadways, and in mixed use areas).

NS-B-9 Encourage developers to incorporate acoustical site planning into their projects. Recommended measures include:

• Incorporating buffers and/or landscaped earth berms;

• Orienting windows and outdoor living areas away from unacceptable noise exposure;

• Using reduced-noise pavement (rubberized-asphalt);

• Incorporating traffic calming measures, alternative intersection designs, and lower speed limits; and

• Incorporating state-of-the-art structural sound attenuation and setbacks.

City of Santa Rosa Noise Ordinance

The City’s Noise Ordinance is set forth in Chapter 17-16 of the City Code. The Ordinance regulates nuisance noise, various special noise sources, machinery and equipment noise and noise generated by motor driven vehicles. There are no quantitative sections of the Ordinance applicable to the assessment of noise impacts. The City of Santa Rosa does not have quantitative noise limits for construction activities. However, the City limits construction activities to between the hours of 7 a.m. and 10 p.m. seven days a week. Any activity not in compliance with any provision of the Noise Ordinance will require a special condition permit.

AUGUST 30, 2005 PARSONS PAGE 3.11-8 BURBANK ANNEXATION DRAFT SUBSEQUENT EIR NOISE

Southwest Santa Rosa Area Plan

Goal CD-7: Provide attractive noise mitigation solutions.

Objective 7.1: Avoid the use of soundwalls on collector streets.

Policy 7.1.1: Utilize a combination of the following features to minimize noise impacts:

a) Increased setbacks; b) Berms; c) Locating sleeping areas, living spaces, and usable outdoor yards as far away from the roadway as feasible; and d) Locating garages, accessory buildings, and other non living areas of the home as sound buffers for sleeping areas and indoor and outdoor living areas. Objective 7.2: Utilize a uniform, well designed treatment to mitigate noise on major traffic corridors where soundwalls will be necessary.

Policy 7.2.2: Utilize a standardized landscape treatment along each roadway corridor to provide an attractive and unified appearance.

Policy 7.2.3” Develop and utilize a uniform building material, color, and design for each roadway soundwall. Avoid the use of individual or different treatments for each project along the roadway.

3.11-3 EVALUATION CRITERIA WITH THRESHOLD OF SIGNIFICANCE

Table 3.11-3 below provides a summary of the criteria used to evaluate the potential noise impacts of the Project.

Table 3.11-3

Evaluation Criteria with Threshold of Significance – Noise

Evaluation Criteria As Measured by Threshold of Justification Significance

1. Construction Projected noise a. Greater than Leq of 60 Speech, sleep and activity activities on the levels at property line dBA and exceeding interference threshold Project site may cause or a yard line1 ambient noise level An increase of 5 dBA or a substantial Projected increase in b. Greater than 5 dBA more will be noticeable temporary or periodic traffic noise resulting increase in noise, Leq Santa Rosa General Plan EIR increase in ambient from truck traffic daytime or Ldn 4.15-A noise levels in the Master EIR 3.2.5-1 Project vicinity. Redevelopment EIR 3.2.5-1 2. Increase in traffic Projected noise Greater than 60 Ldn for Santa Rosa General Plan, resulting from the levels at property line residential and school uses State Building Code2

AUGUST 30, 2005 PARSONS PAGE 3.11-9 BURBANK ANNEXATION DRAFT SUBSEQUENT EIR NOISE

Table 3.11-3

Evaluation Criteria with Threshold of Significance – Noise

Evaluation Criteria As Measured by Threshold of Justification Significance 1 Project, in conjunction or a yard line or 65 Ldn for office with cumulative buildings, commercial or Master EIR 3.2.5-2 traffic, may result in professional uses Redevelopment EIR 3.2.5-2 traffic noise impacts on the future Project developments. 3. Increase in traffic Projected noise a. Greater than 60 Ldn, or Santa Rosa General Plan, resulting from the levels at property line b. Greater than 3 dBA State Building Code2 Project, in conjunction or a yard line1 increase in Ldn at Santa Rosa Noise Ordinance with cumulative sensitive receivers Ambient Noise Standards traffic, may result in (City Code Sec. 17-16.030) traffic noise impacts An increase of 3 dBA or on existing Project more will degrade the noise area residents. environment Santa Rosa General Plan EIR 4.15-B Master EIR 3.2.5-3 Redevelopment EIR 3.2.5-3 4: Future transit use Projected noise a. Greater than 60 Ldn, or Santa Rosa General Plan, along the North- levels at property line b. Greater than 1 dBA State Building Code2 western Pacific or a yard line1 increase in Ldn at An increase of 3 dBA or Railroad Corridor may sensitive receivers, or more will degrade the noise affect ambient noise at c. Increase in noise that environment the project site. unreasonably interferes Santa Rosa General Plan with the workings of 4.15-C any school, institution Master EIR 3.2.5-4 of learning, church, or Redevelopment EIR 3.2.5-4 hospital (City Code Sec 17-16.100)

Source: Southwest Santa Rosa Area Plan EIR, Southwest Santa Rosa Redevelopment Plan EIR, and Santa Rosa General Plan 2020 EIR 1 The property or yard line of the affected receptor whichever is closer to the affected structure. 2 Exterior noise threshold for application of State Building Code which requires a 45 Ldn interior noise limit.

3.11-4 IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES

IMPACT: 3.11-1. Construction activities on the Project site may cause a substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the Project vicinity.

Analysis: Significant Construction associated with development of the area would occur with each individual project. Construction of each project would generate noise, and

AUGUST 30, 2005 PARSONS PAGE 3.11-10 BURBANK ANNEXATION DRAFT SUBSEQUENT EIR NOISE

would temporarily increase noise levels in the immediate vicinity of the project site. Noise impacts resulting from construction depend on the noise generated by various pieces of construction equipment, the timing and duration of noise generating activities, and the distance between construction noise sources and noise sensitive receptors. Construction activities generate considerable amounts of noise, especially during the demolition phase and the construction of project infrastructure when heavy equipment is used. The highest maximum noise levels generated by typical construction projects range from about 90 to 98 dBA at a distance of 50 feet from the noise source. Typical hourly average construction generated noise levels are about 81 dBA to 89 dBA measured at a distance of 50 feet from the center of the site during busy construction periods. Construction generated noise levels drop off at a rate of about 6 dBA per doubling of distance between the source and receptor. Shielding provided by buildings or terrain result in lower construction noise levels at distant receptors. Hourly average noise levels at existing and future residences or noise-sensitive receivers are likely to exceed 65 dBA Leq and would be 5 dBA Leq above existing ambient noise during busy construction periods. This would be a temporary significant impact. Mitigation 3.11-1. Control construction noise in noise-sensitive areas (Master EIR and Redevelopment EIR Mitigation Measure 3.2.5-1) a. To minimize construction noise impacts of nearby residents, limit construction hours to between 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. on weekdays and between 9:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. on weekends for projects within 1,600 feet of inhabited dwelling unit(s). Any work outside of these hours should require a special permit from the City of Santa Rosa. There should be compelling reasons for permitting construction outside of the designated hours. b. Construction equipment should be properly outfitted and maintained with noise reduction devices to minimize construction-generated noise. c. The contractor should locate stationary noise sources away from residents and developed areas, and require use of acoustic shielding with such equipment when feasible and appropriate. d. Avoid staging of construction equipment within 200 feet of residences and other noise sensitive uses (e.g., school) and locate all stationary noise- generating construction equipment, such as air compressors and portable power generators, as far practical from existing noise sensitive receptors. Construct temporary barriers to screen stationary noise generating equipment when located in areas adjoining noise sensitive land uses. e. Utilize "quiet" air compressors and other stationary noise sources where technology exists. f. Control noise from construction workers’ radios to the point where they are not audible at existing residences bordering the project site.

AUGUST 30, 2005 PARSONS PAGE 3.11-11 BURBANK ANNEXATION DRAFT SUBSEQUENT EIR NOISE

g. Notify adjacent residents to the project site of the construction schedule in writing. h. For construction projects within 200 feet of existing residences, Designate a "noise disturbance coordinator" who would be responsible for responding to any local complaints about construction noise. The disturbance coordinator would determine the cause of the noise complaint (e.g., starting too early, bad muffler, etc.) and would require that reasonable measures warranted to correct the problem be implemented. Conspicuously post a telephone number for the disturbance coordinator at the construction site and include it in the notice sent to neighbors regarding the construction schedule. (The City should be responsible for designating a noise disturbance coordinator and the individual project sponsor should be responsible for posting the phone number and providing construction schedule notices). Implementation of these measures would reduce noise impacts to less than significant. After Mitigation: Less than significant.

IMPACT 3.11-2. Increase in traffic resulting from the Project, in conjunction with cumulative traffic, may result in traffic noise impacts on the future Project developments.

Analysis: Significant Burbank Avenue. Future traffic noise levels along Burbank Avenue would be about 61 dB Ldn at 50 feet from the edge of the roadway. Noise levels would fall off to below 60 dBA Ldn at distances of 70 feet or further from the roadway. Future residential areas would typically have outdoor uses areas setback from roadways, and therefore, traffic noise from Burbank Avenue should not cause a significant impact to new residences. Implementation of General Plan policy NS-B-9 would ensure that this impact would be less-than- significant for future residences along Burbank Avenue. Hearn Avenue. Future traffic noise levels along Hearn Avenue are expected to be about 63 dBA Ldn at about 50 feet from the edge of the roadway. Noise levels would fall off to below 60 dBA Ldn at distances of 80 feet or further from the roadway. Future residential areas would typically have outdoor uses areas setback from roadways, and therefore, traffic noise from Burbank Avenue should not cause a significant impact to new residences. Implementation of General Plan policy NS-B-9 would ensure that this impact would be less-than-significant for future residences along Burbank Avenue. Future North Point Parkway. There are plans to extend North Point Parkway to the intersection of Burbank Avenue and Hearn Avenue through several parcels within the annexation area. North Point Parkway is modeled to generate noise levels of 65 dBA Ldn at 50 feet from the edge of the roadway

AUGUST 30, 2005 PARSONS PAGE 3.11-12 BURBANK ANNEXATION DRAFT SUBSEQUENT EIR NOISE

and about 60 dBA Ldn at distances of 100 feet from the roadway. Future residential development along this roadway could result in noise levels exceeding 60 dBA Ldn at outdoor use areas. This would be a significant impact for single-family residential development. Development of other less noise-sensitive uses (e.g., commercial areas) would be compatible with this noise environment. Since the possibility of residential development exists within 100 feet of North Point Parkway within the annexation area, the impact is considered significant. Exterior noise levels at any residential units developed along Burbank Avenue and the future expansion of North Point Parkway through the annexation area would be expected to exceed 60 dBA Ldn. As a result, interior noise levels would be expected to exceed 45 dBA Ldn, which would exceed normally acceptable limits established by the City of Santa Rosa General Plan.

Where exterior noise levels exceed 60 dBA Ldn, interior noise levels in all residential land uses would need to identify measures to maintain interior noise levels at or below 45 dBA Ldn (General Plan Policy NS-B-4 for all residential uses and Title 24, Part 2 of the California Building Code for multi- family uses). In residential buildings of typical construction, with the windows partially open, interior noise levels are generally 15 dBA lower than exterior noise levels. With the windows closed, interior noise levels are typically 25 dBA lower than exterior noise levels. Therefore, any planned residential facades adjacent to Burbank Avenue, Hearn Avenue or the future expansion of North Point Parkway could be exposed to significant interior noise levels from traffic. Mitigation: 3.11-2a. Construct noise barriers along with proper site design and/or incorporate noise barriers to reduce noise levels at outdoor use areas (Master EIR and Redevelopment EIR Mitigation Measure 3.2.5-2) The project developers should construct sound walls and/or berms and/or setbacks acceptable to the City of Santa Rosa within the plan area to reduce year 2010 exterior noise levels on proposed residential and school land uses to 60 Ldn or below, on proposed playgrounds and neighborhood park land uses to 70 Ldn or below, on proposed playgrounds and neighborhood park land uses to 70 Ldn or below, and on proposed office buildings and commercial areas to 65 Ldn or below. Future projects that include single-family residential development within 100 feet of North Point Parkway should be analyzed to identify the necessary treatments to reduce exterior noise levels. Several methods are available that would achieve this reduction, which include setbacks, use of building to shield traffic noise, or noise barriers to protect outdoor areas. 3-11-2b. Review project designs. Future residential and school project designs for projects within the annexation area proposed adjacent to Burbank Avenue, Hearn Avenue, or the future expansion of North Point Parkway should be reviewed by a qualified acoustical specialist prior to the application for building permits to ensure that

AUGUST 30, 2005 PARSONS PAGE 3.11-13 BURBANK ANNEXATION DRAFT SUBSEQUENT EIR NOISE

building noise insulation features are adequate to maintain a habitable interior environment. Residential units adjacent to these roadways with line of sight to the roadway should be provided a form of forced-air mechanical ventilation system to allow occupants the option of controlling noise by maintaining the windows shut. With mitigation, exterior noise levels would be reduced to “normally acceptable” levels; therefore, the impact would be reduced to a less-than- significant impact. After Mitigation: Less than Significant

IMPACT: 3.11-3. The increase in traffic resulting from the Project, in conjunction with cumulative traffic, may result in traffic noise impacts on the existing Area Plan developments.

Analysis: Less than significant Annexation of the area would allow future development to proceed as outlined in the General Plan and Southwest Santa Rosa Development Plan. Traffic levels would increase, leading to increases in traffic noise levels. The greatest increase would be to residences along Burbank Avenue. As indicated above, existing traffic noise levels are about 60 dBA Ldn. Development of the annexation area would lead to increased traffic; however, the development would also lead to improvements of the roadway and control of traffic speeds. As a result, the overall increase in traffic along Burbank Avenue would be about 2 dBA. This would be a less than significant impact. Traffic noise level increases along other roadways would be similar or less, provided that planned roadway improvements are incorporated at the time the area is developed. Mitigation: No mitigation is required.

IMPACT: 3.11-4. Future transit use along the Northwestern Pacific Railroad Corridor within the Southwest Plan Area may affect ambient noise at the project site. Analysis: Less than Significant The Northwestern Pacific Railroad Corridor is located more than 2,000 feet from the nearest portions of the annexation area. It is also shielded from the area by existing developments. The rail line is currently inactive; however, there are several possible future uses including a commuter train line. While these uses may result in some audible sounds (e.g., train whistles), measurable changes to the noise environment are not expected. Mitigation: No mitigation is required.

AUGUST 30, 2005 PARSONS PAGE 3.11-14 BURBANK ANNEXATION DRAFT SUBSEQUENT EIR NOISE 3.11-5 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS

The Burbank Avenue Annexation Area is part of the Southwest Santa Rosa Development Plan area, in which noise impacts were studied previously as part of the Master EIR and Subsequent Redevelopment Environmental Impact Report. These studies identified significant impacts associated with traffic noise level increases from build out of the entire Plan area. Both the Master EIR and the Redevelopment EIR used significance criteria of a 1 dBA increase in the Ldn for noise levels over 60 dBA Ldn.

IMPACT: Cumulative Impact 3.11-5. The Project, along with cumulative growth, may have noise impacts associated with traffic noise level increases. Analysis: Significant Under the previous EIRs, cumulative noise impacts would occur along the following roadway segments: • Burbank Avenue (from Sebastopol Road to Hearn Avenue) • Sebastopol Road (from Stony Point Road to Dutton) • Stony Point Road (from Sebastopol Road to North Point Parkway) • Stony Point Road (from Hearn Avenue to Bellevue) • North Point Parkway (from Corporate Center Parkway to Dutton)

It should be noted that under the Master EIR and Redevelopment EIR criteria, noise level increases that would not be noticeable would be considered significant. With the exception of North Point Parkway and Burbank Avenue, the noise level increases would be 2 dBA or less. This SEIR applies a noise level increase of 3 dBA or greater when the Ldn noise level is 60 dBA or greater for residential uses. This criteria is used since 3 dBA is when observers begin to detect an increase in the noise environment. Under this criteria, significant cumulative increases in noise levels would occur at existing residential uses along Burbank Avenue and North Point Parkway. This would be a significant cumulative impact to the noise environment. Mitigation: 3.11-5: Incorporate noise control measures, such as noise barriers, into new development plans. The City along with a qualified acoustical specialist shall identify measures to reduce traffic noise levels to a less than significant level. The measures listed below individually or in combination would achieve this goal. • Construct noise barriers to reduce exterior noise levels at common outdoor use areas to 60 dBA Ldn or less for year 2020 conditions. Note that backyard areas setback behind buildings would probably remain below 60 dBA Ldn in the future with the plan due to shielding of structures. • Retrofit habitable portions of existing residential buildings to reduce or maintain interior noise levels to 45 dBA Ldn or less. An acoustical evaluation shall be made to (1) identify those residential structures that

AUGUST 30, 2005 PARSONS PAGE 3.11-15 BURBANK ANNEXATION DRAFT SUBSEQUENT EIR NOISE

would be affected and require retrofitting, (2) the necessary treatments to reduce interior noise levels to 45 dBA Ldn for year 2020 conditions. • Implement roadway designs and enforcement methods to control traffic speeds to 30 miles per hour or lower. • Apply quiet pavement surfaces to roadway modification designs. In addition, application of Mitigation Measure 3.11-1 would reduce noise impacts on existing residential uses to less than significant. Implementation of the measures above would reduce impacts to a less-than-significant level. After Mitigation: Less than significant.

3.11-6 REFERENCES

City of Santa Rosa. 2002. Santa Rosa 2020: General Plan EIR. June.

City of Santa Rosa. 1994. Southwest Santa Rosa Area Plan Final EIR. EIP Associates. April.

City of Santa Rosa. 2000. Southwest Santa Rosa Redevelopment Plan EIR. EIP Associates. May.

AUGUST 30, 2005 PARSONS PAGE 3.11-16 BURBANK AVENUE ANNEXATION DRAFT SUBSEQUENT EIR CEQA-REQUIRED SECTIONS

4.0 CEQA-REQUIRED SECTIONS

4.1 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS

CEQA requires that an EIR examine cumulative impacts. As discussed in CEQA Guidelines Section 15130(a)(1), a cumulative impact “consists of an impact that is created as a result of the combination of the project evaluated in the EIR together with other projects causing related impacts.” The analysis of cumulative impacts need not provide the level of detail required of the analysis of impacts from the project itself, but shall “reflect the severity of the impacts and their likelihood of occurrence” (CEQA Guidelines Section 15130(b)). In order to assess cumulative impacts, an EIR must analyze either a list of past, present, and probable future projects or a summary of projections contained in an adopted general plan or related planning document. Because this SEIR is tiering from the Master EIR, the Area Plan and Master EIR provide the summary of projections for assessing cumulative impacts. In this case, the projections are build-out of the Southwest Plan Area as described in the Southwest Area Plan and as updated in the Redevelopment Plan and Santa Rosa 2020: General Plan. In addition to the summary of projections approach used above, two specific, reasonably foreseeable future projects have been identified that may cause cumulative impacts:

• The Santa Rosa Department of Public Works is in the process of preparing the Roseland Creek Channel Restoration Plan, which is expected to be completed by the end of 2004.

• The Santa Rosa Community Development Department is recently adopted an updated Zoning Ordinance (August 2004).

Cumulative impact analyses for each topic addressed are included at the end of each chapter. 4.2 GROWTH-INDUCING IMPACTS OF THE PROJECT

Section 15126.2(d) of the CEQA Guidelines states that an EIR should discuss:

“…the ways in which the proposed project could foster economic or population growth, or the construction of additional housing, either directly or indirectly, in the surrounding environment. Included in this are projects which would remove obstacles to population growth (a major expansion of a waste water treatment plant might, for example, allow for more construction in service areas). Increase in the population may tax existing community service facilities, requiring construction of new facilities that could cause significant environmental effects. Also discuss the characteristic of some projects which may encourage and facilitate other activities that could significantly affect the

AUGUST 30, 2005 PARSONS PAGE 4-1 BURBANK AVENUE ANNEXATION DRAFT SUBSEQUENT EIR CEQA-REQUIRED SECTIONS

environment, either individually or cumulatively. It must not be assumed that growth in any area is necessarily beneficial, detrimental, or of little significance to the environment.”

Growth can be induced in a number of ways, including through the elimination of obstacles to growth or through the stimulation of economic activity within the region. A project’s growth-related impacts are generally secondary impacts. For example, a project may cause an increase in an area’s population, which can result in added strain to existing facilities and services. Depending upon the status of the existing facilities and services as well as the extent of growth added by the project, this increase in use may or may not have an adverse impact.

General Plans adopted by a city or county identify the expected future populations of the region and the lands that will be allowed to be developed. These Plans set forth goals, objectives and policies to guide decisions about future growth of local jurisdictions. The policies must, by law, take account of existing and projected economic and social conditions, as well as the desires of the community. Once a General Plan is adopted and the allowable growth patterns of an area are identified, then the expansion or updating of the various infrastructure systems can be scheduled to maintain adequate services throughout the planning horizons of the General Plan. Projects are considered growth-inducing if they provide new housing, new employment, or expand existing infrastructure. The Project is an annexation of County property to City of Santa Rosa and will not in and of itself created new housing. No development proposals have been submitted to the City at this time. The annexation will not create an increase in employment. The Plan for Services presented along with the annexation will allow for the expansion of existing infrastructure, and is therefore considered growth- inducing.

4.3 SIGNIFICANT AND UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS

Section 2100(b)(2)(A) of CEQA requires that an EIR identify any significant environmental effects that cannot be avoided if the project were implemented. Significant unavoidable impacts are identified in Section 3 of this SEIR, as those impacts that remain significant after implementation of mitigation. Although the project has the potential to result in a number of significant environmental impacts, most can be avoided through the adoption of appropriate mitigation measures that will reduce those effects to a less-than-significant level. However, the following significant unavoidable impacts of the Proposed Project remain:

Traffic and Circulation

• Impact 3.2-2. Implementation of the Project may have an impact on U.S. Highway 101 from Wilfred Avenue to Highway 12.

AUGUST 30, 2005 PARSONS PAGE 4-2 BURBANK AVENUE ANNEXATION DRAFT SUBSEQUENT EIR CEQA-REQUIRED SECTIONS

• Impact 3.2-9. The project, along with cumulative traffic growth, may have a significant impact (LOS "D" or worse) on U.S. Highway 101 at certain areas from Wilfred Avenue to Highway 12.

Visual Quality and Community Character

• Impact 3.3-1. Buildout of the Project may result in the conversion of undeveloped land parcels that are currently vacant to an urban condition and may alter the City’s existing rural character and visual qualities.

• Cumulative Impact 3.3-4. Implementation of the Project will result in cumulative visual impacts.

Vegetation, Wildlife, and Habitat

• Impact 3.9-5. Implementation of the Project may result in the loss of grassland foraging area for sensitive bird species known to occur within the Project area.

• Impact 3.9-9. Future development in the Southwest Plan Area may result in the cumulative loss of grassland foraging area for sensitive bird species known to occur within the Project area.

4.4 ENVIRONMENTALLY SUPERIOR ALTERNATIVE

Section 15126.6 of the CEQA Guidelines specifies that an EIR must evaluate the comparative merits of a reasonable range of alternatives to the project or project location that feasibly could attain most of the basic project objectives, and that would avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental impacts of the proposed project. Additionally, a Draft EIR must evaluate potential environmental effects of the No Project Alternative, defined as the case where the proposed Project, as specified and located, would not occur. The project sponsors have identified the following objectives of the project:

• To incorporate into the City of Santa Rosa specific lands within the southwest quadrant; • To pre-zone these lands consistent with Santa Rosa General Plan land use designations; • To provide services, utilities and access improvements as needed by the uses that fulfill the General Plan; and • To promote implementation of the Southwest Santa Rosa Area Plan goals, objectives and policies.

Four alternatives were considered in addition to the Proposed Project, and are evaluated in this SEIR at a lower level of detail, consistent with CEQA requirements for evaluation of alternatives. The alternatives are:

AUGUST 30, 2005 PARSONS PAGE 4-3 BURBANK AVENUE ANNEXATION DRAFT SUBSEQUENT EIR CEQA-REQUIRED SECTIONS

• Alternative 1 – Reduced Density

• Alternative 2 – Maximum Density

• Alternative 3 – Off-site Location

• Alternative 4 – No Project

As discussed in Chapter 5.0, Alternatives, the Reduced Density Alternative is the only alternative that would be expected to have fewer impacts than the proposed Project. Specifically, impacts to local traffic, wetlands, and some public services may be less than for the proposed Project. Therefore, Reduced Density is the Environmentally Superior Alternative. However, this alternative would not be expected to reduce any of the significant and unavoidable cumulative impacts, and it does not meet the Project objectives.

AUGUST 30, 2005 PARSONS PAGE 4-4 BURBANK AVENUE ANNEXATION DRAFT SUBSEQUENT EIR ALTERNATIVES

5.0 ALTERNATIVES

5.1 INTRODUCTION

CEQA requires that an EIR “describe a range of reasonable alternatives to the project, or to the location of the project, which would feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the project, but would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project, and evaluate the comparative merits of the alternatives” (Guidelines Section 15126.6(a)). If a project alternative would substantially lessen the significant environmental effects of a proposed project, the decision maker should not approve the proposed project unless it determines that specific technological, economic, social, or other considerations make the project alternatives infeasible (PRC Section 21002, Guidelines Section 15091 (a)(3)). The EIR must also identify alternatives that were considered by the lead agency but were rejected as infeasible during the scoping process and should briefly explain the reasons underlying the lead agency’s determination (Guidelines Section 15126.6(c)).

One of the alternatives analyzed must be the “No Project” alternative. The “No Project” analysis must discuss the existing conditions, as well as what would be reasonably expected to occur in the foreseeable future if the project were not approved and development continued to occur in accordance with existing plans and consistent with available infrastructure and community services (CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(e)(2)).

A description of the Project and the Project objectives are provided in Chapter 2.0. This Chapter provides a description of the alternatives.

5.2 DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES

Alternative 1 – Reduced Density

The Reduced Density Alternative refers to buildout at the lowest end of the development density of the various land use designations within the Project area rather than the mid- point. Table 5-1 below shows the total number of units would be 664 at buildout under this Alternative compared to the 1,085 units addressed as the estimated buildout scenario in this SEIR. This Reduced Density Alternative would allow more flexibility in the establishment of building setbacks from Burbank Avenue to reduce noise exposure and enhance visual conditions. In addition this Alterative would provide for greater flexibility in the preservation and enhancement of sensitive riparian areas because of the potentially greater area available for open space planning.

AUGUST 30, 2005 PARSONS PAGE 5-1 BURBANK AVENUE ANNEXATION DRAFT SUBSEQUENT EIR ALTERNATIVES

Table 5-1

Reduced Density Alternative Estimated Buildout

Acres Lowest Density Land Use Designation (approximate) (units/acre) Dwelling Units Residential low density/Open space 2 2 4 Residential low density 68 2 136 Residential medium low density 28 8 224 Residential medium density 33 8 264 Mixed use retail and residential 2 8 16 medium density Total Residential 133 acres 664 Mixed use retail 25,000 square feet Total Non-Residential 25,000 square feet

Alternative 2 – Maximum Density

The Maximum Density Alternative refers to buildout at the highest end of the development density of the various land use designations within the Project area rather than the mid-point. Table 5-2 below shows the total number of units would be 2,126 at buildout under this Alternative compared to the 1,085 units addressed as the estimated buildout scenario in this SEIR.

Alternative 3 – Off-site

The Santa Rosa General Plan Land Use and Livability Element Policy LUL-A-3 calls for annexing unincorporated land adjacent to the City limits contiguous to existing urban development within the Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) when adequate services are available. Because the General Plan prohibits the annexation of lands outside the UGB, potential off-site alternatives would need to be located within the UGB. A thorough search of existing unincorporated lands within the UGB was performed and no other unincorporated area within the City’s UGB around the size of 133 acres was found. In addition, one of the project objectives is specifically to incorporate the project area into the City of Santa Rosa, and an alternative site would not accomplish this objective.

AUGUST 30, 2005 PARSONS PAGE 5-2 BURBANK AVENUE ANNEXATION DRAFT SUBSEQUENT EIR ALTERNATIVES

Table 5-2

Maximum Density Alternative Estimated Buildout

Acres Maximum Density Land Use Designation (approximate) (units/acre) Dwelling Units Residential low density/Open space 2 5 10 Residential low density 68 10 680 Residential medium low density 28 13 420 Residential medium density 33 30 990 Mixed use retail and residential 2 13 26 medium density Total Residential 133 acres 2,126 Mixed use retail 25,000 square feet -- -- Total Non-Residential 25,000 square feet -- --

Alternative 4 – No Project

Under the No Project Alternative, the property would remain under the jurisdiction of Sonoma County. If the Burbank annexation were to be denied, there are no reasonably foreseeable Projects that would occur on this site without upgrading the existing infrastructure (off-site improvements to water and sewer mains).

Under CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(e)(2), reasonably foreseeable projects must be based on available infrastructure and community services, for the purpose of defining the No Project alternative.

5.3 COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES

A comparison of the alternatives described herein is presented in Table 5-3 at the end of this section.

5.4 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED BUT NOT EVALUATED IN THE SEIR

During scoping, several alternatives for the Project were suggested, including a project low income housing, and a park. These and other alternatives were evaluated to determine if they meet the qualifications for alternatives, as required under CEQA.

AUGUST 30, 2005 PARSONS PAGE 5-3 BURBANK AVENUE ANNEXATION DRAFT SUBSEQUENT EIR ALTERNATIVES

Alternatives must meet most of the Project objectives, be feasible, and reduce significant impacts of the Project. The applicant’s primary objectives are to: 1) To incorporate into the City of Santa Rosa specific lands within the southwest quadrant; 2) To pre-zone these lands consistent with Santa Rosa General Plan land use designations; and 3) To provide services, utilities and access improvements as needed by the uses that fulfill the General Plan.

Park

Developing the site as a community park does not meet any of the applicant’s primary objectives.

Affordable Housing

The proposed annexation would not be incompatible with provision of low-income housing in the project area. Specifics of types of housing are not being evaluated at this stage. Low-income housing may be provided in this area in when development proposals are developed.

AUGUST 30, 2005 PARSONS PAGE 5-4 BURBANK AVENUE ANNEXATION DRAFT SUBSEQUENT EIR ALTERNATIVES

Table 5-3

Alternatives Comparison

Impact Reduced Density Maximum Density Proposed Project Alternative Alternative No Project Alternative 1. LAND USE, POPULATION, HOUSING, AND EMPLOYMENT 3.1-1. Implementation of No impact. The State Farmland No impact. Effects would be No impact. Although more No impact. There would be the Project could result in Mapping Program has the same as with the Proposed lands would be included, most no change from existing the loss of status designated the Project as “D- Project, except that more open of the area is built up or in conditions. Farmlands. Urban and Built-up Land”, space would be preserved. urban use. which is defined as land containing man-made structures or the infrastructure required for development. The designation of “D” is not considered Prime Farmland or Farmland of Local Importance; therefore the Project will have no impact on farmlands.

AUGUST 30, 2005 PARSONS PAGE 5-5 BURBANK AVENUE ANNEXATION DRAFT SUBSEQUENT EIR ALTERNATIVES

Table 5-3

Alternatives Comparison

Impact Reduced Density Maximum Density Proposed Project Alternative Alternative No Project Alternative 3.1-2. Implementation of Significant. The land uses Significant. Development Significant. More No impact. There would be the Project could disrupt adjacent to the Burbank would still occur but at a development would occur in no change from existing the physical arrangement Avenue Annexation area are lesser density. Would allow the Project area, but would conditions. of the established more intense than the existing for more open space areas and still be similar to the existing community or be land uses within the annexation buffer zones. Development surrounding communities. incompatible with area. If the Project were would be similar to existing Potential to disrupt the adjacent, existing land implemented as proposed, surrounding communities. physical arrangement of the uses. buildout development would be Effects of road extension established community from more similar to the existing would be the same. Less than construction of larger surrounding communities. The significant with mitigation. residences or more multi- project would thus not be family units. Significant expected to disrupt the physical impact. arrangement of an established community. However, the extension of North Point Parkway has the potential to divide the existing community within the project area. Less than significant with mitigation.

AUGUST 30, 2005 PARSONS PAGE 5-6 BURBANK AVENUE ANNEXATION DRAFT SUBSEQUENT EIR ALTERNATIVES

Table 5-3

Alternatives Comparison

Impact Reduced Density Maximum Density Proposed Project Alternative Alternative No Project Alternative 3.1-3. The Project may Significant. The Proposed Less than significant. The Less than significant. The No impact. There would be result in conflict with Project area is within the Urban Reduced Density alternative Maximum Density alternative no change from existing existing plans or Growth Boundary of Santa consists of the same Land Use would consist of the same conditions. regulations. Rosa and was included in the designations as the General Land Use designations as the Santa Rosa General Plan 2020, Plan and has been analyzed at General Plan. and was also included in the the low-point densities of Southwest Santa Rosa Area those various Land Use Plan. The Project consists of designations. the same Land Use designations as the General Plan and has been analyzed at the mid-point densities of those various Land Use designations. Less than significant with mitigation.

AUGUST 30, 2005 PARSONS PAGE 5-7 BURBANK AVENUE ANNEXATION DRAFT SUBSEQUENT EIR ALTERNATIVES

Table 5-3

Alternatives Comparison

Impact Reduced Density Maximum Density Proposed Project Alternative Alternative No Project Alternative 3.1-4. The Project may Less than significant. The Less than significant. The Less than significant. The No impact. There would be result in conflict with Project consists of the same Reduced Density alternative Maximum Density alternative no change from existing existing plans or Land Use designations as the consists of the same Land Use would consist of the same conditions. regulations. Santa Rosa General Plan and designations as the General Land Use designations as the has been analyzed at the mid- Plan and has been analyzed at General Plan. point densities of those various the low-point densities of Land Use designations. There those various Land Use are some minor inconsistencies designations. between the project and the previous Area Plans. Although the future commercial site within the proposed land-use diagram submitted for the Burbank Annexation is slightly different than what is shown under the Area Plan and the Redevelopment Plan, proposed land uses are similar to those identified in these applicable Plans. The differences are minor and the overall plan for the project is deemed to be consistent with the intent of the applicable plans. No mitigation necessary.

AUGUST 30, 2005 PARSONS PAGE 5-8 BURBANK AVENUE ANNEXATION DRAFT SUBSEQUENT EIR ALTERNATIVES

Table 5-3

Alternatives Comparison

Impact Reduced Density Maximum Density Proposed Project Alternative Alternative No Project Alternative 2. Traffic and Circulation 3.2-1. Implementation of Significant. The Proposed Significant. The Reduced Significant. The Maximum No impact. There would be the Project may result in Project would increase traffic Density alternative would still Density alternative would no change from existing increased traffic volumes volumes and could exceed LOS increase traffic volumes, but to increase traffic volumes and conditions. exceeding the LOS levels. Adequate level of a lesser extent than with the exceed LOS levels to a greater objective for roadway service is expected to be proposed Project. Adequate extent than the proposed segments. maintained on project-area level of service could be Project. Adequate level of streets with implementation of maintained on streets with service could be maintained proposed street improvements implementation of proposed with implementation of in the project area. Less than street improvements in the additional street improvements significant with mitigation. project area. Less than in the project area. Less than significant with mitigation. significant with mitigation. 3.2-2. Implementation of Significant and unavoidable. Significant and unavoidable. Significant and unavoidable. No impact. There would be the Project may have an The Final EIR for the The Reduced Density The Maximum Density no change from existing impact on surrounding Southwest Area Plan indicated alternative would still add alternative would add more conditions. Highways (U.S. 101 from that the US 101 freeway is traffic to the freeway, although traffic to the freeway than with Wilfred Avenue to operating at LOS F during the at a lesser extent than the the proposed Project. Highway 12). peak hours. The Sonoma proposed Project. County Transportation Authority has established a standard of LOS E for freeways. The Project would add traffic to the freeway.

AUGUST 30, 2005 PARSONS PAGE 5-9 BURBANK AVENUE ANNEXATION DRAFT SUBSEQUENT EIR ALTERNATIVES

Table 5-3

Alternatives Comparison

Impact Reduced Density Maximum Density Proposed Project Alternative Alternative No Project Alternative 3.2-3. Implementation of Less than Significant. The Less than Significant. The Significant. The addition of No impact. the Project may result in addition of 1,022 residential addition of 601 residential 2,126 residential units at an increased demand of units at buildout (approximate units at buildout (approximate buildout (approximate resident transit trips beyond the resident population increase of resident population increase of population increase of over capacity of convenient 2,432 persons) would represent 2,011 persons) would 3,500) would represent a transit services available an increase of transit trips in the represent an increase of transit significant increase of transit at the Project site. area. trips in the area. trips in the area. Less than significant with mitigation. 3.2-4. Implementation of Significant. At buildout, the Significant. At buildout, the Significant. At buildout, the No impact. the Project may increase Project will add trips to the Reduced Density alternative Maximum Density alternative vehicular traffic, surrounding local and collector will add trips to the will significantly add trips to adversely affecting the streets. The increase of surrounding local and the surrounding local and sense of residential vehicles on surrounding streets collector streets, although to a collector streets to a greater environment and affect due to the Project may increase lesser extent than the Proposed extent than the proposed safety. the potential for traffic-related Project. The increase of Project. The increase of hazards. Less than significant vehicles on surrounding streets vehicles on surrounding streets with mitigation. due to the Project may due to the Project may increase the potential for increase the potential for traffic-related hazards. Less traffic-related hazards. Less than significant with than significant with mitigation. mitigation.

AUGUST 30, 2005 PARSONS PAGE 5-10 BURBANK AVENUE ANNEXATION DRAFT SUBSEQUENT EIR ALTERNATIVES

Table 5-3

Alternatives Comparison

Impact Reduced Density Maximum Density Proposed Project Alternative Alternative No Project Alternative 3.2-5. Implementation of Significant. Bicycle and Significant. Bicycle and Significant. Bicycle and No impact. There would be the Project may result in a pedestrian access to the major pedestrian access to the major pedestrian access to the major no change in existing lack of accessible bicycle pedestrian and bicycle pedestrian and bicycle pedestrian and bicycle conditions. Burbank and pedestrian routes as a attractions in the vicinity of the attractions in the vicinity of attractions in the Maximum Avenue would continue to result of the Project. Project (schools, parks and the Reduced Density Density alternative area not have a sidewalk or other creek paths, and shopping and alternative (schools, parks and (schools, parks and creek pedestrian/bike facility. commercial areas) has not been creek paths, and shopping and paths, and shopping and determined. Less than commercial areas) has not commercial areas) has not significant with mitigation. been determined. Less than been determined. Less than significant with mitigation. significant with mitigation. 3.2-6. Infrastructure Significant. Construction period Significant. Even with the Significant. Increased impacts No impact. construction would lead impacts are likely to result from Reduced Density, construction during construction period are to increased truck and site grading/ preparation, period impacts are likely to likely to result from site construction vehicle transport of building and finish result from site grading/ grading/preparation, transport activity on the local materials to the site, preparation, transport of of building and finish roadway network in the construction workers, location building and finish materials materials to the site, area of construction and of construction activities, and to the site, construction construction workers, location may create lane closures staging areas. Less than workers, location of of construction activities, and causing traffic delays, significant with mitigation. construction activities, and staging areas to a significantly transit delays, restricted staging areas, but to a lesser greater extent than the access, increased traffic extent than with the Proposed Proposed Project. Less than hazards, and rerouting of Project. Less than significant significant with mitigation. traffic, including with mitigation. emergency vehicles.

AUGUST 30, 2005 PARSONS PAGE 5-11 BURBANK AVENUE ANNEXATION DRAFT SUBSEQUENT EIR ALTERNATIVES

Table 5-3

Alternatives Comparison

Impact Reduced Density Maximum Density Proposed Project Alternative Alternative No Project Alternative 3.2-7. Project buildout Significant. A maximum of Significant. A maximum of Significant. A maximum of No impact. may result in parking 1,022 new single-family 601 new single-family 2,126 new single-family demand exceeding the dwelling units could be dwelling units could be dwelling units could be available capacity for the constructed at Project buildout. constructed at buildout. constructed at buildout. Project area. Future development proposals Future development proposals Future development proposals shall comply with the Santa would be required to comply would be required to comply Rosa Zoning Code parking with the Santa Rosa Zoning with the Santa Rosa Zoning requirements. Less than Code parking requirements. Code parking requirements. significant with mitigation. Less than significant with Less than significant with mitigation. mitigation. 3. VISUAL QUALITY AND COMMUNITY CHARACTER 3.3-1. Buildout of the Significant and Unavoidable. Significant and Unavoidable. Significant and Unavoidable. No impact. There would be Project may result in the Development within the Project Development within the area Development within the area no changes would occur to conversion of area would amount to would amount to urbanization would amount to urbanization existing views or undeveloped land parcels urbanization of an area that is of an area that is currently of an area that is currently community character. that are currently vacant currently characterized by its characterized by its semi-rural characterized by its semi-rural to an urban condition and semi-rural environment. environment. This Reduced environment. This Maximum may alter the City’s Overall, buildout of the Project Density Alternative, which is Density Alternative, which is existing rural character area would extend urbanized based on the low point density based on the highpoint density and visual qualities. areas of Santa Rosa further to units, would allow more units, would allow less the west and south and increase flexibility in the establishment flexibility in the establishment the geographic distribution of of building setbacks from of building setbacks from intensified land uses within the Burbank Avenue to enhance Burbank Avenue to enhance Urban Boundary. Although visual conditions. Overall, visual conditions. Overall, development of this area would buildout of the area would still buildout of the area would still

AUGUST 30, 2005 PARSONS PAGE 5-12 BURBANK AVENUE ANNEXATION DRAFT SUBSEQUENT EIR ALTERNATIVES

Table 5-3

Alternatives Comparison

Impact Reduced Density Maximum Density Proposed Project Alternative Alternative No Project Alternative be consistent with the extend urbanized areas of extend urbanized areas of Southwest Area Plan and Santa Rosa further to the west Santa Rosa further to the west policies regarding growth and and south and increase the and south and increase the development in the Santa Rosa geographic distribution of geographic distribution of General Plan, this increase in intensified land uses within intensified land uses within built density would constitute a the Urban Boundary, but to a the Urban Boundary, but to a significant change in visual lesser extent than the Proposed greater extent than the conditions and community Project. Although Proposed Project. character. However, development with this Development with this development will also alternative would still alternative would constitute a contribute to service amenities, constitute a change in visual change in visual conditions such as paved roads, sidewalks, conditions and community and community character, and designated bikeways and character, it would also would increase the use of parking areas that would likely contribute to service service amenities, such as improve the visual quality of amenities, such as paved paved roads, sidewalks, the annexation area. roads, sidewalks, designated designated bikeways and bikeways and parking areas parking areas. that would likely improve the visual quality of the annexation area.

AUGUST 30, 2005 PARSONS PAGE 5-13 BURBANK AVENUE ANNEXATION DRAFT SUBSEQUENT EIR ALTERNATIVES

Table 5-3

Alternatives Comparison

Impact Reduced Density Maximum Density Proposed Project Alternative Alternative No Project Alternative 3.3-2. Infrastructure Significant. The appearance of Significant. The appearance Significant. The appearance No impact since no construction of new roads, construction equipment, of construction equipment, of construction equipment, construction to roads or roadway widening, storm excavations and materials excavations and materials excavations and materials infrastructure would occur. sewers, sanitary sewers stockpiling would be short-term stockpiling would be short- stockpiling would be short- and water supply that in duration and localized, term in duration and localized, term in duration and localized, require earth excavation, lasting during the actual period lasting during the actual lasting during the actual materials stockpiling and of construction. Less than period of construction, and to period of construction which the use of construction significant with mitigation. a lesser extent than with the could be greater than the equipment may be Proposed Project. Less than Proposed Project due to an inconsistent with the significant with mitigation. increase in the number of existing setting. structures that could be constructed. Less than significant with mitigation.

AUGUST 30, 2005 PARSONS PAGE 5-14 BURBANK AVENUE ANNEXATION DRAFT SUBSEQUENT EIR ALTERNATIVES

Table 5-3

Alternatives Comparison

Impact Reduced Density Maximum Density Proposed Project Alternative Alternative No Project Alternative 3.3-3. New development Significant. New development Significant. New development Significant. New development No impact. may damage scenic would occur adjacent to could occur adjacent to could occur adjacent to natural or cultural locally-designated Scenic locally-designated Scenic locally-designated Scenic resources along Santa Roads. Destruction of natural Roads, although to a lesser Roads to a greater extent than Rosa’s Scenic Roads. resources and open space areas, extent than the Proposed the Proposed Project. including potential grading and Project. Destruction of natural Destruction of natural construction activity along resources and open space resources and open space these roads, without attention to areas, including potential areas, including potential natural slope contours or grading and construction grading and construction preservation of biological activity along these roads, activity along these roads, resources, would degrade their without attention to natural without attention to natural visual quality. Less than slope contours or preservation slope contours or preservation significant with mitigation. of biological resources, would of biological resources, would degrade their visual quality. degrade their visual quality. Less than significant with Less than significant with mitigation. mitigation.

AUGUST 30, 2005 PARSONS PAGE 5-15 BURBANK AVENUE ANNEXATION DRAFT SUBSEQUENT EIR ALTERNATIVES

Table 5-3

Alternatives Comparison

Impact Reduced Density Maximum Density Proposed Project Alternative Alternative No Project Alternative 4. UTILITIES AND PUBLIC SERVICES 3.4-1. The Project may Significant. Once the Project Significant. To achieve the Significant. To achieve the No impact. increase demand for area is annexed to the City, current preferred level of current preferred level of police services to such a police services will be provided service of the Santa Rosa service of the Santa Rosa degree that accepted by the City of Santa Rosa. Police Department of 1.5 Police Department of 1.5 service standards are not Impacts to police services are officers per 1,000 residents, an officers per 1,000 residents, maintained. the result of increases in the additional two officers would three or more additional residential population and be required by the Department officers would be required by amount of commercial at buildout of the Reduced the Department at buildout of development in the area that Density alternative and hiring the maximum density they serve. To achieve the of additional staff is uncertain. alternative and hiring of current preferred level of An increase in sworn officers additional staff is uncertain. service of the Santa Rosa Police would also require the An increase in sworn officers Department of 1.5 officers per addition of patrol vehicles, would also require the 1,000 residents, an additional support personnel, and addition of patrol vehicles, three officers would be required expansion of headquarters. support personnel, and by the Department at buildout Less than significant with expansion of headquarters. of the Project area and hiring of mitigation. Less than significant with additional staff is uncertain. mitigation. An increase in sworn officers would also require the addition of patrol vehicles, support personnel, and expansion of headquarters. Less than significant with mitigation.

AUGUST 30, 2005 PARSONS PAGE 5-16 BURBANK AVENUE ANNEXATION DRAFT SUBSEQUENT EIR ALTERNATIVES

Table 5-3

Alternatives Comparison

Impact Reduced Density Maximum Density Proposed Project Alternative Alternative No Project Alternative 3.4-2. The Project may Significant. An anticipated Significant. With the Reduced Significant. With the No impact. increase demand for fire increase of 264 additional Density alternative, an Maximum Density alternative, services to such a degree service calls per year would be increase in service calls per an increase in service calls per that accepted service expected by the Fire year would be expected from year would be expected by the standards are not Department from the increased the increased population Fire Department from the maintained. population within the within the annexation area, but increased population within annexation site area from the less than the Proposed Project, the annexation site area that Project, and construction of and construction of new fire exceeds the additional calls new fire stations is uncertain. stations is uncertain. Less with the Proposed Project, and Less than significant with than significant with construction of new fire mitigation. mitigation. stations is uncertain. Less than significant with mitigation.

AUGUST 30, 2005 PARSONS PAGE 5-17 BURBANK AVENUE ANNEXATION DRAFT SUBSEQUENT EIR ALTERNATIVES

Table 5-3

Alternatives Comparison

Impact Reduced Density Maximum Density Proposed Project Alternative Alternative No Project Alternative 3.4-3 The Project may Significant. Using the net new Significant. Using the net new Significant. With the No impact. There would be increase demand for housing unit number of 1,022 housing unit number of 601 Maximum Density alternative, no change in existing school facilities to such a (proposed 1,085 units minus (proposed 664 units minus residential development would conditions. degree that accepted existing 63 units), student existing 63 units), and student occur to a larger extent than service standards are not generation factors of 0.4 generation factors from the the Proposed Project. maintained. students for K-6, 0.1 students Proposed Project, the total Therefore, the number of for 7-8, and 0.2 students for 9- number of new students students generated by this 12 per unit for both single- and generated in the Reduced alternative would potentially multi-family dwelling units, the Density alternative area could be greater than that of the total number of new students be:240 elementary school Proposed Project. Less than generated in the Project area students (K-6)60 junior high significant with mitigation. could be:408 elementary school school students (7-8); and120 students (K-6)102 junior high high school students (9- school students (7-8); and204 12).Less than significant with high school students (9- mitigation. 12).Less than significant with mitigation.

AUGUST 30, 2005 PARSONS PAGE 5-18 BURBANK AVENUE ANNEXATION DRAFT SUBSEQUENT EIR ALTERNATIVES

Table 5-3

Alternatives Comparison

Impact Reduced Density Maximum Density Proposed Project Alternative Alternative No Project Alternative 3.4-4. The Project may Significant. The City standard Less than significant. The Significant. The City standard No impact. increase demand for park for parks is six acres per 1,000 City standard for parks is six for parks is six acres per 1,000 and recreation facilities to population, excluding school acres per 1,000 population, population. In order to meet such a degree that grounds. In order to meet this excluding school grounds. The this standard, given a accepted service standards standard, given a projected Reduced Density alternative projected residential are not maintained. ultimate residential population would require less additional population of more than 2,581 of 2,581 persons in the Project park acres as calculated by persons in the maximum area, a total of 2.57 acres of population increase. This density alternative area, more park land or accessible open alternative would provide than 2.57 acres of park land or space would be required. Less more open space opportunities accessible open space would than significant with mitigation. because of its lower density be required. Less than development. significant with mitigation.

AUGUST 30, 2005 PARSONS PAGE 5-19 BURBANK AVENUE ANNEXATION DRAFT SUBSEQUENT EIR ALTERNATIVES

Table 5-3

Alternatives Comparison

Impact Reduced Density Maximum Density Proposed Project Alternative Alternative No Project Alternative 3.4-5. The Project may Less than significant. Sonoma Less than significant. Sonoma Significant. Sonoma County No impact. increase demand for solid County has a solid waste County has a solid waste has a solid waste management waste removal to such a management program in place management program in place program in place that provides degree that accepted that provides solid waste that provides solid waste solid waste collection and service standards are not collection and disposal services collection and disposal disposal services for the entire maintained. for the entire County. The services for the entire County. County. However, because County of Sonoma is capable of The County of Sonoma is landfill volume is calculated providing the solid waste capable of providing the solid based on population, the disposal services necessary to waste disposal services County of Sonoma would not serve the project, including necessary to serve the project, be capable of providing the during construction, and once including during construction, solid waste disposal services the project is completely built and once the project is necessary to serve the project out. completely built out. under the maximum density alternative for the same amount of time that it could serve the Proposed Project, unless expansion of the current facility was implemented or an new landfill facility selected.

AUGUST 30, 2005 PARSONS PAGE 5-20 BURBANK AVENUE ANNEXATION DRAFT SUBSEQUENT EIR ALTERNATIVES

Table 5-3

Alternatives Comparison

Impact Reduced Density Maximum Density Proposed Project Alternative Alternative No Project Alternative 3.4-6. The Project may Significant. Municipal water Significant. The City’s water Significant. Potential buildout No impact. Without increase demand for water service is not currently supplies are currently of the alternative could impact annexation, municipal water supply and distribution to provided to parcels within the sufficient to meet the present the City’s water supplies service would not be such a degree that annexation area, although and future demand that would which may not be sufficient to provided and existing accepted service standards potable water lines owned and be associated with the meet the present and future residential units would are not maintained. operated by the City exist at the Reduced Density alternative. demand associated with this continue to be served by perimeter of the area. Existing Less than significant with alternative. individual wells. residential uses within the area mitigation. are served by individual wells. The City’s water supplies are currently sufficient to meet the present and future demand associated with this Project. Less than significant with mitigation.

AUGUST 30, 2005 PARSONS PAGE 5-21 BURBANK AVENUE ANNEXATION DRAFT SUBSEQUENT EIR ALTERNATIVES

Table 5-3

Alternatives Comparison

Impact Reduced Density Maximum Density Proposed Project Alternative Alternative No Project Alternative 3.4-7. The Project may Less than significant. Many Less than significant. There is Significant. It is not certain if No impact. Without increase demand for parcels within the Project area adequate sewage treatment there is adequate sewage annexation, sewer service wastewater treatment and are served by individual on-site and disposal capacity at the treatment and disposal would not be provided and disposal to such a degree septic systems. It is anticipated Laguna Plant to accommodate capacity at the Laguna Plant to existing residential units that accepted service that a northerly extension of the the Reduced Density accommodate all users in the would continue to be served standards are not sewer line approximately 1,550 alternative. Maximum Density alternative. by individual onsite septic maintained. feet will be required to serve systems. the northern limits of the annexation area. There is adequate sewage treatment and disposal capacity at the Laguna Plant to accommodate the Project. 5. HAZARDOUS MATERIALS 3.5-1. The Project may Significant. Annexation and Significant. Annexation and Significant. Annexation and No impact. expose construction development of the Project area development of the Project development of the Project workers or the public to would involve construction area would involve area would involve hazardous contaminants activities (i.e., grading and construction activities (i.e., construction activities (i.e., during construction. excavation) that may result in grading and excavation) that grading and excavation) that exposure to contaminated soil, may result in exposure to may result in exposure to groundwater, or volatile contaminated soil, contaminated soil, compounds. Less than groundwater, or volatile groundwater, or volatile significant with mitigation. compounds. Less than compounds. Less than significant with mitigation. significant with mitigation.

AUGUST 30, 2005 PARSONS PAGE 5-22 BURBANK AVENUE ANNEXATION DRAFT SUBSEQUENT EIR ALTERNATIVES

Table 5-3

Alternatives Comparison

Impact Reduced Density Maximum Density Proposed Project Alternative Alternative No Project Alternative 3.5-2. The Project may Significant. There are over 60 Significant. Hazardous Significant. Hazardous No impact. expose the public or residential structures in the materials such as lead, materials such as lead, environment to hazardous Project area. Some of these asbestos, mercury or PCBs asbestos, mercury or PCBs materials from structures may be removed could pose health and safety could pose health and safety demolition, removal or during development of the area. hazards to individuals exposed hazards to individuals exposed renovation of existing Building components in older to them, and if released, could to them, and if released, could buildings and building facilities could contain cause environmental cause environmental components. hazardous materials such as degradation. Less than degradation. Less than lead, asbestos, mercury or significant with mitigation. significant with mitigation. PCBs. Such materials could pose health and safety hazards to individuals exposed to them, and if released, could cause environmental degradation. Less than significant with mitigation.

AUGUST 30, 2005 PARSONS PAGE 5-23 BURBANK AVENUE ANNEXATION DRAFT SUBSEQUENT EIR ALTERNATIVES

Table 5-3

Alternatives Comparison

Impact Reduced Density Maximum Density Proposed Project Alternative Alternative No Project Alternative 3.5-3. The Project may Less than significant. Under Less than significant. Under Significant. Under Project No impact. There would be increase the use, Project build-out residential Project build-out residential build-out residential units no change from existing generation, or disposal of units could increase from 63 to units could increase from 63 to could increase from 63 to over conditions. hazardous wastes by 1,300 and commercial square- 664 and commercial square- 2,126 with the Maximum residents and commercial footage could increase by footage could increase by Density alternative, resulting businesses. 25,000 in the Project area, 25,000 in the Project area, in more residents generating, resulting in more residents and resulting in more residents and using, and disposing of businesses generating, using, businesses generating, using, hazardous materials. Less and disposing of hazardous and disposing of hazardous than significant with materials. Programs that are materials. mitigation. already in place in the project area are deemed to be sufficient to ensure that generation and disposal of hazardous materials and waste occur in accordance with State and Federal hazardous materials or waste regulations.

AUGUST 30, 2005 PARSONS PAGE 5-24 BURBANK AVENUE ANNEXATION DRAFT SUBSEQUENT EIR ALTERNATIVES

Table 5-3

Alternatives Comparison

Impact Reduced Density Maximum Density Proposed Project Alternative Alternative No Project Alternative 3.5-4. The Project may No impact. There are no sites No impact. There are no sites No impact. There are no sites No impact. be located on a site that is within the Project area listed on within the Project area listed within the Project area listed included on a list of the Cortese list. on the Cortese list. on the Cortese list. hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would create a significant hazard to the public or the environment. 6. HISTORIC AND CULTURAL RESOURCES 3.6-1. The Project may Significant. The region in Significant. The region in Significant. The region in No impact, since no disturb known or which the Project is located is a which the Project is located is which the Project is located is construction would occur. unknown historic or favorable setting for the a favorable setting for the a favorable setting for the prehistoric archaeological, occurrence of prehistoric occurrence of prehistoric occurrence of prehistoric or Native archaeological resources. The archaeological resources. The archaeological resources. The American/traditional Master EIR and Redevelopment Master EIR and Master EIR and heritage resources. EIR suggest that prehistoric Redevelopment EIR suggest Redevelopment EIR suggest cultural deposits could be found that prehistoric cultural that prehistoric cultural throughout the Project area and deposits could be found deposits could be found accidental discovery could throughout the Project area throughout the Project area occur. Less than significant and accidental discovery could and accidental discovery could with mitigation. occur. Less than significant occur. Less than significant with mitigation. with mitigation.

AUGUST 30, 2005 PARSONS PAGE 5-25 BURBANK AVENUE ANNEXATION DRAFT SUBSEQUENT EIR ALTERNATIVES

Table 5-3

Alternatives Comparison

Impact Reduced Density Maximum Density Proposed Project Alternative Alternative No Project Alternative 3.6-2. The Project may Significant. The Project could Significant. The Project could Significant. The Project could No impact. disturb historical affect buildings and structures affect buildings and structures affect buildings and structures properties. in excess of 45 years, which in excess of 45 years, which in excess of 45 years, which could be important for their could be important for their could be important for their architectural/historical value architectural/historical value architectural/historical value and should be evaluated on a and should be evaluated on a and should be evaluated on a project-specific basis as project-specific basis as project-specific basis as development is proposed. Less development is proposed. development is proposed. than significant with mitigation. Less than significant with Less than significant with mitigation. mitigation. 7. SOILS, GEOLOGY, AND SEISMICITY 3.7-1. The Project may Significant. The known active Significant. The known active Significant. The known active No impact. There would be be subject to surface fault closest to the Project area fault closest to the Project area fault closest to the Project area no change from existing rupture along a possible is the Rodgers Creek fault, is the Rodgers Creek fault, is the Rodgers Creek fault, conditions. splinter fault of the about 2.17 miles to the east of about 2.17 miles to the east of about 2.17 miles to the east of Rodgers Creek fault zone. the Project. However, the the Project. However, the the Project. However, the Project may be crossed by a Project may be crossed by a Project may be crossed by a splinter trace of the Rodgers splinter trace of the Rodgers splinter trace of the Rodgers Creek fault. The entire Project Creek fault. The entire Project Creek fault. The entire Project area is underlain by alluvial area is underlain by alluvial area is underlain by alluvial materials. Less than materials. Less than materials. Less than significant with mitigation. significant with mitigation. significant with mitigation.

AUGUST 30, 2005 PARSONS PAGE 5-26 BURBANK AVENUE ANNEXATION DRAFT SUBSEQUENT EIR ALTERNATIVES

Table 5-3

Alternatives Comparison

Impact Reduced Density Maximum Density Proposed Project Alternative Alternative No Project Alternative 3.7-2. The Project may Significant. Vibration from an Significant. Same as Proposed Significant. Same as Proposed No impact. There would be be subject to potentially earthquake could cause damage Project. Project. no change from existing damaging seismically to structural members of conditions. induced groundshaking. residential and commercial facilities and their associated infrastructure and could cause ground failures in alluvium and poorly compacted fill. The entire Project area is underlain by alluvial materials that, in their natural state, could respond poorly to loading during seismic ground motion. Less than significant with mitigation. 3.7-3. Construction of the Significant. Runoff during the Significant. Same as Proposed Significant. Same as Proposed No impact. There would be Project may have the grading period could carry Project. Project. no change from existing potential to increase particles of fill from grading or conditions. erosion of soil from the construction sites, or could sites and subsequent erode soil downgradient, if the deposition of particles in flow were not controlled. Less drainage ways, creeks, or than significant with mitigation. wetlands.

AUGUST 30, 2005 PARSONS PAGE 5-27 BURBANK AVENUE ANNEXATION DRAFT SUBSEQUENT EIR ALTERNATIVES

Table 5-3

Alternatives Comparison

Impact Reduced Density Maximum Density Proposed Project Alternative Alternative No Project Alternative 3.7-4. The use of Significant. The Project area Significant. Same as Proposed Significant. Same as Proposed No impact. There would be expansive or weak soils consists of expansive, Project. Project. no change from existing for foundation support compressible and corrosive conditions. may create unstable soil soils. The creation of building conditions at the Project pads or access road/parking lot construction site. bases in unsuitable soils could create future problems of foundation settlement and utility line disruption if the soils are not specifically engineered for stability. Less than significant with mitigation.

AUGUST 30, 2005 PARSONS PAGE 5-28 BURBANK AVENUE ANNEXATION DRAFT SUBSEQUENT EIR ALTERNATIVES

Table 5-3

Alternatives Comparison

Impact Reduced Density Maximum Density Proposed Project Alternative Alternative No Project Alternative 8. Hydrology and Water Quality 3.8-1. Construction of Significant. The Burbank Significant. The Reduced Significant. The Maximum No impact. residential, commercial or Annexation area currently has Density alternative area Density alternative would mixed-use projects within approximately 36.9 acres or currently has approximately likely have more impervious the Project area may 27.7 percent impervious 36.9 acres or 27.7 percent coverage than the Proposed result in an increase in coverage. Development of the impervious coverage. Project due to an increase in impervious areas and 133.1-acre site would result in Because this alternative the number of structures and higher levels of surface about 54.3 acres of impervious proposes lower density pavement built. Development runoff than currently coverage, bringing the total development and more open of the 133.1-acre site would leaves the area, impervious surfaces in the space, development would result in more than 54.3 acres potentially increasing Project area to 41 percent. Less result in less than 54.3 acres of of impervious coverage, erosion and flooding in than significant with mitigation. impervious coverage, bringing bringing the total impervious down stream drainage the total impervious surfaces surfaces in the Project area to ways. in the Annexation area to less greater than 41 percent. Less than 41 percent. Less than than significant with significant with mitigation. mitigation.

AUGUST 30, 2005 PARSONS PAGE 5-29 BURBANK AVENUE ANNEXATION DRAFT SUBSEQUENT EIR ALTERNATIVES

Table 5-3

Alternatives Comparison

Impact Reduced Density Maximum Density Proposed Project Alternative Alternative No Project Alternative 3.8-2. Future Significant. Approximately Significant. With the Reduced Significant. With the No impact. There would be development within the 27.7 percent (36.9 acres) of the Density alternative, Maximum Density alternative, no change from existing Project boundary may annexation area is impervious impervious coverage would be impervious coverage would conditions. reduce infiltration in a and does not provide natural less than the proposed project increase more than the natural groundwater groundwater recharge. at full buildout of the Project proposed project at full recharge zone Impervious coverage could area. Less than significant buildout of the Project area. increase to 40.8 percent (54.3 with mitigation. Less than significant with acres) at full buildout of the mitigation. annexation area, a 13 percent increase above the existing condition. The existing condition and the future development of the Burbank annexation area result in greater than 25 percent impervious coverage of the annexation area. Less than significant with mitigation.

AUGUST 30, 2005 PARSONS PAGE 5-30 BURBANK AVENUE ANNEXATION DRAFT SUBSEQUENT EIR ALTERNATIVES

Table 5-3

Alternatives Comparison

Impact Reduced Density Maximum Density Proposed Project Alternative Alternative No Project Alternative 3.8-3. Construction Significant. Soil erosion could Significant. Soil erosion could Significant. Soil erosion could No impact. activities for future occur if precipitation of occur if precipitation of occur if precipitation of privately or publicly sufficient intensity occurred sufficient intensity occurred sufficient intensity occurred sponsored infrastructure during phases of construction in during phases of construction during phases of construction projects may result in which areas of disturbed soil in which areas of disturbed in which areas of disturbed short-term or long term were left exposed. Grading soil were left exposed. soil were left exposed. increases in erosion. activities at a construction site Grading activities at a Grading activities at a could adversely affect construction site could construction site could downstream water quality adversely affect downstream adversely affect downstream through erosion, the transport water quality through erosion, water quality through erosion, of sediments and dissolved the transport of sediments and the transport of sediments and constituents entering the natural dissolved constituents entering dissolved constituents entering receiving waters and increasing the natural receiving waters the natural receiving waters turbidity and contaminant load. and increasing turbidity and and increasing turbidity and Less than significant with contaminant load. Less than contaminant load. Less than mitigation. significant with mitigation. significant with mitigation.

AUGUST 30, 2005 PARSONS PAGE 5-31 BURBANK AVENUE ANNEXATION DRAFT SUBSEQUENT EIR ALTERNATIVES

Table 5-3

Alternatives Comparison

Impact Reduced Density Maximum Density Proposed Project Alternative Alternative No Project Alternative 3.8-4. Increased runoff Significant. Major contributors Significant. Even with the Significant. Quantity of runoff No impact. There would be from additional of contaminants to runoff and Reduced Density alternative, is potentially greater than with no change from existing impermeable surfaces infiltrating groundwater in water quality in wetlands the proposed project and water conditions. may lower the quality of developed areas are the streets could deteriorate within the quality in wetlands could stormwater runoff. and gutters and other Burbank annexation area. deteriorate within the Project impervious areas directly Less than significant with area. Less than significant connected to streets or storm mitigation. with mitigation. drains. Uncontrolled overland flow of accumulated urban pollutants from paved surfaces and landscaped areas would carry contaminants, thereby contributing to the deterioration of the quality of storm-water runoff. Water quality in wetlands could deteriorate within the Burbank annexation area. Less than significant with mitigation.

AUGUST 30, 2005 PARSONS PAGE 5-32 BURBANK AVENUE ANNEXATION DRAFT SUBSEQUENT EIR ALTERNATIVES

Table 5-3

Alternatives Comparison

Impact Reduced Density Maximum Density Proposed Project Alternative Alternative No Project Alternative 9. VEGETATION, WILDLIFE, AND HABITAT 3.9-1. Implementation of Significant. Construction Significant. Construction Significant. Construction No impact. the Project may result in activities associated with activities associated with activities associated with the loss of Valley Oaks grading and filling could result grading and filling could result grading and filling could result and acreage of in removal or damage to trees in removal or damage to trees in removal or damage to a regenerating Valley Oaks or their root systems. Less than or their root systems. greater number of trees or and Valley Oak significant with mitigation. However, the Reduced their root systems. Mitigation Woodland. Density alternative would may not reduce impacts to less provide for greater flexibility than significant. in the preservation and enhancement of sensitive riparian areas because of the potentially greater area available for open space planning. Less than significant with mitigation.

AUGUST 30, 2005 PARSONS PAGE 5-33 BURBANK AVENUE ANNEXATION DRAFT SUBSEQUENT EIR ALTERNATIVES

Table 5-3

Alternatives Comparison

Impact Reduced Density Maximum Density Proposed Project Alternative Alternative No Project Alternative 3.9-2. Implementation of Significant. Construction near Significant. Construction near Significant. Construction No impact. the Project would result in Roseland Creek could result in Roseland Creek could result in under the Maximum Density the loss of Valley-Foothill a loss to this important habitat. a loss to this important habitat. alternative near Roseland Riparian Woodland Less than significant with However, the Reduced Creek or other riparian areas mitigation. Density alternative would could result in a loss to this provide for greater flexibility important habitat. Mitigation in the preservation and may not reduce impacts to less enhancement of sensitive than significant. riparian areas because of the potentially greater area available for open space planning. Less than significant with mitigation. 3.9-3. Implementation of Significant. There are two Significant. The Reduced Significant. There are two No impact. the Project would result in known and one probable vernal Density alternative would known and one probable loss of vernal pool or pool wetland within the Project provide for greater flexibility vernal pool wetland within the wetland habitat area that could be affected by in the preservation and Project area that could be the project. A fourth area enhancement of sensitive affected by the project. A contains verified isolated riparian areas because of the fourth area contains verified wetlands. Less than significant potentially greater area isolated wetlands. Maximum with mitigation. available for open space Density alternative may not planning Less than allow for avoidance of the significant with mitigation. vernal pools. Mitigation may not reduce impacts to less than significant.

AUGUST 30, 2005 PARSONS PAGE 5-34 BURBANK AVENUE ANNEXATION DRAFT SUBSEQUENT EIR ALTERNATIVES

Table 5-3

Alternatives Comparison

Impact Reduced Density Maximum Density Proposed Project Alternative Alternative No Project Alternative 3.9-4. The Project and Significant. Grading activities Significant. Grading activities Significant. Grading activities No impact. the establishment of could result in the introduction could result in the introduction could result in the introduction Project landscaping in of plant species adapted to of plant species adapted to of plant species adapted to areas near existing disturbed areas into adjacent disturbed areas into adjacent disturbed areas into adjacent wetlands may wetlands. Less than significant wetlands. Less than wetlands. Less than inadvertently introduce with mitigation. significant with mitigation. significant with mitigation. exotic plant pests and domestic animals to sensitive wetlands, thus decreasing habitat values. 3.9-5. Implementation of Significant and avoidable. Significant and avoidable. Significant and avoidable. No impact. the Project may result in Future development within the However, the Reduced Impacts would be similar to or the loss of grassland Project area will result in loss Density alternative allows for greater than the proposed foraging area for sensitive of grassland foraging area for more open space planning that project. bird species known to the burrowing owl, ferruginous would preserve and protect occur within the Project hawk, loggerhead shrike, and sensitive areas. area. white-tailed kite. In addition, human activity, noise, and disturbance adjacent to grasslands could result in degradation of grassland habitat to the extent that it would become unsuitable.

AUGUST 30, 2005 PARSONS PAGE 5-35 BURBANK AVENUE ANNEXATION DRAFT SUBSEQUENT EIR ALTERNATIVES

Table 5-3

Alternatives Comparison

Impact Reduced Density Maximum Density Proposed Project Alternative Alternative No Project Alternative 3.9-6. Implementation of Significant. Four Federal- and Significant. The Reduced Significant. The Maximum No impact. the Project may result in State-listed Endangered plant Density alternative allows for Density alternative allows for the loss of or damage to species have the potential to more open space planning that less open space planning that sensitive communities occur within the annexation would preserve and protect would preserve and protect and/or threatened and area. In addition, habitat is sensitive communities. Less sensitive communities. endangered plants and present for several plant and than significant with animals and/or their animal Federal Species of mitigation. habitat. Concern and State Species of Special Concern within the annexation area. Mitigation measures are already included that would result in protection of riparian and valley oak woodland habitat, which provide habitat for sensitive wildlife species. Less than significant with mitigation.

AUGUST 30, 2005 PARSONS PAGE 5-36 BURBANK AVENUE ANNEXATION DRAFT SUBSEQUENT EIR ALTERNATIVES

Table 5-3

Alternatives Comparison

Impact Reduced Density Maximum Density Proposed Project Alternative Alternative No Project Alternative 3.9-7. The Project may Significant and Unavoidable. Significant and Unavoidable. Significant and Unavoidable. No impact. result in the loss of There are two known CTS Loss of open space used by There are two known CTS California tiger breeding sites located outside migrating adults, loss of breeding sites located outside salamander habitat. of, but within 2 kilometers of, burrows used by adults for of, but within 2 kilometers of, the annexation area: one to the aestivation, and increased the annexation area: one to the southwest and one to the south. likelihood of road kill of southwest and one to the Future development within the migrating adults would be south. Future development annexation would adversely reduced with this alternative. within the Project area would impact CTS populations. The The Reduced Density adversely impact CTS impact includes loss of open alternative allows for more populations. The impact space used by migrating adults, open space planning that includes loss of open space loss of burrows used by adults would preserve and protect used by migrating adults, loss for aestivation, and increased sensitive communities. of burrows used by adults for likelihood of road kill of aestivation, and increased migrating adults. likelihood of road kill of migrating adults. 3.9-8: Implementation of Significant. Potential habitat Significant. Potential habitat Significant. Potential habitat No impact. the project may cause loss for several birds listed as for several birds listed as for several birds listed as of active nest sites of Federal Species of Concern Federal Species of Concern Federal Species of Concern raptors or other migratory and/or State Species of Special and/or State Species of Special and/or State Species of Special birds. Concern exists within the Concern exists within the Concern exists within the annexation area. Less than annexation area. Less than Project area. Mitigation may significant with mitigation. significant with mitigation. not reduce impacts to less than significant.

AUGUST 30, 2005 PARSONS PAGE 5-37 BURBANK AVENUE ANNEXATION DRAFT SUBSEQUENT EIR ALTERNATIVES

Table 5-3

Alternatives Comparison

Impact Reduced Density Maximum Density Proposed Project Alternative Alternative No Project Alternative 10. AIR QUALITY 3.10-1. Construction of Significant. Construction Significant. Construction Significant. Construction No impact. the Project may result in activities, mostly grading and activities, mostly grading and activities, mostly grading and constructed-related paving, for individual projects paving, for individual projects paving, for individual projects emissions that exceed would generate air pollutant would generate air pollutant would generate air pollutant federal and/or State air emissions. Less than emissions. Less than emissions. Less than quality standards or significant with mitigation. significant with mitigation. significant with mitigation. conflict with regional air quality planning efforts. 3.10-2. Project Less than significant. The Less than significant. Because Potentially significant. No impact. development may result project is considered to have a the Reduced Density Because the Maximum in cumulative CO less than significant impact on alternative would generate less Density alternative would concentration increases at carbon monoxide vehicle emissions, impacts generate more vehicle intersections and along concentrations since it would 1) would be less than with the emissions, impacts would be arterial corridors and result in daily carbon monoxide Proposed Project. potentially greater than with freeway mainlines. emissions less than 550 pounds, the Proposed Project. 2) traffic impacts would not be substantial at intersections operating at Level of Service D, E, or F now and in the future, and 3) traffic on nearby arterial roadways would increase by less than 10%.

AUGUST 30, 2005 PARSONS PAGE 5-38 BURBANK AVENUE ANNEXATION DRAFT SUBSEQUENT EIR ALTERNATIVES

Table 5-3

Alternatives Comparison

Impact Reduced Density Maximum Density Proposed Project Alternative Alternative No Project Alternative 3.10-3. The Project may Less than significant. The Less than significant. Because Potentially significant. No impact. contribute to an increase region currently exceeds State the Reduced Density Because the Maximum in vehicular, home standards for O3 and PM10. alternative would generate less Density alternative would heating, home cooling, Ozone precursor pollutants vehicles, home heating/ generate more vehicles, home and wood burning (i.e., reactive organic gases cooling and wood burning heating/cooling and wood emissions. [ROG] and nitrogen oxides emissions, impacts would be burning emissions, impacts [NOx]) and PM10 are pollutants less than with the Proposed would be potentially greater that affect the entire region. Project. than with the Proposed Project Emissions of O3 precursor pollutants in the annexation area could contribute to O3 formation at downwind areas that experience unhealthy O3 levels. Emissions of PM10 or pollutants that lead to secondary formation of PM10 could affect both local air quality and air quality in downwind areas. Analysis shows that build out of the annexation plan would have a less-than-significant impact on regional air quality.

AUGUST 30, 2005 PARSONS PAGE 5-39 BURBANK AVENUE ANNEXATION DRAFT SUBSEQUENT EIR ALTERNATIVES

Table 5-3

Alternatives Comparison

Impact Reduced Density Maximum Density Proposed Project Alternative Alternative No Project Alternative 3.10-4. The Project may Significant. Diesel exhaust, a Significant. Diesel exhaust, a Significant. Diesel exhaust, a No impact. expose people to known toxic air contaminant, known toxic air contaminant, known toxic air contaminant, substantial levels of toxic from construction equipment from construction equipment from construction equipment air contaminants. could expose existing and could expose existing and could expose existing and future residents to substantial future residents to substantial future residents to substantial levels of toxic air contaminants levels of toxic air levels of toxic air for short periods of time. Less contaminants for short periods contaminants for short periods than significant with mitigation. of time. Less than significant of time. Less than significant with mitigation. with mitigation. 11. NOISE 3.11-1. Construction Significant. Construction Significant. Construction of Significant. Construction No impact. activities on the Project associated with development of each project in the Reduced associated with development site may cause a the area would occur with each Density alternative would of the area would occur with substantial temporary or individual project. Even after generate noise, and would each individual project. Noise periodic increase in implementation of mitigation temporarily increase noise impacts resulting from ambient noise levels in measures, noise levels will levels in the immediate construction would be the the Project vicinity. continue to intermittently vicinity of the project site. same as the Proposed Project, substantially increase noise at Noise impacts resulting from but to a greater extent since sensitive receivers. Less than construction would be the there would be more significant with mitigation. same as the Proposed Project, development. Less than but to a lesser extent since significant with mitigation. there would be less development. Less than significant with mitigation.

AUGUST 30, 2005 PARSONS PAGE 5-40 BURBANK AVENUE ANNEXATION DRAFT SUBSEQUENT EIR ALTERNATIVES

Table 5-3

Alternatives Comparison

Impact Reduced Density Maximum Density Proposed Project Alternative Alternative No Project Alternative 3.11-2. Increase in traffic Significant. Any planned Significant. Any planned Significant. Any planned No impact. resulting from new residential facades adjacent to residential facades adjacent to residential facades adjacent to construction, in Burbank Avenue, Hearn Burbank Avenue, Hearn Burbank Avenue, Hearn conjunction with Avenue or the future expansion Avenue or the future Avenue or the future cumulative traffic, may of North Point Parkway could expansion of North Point expansion of North Point result in traffic noise be exposed to significant Parkway could be exposed to Parkway could be exposed to impacts on the future interior noise levels from significant interior noise levels significant interior noise levels Project developments. traffic. Less than significant from traffic. Less than from traffic. Less than with mitigation. significant with mitigation. significant with mitigation.

AUGUST 30, 2005 PARSONS PAGE 5-41 BURBANK AVENUE ANNEXATION DRAFT SUBSEQUENT EIR ALTERNATIVES

Table 5-3

Alternatives Comparison

Impact Reduced Density Maximum Density Proposed Project Alternative Alternative No Project Alternative 3.11-3. Increase in traffic Less than significant. Less than significant. The Less than significant. The No impact. resulting from new Annexation of the area would Project would allow future Project would allow future construction, in allow future development to development to proceed as development to proceed as conjunction with proceed as outlined in the outlined in the General Plan outlined in the General Plan cumulative traffic, may General Plan and Southwest and Southwest Santa Rosa and Southwest Santa Rosa result in traffic noise Santa Rosa Development Plan. Development Plan. Traffic Development Plan at the impacts on existing Traffic levels would increase, levels would increase (but less maximum densities. Traffic Project area residents. leading to increases in traffic than the Proposed Project), levels would increase, leading noise levels. The greatest leading to increases in traffic to increases in traffic noise increase would be to residences noise levels. The greatest levels. The greatest increase along Burbank Avenue. increase would be to would be to residences along Existing traffic noise levels are residences along Burbank Burbank Avenue. However, about 60 dBA Ldn. However, Avenue. Existing traffic noise development of the area would development of the area would levels are about 60 dBA Ldn. also lead to roadway and also lead to roadway and traffic However, development of the traffic speed control speed control improvements. area would also lead to improvements, which could As a result, the overall increase roadway and traffic speed reduce noise traffic noise in traffic along Burbank control improvements. As a impacts. Avenue would be about 2 dBA. result, the overall increase in traffic along Burbank Avenue would be about 2 dBA.

AUGUST 30, 2005 PARSONS PAGE 5-42 BURBANK AVENUE ANNEXATION DRAFT SUBSEQUENT EIR ALTERNATIVES

Table 5-3

Alternatives Comparison

Impact Reduced Density Maximum Density Proposed Project Alternative Alternative No Project Alternative 3.11-4: Future transit use Less than significant. The Less than significant. The Less than significant. The No impact. There would be along the Northwestern Northwestern Pacific Railroad Northwestern Pacific Railroad Northwestern Pacific Railroad no changes from existing Pacific Railroad Corridor Corridor is located more than Corridor is located more than Corridor is located more than conditions. However, if may affect ambient noise 2,000 feet from the nearest 2,000 feet from the nearest 2,000 feet from the nearest transit use on the Railroad at the project site. portions of the annexation area. portions of the annexation portions of the Project area. It corridor commences in the It is also shielded from the area area. It is also shielded from is also shielded from the area future, there may an by existing developments. The the area by existing by existing developments. increase in ambient noise rail line is currently inactive; developments. The rail line is The rail line is currently levels in the community. however, there are several currently inactive; however, inactive; however, there are possible future, uses including a there are several possible several possible future, uses commuter train line. While future, uses including a including a commuter train these uses may result in some commuter train line. While line. While these uses may audible sounds (e.g., train these uses may result in some result in some audible sounds whistles), measurable changes audible sounds (e.g., train (e.g., train whistles), to the noise environment are whistles), measurable changes measurable changes to the not expected. to the noise environment are noise environment are not not expected. expected.

AUGUST 30, 2005 PARSONS PAGE 5-43 BURBANK AVENUE ANNEXATION DRAFT SUBSEQUENT EIR PREPARERS

6.0 PREPARERS

6.1 LEAD AGENCY

The City of Santa Rosa, California, is the lead agency under CEQA for the preparation of the Burbank Avenue Annexation SEIR.

Staff Member Role Marie Meredith Deputy Director, Santa Rosa Department of Community Development Chuck Regalia Director, Santa Rosa Department of Community Development

6.2 PROJECT COORDINATOR

Parsons was retained to prepare the Burbank Avenue Annexation SEIR.

Parsons

Staff Member Role Robin Cort, Ph.D Project Manager Joan Douglas, AICP Assistant Project Manager Alicia Giudice Land Use, Population, Employment, and Housing Terrie Zwillinger Soils, Geology, and Seismicity Ali Giudice, Hydrology and Water Quality Carrie Lukacic Kristine Gaspar Hazardous Materials Dennis Brown, Ph.D Kristine Gaspar Vegetation, Wildlife, and Habitat Jeannette Owen Terrie Zwillinger Visual Quality and Community Character Ali Giudice Historic and Cultural Resources Steve Hilton Barbara Stagg Utilities and Public Services Kristine Gaspar Traffic and Circulation Joan Douglas, AICP Cumulative Impacts John DeMartino CADD/Graphics

AUGUST 30, 2005 PARSONS PAGE 6-1 BURBANK AVENUE ANNEXATION DRAFT SUBSEQUENT EIR PREPARERS

Merritt Smith Consulting

Staff Member Role Michael Fawcett, Ph.D Biological Resources Dave Smith, Ph.D

Illingworth & Rodkin

Staff Member Role Michael Thill Noise James Reyff Air Quality

Winzler & Kelly

Staff Member Role Pat Collins Document Review

AUGUST 30, 2005 PARSONS PAGE 6-2