Initial Study MND - Sonoma County Agricultural Preservation and ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Taylor MountainINITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATIONc. Would the project result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteriapollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal orstate ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceedquantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)?LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT. As stated above, the Bay Area Air Basin is a nonattainment area forState and federal ozone standards and the national particulate matter standard (PM 10 ).Construction of the staging areas and allowed visitor-serving development would temporarilyincrease air emissions, but given the phased approach to development of the property, emissionlevels are not expected to result in a cumulatively considerable net increase in any criteriapollutant.Construction. During construction, emissions would be generated by vehicles and equipmentat the proposed staging areas and along roadways used to access the property. Theseemissions would create precursors to ozone, and dust contributing to regional PM 10 levels.These emissions, however, would be relatively minor and not cumulatively considerable.Furthermore, the use of air quality BMPs, as recommended by the BAAQMD would minimizeconstruction emissions.Operations. Emissions from operation of the Preserve would be associated with park user andemployee vehicles and to a very limited extent, BBQs and campfires. BBQ and firepit use wouldbe limited to one location in the Preserve, so emissions from these sources would be very low.In addition, Master Plan Standard S231 prohibits camping and cooking fires on Spare the Airdays. The park visitor trips would not necessarily be new trips in the region. It is likely thatsome of these trips would have previously occurred at other recreational facilities in thecounty. In fact, vehicle miles travelled may decrease in the region with the addition of thispublicly-accessible open space near the cities of Santa Rosa and Rohnert Park. Furthermore,the Master Plan includes guidelines to encourage bus, pedestrian and bicyclist access to thepark, thereby minimizing automobile travel and associated emissions, and reducing greenhousegases over the long-term. In particular, residents living within ½ mile of a Taylor Mountaintrailhead, unless disabled, would be strongly encouraged to use alternative modes oftransportation to access the project site. Given the close proximity of the Taylor MountainPreserve to urban areas and the Master Plan’s guidelines encouraging the use of alternativeforms of transportation to access the Preserve, the overall operational emissions would notresult in a cumulatively considerable net increase in criteria pollutants.d. Would the project expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations?NO IMPACT. Sensitive receptors are members of the population that are most vulnerable topotential impacts, which are generally children and the elderly but can include residents nearproject areas. Implementation of the Master Plan would not result in generation of substantialpollutant concentrations and would therefore result in no impacts on sensitive receptors.Furthermore, there are no sensitive receptors in close proximity to the primary access pointsand staging areas. Nearby offsite residential uses and the Sonoma Academy are greater than500 feet away from any proposed staging area.Final B-40 September 2012
Taylor MountainINITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATIONe. Would the project create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people?NO IMPACT. Implementation of the Master Plan does not involve practices or facilities thatwould create objectionable odors.f. Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have asignificant impact on the environment?LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT. The proposed project would generate GHG emissions throughconstruction activities; however, the period of construction at any one staging area would beshort-term. The primary sources of GHGs during construction would be those associated withthe daily commute of construction workers and construction vehicle exhaust. Althoughconstruction GHG emissions would not be substantial, they could be further minimized by BestManagement Practices, as identified in Mitigation Measure 3-1 (above). Also, Master Plan S89calls for use of recycled materials for trail construction.During park operations, vehicle trips to and from the site would generate GHG emissions.However, as noted in Items (c) and (g), it is likely that not all of the vehicle trips will be new inthe region. The Preserve’s location adjacent to a populated urban area serves to draw visitorsfrom nearby areas that currently travel by vehicle to other regional park facilities. Theprovision of pedestrian and bicycle facilities will encourage park users to access the site withoutthe use of vehicles.g. Conflict with any applicable plan, policy or regulation of an agency adopted for thepurpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT. The proposed project would generate GHG emissions duringconstruction activities and operation; however, the overall project would allow for accessiblerecreational uses in close proximity to urban centers, which would have the potential to reducevehicle recreational trip lengths. Furthermore, the Master Plan includes guidelines forfacilitating alternative access (e.g., transit and bicycle) to the Preserve, which would serve toreduce GHG emissions. In doing so, the Master Plan would be consistent with AB 32 GHGreduction goals.September 2012 B-41 Final
Page 3: Taylor Mountain Regional Park and O
Page 6: Taylor MountainINITIAL STUDY/MITIGA
Page 9 and 10: Taylor MountainINITIAL STUDY/MITIGA
Page 51: Taylor MountainINITIAL STUDY/MITIGA
Page 103 and 104:
Taylor MountainINITIAL STUDY/MITIGA
Page 105 and 106:
Page 107 and 108:
Page 109 and 110:
Page 111 and 112:
Page 113 and 114:
Page 115 and 116:
Page 117 and 118:
Page 119 and 120:
Page 121 and 122:
Page 123 and 124:
Page 125 and 126:
Page 127 and 128:
Page 129 and 130:
Page 131 and 132:
Page 133 and 134:
Page 135 and 136:
Page 137 and 138:
Page 139 and 140:
Page 141 and 142:
Page 143 and 144:
Page 145 and 146:
Page 147 and 148:
Page 149 and 150:
Page 151 and 152:
Page 153 and 154:
Page 155 and 156:
Page 157 and 158:
Page 159 and 160:
Page 161 and 162:
Page 163 and 164:
Page 165 and 166:
Page 167 and 168:
Page 169 and 170:
Page 171 and 172:
Page 173 and 174:
Page 175 and 176:
Page 177 and 178:
Page 179 and 180:
Page 181 and 182:
Page 183 and 184:
show all

Initial Study MND - Sonoma County Agricultural Preservation and ...

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?