Cities Index.
Minutes

Cloverdale City Council
September 24, 2025

Document
Minutes
Meeting
September 24, 2025
Body
Cloverdale City Council
Pages
4
Original file
48.7 MB
Text extracted from the city's file for reading and search. Open the original on www.cloverdale.net. That file is the official record.

City Council Meeting Minutes – September 24, 2025 - Page 1 of 5 124 N. Cloverdale Boulevard
Cloverdale, CA 95425
Phone: 707-894-2521
www.cloverdale.net

MINUTES

REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL AND JOINT MEETING OF THE CLOVERDALE

COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT SUCCESSOR AGENCY BOARD OF DIRECTORS WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 24, 2025
6:00 PM

CLOVERDALE PERFORMING ART CENTER
209 N. CLOVERDALE BOULEVARD, CLOVERDALE, CA 95425
A. OPENING PUBLIC SESSION
A.1 Call to Order
Mayor Lands called the meeting to order at 6:02 p.m.

A.2 Pledge of Allegiance
Mayor Lands led the pledge of allegiance.

A.3 Roll Call

Present: Mayor Lands, Vice Mayor Wheeler, Councilmembers: Laskey, Marquez

Absent: Councilmember Morgenstern
A.4 Conflict of Interest Declaration
None.

A.5 Agenda Review (Changes and/or Deletions)
None.

B. PUBLIC COMMENTS
B.1 Verbal Comments
None.

B.2 Written Comments
• Week Without Driving - Zoger
C. STUDENT LIAISON REPORT
C.1 Liaison Valeria Anguiano Report:

Mayor Lands introduced newly appointed Liaison Anguiano.

Liaison Anguiano reported and responded to Councilmember inquiries.

City Council Meeting Minutes – September 24, 2025 - Page 2 of 5 D. PROCLAMATIONS
D.1 National Hispanic Heritage Month
Vice Mayor Wheeler read the proclamation.

Recipient: Griselda Alonso, accompanied by David Garcia and Ivan Olivera accepted on behalf of Gris Alonso-Soto.

D.2 Pollution Prevention Week and Creek Week
Councilmember Laskey read the proclamation.

Recipient: Michael Thompson
E. PRESENTATIONS
E.1 Oath of Office Ceremony
Police Chief Parker introduced and conducted a ceremonial oath of office for Police Officer Alex Segobiano.

Police Officer Alex Segobiano addressed the City Council.

F. CONSENT CALENDAR
A motion was made by Vice Mayor Wheeler, seconded by Councilmember Marquez, to waive reading of the text and adopt the Consent Calendar.

F.1 Approval of Minutes - August 13, 2025
ACTION: Approved as submitted.

F.2 Approval of Minutes - August 27, 2025
ACTION: Approved as submitted.

F.3 Appoint the Cloverdale Voting Delegate for the 2025 League of California Cities Annual Conference
ACTION: Designated Councilmember Marquez as Cloverdale’s voting delegate for the League of California Cities 2025 Annual Conference and Expo scheduled for October 8-10, 2025 and authorize the City Clerk to submit the 2025 Voting Delegate through the League of California Cities online submission portal by Wednesday September 24, 2025 (Immediately following the City Council Meeting).

F.4 Consider Adjusting the Maximum Allowable Solid Waste, Composting and Recycling Rates under the Solid Waste Collection Franchise Agreement between the City and Recology Sonoma Marin Inc. (Recology)
ACTION: Resolution Adopted
City Council Meeting Minutes – September 24, 2025 - Page 3 of 5 RESOLUTION NO. 053-2025 ENTITLED: RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF

CLOVERDALE APPROVING THE MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE SOLID WASTE, COMPOSTING AND

RECYCLING RATES UNDER THE SOLID WASTE COLLECTION FRANCHISE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY AND RECOLOGY SONOMA MARIN INC.

F.5 Consider adjusting the Water Leak Adjustment Policy ACTION: Resolution Adopted
RESOLUTION NO. 054-2025 ENTITLED: RESOLUTION OF THE CLOVERDALE CITY COUNCIL AMENDING THE WATER LEAK ADJUSTMENT POLICY INCREASING THE ONE-TIME $410 CREDIT TO A $460 CREDIT TOWARD THE WATER BILL
F.6 Award of Contract for Pond 3 Biosolids Removal Project at the City of Cloverdale Wastewater Treatment Plant
ACTION: Resolution Adopted
RESOLUTION NO. 055-2025 ENTITLED: RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CLOVERDALE AWARDING THE CONTRACT FOR THE POND 3 BIOSOLIDS REMOVAL PROJECT TO SYNAGRO WWT, INC. IN THE AMOUNT OF $598,309, WITH A 10% CONTINGENCY ($59,831), FOR A TOTAL AUTHORIZED BUDGET NOT TO EXCEED $658,140; AND AUTHORIZE THE CITY

MANAGER TO DRAFT AND EXECUTE THE AGREEMENT AND APPROVE CHANGE ORDERS

WITHIN THE APPROVED CONTINGENCY
F.7 Consider Approval of Construction Contract for Soda Springs Ranch Site Improvements ACTION: Resolution Adopted
RESOLUTION NO. 056-2025 ENTITLED: RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY

OF CLOVERDALE AWARDING A CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT TO ANDERSEN EXCAVATING IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $123,066.73, WHICH INCLUDES BOTH DEMOLITION AND

CONSTRUCTION PROPOSALS, AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE THE

AGREEMENT AND RELATED DOCUMENTS
F.8 Consider Approval of Cavallo Construction Proposal for City Park Picnic/Gazebo Structure ACTION: Resolution Adopted
RESOLUTION NO. 057-2025 ENTITLED: RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF

CLOVERDALE AWARDING A CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT TO CAVALLO CONSTRUCTION FOR A

NEW PICNIC/GAZEBO STRUCTURE AT CLOVERDALE CITY PARK IN THE AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $65,813.00, APPROVING A BUDGET AMENDMENT TO THE FY 25/26 BUDGET AND

AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE THE AGREEMENT AND RELATED DOCUMENTS G. PUBLIC HEARINGS
G.1 Consider Adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) in Connection with the Open Space Easement for the Soda Springs Ranch Open Space Preserve
City Council Meeting Minutes – September 24, 2025 - Page 4 of 5 Representative Mary Bean presented and responded to Councilmember inquiries and comments.

Mayor Lands opened and closed the Public Hearing.

A motion was made by Councilmember Marquez, seconded by Vice Mayor Wheeler, to waive reading of the text and adopt:

RESOLUTION NO. 058-2025 ENTITLED: RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF CLOVERDALE CITY

COUNCIL ADOPTING A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND MITIGATION

MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM (MMRP) IN CONNECTION WITH THE OPEN

SPACE EASEMENT FOR THE SODA SPRINGS RANCH OPEN SPACE PRESERVE LOCATED AT 180 FOOTHILL BOULEVARD APNS 115-220-006, 115-220-007, 115-220-019 The motion carried by the following vote:

Yes: (4) Mayor Lands, Vice Mayor Wheeler, Councilmembers: Laskey, Marquez No: (0) None
Abstain: (0) None

Absent: (1) Councilmember Morgenstern
H. NEW BUSINESS
H.1 Consider Adopting the Cloverdale Citizen Recognition Program (CCRP) City Clerk / PIO Maloney introduced the item and responded to Councilmember inquiries and comments.

A motion was made by Councilmember Laskey, seconded by Vice Mayor Wheeler, to adopt by motion the Cloverdale Citizen Recognition Program (CCRP) as amended.

The motion carried by the following vote:

Yes: (4) Mayor Lands, Vice Mayor Wheeler, Councilmembers: Laskey, Marquez No: (0) None
Abstain: (0) None

Absent: (1) Councilmember Morgenstern
H.2 Consider Authorization to Purchase and Install a Portable Office Building at the Cloverdale Municipal
Public Works Director Montanye presented and responded to Councilmember inquiries and comments.

A motion was made by Vice Mayor Wheeler, seconded by Councilmember Marquez, to waive reading of the text and adopt:

City Council Meeting Minutes – September 24, 2025 - Page 5 of 5 RESOLUTION NO. 059-2025 ENTITLED: RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF

CLOVERDALE AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE AN AGREEMENT WITH

ANAYA CONSTRUCTION FOR THE PURCHASE AND INSTALLATION OF TWO PORTABLE

OFFICE BUILDING AT THE CLOVERDALE MUNICIPAL AIRPORT
The motion carried by the following vote:

Yes: (4) Mayor Lands, Vice Mayor Wheeler, Councilmembers: Laskey, Marquez No: (0) None
Abstain: (0) None

Absent: (1) Councilmember Morgenstern
I. COUNCILMEMBER REPORTS
Councilmember Marquez and Laskey reported.

J. LEGISLATIVE REPORTS, LETTERS OF SUPPORT/OPPOSITION
J.1 Letter of Support for Alexander Valley Healthcare - Measure O Behavioral Health and Homelessness Pathways to Sustainability Application
• Letter of Support - AVH
• Letters of Support for Pending Legislation - AB526, AB527, AB531 • Letter of Opposition - SB79
K. CITY MANAGER/CITY ATTORNEY REPORTS
City Manager Thompson reported.

L. COUNCIL DIRECTION ON FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS
Create Emergency Critical Call list (School, Fire) - Wheeler M. ADJOURNMENT
Mayor Lands adjourned the meeting at 7:17 p.m. to the next regular meeting of the Cloverdale City Council scheduled for October 8, 2025.

APPROVED ON: October 22, 2025
__________________________
Mike Maloney, City Clerk
124 N. Cloverdale Boulevard
Cloverdale, CA 95425
Phone: 707-894-2521
www.cloverdale.net
The Cloverdale City Council welcomes public interest, attendance, and in-person participation at meetings.

Open session meetings are held in-person at the Cloverdale Performing Art Center. You may also view the live streams online: Zoom: www.zoom.us/join Meeting ID: 823 1668 4527 | Youtube:cloverdale.net/youtube ATTENTION - the meeting location has been experiencing significant technical difficulties for Livestreaming; Staff is attending to this matter, but reliability is not guaranteed to date - please attend in person.

A. OPENING PUBLIC SESSION
A.1 Call to Order
A.2 Pledge of Allegiance
A.3 Roll Call
A.4 Conflict of Interest Declaration
A.5 Agenda Review (Changes and/or Deletions)
B. PUBLIC COMMENTS
B.1 Verbal Comments
Any person wishing to speak in person on an item not listed on the agenda may do so at this time.

Pursuant to the Brown Act, the City Council is not allowed to consider issues or take action on any item not listed on the agenda. Three minutes are allotted to each speaker.

B.2 Written Comments
Public written communications sent to Council on items not listed on the agenda may be discussed at this time. Written communications to be discussed will be listed below, if any AGENDA

REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL AND JOINT MEETING OF THE CLOVERDALE COMMUNITY

DEVELOPMENT SUCCESSOR AGENCY BOARD OF DIRECTORS
WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 24, 2025
6:00 PM

CLOVERDALE PERFORMING ART CENTER
209 N. CLOVERDALE BOULEVARD, CLOVERDALE, CA 95425
1 C. STUDENT LIAISON REPORT
C.1 Liaison Valeria Anguiano Report:

D. PROCLAMATIONS
D.1 National Hispanic Heritage Month
Recipient: Gris Alonso-Soto
D.2 Pollution Prevention Week and Creek Week
Recipient: Michael Thompson
E. PRESENTATIONS
E.1 Oath of Office Ceremony
Recipient: Police Officer Alex Segobiano
F. CONSENT CALENDAR
All items under the Consent Calendar will be considered together by one acBon of the City Council unless any Councilmember or member of the public requests that an item be removed and considered separately.

F.1 Approval of Minutes - August 13, 2025
Recommended Action(s):

Approve the August 13, 2025 Draft Minutes
F.2 Approval of Minutes - August 27, 2025
Recommended Action(s):

Approve the August 27, 2025 Draft Minutes
F.3 Appoint the Cloverdale Voting Delegate for the 2025 League of California Cities Annual Conference Recommended Action(s):

Designate Cloverdale's voting delegate for the League of California Cities 2025 Annual Conference and Expo scheduled for October 8-10, 2025 and authorize the City Clerk to submit the 2025 Voting Delegate through the League of California Cities online submission portal by Wednesday September 24, 2025 (Immediately following the City Council Meeting).

Councilmember Marquez is the only councilmember attending the conference, and is therefore the only eligible voting delegate.

Week WIthout Driving - Zoger
Liaison Anguiano Report
Proclamation: Hispanic Heritage Month
Proclamation: Pollution Prevention / Creek Weeks
CC Minutes - August 13, 2025 (Draft)
CC Minutes - August 27, 2025 (Draft)
2 F.4 Consider Adjusting the Maximum Allowable Solid Waste, Composting and Recycling Rates under the Solid Waste Collection Franchise Agreement between the City and Recology Sonoma Marin Inc. (Recology)
Recommended Action(s):

Adopt a Resolution Entitled, “Resolution of the City Council of the City of Cloverdale Approving the Maximum Allowable Solid Waste, Composting and Recycling Rates under the Solid Waste Collection Franchise Agreement between the City and Recology Sonoma Marin Inc.” F.5 Consider adjusting the Water Leak Adjustment Policy Recommended Action(s):

Adopt a Resolution Entitled, “A Resolution of the Cloverdale City Council Amending the Water Leak Adjustment Policy increasing the one-time $410 credit to a $460 credit toward the water bill.” F.6 Award of Contract for Pond 3 Biosolids Removal Project at the City of Cloverdale Wastewater Treatment Plant
Recommended Action(s):

Adopt a Resolution Entitled: “A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Cloverdale awarding the contract for the Pond 3 Biosolids Removal Project to Synagro WWT, Inc. in the amount of $598,309, with a 10% contingency ($59,831), for a total authorized budget not to exceed $658,140; and authorize the City Manager to draft and execute the agreement and approve change orders within the approved contingency
F.7 Consider Approval of Construction Contract for Soda Springs Ranch Site Improvements Recommended Action(s):

Adopt a Resolution Entitled, "A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Cloverdale Awarding a Construction Contract to Andersen Excavating in an amount not to exceed $123,066.73, which includes both demolition and construction proposals, and Authorizing the City Manager to Execute the Agreement and Related Documents."
Agenda Report
Attachment 1 - 2025 Voting Delegate Information
Attachment 2 - Voting Delegate Reminder
Agenda Report
Attachment 1 - Resolution
Attachment 2 - Exhibit A - Rates Memo
Agenda Report
Attachment 1 - Resolution
Attachment 2 - Exhibit A - Adjustment Policy
Agenda Report
Attachment 1 - Resolution
Attachment 2 - Exhibit A - Bid
Agenda Report
Attachment 1 - Resolution
Attachment 2 - Exhibit A - Proposal
Attachment 3 - Exhibit B - Proposal
3 F.8 Consider Approval of Cavallo Construction Proposal for City Park Picnic/Gazebo Structure8 Recommended Action(s):

Adopt a Resolution Entitled, "A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Cloverdale Awarding a Construction Contract to Cavallo Construction for a new picnic/gazebo structure at Cloverdale City Park in the amount not to exceed $65,813.00, Approving a budget Amendment to the FY 25/26 Budget and Authorizing the City Manager to Execute the Agreement and Related Documents." G. PUBLIC HEARINGS
G.1 Consider Adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) in Connection with the Open Space Easement for the Soda Springs Ranch Open Space Preserve
Recommended Action(s):

Adopt a Resolution Entitled, “A resolution of the City of Cloverdale City Council adopting a mitigated negative declaration and mitigation monitoring and reporting program (MMRP) in connection with the open space easement for the Soda Springs Ranch Open Space Preserve located at 180 Foothill Boulevard APNs 115-220-006, 115-220,007, 115-220-019.”
H. NEW BUSINESS
H.1 Consider Adopting the Cloverdale Citizen Recognition Program (CCRP) Recommended Action(s):

Adopt by motion the Cloverdale Citizen Recognition Program (CCRP).

H.2 Consider Authorization to Purchase and Install a Portable Office Building at the Cloverdale Municipal Recommended Action(s):

Adopt A Resolution Entitled: “A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Cloverdale Authorizing the City Manager to Execute an Agreement with Anaya Construction for the Purchase and Installation of One Portable Office Building at the Cloverdale Municipal Airport.” Agenda Report
Attachment 1 - Resolution
Attachment 2 - Exhibit A - Quote
Attachment 3 - Exhibit B - Budget Amendment
Agenda Report
Attachment 1 - Resolution
Attachment 2 - Exhibit A - ISMND
Attachment 3 - Appendix A to Exhibit A Air Quality GHG Emissions Attachment 4 - Appendix B to Exhibit A Bio Resources Assessment Attachment 5 - Appendix C to Exhibit A Cultural Resources Info Attachment 6 - Appendix D to Exhibit A Geology and Soils info Attachment 7 - Appendix E to Exhibit A Noise Supporting Info Attachment 8 - Exhibit B - MMRP
Attachment 9 - Presentation
Agenda Report
Attachment 1 - Citizen Recognition Program
4 OR
Adopt a Resolution Entitled: ““A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Cloverdale Authorizing the City Manager to Execute an Agreement with Anaya Construction for the Purchase and Installation of Two Portable Office Building at the Cloverdale Municipal Airport.” I. COUNCILMEMBER REPORTS
Councilmembers may provide verbal informational reports regarding their participation in assigned subcommittees, regional boards and commissions, Ad Hoc committees, and other community meetings or civic activities.

J. LEGISLATIVE REPORTS, LETTERS OF SUPPORT/OPPOSITION
J.1 Letter of Support for Alexander Valley Healthcare - Measure O Behavioral Health and Homelessness Pathways to Sustainability Application
K. CITY MANAGER/CITY ATTORNEY REPORTS
Staff may provide verbal informational updates on City business, legal matters, and community activities.

L. COUNCIL DIRECTION ON FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS
Councilmembers may request placement of items on future City Council or Council SubcommiMee agendas.

Placement requires consensus of the City Council.

M. ADJOURNMENT
To the next regular meeting of the Cloverdale City Council scheduled for October 8, 2025.

IMPORTANT NOTICES REGARDING CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS
PUBLIC COMMENTS: Members of the public may provide comment on an agenda item in-person during the public comment periods. Commenters will have three (3) minutes to speak. City Council is unable to respond directly to questions or enter into dialogue with commenters. Comments may also be submitted prior to [email protected]. by 12 p.m. the day of the meeting. Submissions and supplemental attachments are considered public records pursuant to Government Code § 54957.5.

SPECIAL NEEDS ACCOMMODATIONS: In compliance with the Americans with DisabiliBes Act and Title VI, if you need special assistance to parBcipate in this meeBng, please contact the City Clerk's office at [email protected] or 707.894-1712. NoBficaBon at least 72 hours prior to the meeBng will enable the City to make reasonable accommodations are made to provide accessibility to the meeting.

AB 2449: Councilmembers parBcipate in person or teleconference methods consistent with tradiBonal provisions of the Brown Act,Government Code § 54953(b), unless the meeBng is being held pursuant to provisions of AB 2449. If a technical issue arises with Zoom or the dial-in opBon, the meeBng will conBnue unless it is being held pursuant to the provisions of Assembly Bill 2449.

AB 343: Any wriBngs or documents provided to a majority of the City Council regarding any item on this agenda will be made available for public inspecBon in the City Hall offices located at 124 N. Cloverdale Blvd., Cloverdale, CA 95425 during normal business hours as provided by Assembly Bill 343.

WAIVER WARNING: If you challenge decisions/direcBons of the City Council in court, you may be limited to raising only Agenda Report
Attachment 1 - Resolution (Option 1)
Attachment 2 - Resolution (Option 2)
Exhibit A - Portable Proposal
Letter of Support - AVH
Letters of Support for Pending Legislation - AB526, AB527, AB531 Letter of Opposition - SB79
5 those issues you or someone else raised at public hearings described in this agenda, or in wriMen correspondence delivered to the City of Cloverdale, or prior to, the public hearing.

AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING
The City Clerk’s Office does hereby declare that, in accordance with California Government Code § 54954.2(a), this agenda for the above stated meeting(s) was posted at least 72 hours prior to the meeting (24 hours prior to a Special Meeting) on the outdoor bulletin board at City Hall, 124 N. Cloverdale Blvd., Cloverdale, CA, 95425 and the Cloverdale Performing Art Center, 209 N. Cloverdale Blvd., Cloverdale, CA, 95425, and online at www.cloverdale.net/agendacenter. The agenda is also available for public review at City Hall at least 24 hours in advance of the meeting.

Date posted: September 18, 2025 | Time posted: 12:10 p.m. | City Clerk Signature: s/Mike Maloney 6 From: [email protected]
To: City Council
Subject: FW: Save the Date! Week Without Driving Dear Council Members Harvey, Sparks, Vice Mayor Lemus and Mayor Ford,
Date: Monday, September 22, 2025 11:36:33 AM
Attachments: image001.png
image003.png
image004.png
image005.png
sign-the-petition-to-challenge-sonoma-county-leaders-to-go-one-week-withoutdriving_signatures_202509190711.pdf Sonoma WWD Kick Off Party with bikeshare.png
Dear Council Members
I’m following up on the Week Without Driving event here in Sonoma County . We’re very excited about the event and we are not alone!. Over 200 Sonoma County constituents have signed a petition asking their elected officials to take the challenge. (see attached list).

National Week Without Driving:

When: Monday, Sept 29 - Sunday, Oct 5
Where: Sonoma County & throughout the U.S.

What: Elected officials and other local leaders attempt to live a week of their lives without driving. This is an educational challenge to help decision makers and local leaders understand what life is like for the roughly 30% of their community that don't have access to a car.

Ways to Support and Participate int Sonoma County’s Week Without Driving
Attend the Kickoff Party on Saturday, Sept 27th from 2-4pm (741 Fourth St, Santa Rosa)- Details and RSVP
Promote the Kickoff Party on your social media (attached IG flyer).

Replace a car trip with a bike ride, bus ride, carpool.

Attempt to replace as many of these as possible during the week of Sept 29-Oct 5th.

Let us know that you are willing to make these attempts and we will congratulate you on our social media feed.

Every time you CAN’T replace a trip, make a note of it and think about what could be done to make that trip doable without a car and how you could help with that systemic change.

Send a photo or message regarding these successful (and unsuccessful!) trips and we’ll use those in our social media as well.

Assembly Member Damon Connolly participated last year and will do so again this year. Here’s what he had to say about it:
7 As a biker and active transit user, I am a big advocate for alternative and car-free transportation. By spending less time behind the wheel we can reduce traffic congestion, gain health benefits, cut emissions, and promote cleaner air for everyone. ….isn't just an eco-friendly choice, it's also a chance to save money, reduce stress, get some exercise, and connect with the city and community. I’m proud to support Sonoma County’s Week Without Driving. Let’s get out there and explore the public transportation in our community! Assemblymember Damon Connolly
Best wishes
Abigail Zoger
North Bay Transit Riders.

From: [email protected] <[email protected]>
Dear Council Members Rodgriguez, Elward, Hollingsworth-Adams, Vice Mayor Sanborn and Mayor Giudice,
I am writing today as a member of the North Bay Transit Riders. The national Week Without Driving event is coming to Sonoma County this year, and as a leader in Sonoma County, YOU are invited to participate! By experiencing a week, or a portion of a week, without driving, you can learn firsthand what life is like for those who cannot drive and be in a better position to advocate for the best transportation options for our community.

Please mark your calendars with the dates below! Our coalition will be sending more details along at the end of the month.
8 Sonoma County WWD Kick-Off party:

When: Saturday, September 27, 2:00 - 4:00 pm
Where: Sonoma Clean Power Customer Center, Santa Rosa
What: Kick-off party for all Sonoma County leaders who plan to participate National Week Without Driving:

When: Monday, Sept 29 - Sunday, Oct 5
Where: Sonoma County & throughout the U.S.

What: Elected officials and other local leaders attempt to live a week of their lives without driving.

This is an educational challenge to help decision makers and local leaders understand what life is like for the roughly 30% of their community that don't have access to a car.

More information is available on the National Week Without Driving Website, and up-to-date local events will be posted at Sonoma County Week Without Driving Facebook Page. We hope you will join this fun and educational opportunity to build community with those who are trying to build a more resilient and vibrant future for Sonoma County. Please reach out to me if you have questions!
Sincerely,
Abigail Zoger
and the whole Sonoma County Week Without Driving Coalition 9 10
All Sonoma County Elected Leaders and Government Workers. , 225 people have signed a petition on Action Network telling you to Sign The Petition To Challenge Sonoma County Leaders To Go One Week Without Driving.

Here is the petition they signed:

We challenge all Sonoma County elected officials and government workers to participate in the Week Without Driving, from September 29 to October 5, 2025.

Imagine trying to get to work, a medical appointment, or the grocery store without a car—when sidewalks are missing, buses are unreliable, and bike lanes are unsafe. For up to one-third of your constituents, this isn’t just a thought experiment—it’s their daily reality.

People with disabilities, older adults, youth, and those who can’t afford a car rely on alternative transportation. Yet our infrastructure often prioritizes drivers and leaves others behind.

By committing to a week without driving, Sonoma County leaders can:

Experience firsthand the challenges faced by non-drivers

Identify barriers in our streets, sidewalks, and transit systems

Lead with empathy to design safer, more inclusive communities

Last year, nearly 700 officials across the U.S. participated in the Week Without Driving, leading to policy changes, media coverage, and deeper understanding of the barriers faced by non-drivers. Sonoma County should be part of this growing movement for transportation equity.

Walk, bike, roll, or ride—but don’t drive. We urge you to join the movement and take this essential step toward a more accessible Sonoma County.

Sincerely,

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Imaginen tener que ir al trabajo, a una cita médica o al supermercado sin un automóvil, cuando faltan aceras, los autobuses son poco confiables y las ciclovías no son seguras. Para hasta un tercio de sus electores, esto no es solo un experimento mental. Es su realidad cotidiana.

Las personas con discapacidades, los adultos mayores, los jóvenes y quienes no pueden costear un automóvil dependen del transporte alternativo. Sin embargo, nuestra infraestructura suele priorizar a los conductores y deja atrás a los demás.

Al comprometerse a pasar una semana sin conducir, los líderes del Condado de Sonoma pueden:

Experimentar en carne propia los desafíos que enfrentan quienes no conducen

Identificar barreras en nuestras calles, aceras y sistemas de transporte

Liderar con empatía para diseñar comunidades más seguras e inclusivas

11 El año pasado, casi 700 funcionarios en todo EE. UU. participaron en “Una semana sin conducir” lo que dio lugar a cambios de políticas, cobertura mediática y una mayor comprensión de las barreras que enfrentan los no conductores. El Condado de Sonoma debe ser parte de este creciente movimiento por la equidad en el transporte.

Camina, pedalea, rueda o usa el transporte público, pero no conduzcas. Te instamos a unirte al movimiento y dar este paso esencial hacia un Condado de Sonoma más accesible.

Atentamente:

You can view each petition signer and the comments they left you below.

Thank you,
Transbay Coalition

1. Carter Lavin (ZIP code: 94610)

2. Abigail Zoger (ZIP code: 95405)

3. Ree Whitford (ZIP code: 94558)

4. Marc Vendetti (ZIP code: 94930)

5. Anne Cohen (ZIP code: 94903-3583)

6. David Warrender (ZIP code: 95405)

7. Phallon Davis (ZIP code: 95401)

8. Shelby Marvell (ZIP code: 94928)

9. Michelle Klimek (ZIP code: 95409)
I doubt anyone will take on the one week challenge.

10. Patricia Martin (ZIP code: 94511)

11. hans korve (ZIP code: 94558)

12. Robbie Mupawose (ZIP code: 95407)
Please improve the transit

13. Kelly Moy (ZIP code: 94901)
12 14. Chris Pimentel (ZIP code: 95405)

15. Ethan Cosgrove (ZIP code: 95405)

16. Ann Pedersen (ZIP code: 95404)

17. Casey Morrigan (ZIP code: 95405)

18. Indira Medina (ZIP code: 95403)
Bike it so you understand it!

19. Leilani Clark (ZIP code: 95401)

20. Joe Stein (ZIP code: 95404)

21. Michael Lipelt (ZIP code: 95404)
Please take the ride to work!

22. Keizen Li Qian (ZIP code: 95404)
I’m a biker and I want to live. Populations with access to easy car free transportation live longer, healthier lives.

23. Noor Rizvi (ZIP code: 94568)

24. Mathew Lopez (ZIP code: 95448)
Organizing public officials in Healdsburg

25. Marcus Navarra (ZIP code: 95472)

26. Abby Arnold (ZIP code: 95405)

27. AL Wellman (ZIP code: 95404)
Availability of alternatives to automobile transportation will be fundamentally important to reaching carbon neutrality goals to prevent climate change.

28. Kendra Toy (ZIP code: 94536)

29. Zack Hamburg (ZIP code: 94117)

30. Chris Newton (ZIP code: 94954)

31. Hollister Nadeau (ZIP code: 94954)
13 32. Poppiano Nelson-Smith (ZIP code: 94952)

33. Riva Bruenn (ZIP code: 94954)
Please try it out and see what we need!

34. Kelly Bond (ZIP code: 94954)

35. Ana Stoll (ZIP code: 94952)

36. Carol Eldridge (ZIP code: 95476)

37. Barbara Casady (ZIP code: 94930)

38. Jesus Maldonado (ZIP code: 94952)
Ywy

39. Melissa Hough (ZIP code: 95403)

40. Kira Baylor (ZIP code: 95401)

41. Wallace Rhine (ZIP code: 95421)

42. Helen Hays (ZIP code: 94595)

43. Bud McMahon (ZIP code: 95476)

44. AJ cho (ZIP code: 94579)

45. David Lightfoot (ZIP code: 95405)

46. Alexandria F (ZIP code: 95404)

47. Tina Ann (ZIP code: 94924)
please

48. Todd Snyder (ZIP code: 94115)

49. Katherine Roberts (ZIP code: 94117)

50. Spencer Tierney (ZIP code: 94618)

51. Emily Shartin (ZIP code: 95401)
14 52. Eris Weaver (ZIP code: 94931)

53. Megan Godsil (ZIP code: 95401)

54. Kayleigh Khandelwal (ZIP code: 94109)

55. Alexa Forrester (ZIP code: 95405)
Hooray for robust transportation options!

56. Connor Wolf (ZIP code: 95404)

57. Querido Galdo (ZIP code: 95445)

58. Leslie Fruchey (ZIP code: 94954)

59. Patricia Delara (ZIP code: 94065)

60. kristine pederson (ZIP code: 94611)

61. Russ McCracken (ZIP code: 95409)

62. CLINT GILBERT (ZIP code: 94952)

63. Phillip Plummer (ZIP code: 95409)

64. Evan Wiig (ZIP code: 95405)

65. Genevieve Franklin (ZIP code: 95401-4903)

66. Megan Arnold (ZIP code: 95402)

67. Derek Knowles (ZIP code: 95404)

68. Alison Zander (ZIP code: 95405)

69. Mario De Bello (ZIP code: 95404)

70. Ryan Petersen (ZIP code: 95405)

71. Carla Wiking (ZIP code: 95405)

72. Steve Courteau (ZIP code: 94901)
15 73. Barb Kobabe (ZIP code: 95407)
Let's all take a stand for equitable transportation! And, ride a bike if you are able.

74. Emmanuelle Benefield (ZIP code: 95404)

75. Crystal Browne (ZIP code: 95404)

76. Maïa Benefield (ZIP code: 95404)

77. Joan Rashti (ZIP code: 95401)

78. jennifer laporta (ZIP code: 95407)

79. Keith Korbel (ZIP code: 94928)

80. Mke Turgeon (ZIP code: 95405)

81. Diane Wheeler (ZIP code: 95401)

82. Laura Neish (ZIP code: 95405)

83. Chris Guenther (ZIP code: 95405)

84. Nick Sande (ZIP code: 95401)

85. Brian Gong (ZIP code: 95403)

86. Garrett Grubbs (ZIP code: 95403)
Do it!

87. Jasper von Seeburg (ZIP code: 95401)

88. Calum Weeks (ZIP code: 95401)

89. Prashant Patel (ZIP code: 95403)

90. Michael R. Watson (ZIP code: 95476)

91. El P. (ZIP code: 95481)

92. Jennie Schultz (ZIP code: 95403)
16 93. Laurie-Ann Barbour (ZIP code: 94931)
We need better car alternative ways to get around. Please take this challenge to learn about what needs improving.

94. Myrtie Webb (ZIP code: 95409)

95. An anonymous signer (ZIP code: 94952)

96. Jana Mariposa Muhar (ZIP code: 95401)

97. Karen Ratzlaff (ZIP code: 95404)

98. Asherah Weiss (ZIP code: 94931)
I think this could be a really powerful experience to help understand what it's like to go car-free!

99. Carl Mears (ZIP code: 94931)
The elected leaders should try it. It would be very educational! 100. Anila Roberts (ZIP code: 94931)
We need to make alternatives to driving more accessible. Healthy for the body, healthy for the planet. 101. Phyllis Senter (ZIP code: 95404)
102. ARTHUR REICHERT (ZIP code: 94931)
It would be eye-opening for everyone, including elected officials, to spend a week getting around without a car. I’m going to do this myself and solidarity with everyone else. 103. deborah Crippen (ZIP code: 95405)
104. Emmett Hopkins (ZIP code: 95472)
105. Daniel Lucchesi (ZIP code: 94928)
106. Nathan Spindel (ZIP code: 94952)
107. Collin Thoma (ZIP code: 95401 )
Please consider going a week without driving to help you better understand of the challenges of using public transportation. We serve people with disabilities an seniors and most are reliant on using public transportation but face daily challenges using public transportation. 108. christine Hoex (ZIP code: 95407)
109. Robert Bolival (ZIP code: 95117)
17 110. Gabriel Quintana Aguilar (ZIP code: 95401)
111. Victor Delpanno (ZIP code: 95404)
112. Janice Oakley (ZIP code: 95405)
113. Isabella Music (ZIP code: 95409)
114. Sandra Lee (ZIP code: 94928)
115. Thomas Nash (ZIP code: 94928)
116. Amy Pinto (ZIP code: 95404)
117. Steve Alexander-Larkin (ZIP code: 95401)
118. Leighann Lindsay (ZIP code: 95492)
119. DUC ANH TUAN LE (ZIP code: 95132)
120. John Rader (ZIP code: 95492)
121. David Parker (ZIP code: 94954)
See first hand the transit solutions your leadership represents. 122. Daniel Levitis (ZIP code: 95404)
123. Carla Wiking (ZIP code: 95405)
124. Jason Wiking (ZIP code: 95405)
125. Tim Ryan (ZIP code: 95405)
126. Vincent Hoagland (ZIP code: 95404-9765)
Please at least do it one day.
127. Malinda Painter (ZIP code: 95409)
Thank you for your time and consideration.
128. Virginia Reuter (ZIP code: 95404)
129. David Liebman (ZIP code: 95407)
Please attempt Week without Driving its time create a real transportation system that efficiently 18 moves people, building community wealth and values people. 130. Roberta Delgado (ZIP code: 95401)
Having moved back to Santa Rosa, after living for a time in Sebastopol, it is my goal to use my bicycle in lieu of my car for all local travel. I invite you to experience the adjustment that will require of me, hoping you will understand the infrastructure changes that will make that safer for this 76-year-old woman to reduce her environmental footprint.
131. Avery Figueroa (ZIP code: 95405)
132. Terrie Noll (ZIP code: 95401)
We need a complete, connected Class 1 bike network, bike boulevards, or paths separated from traffic by parked cars or bollard protected lanes. The only safe bike ride is protected by physical or geographic barriers.
133. Jeff Orr (ZIP code: 95404)
134. Christopher Jennings (ZIP code: 94954)
135. Clara Cardillo (ZIP code: 95472)
Mobility is essential! I support public transportation and safe walkable and bikeable spaces 136. Brian Piantanida (ZIP code: 94922)
137. Diane Kane (ZIP code: 94928)
i expect my local bus service schedule does not run frequent service to support reasonable travel times
138. Daniel Kim (ZIP code: 95407)
139. Linda McConnell (ZIP code: 95405)
140. Christine Dahl (ZIP code: 95405)
We support a week without driving!
141. Scott Silva (ZIP code: 95405)
Less cars = more happiness
142. Larissa Connors (ZIP code: 95409)
Our communities dependance on cars was manufactured by leaders with little vision and pushed by industry insiders looking to profit off a system that doesn't work for everyone. Please be brave enough to stand for building infrastructure that works for everyone in our community!

Thanks!
143. Rick Luttmann (ZIP code: 94928-1716)
19 144. Dave Townsend (ZIP code: 95404)
145. suki winship (ZIP code: 95405)
146. Roey Abastado (ZIP code: 94954)
147. Raja Abastado (ZIP code: 94954)
148. Sam Yungert (ZIP code: 95404)
149. Diego Roman Hernandez (ZIP code: 95401)
150. Diego Lopez (ZIP code: 95405)
151. Areli Garcia Garcia (ZIP code: 95403)
152. Fatima Kampmann (ZIP code: 94928)
I miss Oakland coz yeah I might get shot but I can get around easily with AC transit and BART. 153. Sarah Beth Olson (ZIP code: 95421)
154. Andre Temperatura (ZIP code: 95442)
155. Ida Mapelli (ZIP code: 95409)
156. Susan Ackerman (ZIP code: 95409)
Viva esta iniciativa!
157. Bianca Vargas (ZIP code: 95407)
158. Jedd Parker (ZIP code: 95405)
159. Aidan Escalera (ZIP code: 94931)
160. Marcos Escalera (ZIP code: 94931)
161. Brandon King-Canty (ZIP code: 94945)
162. Nicholas Mallonee (ZIP code: 95407)
163. Kelly Hennessy (ZIP code: 94931)
Great learning could be had. Empathy built. Bonding time with the locals. Appreciating your leadership in the community. All that for doing public transportation for a week, please. Plus 20 envirnoment benefits.
164. Stacey Castagnetto (ZIP code: 95401-8433)
165. I S (ZIP code: 94928)
166. Carlos Perez (ZIP code: 95401)
167. Jonathon Harris (ZIP code: 95401)
168. Alex Hong (ZIP code: 95407)
169. Meghan O’Leary (ZIP code: 94928)
170. Sophie Dixon-Sutton (ZIP code: 95404)
171. Teresa Cuseo (ZIP code: 95405)
172. Tom Conlon (ZIP code: 95476)
Skip driving. Arrive happy!
173. Denise Cadman (ZIP code: 95436)
174. Jessica Gilleran (ZIP code: 95405)
Thank you for your dedication to the sustainability of our community.

175. Kevin gilleran (ZIP code: 95401)
176. Kathleen Jamshidi (ZIP code: 95405)
177. Eben Guenther (ZIP code: 95405-7062)
178. Cameron Guenther (ZIP code: 95405)
179. Maya Dincin (ZIP code: 95448)
180. Kirsten Swinstrom (ZIP code: 95472)
181. Tonie Pillula (ZIP code: 94928)
Improve public transportation!
182. Shahrad Jamshidi (ZIP code: 95405)
21 183. Marsha Ashe (ZIP code: 94928)
Please
184. Kathy M (ZIP code: 95405)
185. Amelia Martinez (ZIP code: 94954)
186. Erica Lindstrom-Dake (ZIP code: 95406)
187. Kristina Lindstrom (ZIP code: 95472)
188. Susan Levine (ZIP code: 95472)
189. Page Willson (ZIP code: 95404)
190. Kris Murphey (ZIP code: 95409)
This is a great opportunity to improve our public transportation, and celebrate its successes! 191. Steve Birdlebough (ZIP code: 95409)
192. Eleanor Leshner (ZIP code: 95472)
193. Sunny Galbraith (ZIP code: 95472)
194. Richard Guthrie, Jr. (ZIP code: 95472)
Thanks for your leadership and your public service. I'm a teacher and I will try my best to give up driving this week. I encourage you to join.
195. Gloria Figueroa (ZIP code: 95492)
196. Brianna Hernandez (ZIP code: 95492)
197. Karen Carreno (ZIP code: 95492)
198. Michael Siminitus (ZIP code: 95472)
Our bike infrastructure is sorely lacking and would be the best investment we could make for our future. Sometimes referred to as preventative transportation, the health benefits (and public health savings) are enormous, not to mention the savings on road maintenance or the environmental impact.

Go a week biking here then do a day or two around Davis, CA for a night and day difference in experience/friction.
199. Terence Rodgers (ZIP code: 95472)
22 200. Jennifer Lofchie (ZIP code: 95472)
201. Paul Fritz (ZIP code: 95472)
It is important for our leaders to know how insufficient our public transportation system is. 23 24
]
Cloverdale City Council Student Liaison Report
September 24, 2025
By Valeria Anguiano Alfaro
Current Events
● Cloverdale High School:
○ Fall sports are in full swing. The current team sports in session are girls volleyball, Ed Cross Country,
co-ed cross country, boys JV and varsity football,
and girls cheerleading.
■ Homecoming Game: On Friday, October 17th
the Varsity Football Game will take place at
Cloverdale High School's football field at
7pm
■ Homecoming Dance: Saturday, October 18th
at 6pm at Cloverdale High School gym.
● Academics:
○ Friday, September 19th, is the last day before the first progress report period of the year.
● Student Body Activities:
○ The Student Club Fair for Cloverdale High School
Students will be happening September 17th and
18th. This will give students the opportunity to learn
about different clubs they can join, such as the
LGBTQ+I Club, Latino Club, Key Club, FFA, and
community service opportunities.
25 ○ Student Key Club members will be supporting the
Vineyard Race on Sunday, October 19th.
● Community Events:
○ The Cloverdale High School school counselor
informed the students about the Connection Is
Prevention Event happening Friday, September
19th, at Cloverdale Plaza. This community
gathering provides opportunities for community
members and service providers to celebrate
connection, have fun, and raise awareness about
suicide prevention and mental wellness.
● Student Concerns: Social Media & Mental Wellbeing
○ Many students have expressed growing concern
about the negative effects of social media,
particularly anonymous posts and online bullying.

These issues contribute to increased anxiety and can
make students feel less safe at school. It would be
valuable to promote greater awareness among
students and caregivers about education around the
impact of social media on mental health, as well as
encourage healthy online habits to better support
student well-being.
26 A PROCLAMATION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CLOVERDALE PROCLAIMING SEPTEMBER 15, 2025 THROUGH OCTOBER 15, 2025 AS NATIONAL HISPANIC HERITAGE MONTH WHEREAS, Hispanic Heritage Month began as a commemorative week when it was first introduced in June of 1968 by California Congressman George E. Brown. The push to recognize the contributions of the Latino community had gained momentum throughout the 1960s when the civil rights movement was at its peak and there was a growing awareness of the United States' multicultural identities; and WHEREAS, in 1968, President Lyndon B. Johnson first recognized Hispanic Heritage Week, later this was expanded to one month, and each successive President has continued this tradition, declaring September 15 through October 15 to be National Hispanic Heritage Month; and WHEREAS, President Biden issued a proclamation on September 13, 2024 declaring National Hispanic Heritage Month to honor and celebrate the culture, history, and contributions of the Latino Community.

WHEREAS, Governor Gavin Newsom issued a proclamation on September 15, 2024 declaring September 15 to October 15, 2024, as Latino Heritage Month in the State of California; and WHEREAS, Sonoma County has a long history of welcoming immigrants and is home to growing multiethnic and multicultural Latino populations; and
WHEREAS, the diverse Latino population of the County of Sonoma makes a significant economic contribution and has many profound positive influences on our community through strong commitment to family, faith, education, hard work, vibrant culture, and service; and WHEREAS, for over the past decades, Sonoma County Latino organizations and businesses have continued to foster the culture and traditions to our communities by being active community members and focusing on the areas of education, health, wellness, and the local economy; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Cloverdale is in deep appreciation of the diverse Latino population of our community and urge all citizens to join us during Latino Heritage Month in celebrating these extraordinary communities and their role in our County.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT PROCLAIMED that I, Todd Lands, Mayor, does hereby proclaim September 15 through October 15, 2025 as Latino Heritage Month in the City of Cloverdale.

SO ORDERED:

September 24, 2025
__________________________
Todd Lands, Mayor
27 PROCLAMATION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CLOVERDALE PROCLAIMING THE WEEK OF SEPTEMBER 15‐21, 2025 IS POLLUTION PREVENTION WEEK AND SEPTEMBER 22‐28, 2025 AS CREEK WEEK IN THE RUSSIAN RIVER WATERSHED WHEREAS, throughout the United States of America the week starting on the third Monday of September is recognized as National Pollution Prevention Week; and
WHEREAS, throughout much of California, including the Russian River watershed, cities, counties and other stewardship organizations are recognizing the fourth week of September as Creek Week; and WHEREAS, our pollution prevention practices are intrinsically linked to the health of our watershed lands and waterways; and
WHEREAS, the nearly 1,500 square miles of lands, 150 creeks and approximately 350,000 residents of the Russian River watershed are connected and mutually support each other; and WHEREAS, the City of Cloverdale supports programs to reduce pollution, increase the environmental quality of our watershed, and provide our communities with the knowledge to be effective stewards of the Russian River watershed lands and waterways; and
WHEREAS, pollution in the form of trash and debris, chemicals from industry and everyday living, and sediment from construction and many land uses and activities all have the potential to degrade the quality of life and the quality of resources within the Russian River watershed; and WHEREAS, the Russian River, along with its tributaries and associated features are important resources to the people of Sonoma County; and
WHEREAS, the City of Cloverdale strives to protect our lands and waterways through ongoing pollution prevention outreach which aims to raise awareness of the harmful effects of pollutants to our natural systems; and
WHEREAS, during Pollution Prevention Week and Creek Week, river and ocean clean up campaigns will take place throughout Sonoma and Mendocino County and the City of Cloverdale.

NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, the City Council of the City of Cloverdale proclaims that September 15‐21, 2025 is Pollution Prevention Week and September 22‐28, 2025 is Creek Week in the Russian River watershed, and asks all members of our community to support efforts to protect and enrich our watershed health by participating the many Pollution Prevention Week/Creek Week activities, and to take active steps to reduce pollution and care for our environment throughout the year.

SO ORDERED
September 24, 2025
___________________________
Todd Lands, Mayor
28 City Council Meeting Minutes - August 13, 2025 - Page 1 of 6 124 N. Cloverdale Boulevard
Cloverdale, CA 95425
Phone: 707-894-2521
www.cloverdale.net

MINUTES - DRAFT

REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL AND JOINT MEETING OF THE CLOVERDALE COMMUNITY

DEVELOPMENT SUCCESSOR AGENCY BOARD OF DIRECTORS
WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 13, 2025
5:15 CLOSED SESSION

CITY HALL CONFERENCE ROOM
124 N. CLOVERDALE BOULEVARD, CLOVERDALE, CA 95425
6:00 PM - OPEN SESSION

CLOVERDALE PERFORMING ART CENTER
209 N. CLOVERDALE BOULEVARD, CLOVERDALE, CA 95425
CLOSED SESSION - 5:15 PM

1. OPENING CLOSED SESSION

1.A Call to Order
Mayor Lands called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m.

1.B Roll Call

Present: Mayor Lands, Vice Mayor Wheeler, Councilmembers: Laskey, Marquez, Morgenstern

Absent: None

1.C Closed Session Agenda Review (Changes and/or Deletions) None.

2. PUBLIC COMMENTS ON CLOSED SESSION AGENDA:

None.

3. RECESS TO CLOSED SESSION TO HEAR THE FOLLOWING ITEM(S):

3.A CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNCIL - ANTICIPATED LITIGATION One (1) Case
Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956(d)(2)
Item was received and filed.

3.B CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNCIL - ANTICIPATED LITIGATION One (1) Case
Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956(d)(4)
29 City Council Meeting Minutes - August 13, 2025 - Page 2 of 6 Item was received and filed.

Mayor Lands adjourned Closed Session at 5:42 p.m.

OPEN SESSION – 6:00 PM
A. OPENING PUBLIC SESSION
A.1 Call to Order
Mayor Lands called the meeting to order at 6 p.m.

A.2 Pledge of Allegiance
Mayor Lands led the Pledge of Allegiance.

A.3 Roll Call

Present: Mayor Lands, Vice Mayor Wheeler, Councilmembers: Laskey, Marquez, Morgenstern

Absent: None.

A.4. Report Out on Closed Session
None.

A.5 Conflict of Interest Declaration
None.

A.6 Agenda Review (Changes and/or Deletions)
None.

B. PUBLIC COMMENTS
B.1 Verbal Comments
None.

B.2 Written Comments
- Introduction of the Progressive Tribal Alliance
- Cloverdale Rancheria Notification - 686 S. Cloverdale Blvd C. STUDENT LIAISON REPORT
None
D. PROCLAMATIONS
D.1 National Health Center Week
Councilmember Laskey read the Proclamation.

Alexander Valley Healthcare representatives received the Proclamation and addressed the Council.

Councilmembers Marquez, Wheeler, and Mayor Lands provided comments. 30 City Council Meeting Minutes - August 13, 2025 - Page 3 of 6 E. PRESENTATIONS
E.1 2025-2026 Assessment Roll
Sonoma County Clerk - Recorder – Assessor Deva Marie Proto presented and responded to Councilmember inquiries.

F. CONSENT CALENDAR
Mayor Lands pulled item F.2.

Public Comment: None.

A motion was made by Vice Mayor Wheeler, seconded by Councilmember Morgenstern, to waive reading of the text and adopt items F.1, F.3, F.4, of the Consent Calendar.

The motion carried by the following vote:

Yes: (5) Mayor Lands, Vice Mayor Wheeler, Councilmembers: Laskey, Marquez, Morgenstern No: (0)
Abstain: (0)

Absent: (0)
F.1 Consider Approval of a Professional Services Agreement with West Yost for Preparation of the 2025 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) Update
ACTION: Resolution Approved
RESOLUTION NO. 043-2025 ENTITLED: RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF

CLOVERDALE AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE A PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH WEST YOST FOR THE PREPARATION OF THE 2025 URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN (UWMP) UPDATE IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $124,900 F.3 Consider Modification of Adopted Cannabis Business Tax Rate ACTION: Resolution Approved
RESOLUTION NO. 044-2025 ENTITLED: RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF

CLOVERDALE APPROVING MODIFICATIONS TO THE PREVIOUSLY ESTABLISHED CANNABIS TAX RATE OF 3% FOR CULTIVATION, 1% FOR MANUFACTURING, 1% FOR DISTRIBUTION, 3.5% FOR

RETAIL AND A TIERED RATE FOR MICROBUSINESSES AT THE CANNABIS TAX RATE APPLICABLE FOR EACH COMPONENT OF BUSINESS ACTIVITY TO A UNIFORM TAX RATE OF 2.5% FOR ALL

CANNABIS BUSINESS TYPES AND REMOVING THE CANNABIS BUSINESS ANNUAL PERMIT AND

AUDIT FEE FROM THE MASTER FEE SCHEDULE
F.4 Consider Approving a Resolution Amending the Fiscal Year 2025-26 budget to reflect projects and expenditures budgeted in Fiscal Year 2024-25 that were either delayed or not completed fully
31 City Council Meeting Minutes - August 13, 2025 - Page 4 of 6 ACTION: Resolution Approved
RESOLUTION NO. 045-2025 ENTITLED: RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CLOVERDALE APPROVING A BUDGET AMENDMENT TO INCREASE THE FISCAL YEAR 2025-26 BUDGET FOR PROJECTS BUDGETED IN FISCAL YEAR 2024-25
Mayor Lands moved to pulled Consent Calendar item F.2.

F.2 Consider a Resolution Approving Amendment to At-Will Employment Agreement for City Manager Kevin Thompson to Provide a Salary Merit Increase City Attorney Mog introduced the item and Mayor Lands provided comments.

A motion was made by Councilmember Morgenstern, Seconded by Councilmember Laskey, to waive reading of the text and adopt:

RESOLUTION NO. 046-2025 ENTITLED: RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF

CLOVERDALE APPROVING AMENDMENT TO AT-WILL EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT WITH

CITY MANAGER KEVIN THOMPSON TO PROVIDE A SALARY MERIT INCREASE The motion carried by the following vote.

Yes: (5) Mayor Lands, Vice Mayor Wheeler, Councilmembers: Laskey, Marquez, Morgenstern No: (0)
Abstain: (0)

Absent: (0)
G. PUBLIC HEARINGS
None.

H. NEW BUSINESS
H.1 Consider the Award of Construction Contract to Terracon Constructors Inc. for the Cloverdale Water Treatment Plant Well and Station Improvement Project – Wells 7 & 8 Equipping Public Works Director Montanye introduced the item.

Public Comment: None.

A motion was made by Councilmember Marquez, seconded by Vice Mayor Wheeler, to waive reading of the text and adopt:

RESOLUTION NO. 047-2025 ENTITLED: RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CLOVERDALE ACCEPTING THE BID FROM TERRACON CONSTRUCTORS INC. FOR THE CLOVERDALE WATER TREATMENT PLANT WELL AND STATION IMPROVEMENT PROJECT – WELLS 7 & 8 EQUIPPING AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE A

CONSTRUCTION AGREEMENT
The motion carried by the following vote:
32 City Council Meeting Minutes - August 13, 2025 - Page 5 of 6 Yes: (5) Mayor Lands, Vice Mayor Wheeler, Councilmembers: Laskey, Marquez, Morgenstern No: (0)
Abstain: (0)

Absent: (0)
H.2 Consider authorization to Amend the Agreement with West Yost Associates to Provide City Engineer Services Through December 31, 2025
Public Works Director Montanye introduced the item.

Public Comment: None.

A motion was made by Councilmember Laskey, seconded by Councilmember Morgenstern, to waive reading of the text and adopt:

RESOLUTION NO. 048-2025 ENTITLED: RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF

CLOVERDALE AUTHORIZING AN AMENDMENT TO THE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT

WITH WEST YOST ASSOCIATES TO CONTINUE PROVIDING CITY ENGINEER SERVICES THROUGH DECEMBER 31, 2025
The motion carried by the following vote:

Yes: (5) Mayor Lands, Vice Mayor Wheeler, Councilmembers: Laskey, Marquez, Morgenstern No: (0)
Abstain: (0)

Absent: (0)
I. POTTER VALLEY PROJECT
Mayor Lands provided updates.

Councilmembers provided comments.

Councilmember Marquez provided updates.

J. LEGISLATIVE REPORTS, LETTERS OF SUPPORT/OPPOSITION
J.1 Letter of Support - Wildfire Prevention Grant
K. COUNCILMEMBER REPORTS
Councilmember Marquez provided updates on upcoming events and activities, the recently established community leadership committee, and attended meetings.

Councilmember Morgenstern provided updates on recently attended meetings.

Councilmember Laskey provided updates on recently attended meetings.

Mayor Lands provided updates on Administrative Subcommittee actions and Emergency Operation Center training, and provided information on the Mission 1 Honor Flight program.

L. CITY MANAGER/CITY ATTORNEY REPORTS
None.
33 City Council Meeting Minutes - August 13, 2025 - Page 6 of 6 M. COUNCIL DIRECTION ON FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS
Potter Valley Project Standing Item will be removed on future agendas.

N. ADJOURNMENT
Mayor Lands adjourned the meeting at 6:53 p.m. to the next regular meeting of the Cloverdale City Council scheduled for August 27, 2025.

APPROVED ON:
___________________________________
Mike Maloney, City Clerk
34 City Council Meeting Minutes - August 27, 2025 - Page 1 of 7 124 N. Cloverdale Boulevard
Cloverdale, CA 95425
Phone: 707-894-2521
www.cloverdale.net

MINUTES - DRAFT

REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL AND JOINT MEETING OF THE CLOVERDALE COMMUNITY

DEVELOPMENT SUCCESSOR AGENCY BOARD OF DIRECTORS
WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 27, 2025
5:00 CLOSED SESSION

CITY HALL CONFERENCE ROOM
124 N. CLOVERDALE BOULEVARD, CLOVERDALE, CA 95425
6:00 PM - OPEN SESSION

CLOVERDALE PERFORMING ART CENTER
209 N. CLOVERDALE BOULEVARD, CLOVERDALE, CA 95425
CLOSED SESSION - 5:00 PM

1. OPENING CLOSED SESSION

1.A Call to Order
Mayor Lands called the meeting to order at 5 p.m.

1.B Roll Call

Present: Mayor Lands, Vice Mayor Wheeler, Councilmembers: Laskey, Marquez, Morgenstern

Absent: None.

1.C Closed Session Agenda Review (Changes and/or Deletions) None.

2. PUBLIC COMMENTS ON CLOSED SESSION AGENDA:

None.

3. RECESS TO CLOSED SESSION TO HEAR THE FOLLOWING ITEM(S):

Mayor lands recessed to Closed Session at 5 p.m.

3.A CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNCIL - ANTICIPATED LITIGATION Initiation of Litigation - One (1) Case
Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(d)(4)
Item was received and filed.

3.B REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATIONS
Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.8
Property: APN 001-173-006
35 City Council Meeting Minutes - August 27, 2025 - Page 2 of 7 City Negotiator: City Manager & City Attorney
Property Owner: Sava Foundation
Under Negotiation: Price and Terms
Mayor Lands adjourned Closed Session at 5:41 p.m.

OPEN SESSION - 6:00 PM
A. OPENING PUBLIC SESSION
A.1 Call to Order
Mayor Lands called the meeting to order at 6:02 p.m.

A.2 Pledge of Allegiance
Mayor Lands led the Pledge of Allegiance.

A.3 Roll Call

Present: Mayor Lands, Vice Mayor Wheeler, Councilmembers: Laskey, Marquez, Morgenstern

Absent: None
A.4. Report Out on Closed Session
None.

A.5 Conflict of Interest Declaration
None.

A.6 Agenda Review (Changes and/or Deletions)
None.

B. PUBLIC COMMENTS
B.1 Verbal Comments
None.

B.2 Written Comments
None.

C. STUDENT LIAISON REPORT
None.

The Student Liaisons have recently been selected by the Joint City / CUSD Subcommittee and will begin their term at the September 10, 2025 meeting.

D. PROCLAMATIONS
D.1 Women's Equality Day Proclamation
Councilmember Marquez read the Proclamation.

Recipient: Sonoma County Commission on the Status of Women accepted the proclamation, but were not able to be present.
36 City Council Meeting Minutes - August 27, 2025 - Page 3 of 7 E. PRESENTATIONS
None.

F. CONSENT CALENDAR
Councilmember Laskey pulled item F.2.

A motion was made by Vice Mayor Wheeler, seconded by Councilmember Morgenstern, to waive reading of the text and adopt the Consent Calendar.

The motion carried by the following vote:

Yes: (5) Mayor Lands, Vice Mayor Wheeler, Councilmembers: Laskey, Morgenstern, Marquez No: (0) None
Abstain: (0) None

Absent: (0) None
F.1 Consider Approval of a Contract with JDS Emergency Management Specialists for Emergency Operations Center (EOC) Exercise Program and Emergency Operations Plan (EOP) Update
ACTION: Resolution Approved.

RESOLUTION NO.049-2025 ENTITLED: RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF

CLOVERDALE APPROVING AND AGREEMENT WITH JDS EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT

SPECIALISTS FOR EMERGENCY OPERATIONS CENTER (EOC) EXERCISE PROGRAM AND

EMERGENCY OPERATIONS PLAN (EOP) UPDATE, AUTHORIZES THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE THE AGREEMENT AND AMEND THE FY 2025/26 BUDGET TO INCLUDE $25,000 FOR

THIS CONTRACT
F.3 Minutes Approval - June 11, 2025
ACTION: Approved as Submitted.

F.4 Minutes Approval - June 25, 2025
ACTION: Approved as Submitted.

F.5 Minutes Approval - July 23, 2025
ACTION: Approved as Submitted.

Mayor Lands moved to item F.2:

F.2 Consider Approving a Resolution to Amend the Budget to Increase the Authorized Expenditure of PEG Funds for Public Meeting Audio/Visual Equipment in an Amount of $66,227
City Clerk Maloney introduced the item and responded to Councilmember inquiries and comments.

City Attorney Mog clarified the action available to the Council. 37 City Council Meeting Minutes - August 27, 2025 - Page 4 of 7 A Motion was made by Councilmember Marquez, seconded by Vice Mayor Wheeler, to waive reading of the text and adopt:

RESOLUTION NO. 050-2025 ENTITLED: RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY

OF CLOVERDALE APPROVING A BUDGET AMENDMENT TO INCREASE THE AUTHORIZED

EXPENDITURE OF PEG FUNDS FOR PUBLIC MEETING AUDIO/VISUAL EQUIPMENT BY $66,227
The motion carried by the following vote:

Yes: (5) Mayor Lands, Vice Mayor Wheeler, Councilmembers: Laskey, Morgenstern, Marquez No: (0) None
Abstain: (0) None

Absent: (0) None
G. PUBLIC HEARINGS
None.

H. NEW BUSINESS
H.1 Direction Regarding Installation of Crosswalk on Jefferson Street near Jefferson Elementary School
Public Works Director Montanye introduced the item.

Jefferson Elementary Principal Holden presented.

The Council discussed.

Public Comments:

Amanda Harrington spoke in support of improved safety measures.

Public Works Director Montanye provided comments and addressed CUSD, Council, and Public Comment recommendations.

Council discussed and provided direction to bring the item to the Infrastructure Subcommittee for mitigation measures.

H.2 Resilient Cloverdale scope of work for Fiscal Year 2025–2026 and Consider authorizing a $10,000 funding allocation and budget amendment
City Manager Thompson and Police Chief Parker introduced the item and Resilient Cloverdale representative Ennis reported and responded to Councilmember inquiries and comments.

Public Comments:

None.

A motion was made by Councilmember Marquez, seconded by Vice Mayor Wheeler, to waive reading of the text and adopt:
38 City Council Meeting Minutes - August 27, 2025 - Page 5 of 7 RESOLUTION NO. 051-2025 ENTITLED: RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY

OF CLOVERDALE APPROVING THE RESILIENT CLOVERDALE SCOPE OF WORK FOR FISCAL YEAR 2025–2026 AND AUTHORIZING A $10,000 FUNDING ALLOCATION AND BUDGET AMENDMENT TO THE FY 2025-26 BUDGET
The motion carried by the following vote:

Yes: (5) Mayor Lands, Vice Mayor Wheeler, Councilmembers: Laskey, Morgenstern, Marquez No: (0) None
Abstain: (0) None

Absent: (0) None
Resilient City Representative Ennis addressed the Council.

H.3 Response to 2024–2025 Sonoma County Civil Grand Jury Report, “Animal Services in Sonoma County: Separate and Not Equal.”
City Manager Thompson introduced the item and Police Chief Parker reported and responded to Councilmember inquiries.

Public Comments:

None.

A motion was made by Vice Mayor Wheeler, seconded by Councilmember Morgenstern, to waive reading of the text and adopt:

RESOLUTION NO. 052-2025 ENTITLED: RESPONSE TO 2024–2025 SONOMA COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY REPORT – “ANIMAL SERVICES IN SONOMA COUNTY: SEPARATE AND NOT EQUAL.”
The motion carried by the following vote:

Yes: (5) Mayor Lands, Vice Mayor Wheeler, Councilmembers: Laskey, Morgenstern, Marquez No: (0) None
Abstain: (0) None

Absent: (0) None
I. COUNCILMEMBER REPORTS
Councilmember Morgenstern reported on the Joint City / CUSD Subcommittee meeting.

Councilmember Marquez reported on the Zero Waste Sonoma meeting, Russian River Property Association Meeting.

Vice Mayor Wheeler reported on the Infrastructure Subcommittee meeting.

Mayor Lands reported out on local Potter Valley Project updates, the Cloverdale hosted Sonoma County Mayors and Councilmembers Association general meeting and Potter Valley Project presentation, regional Potter Valley Project updates, Naloxone distribution efforts with multiple 39 City Council Meeting Minutes - August 27, 2025 - Page 6 of 7 businesses and the Chamber of Commerce, commending Public Works Staff on recent projects and response times, commending the Police Department on their recent arrest, the Student Liaison selections, and a Car Wash update.

J. LEGISLATIVE REPORTS, LETTERS OF SUPPORT/OPPOSITION
J.1 Message From Mayor Lands (Sent to Council from the Chamber of Commerce) Mayor Lands addressed the letter.

K. CITY MANAGER/CITY ATTORNEY REPORTS
City Manager Thompson reported on the Furber Park playground ribbon cutting event.

L. COUNCIL DIRECTION ON FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS
None.

M. ADJOURNMENT
Mayor Lands adjourned the meeting at 7:10 p.m. to the next regular meeting of the Cloverdale City Council scheduled for September 10, 2025.

APPROVED ON:
______________________________
Mike Maloney, City Clerk
40 City Council Meeting Minutes - August 27, 2025 - Page 7 of 7 41 City Council/Successor Agency
Agenda Item Summary Agenda Item:

Meeting Date:

F.3
September 24, 2025
Agenda Section:

New Business
Staff Contact:

Mike Maloney, City Clerk
Agenda Item Title:

Voting Delegate appointment for the 2025 League of California Cities Annual Conference ________________________________________________________________________________________ Recommended Council Action(s):

Designate City’s voting delegate for the League of California Cities 2025 Annual Conference and Expo scheduled for October 8-10, 2025 and authorize the City Clerk to submit the 2025 Voting Delegate(s) through the League of California Cities online submission portal by Wednesday September 24, 2025 (Immediately following the City Council Meeting).

Councilmember Marquez is the only councilmember attending the conference, and is therefore the only eligible voting delegate.
________________________________________________________________________________________ Background:

The City of Cloverdale is a member of the League of California Cities (Cal Cities), an association of California city officials founded in 1898 to advocate for local control, provide legislative and legal advocacy, and support city officials through education and outreach. Each year, Cal Cities hosts the Annual Conference & Expo, a statewide gathering for city officials to collaborate, share resources, and address common challenges. The 2025 Annual Conference & Expo will be held October 8–10, 2025, at the Long Beach Convention Center.

As part of the conference, the Annual Business Meeting requires each member city to designate a voting delegate and up to two alternates. These representatives must be appointed by the City Council, registered for the conference, and at least one must attend the Business Meeting with the voting card in order to cast the City’s vote. The names of the delegate and alternates must be submitted to Cal Cities no later than Wednesday, September 24, 2025, so that voting records can be established. If no Council representative will attend the conference, no action is required.
________________________________________________________________________________________ Alternative Options:

None.
________________________________________________________________________________________ Subcommittee Recommendation:

None.
________________________________________________________________________________________ Budget/Financial Impact:

None.
________________________________________________________________________________________ Attachments:

1. Voting Delegate Packet
42 1400 K Street, Suite 400, Sacramento, CA 95814 • 916.658.8200 • calcities.org

DATE: Wednesday, July 16, 2025
TO: Mayors, Council Members, City Clerks, and City Managers RE: DESIGNATION OF VOTING DELEGATES AND ALTERNATES
League of California Cities Annual Conference and Expo, Oct. 8-10, 2025 Long Beach Convention Center
Every year, the League of California Cities convenes a member-driven General Assembly at the Cal Cities Annual Conference and Expo. The General Assembly is an important opportunity where city officials can directly participate in the development of Cal Cities policy.

Taking place on Oct. 10, the General Assembly is comprised of voting delegates appointed by each member city; every city has one voting delegate. Your appointed voting delegate plays an important role during the General Assembly by representing your city and voting on resolutions.

To cast a vote during the General Assembly, your city must designate a voting delegate and up to two alternate voting delegates, one of whom may vote if the designated voting delegate is unable to serve in that capacity. Voting delegates may either be an elected or appointed official.

Action by Council Required. Consistent with Cal Cities bylaws, a city’s voting delegate and up to two alternates must be designated by the city council. Please note that designating the voting delegate and alternates must be done by city council action and cannot be accomplished by individual action of the mayor or city manager alone.

Following council action, please submit your city’s delegates through the online submission portal by Wed., Sept. 24. When completing the Voting Delegate submission form, you will be asked to attest that council action was taken. You will need to be signed in to your My Cal Cities account when submitting the form.

Submitting your voting delegate form by the deadline will allow us time to establish voting delegate/alternate records prior to the conference and provide pre-conference communications with voting delegates.

Conference Registration Required. The voting delegate and alternates must be registered to attend the conference. They need not register for the entire conference; they may register for Friday only. Conference registration is open on the Cal Cities website.

Council Action Advised by September 24, 2025
43 For a city to cast a vote, one voter must be present at the General Assembly and in possession of the voting delegate card and voting tool. Voting delegates and alternates need to pick up their conference badges before signing in and picking up the voting delegate card at the voting delegate desk. This will enable them to receive the special sticker on their name badges that will admit the voting delegate into the voting area during the General Assembly.

Please view Cal Cities’ event and meeting policy in advance of the conference.

Transferring Voting Card to Non-Designated Individuals Not Allowed. The voting delegate card may be transferred freely between the voting delegate and alternates, but only between the voting delegate and alternates. If the voting delegate and alternates find themselves unable to attend the General Assembly, they may not transfer the voting card to another city official.

Seating Protocol during General Assembly. At the General Assembly, individuals with a voting card will sit in a designated area. Admission to the voting area will be limited to the individual in possession of the voting card and with a special sticker on their name badge identifying them as a voting delegate.

The voting delegate desk, located in the conference registration area of the Long Beach Convention Center in Long Beach, will be open at the following times: Wednesday, Oct. 8, 8:00 a.m.-6:00 p.m. and Thursday, Oct. 9, 7:30 a.m.-4:00 p.m. On Friday, Oct. 10, the voting delegate desk will be open at the General Assembly, starting at 7:30 a.m., but will be closed during roll calls and voting.

The voting procedures that will be used at the conference are attached to this memo.

Please share these procedures and this memo with your council and especially with the individuals that your council designates as your city’s voting delegate and alternates.

Once again, thank you for submitting your voting delegate and alternates by Wednesday, Sept. 24. If you have questions, please contact Zach Seals at [email protected].

Attachments:
• General Assembly Voting Guidelines
• Information Sheet: Cal Cities Resolutions and the General Assembly 44 1400 K Street, Suite 400, Sacramento, CA 95814 • 916.658.8200 • calcities.org General Assembly Voting Guidelines

1. One City One Vote. Each member city has a right to cast one vote on matters pertaining to Cal Cities policy.

2. Designating a City Voting Representative. Prior to the Cal Cities Annual Conference and Expo, each city council may designate a voting delegate and up to two alternates; these individuals are identified on the voting delegate form provided to the Cal Cities Credentials Committee.

3. Registering with the Credentials Committee. The voting delegate, or alternates, may pick up the city's voting card at the voting delegate desk in the conference registration area. Voting delegates and alternates must sign in at the voting delegate desk. Here they will receive a special sticker on their name badge and thus be admitted to the voting area at the General Assembly.

4. Signing Initiated Resolution Petitions. Only those individuals who are voting delegates (or alternates), and who have picked up their city’s voting card by providing a signature to the credentials committee at the voting delegate desk, may sign petitions to initiate a resolution.

5. Voting. To cast the city's vote, a city official must have in their possession the city's voting card and voting tool; and be registered with the credentials committee. The voting card may be transferred freely between the voting delegate and alternates but may not be transferred to another city official who is neither a voting delegate nor alternate.

6. Voting Area at General Assembly. At the General Assembly, individuals with a voting card will sit in a designated area. Admission to the voting area will be limited to the individual in possession of the voting card and with a special sticker on their name badge identifying them as a voting delegate.

7. Resolving Disputes. In case of dispute, the credentials committee will determine the validity of signatures on petitioned resolutions and the right of a city official to vote at the General Assembly.
45 Sixty days before the
Annual Conference
and Expo, Cal Cities
members may submit
policy proposals on
issues of importance
to cities. The resolution must
have the concurrence of at least
five additional member cities or
individual members.

How it works: Cal Cities
Resolutions and the General Assembly
General Assembly
General Resolutions Policy Committees
Developing League of California Cities policy is a dynamic process that engages a wide range of members to ensure Cal Cities represents cities with one voice. These policies directly guide Cal Cities’ advocacy to promote local decision-making, and lobby against statewide policies that erode local control.

The resolutions process and General Assembly is one way that city officials can directly participate in the development of Cal Cities policy. If a resolution is approved at the General Assembly, it becomes official Cal Cities policy. Here’s how resolutions and the General Assembly work.

The petitioned
resolution is an
alternate method
to introduce policy
proposals during
the annual conference. The
petition must be signed by
voting delegates from 10% of
member cities, and submitted to
the Cal Cities President at least
24 hours before the beginning
of the General Assembly.

Petitioned Resolutions
The Cal Cities
President assigns
general resolutions
to policy committees
where members
review, debate, and recommend
positions for each policy proposal.

Recommendations are forwarded
to the Resolutions Committee.

Who’s who
The Resolutions Committee
includes representatives
from each Cal Cities
diversity caucus, regional
division, municipal
department, and policy
committee, as well as
individuals appointed by
the Cal Cities president.

Voting delegates
are appointed by each
member city; every city
has one voting delegate.

The General Assembly is a
meeting of the collective
body of all voting
delegates —one from
every member city.

Seven policy committees
meet throughout the year
to review and recommend
positions to take on bills
and regulatory proposals.

Policy committees include
members from each Cal
Cities diversity caucus,
regional division, and
municipal department,
as well as individuals
appointed by the Cal
Cities president.

During the General Assembly, voting delegates
debate and consider general and petitioned
resolutions forwarded by the Resolutions
Committee. Potential Cal Cities bylaws
amendments are also considered at this meeting.

Cal Cities policy
development is a memberinformed process,
grounded in the voices and
experiences of city officials
throughout the state.

For more information visit www.calcities.org/general-assembly Prior to the Annual Conference and Expo
Resolutions Committee
The Resolutions
Committee considers
all resolutions. General
Resolutions approved1 by
either a policy committee
or the Resolutions Committee are next
considered by the General Assembly.

General resolutions not approved, or
referred for further study by both a
policy committee and the Resolutions
Committee do not go to the General
Assembly. All Petitioned Resolutions
are considered by the General
Assembly, unless disqualified.2
During the Annual Conference and Expo
1 The Resolution Committee can amend a general resolution prior to sending it to the General Assembly. 2 Petitioned Resolutions may be disqualified by the Resolutions Committee according to Cal Cities Bylaws Article VI. Sec. 5(f). 46 From: City_clerks on behalf of (League of California Cities PRIVATE LISTSERVE) via City_clerks To: (League of California Cities PRIVATE LISTSERVE) via Mayors_and_council; [email protected]; City_clerks@lists. cacities. org ([email protected]) Subject: [City_clerks] Reminder: Appoint a Voting Delegate for Cal Cities General Assembly Date: Wednesday, August 27, 2025 12:18:35 PM
Attachments: image001.png
ATT00001.txt
Dear Mayors, Council Members, City Clerks, and City Managers:

This is a friendly reminder to appoint a voting delegate for the Cal Cities General Assembly by Wed., Sept. 24!
The voting delegate appointment packet, requests the designation of a voting delegate by your city for the Annual Conference General Assembly. The voting delegate will represent your city at the General Assembly. Designation of the voting delegate must be done by council action. Additional information and the voting delegate appointment form can be found within the packet and online.

Once voting delegates are appointed, please submit the information through this online submission form. You will need to be logged into your My Cal Cities account to submit the form. Please appoint your delegates and submit the online form by Wed., Sept. 24.

Please email any questions to [email protected].

Please note: Cal Cities did not receive any general resolutions by the Aug. 9 submission deadline. Petitioned resolutions may be introduced during the Cal Cities Annual Conference and Expo. The General Assembly will convene if a petitioned resolution is introduced and qualified.

Isaac Black
Member Services Specialist
League of California Cities
Office: 916-658-8210
[email protected]| www.calcities.org
Strengthening California Cities
through Advocacy and Education
Facebook │ YouTube │ X │ LinkedIn │ Instagram
47 City Council/Successor Agency
Agenda Item Summary Agenda Item:

Meeting Date:

F.4
September 24, 2025
Agenda Section:

Consent
Staff Contact:

Kevin Thompson, City Manager
Agenda Item Title:

Adjusting Maximum Allowable Solid Waste, Composting and Recycling Rates under the Solid Waste Collection Franchise Agreement between the City and Recology Sonoma Marin Inc. (Recology) ________________________________________________________________________________ Recommended Council Action(s):

Adopt a Resolution Entitled, “A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Cloverdale Approving the Maximum Allowable Solid Waste, Composting and Recycling Rates under the Solid Waste Collection Franchise Agreement between the City and Recology Sonoma Marin Inc.” ________________________________________________________________________________ Background:

In March 2011, the City entered into a solid waste and recycling collection franchise agreement (Agreement) with Redwood Empire Disposal, Inc. (“RED”) for the exclusive right to perform collection services in Cloverdale. On August 18, 2017, the City received a request from RED to assign the Agreement to Recology Sonoma Marin (“RSM”), which is a wholly owned subsidiary of Recology, Inc. (“Recology”). In December 2017, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 084-2017, approving the assignment of the Agreement with RED to Recology. The current Agreement is set to expire in 2040.

Per the Agreement between the City and Recology, a Special Rate Review (Section 6.6) may occur in conjunction with a performance review (Section 8.3). Per Section 6.6, a Special Rate Review shall be requested in writing at least six (6) months prior to the proposed effective date of any rate adjustment.

In response to Recology’s rate application, City staff contracted with R3 Consulting Group, Inc. to perform an independent review of Recology’s special rate review application along with a Performance Review of Recology’s services in the City.

This report provides a compliance review of the proposed rate adjustments submitted by Recology Sonoma Marin (RSM) for rates effective September 1, 2025, through August 30, 2026. The analysis evaluates the adjustments against the provisions of the Franchise Agreement, specifically Sections 6.5 (Refuse Rate Index Adjustments) and 6.7 (Step Increase), and reviews supporting audited financial data.

1. Rate Adjustment Mechanism
• Refuse Rate Index (RRI): A 2.66% adjustment was applied, based on labor, fuel, vehicle, and other cost indices, consistent with the agreement. 48 City Council/Successor Agency Agenda Item Summary
September 24, 2025

Page 2 of 3 ends

• Step Increase: A 1.88% step increase was added, as allowed by Section 6.7. • Pass-Through Costs: Disposal tipping fees increased by 4.07% and composting fees by 0.51%, which are accurately applied per contract provisions.

2. Financial Support and Verification
• The FY2024 audited financial statements confirm revenues, expenses, and allocated costs are fairly presented in accordance with GAAP.
• Cloverdale-specific operations reported approximately $2.5M in revenues and $2.6M in expenses, justifying the need for cost recovery through RRI adjustments. • Cost categories used in the RRI calculation align with audited expense data.

3. Rate Impacts
The following table summarizes key rate changes for residential and commercial customers:

Service Current Rate (2024) Proposed Rate
(2025)
Change
20-gal residential cart $32.55 $33.82 +$1.27
32-gal residential cart $44.61 $46.44 +$1.82
64-gal residential cart $70.03 $73.02 +$2.99
96-gal residential cart $90.51 $94.47 +$3.96

1.5-cy commercial bin (1x/week) $368.62 $385.84 +$17.23 6-cy commercial bin (1x/week) $975.07 $1,022.00 +$46.93

4. Compliance Conclusion
The proposed September 1, 2025, rate adjustments:
• Comply with Sections 6.5 and 6.7 of the Franchise Agreement. • Accurately apply disposal and composting pass-through costs. • Are supported by audited financial data and detailed cost allocations.

Conclusion: The rate adjustments are compliant and justified. The City Council may proceed with acknowledgment or approval of the new rates, as required by the Franchise Agreement.

Budget/Financial Impact:

Rate increases as described above.
________________________________________________________________________________ Attachments:

1. Resolution

2. Exhibit A - Rates
49 City Council/Successor Agency Agenda Item Summary
September 24, 2025

Page 3 of 3 ends

50

Page 1 of 2 ends

CITY OF CLOVERDALE

CITY COUNCIL
RESOLUTION NO. ____-2025

RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CLOVERDALE

APPROVING MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE SOLID WASTE, COMPOSTING AND RECYCLING

RATES UNDER THE SOLID WASTE COLLECTION FRANCHISE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE

CITY AND RECOLOGY SONOMA MARIN INC
WHEREAS, the City of Cloverdale and Recology are parties to a franchise agreement for the collection, disposal and processing of solid waste, recyclables and compostable materials and related activities originally dated March 23, 2011, hereinafter called “Agreement”; and WHEREAS, the Agreement is set to expire on June 30, 2040, unless otherwise extended via Amendment to the Agreement; and
WHEREAS, Section 6.6 of the Agreement provides for Recology to submit for a Special Rate Review, and Recology requested a Special Rate Review in 2025 for intended effectiveness in 2025; and WHEREAS, the City engaged R3 Consulting Group Inc. (R3) to review Recology’s request for Special Rate Review, which included a review of how prior rate adjustments – which included adjustments for new collection vehicles – were addressed in the new request for rate increase; and WHEREAS, Section 8.3 of the Agreement provides for the City to conduct Performance Review of Recology, and the City engaged R3 to conduct a review of Recology, including review of overall compliance with the Agreement, safety practices, landfill diversion, customer billing and service, and other performance elements; and
WHEREAS, R3’s review of Recology’s performance found that Recology operates a well-run solid waste collection operation that meets industry standards; and WHEREAS, R3’s review of Recology’s request for Special Rate review found that the Recology is operating at a loss in Cloverdale, with no profit to the company from its operations in the City; and WHEREAS, R3’s review further investigated, validated and otherwise reduced (via adjustments) the basis for Recology’s request for Special Rate Review, with the primary factors relating to increasing rates being covering the cost of providing services, earning a reasonable profit, normal increases in operating costs, and City-approved costs relating to implementation of the SB 1383 Regulations; and WHEREAS, on September 23, 2025, the Council also considered options for increases to solid waste rates per the rate increase; and
WHEREAS, the City has sole and exclusive discretion regarding whether to grant some, all, or none of the requested rate increase; and
51

Page 2 of 2 ends

WHEREAS, Section 8.12.090 (Rates) of the Cloverdale Municipal Code sets forth “The City Council may by resolution from time to time amend the maximum rates that contractors may impose for the collection, disposal, and processing of solid waste, recyclable materials and compostable materials and related services within the City”; and
WHEREAS, the rates set forth in Exhibit A-1 are competitive with other rates in Sonoma County and also Marin County, and reflect the cost of providing solid waste service in compliance with State laws including SB 1383; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Cloverdale does hereby:

A. Approve the maximum allowable solid waste, composting and recycling rate schedule shown in Exhibit A-1, attached hereto, to be effective September 1, 2025; and It is hereby certified that the foregoing Resolution No. XX-2025 was duly introduced and duly adopted by the City Council of the City of Cloverdale at its regular meeting held on the 24th day of September 2025, by the following roll call vote:

AYES: ()) -
NOES: (0)
ABSTAIN: (0)
ABSENT: (0)
APPROVED ATTEST:
_______________________ _______________________
Todd Lands, Mayor Michael Maloney, City Clerk
Attachments:

Exhibit A- Rates
52 June 25, 2025
Mr. Kevin Thompson
City Manager
City of Cloverdale
124 North Cloverdale Blvd.

Cloverdale, CA 95425
Dear Mr. Thompson,
Per Section 6.5 of the Franchise Agreement between the City of Cloverdale and Recology Sonoma Marin entered December 18th, 2024, please find attached the proposed adjustments to Recology Sonoma Marin (RSM) service rates using the refuse rate index (RRI) for rates effective September 1, 2025 through August 30, 2026. In addition to RRI adjustments, per Section 6.7 of the Franchise Agreement, the rates effective September 1, 2025 include a step increase of 1.88%.

The submission packet includes: the Fiscal Year 2024 Audited Financial Statement and an Excel to aid the City and Consultants with evaluation of RRI submission.

Please contact me or Nikki Burke at 707-480-9384 or [email protected] with any questions.

Sincerely,
Logan Harvey
Senior General Manager
Recology Sonoma Marin
cc: Andy Fulton
Seth Hansen
Nikki Burke
Celia Furber
Attached: Cloverdale Rates RRI 9.1.2025 - Submitted 6.25.25.PDF Recology Sonoma Marin AFS 9.30.24 – Cloverdale.PDF
Cloverdale Rates RRI 9.1.2025 (Unlinked) - Submitted 6.25.25.XLSX 53 Cloverdale RRI 9.1.2025 (Unlinked) - Submitted 6.25.25 - RRI Calculation Recology - Cloverdale Request for Rate Increase
RRI Calculation and Summary Rates
Rates Effective 9/1/2025
AFS FY24 Operating
Category Total *
Weighted Percent of
Annual Total Index Percent Change Weighted Adjustment Percentage Labor Index $728,377 42.05% 3.83% 1.61%
Fuel Index $114,310 6.60% -7.97% -0.53%
Vehicle Replacement Index $189,770 10.96% 4.10% 0.45%
Vehicle Maintenance Index $97,136 5.61% 1.70% 0.10%
All Other $602,517 34.79% 2.95% 1.03%
Total $1,732,110 100.00% RRI Adjustment 2.66%
Disposal Tipping Fee Change
4/1/2025 $ 171.63
4/1/2024 164.92
Total Disposal Component Increase 4.1%
Compostable Processing Fee Change
4/1/2025 $ 116.67
4/1/2024 116.08 Total Disposal Component Increase 0.5%
Retroactive Disposal Fee
(New Disposal Tipping Fee Component - Prior Disposal Tipping Fee Component) X 5/12 Retroactive Compostable Processing Fee
(New Compostable Processing Fee Component - Prior Compostable Processing Fee Component) X 5/12 Summary Table for Key Rates - Effective September 1, 2025 - August 30, 2026 ** Total Rate Effective 9/1/2025
(Including SRR)
Single Family Residential Cart Collection - Monthly Rate Total Rate
Effective 9/1/2024
Total Rate
Effective 9/1/2025
Increase over
9/1/2024
20 Gal $ 32.55 $ 33.82 $ 1.27
32 Gal 44.61 46.44 1.82
64 Gal 70.03 73.02 2.99
96 Gal 90.51 94.47 3.96
Multi-Family and Commercial Collection - Monthly Rate

1.5-CY Bin - 1x/week $ 368.62 $ 385.84 $ 17.23
2-CY Bin - 1x/week 460.50 482.15 21.64
3-CY Bin - 1x/week 571.14 598.28 27.14
4-CY Bin - 1x/week 673.71 706.00 32.28
6-CY Bin - 1x/week 975.07 1,022.00 46.93
* Based on RSM Audited Financial Statements.
** Rates not currently listed on the table will increase by RRI rate of 4.49%. See Detailed Rate View for more rates.

RRI Index Calculation for Collection Component
Cost Category
2025/2026 Adjustment
Submitted: June 25, 2025 Page 1 of 10 54
Cloverdale RRI 9.1.2025 (Unlinked) - Submitted 6.25.25 - Cloverdale Rates Recology - Cloverdale Request for Rate Increase
Rate Table
Rates Effective 9/1/2025
Tipping Fee 2024 $164.92 % Change in
Tipping Fee 2025 $171.63 4.07%
Compostable Tipping Fee 2024 $116.08 % Change in
Compostable Tipping Fee 2025 $116.67 0.51%
New Rate Effective 9/1/2025
City of Cloverdale By Component
Attachment B- Customer Rates
Residential Cart Collection (1)
R2 20-Gallon Cart $22.12 $4.36 $4.33 $3.01 $33.82
R3 35-Gallon Cart $32.93 $5.06 $4.33 $4.13 $46.44
R6 60-Gallon Cart $54.89 $7.33 $4.33 $6.48 $73.02
R9 90-Gallon Cart $68.86 $12.91 $4.33 $8.37 $94.47
RORoad Charge* $13.13 $1.27 $14.40
XPExtra Pick up $18.45 $1.71 $1.95 $22.11
RWCarry Charge per Cart** $3.64 $0.35 $3.99
Overflow Charge $0.28 $12.91 $2.09 $15.28
Low Income Discount (20% Discount)
CA20-Gallon Cart $27.05
CA35-Gallon Cart $37.15
CA60-Gallon Cart $58.42
CA90-Gallon Cart $75.57
CARoad Charge* $11.52
CACarry Charge per Cart** $3.19
Commercial Cart and Bin Collection

1.5 Cubic Yd Bin
C1HY1 x week $233.98 $113.37 $4.33 $34.17 $385.84
C1HY2 x week $381.00 $226.74 $4.33 $59.48 $671.54
C1HY3 x week $522.75 $340.10 $4.33 $84.28 $951.46
C1HYExtra Pick-up $96.65 $26.16 $4.33 $12.36 $139.50
2 Cubic Yd Bin
C2YG1 x week $283.96 $151.16 $4.33 $42.70 $482.15
C2YG2 x week $456.44 $302.31 $4.33 $74.16 $837.24
C2YG3 x week $629.75 $453.47 $4.33 $105.71 $1,193.25
C2YGExtra Pick-up $117.77 $34.89 $4.33 $15.26 $172.24
3 Cubic Yd Bin
C3YG1 x week $314.21 $226.74 $4.33 $53.01 $598.28
C3YG2 x week $520.34 $453.47 $4.33 $95.11 $1,073.24
C3YGExtra Pick-up $135.42 $52.33 $4.33 $18.67 $210.74
4 Cubic Yd Bin
C4YG1 x week $336.78 $302.31 $4.33 $62.57 $706.00
C4YG2 x week $527.45 $604.63 $4.33 $110.54 $1,246.95
C4YG3 x week $703.07 $906.94 $4.33 $157.06 $1,771.40
C4YGExtra Pick-up $147.90 $69.77 $4.33 $21.58 $243.57
6 Cubic Yd Bin
C6YG1 x week $473.62 $453.47 $4.33 $90.58 $1,022.00
C6YG2 x week $591.51 $906.94 $4.33 $146.25 $1,649.03
C6YGExtra Pick-up $197.12 $104.66 $4.33 $29.75 $335.86
Carts
C35 1 - 35 Gal Cart 1xw $46.72 $10.47 $4.33 $5.99 $67.51 C64 1 - 64 Gal Cart 1xw $92.71 $22.68 $4.33 $11.64 $131.35 C96 1 - 96 Gal Cart 1xw $140.58 $33.14 $4.33 $17.30 $195.34 CXPUExtra Pick-up $25.12 $4.33 $2.88 $32.32
Collection
Component
Disposal
Component
Compostable
Component
Franchise Fee
Component
Total Rate
Effective
9/1/2025
Submitted: June 25, 2025 Page 2 of 10 55
Cloverdale RRI 9.1.2025 (Unlinked) - Submitted 6.25.25 - Cloverdale Rates Recology - Cloverdale Request for Rate Increase
Rate Table
Rates Effective 9/1/2025
Tipping Fee 2024 $164.92 % Change in
Tipping Fee 2025 $171.63 4.07%
Compostable Tipping Fee 2024 $116.08 % Change in
Compostable Tipping Fee 2025 $116.67 0.51%
New Rate Effective 9/1/2025
City of Cloverdale By Component
Attachment B- Customer Rates Collection
Component
Disposal
Component
Compostable
Component
Franchise Fee
Component
Total Rate
Effective
9/1/2025
Commercial Solid Waste Compactor Special Services
CPUSBackyard Charge $65.38 $6.34 $71.72
CWK Sideyard for Fee Service $65.38 $6.34 $71.72
KEY Key Charges (1) $26.19 $2.54 $28.73
ENCLEnclosure Charges (2) $65.38 $6.34 $71.72
GATEGate Service Charges (3) $26.19 $2.54 $28.73
LONGLong Walk Charge (4) $65.38 $6.34 $71.72
COM Commercial Overage per Cubic Yard $94.22 $17.44 $10.83 $122.49 CLEA 4 yd Cleanup Bin (3 days) $370.06 $69.77 $42.66 $482.49 Trip Charge $211.11 $20.45 $231.56
Compactor Cleaning $633.32 $61.36 $694.68
Monthly Rental $211.11 $20.45 $231.56
Daily Rental (<= 7 days, then monthly) $30.16 $2.92 $33.08 Contaminated Recycle, yard waste or food scrap:

CONTCart $46.77 $4.53 $51.31
CONTBin (plus $0 per yard) $46.77 $4.53 $51.31
FOR Cleaning Fee for food scrap Bin/Cart in excess of 1 per year $116.88 $11.32 $128.21 REPLReplacement Cart after 1/year $182.32 $17.67 $199.98 REPLReplacement Bin after 1/year $308.54 $29.90 $338.44 RETUSame day return trip for Bin/Cart blocked or not at curb $38.57 $3.74 $42.31 CLOSFee to reinstate account closed for nonpayment $58.40 $5.66 $64.06 ADDLAdd'l Recycle or Yard Waste Cart (after 2) $38.57 $3.74 $42.31 Submitted: June 25, 2025 Page 3 of 10 56
Cloverdale RRI 9.1.2025 (Unlinked) - Submitted 6.25.25 - Cloverdale Rates Recology - Cloverdale Request for Rate Increase
Rate Table
Rates Effective 9/1/2025
Tipping Fee 2024 $164.92 % Change in
Tipping Fee 2025 $171.63 4.07%
Compostable Tipping Fee 2024 $116.08 % Change in
Compostable Tipping Fee 2025 $116.67 0.51%
New Rate Effective 9/1/2025
City of Cloverdale By Component
Attachment B- Customer Rates Collection
Component
Disposal
Component
Compostable
Component
Franchise Fee
Component
Total Rate
Effective
9/1/2025
Commercial Solid Waste Debris Box Service:
20Y 20 yard or less $508.54 $348.85 $83.31 $940.70
30Y 30 yard & 40 yard $573.92 $348.85 $89.65 $1,012.42
MSW Disposal per ton over 2 tons $3.66 $174.43 $20.28 $198.37 C&D Debris Box containing >10% recyclables (2 tons charged whe 20YC20 yard or less $508.54 $348.85 $83.31 $940.70
30YC30 yard & 40 yard $573.92 $348.85 $89.65 $1,012.42
Wood (disposal billed separately @ $131.09 per ton based on tag 20YW20 yard or less $272.07 $26.36 $298.44
30YW30 yard & 40 yard $300.29 $29.10 $329.38
20YB20 yard or less $272.07 $26.36 $298.44
30YB30 yard & 40 yard $300.29 $29.10 $329.38
Recycling
20YR20 yard or less $300.29 $29.10 $329.38
30YR30 yard & 40 yard $300.29 $29.10 $329.38
Dirt - half-full box allowed (disposal billed separately @ $7.77 per t 20YD20 yard or less $600.58 $58.19 $658.77
Concrete - half-full box allowed (disposal billed separately @ $30.74 20YC20 yard or less $300.29 $29.10 $329.38
Compactor MSW Solid Waste Compactors
3YCM3 yard once/week $539.28 $430.33 $81.84 $102.60 $1,154.04 3YCM3 yard twice/week $1,078.40 $860.65 $163.68 $205.18 $2,307.92 3YCM3 yard three times/week $1,615.37 $1,290.98 $245.52 $307.56 $3,459.43 Other sized compactors (disposal billed separately @ $194.71 per ta 20YC20 yard or less compactor $523.10 $50.68 $573.78
25YC25 yard compactor $653.87 $63.35 $717.22
30YC30 yard compactor $784.63 $76.03 $860.66
Brush (disposal billed separately @ $131.09 per ton based on tag) Submitted: June 25, 2025 Page 4 of 10 57
Cloverdale RRI 9.1.2025 (Unlinked) - Submitted 6.25.25 - Cloverdale Rates Recology - Cloverdale Request for Rate Increase
Rate Table
Rates Effective 9/1/2025
Tipping Fee 2024 $164.92 % Change in
Tipping Fee 2025 $171.63 4.07%
Compostable Tipping Fee 2024 $116.08 % Change in
Compostable Tipping Fee 2025 $116.67 0.51%
New Rate Effective 9/1/2025
City of Cloverdale By Component
Attachment B- Customer Rates Collection
Component
Disposal
Component
Compostable
Component
Franchise Fee
Component
Total Rate
Effective
9/1/2025
Furniture
Twin Twin $106.04 $40.76 $14.25 $161.06
Doubl Double / Full $106.04 $40.76 $14.25 $161.06
QueenQueen $106.04 $40.76 $14.25 $161.06
King King $106.04 $40.76 $14.25 $161.06
Bed FBed Frame $97.84 $16.31 $11.07 $125.23
Couch Couch (under 6 feet) $97.84 $16.31 $11.07 $125.23 Uphol Upholstered Chairs $97.84 $16.31 $11.07 $125.23
Wood Wooden Chairs $97.84 $16.31 $11.07 $125.23
Dinett Dinette Tables $97.84 $16.31 $11.07 $125.23
Household
Rug (9Rug (9x12) $97.84 $16.31 $11.07 $125.23
VacuuVacuum $97.84 $16.31 $11.07 $125.23
Appliances
Water Water Heater - up to 100 gallon $97.84 $16.31 $11.07 $125.23 Oven Oven $100.58 $24.45 $12.13 $137.16
Oven Oven (stove top) $100.58 $24.45 $12.13 $137.16
Oven Oven (stove unit) $100.58 $24.45 $12.13 $137.16
MicroMicrowave $97.84 $16.31 $11.07 $125.23
Garba Garbage Compactor $97.84 $16.31 $11.07 $125.23
RefrigRefrigerator $132.47 $16.31 $14.43 $163.21
FreezeFreezer $106.04 $40.76 $14.25 $161.06
Add'l charge for Freon $59.99 $6.82 $66.81
Air CoAir Conditioner $106.04 $40.76 $14.25 $161.06
Wash Washing Machine $100.58 $24.45 $12.13 $137.16
Dryer Dryer $100.58 $24.45 $12.13 $137.16
Building Materials
House Household Doors $97.84 $16.31 $11.07 $125.23
Sink Sink $97.84 $16.31 $11.07 $125.23
Toilet Toilets $97.84 $16.31 $11.07 $125.23
Windo Windows (less than 3' by 4' only) $97.84 $16.31 $11.07 $125.23 Windo Windows larger than 3x4 $146.61 $16.31 $15.80 $178.72 Yard & Garden
Gas M Gas Mower (must be drained of gas & oil) $97.84 $16.31 $11.07 $125.23 BBQ BBQ $97.84 $16.31 $11.07 $125.23
Ping P Ping Pong Table $97.84 $16.31 $11.07 $125.23
Exerc Exercise Bike $97.84 $16.31 $11.07 $125.23
Swing Swing Sets $97.84 $16.31 $11.07 $125.23
Bike Bike $97.84 $16.31 $11.07 $125.23
Submitted: June 25, 2025 Page 5 of 10 58
Cloverdale RRI 9.1.2025 (Unlinked) - Submitted 6.25.25 - Cloverdale Rates Recology - Cloverdale Request for Rate Increase
Rate Table
Rates Effective 9/1/2025
Tipping Fee 2024 $164.92 % Change in
Tipping Fee 2025 $171.63 4.07%
Compostable Tipping Fee 2024 $116.08 % Change in
Compostable Tipping Fee 2025 $116.67 0.51%
New Rate Effective 9/1/2025
City of Cloverdale By Component
Attachment B- Customer Rates Collection
Component
Disposal
Component
Compostable
Component
Franchise Fee
Component
Total Rate
Effective
9/1/2025
Electronics
Comp Computer Monitor or Computer Tower/CPU $97.84 $16.31 $11.07 $125.23 TeleviTelevision $97.84 $16.31 $11.07 $125.23
Large Large Screen Television $121.26 $16.00 $13.31 $150.57 Conso Console Television $121.26 $16.00 $13.31 $150.57
Stereo Stereo Equipment $98.19 $16.00 $11.07 $125.26
VCR/ VCR/Home Entertainment $98.19 $16.00 $11.07 $125.26 Printe Printer / Fax $98.19 $16.00 $11.07 $125.26
Copie Copier(table top) $98.19 $16.00 $11.07 $125.26
Copie Copier (small stand alone) $135.79 $120.01 $24.87 $280.67 Overs Oversize Office Equipment Price Varies
Car Parts
Engin Engine Block (completely drained of fluids) $97.84 $16.31 $11.07 $125.23 Car SeCar Seats $97.84 $16.31 $11.07 $125.23
Bump Bumper / Grill etc. $97.84 $16.31 $11.07 $125.23
Passen Passenger Vehicle Tire $97.84 $16.31 $11.07 $125.23 Truck Truck or Tractor Tire Price Varies
Additional Items
Items Itemsunder 60 lbs. $97.84 $16.31 $11.07 $125.23
Items Items over 60 lbs. $115.43 Price Varies $11.38 Price Varies Items Items requiring special handling or disposal $115.43 Price Varies $11.38 Price Varies By Component
Alliance, Hospital & Medical Center New Rates
Alliance
Allian6 YD 2x/Week $1,065.05 $604.13 $2.69 $166.99 $1,838.86 Hospital
H3YD3 YD 1x/Week $438.81 $151.03 $2.69 $58.71 $651.24
H20Y20 YD Permanent Box/Pull $499.11 $314.71 $81.43 $895.24 By Component
Coopertower's Medical Center New Rates
Coppertower's Medical Center
CMC22 Yd 2 x Week $366.44 $302.31 $4.33 $66.47 $739.55
Coppertower's Medical Center
CMC91 - 96 Gal Cart 1 x Wk (20% Discount) $112.62 $33.14 $4.33 $14.71 $164.80 (1) On-call trash and a la cart recycling and organics services are not available.

Franchise Fee
Component
Total Rate
Effective
9/1/2025
Collection
Component
Disposal
Component
Compostable
Component
Franchise Fee
Component
Total Rate
Effective
9/1/2025
Collection
Component
Disposal
Component
Compostable
Component
Submitted: June 25, 2025 Page 6 of 10 59
Cloverdale RRI 9.1.2025 (Unlinked) - Submitted 6.25.25 - FF CPI Adjustment
Date
CPI %
Increase
Annual
Franchise
Fee (1)
Monthly
Franchise
Fee
Commencement 12/1/2022 235,000$ 19,583$ (2)
9/1/2023 4.8% 246,289 20,524
9/1/2024 3.0% 253,748 21,146
Current Year 9/1/2025 2.2% 259,279 21,607
(1) Per the Second Amendment of the Franchise Agreement, the Franchise Fee increases annually by CPI. (2) Effective December 1, 2022.

Series Id:

Series
Title:

Area:

Item:

Base
Period:

Years:

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual HALF1 HALF2 12 months
ending June
Index
Percentage
Change
2013 242.677 244.675 245.935 246.072 246.617 245.711 245.023 243.894 246.152 2014 248.615 251.495 253.317 253.354 254.503 252.273 251.985 250.507 253.463 1,491.827 2015 254.910 257.622 259.117 259.917 261.019 260.289 258.572 256.723 260.421 1,531.779 2.7% 2016 262.600 264.565 266.041 267.853 270.306 269.483 266.344 263.911 268.777 1,574.431 2.8% 2017 271.626 274.589 275.304 275.893 277.570 277.414 274.924 273.306 276.542 1,629.161 3.5% 2018 281.308 283.422 286.062 287.664 289.673 289.896 285.550 282.666 288.435 1,681.669 3.2% 2019 291.227 294.801 295.259 295.490 298.443 297.007 295.004 293.150 296.859 1,748.520 4.0% 2020 299.690 298.074 300.032 300.182 301.736 302.948 300.084 299.109 301.059 1,788.736 2.3% 2021 304.387 309.419 309.497 311.167 313.265 315.805 309.721 306.724 312.718 1,828.169 2.2% 2022 320.195 324.878 330.539 328.871 332.062 331.222 327.060 323.408 330.711 1,915.849 4.8% 2023 337.173 338.496 340.056 340.094 341.219 339.915 339.050 337.689 340.411 2,007.880 4.8% 2024 345.151 351.247 351.064 349.290 349.370 348.001 348.417 347.857 348.977 2,068.690 3.0% 2025 354.432 355.707 356.987 2,113.787 2.2%
San Francisco-Oakland-Hayward, CA
All items
1982-84=100
2013 to 2025
CUURS49BSA0
CUURS49BSA0
Not Seasonally Adjusted
All items in San Francisco-Oakland-Hayward, CA, all
urban consumers, not seasonally adjusted
Recology - Cloverdale Request for Rate Increase
Franchise Fees
Rates Effective 9/1/2025
CPI for All Urban Consumers (CPI-U)
Original Data Value
Submitted: June 25, 2025 Page 7 of 10 60
Cloverdale RRI 9.1.2025 (Unlinked) - Submitted 6.25.25 - Adjustment Indices Data Input Recology - Cloverdale Request for Rate Increase
Index Values
Rates Effective 9/1/2025
Table 1: Recology Cost Category Data Input
Annual Amount % of Total Annual Amount % of Total Annual Amount % of Total Annual Amount % of Total Annual Amount % of Total 2022 $614,779 38.85% $134,873 8.52% $156,116 9.87% $62,235 3.93% $614,458 38.83% $1,582,461 2023 $704,299 48.57% $132,311 9.12% $140,255 9.67% $82,968 5.72% $390,330 26.92% $1,450,163 $ (132,298) -8.36% 2024 $728,377 42.05% $114,310 6.60% $189,770 10.96% $97,136 5.61% $602,517 34.79% $1,732,110 $ 281,948 19.44% as of 6/13/25 2025 #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! $0 $ (1,732,110) -100.00% 2026 #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! $0 $ - #DIV/0! 2027 #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! $0 $ - #DIV/0! 2028 #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! $0 $ - #DIV/0! 2029 #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! $0 $ - #DIV/0! 2030 #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! $0 $ - #DIV/0! Table 2: Labor Cost Index
Series ID: Series Title:
2022 151.2 153.4 155.1 156.9 616.6
2023 158.6 160.3 161.9 163.5 644.3 27.7 4.49%
2024 165.1 166.6 167.9 169.4 669.0 24.7 3.83% as of 6/13/25 2025 170.8 170.8 (498.2) -74.47%
2026 - (170.8) -100.00%
2027 - - #DIV/0!
2028 - - #DIV/0!
2029 - - #DIV/0!
2030 - - #DIV/0!
Table 3: Fuel Index
Series ID: Series Title:
2022 4.803 5.018 6.133 6.260 6.479 6.874 6.587 6.123 6.149 6.330 6.121 5.558 72.435 2023 5.467 5.423 5.263 4.990 4.842 4.760 4.907 5.518 6.043 6.094 5.684 5.320 64.311 (8.124) -11.22% 2024 5.130 5.214 5.216 5.239 5.078 4.927 4.901 4.758 4.733 4.714 4.667 4.606 59.183 (5.128) -7.97% as of 6/13/25 2025 4.734 4.825 4.795 4.780 4.783 23.917 (35.266) -59.59% 2026 - (23.917) -100.00%
2027 - - #DIV/0!
2028 - - #DIV/0!
2029 - - #DIV/0!
2030 - - #DIV/0!
Table 5: Vehicle Replacement Index
Series ID: Series Title:
2022 293.018 296.711 297.945 303.846 315.956 318.535 319.535 321.939 323.152 327.509 327.615 327.944 3,773.705 2023 330.878 333.213 334.756 336.373 336.718 337.026 338.428 338.579 338.878 342.109 342.164 344.215 4,053.337 279.632 7.41% 2024 346.689 346.773 347.992 348.409 347.453 347.569 351.246 356.763 356.887 356.995 356.460 356.449 4,219.685 166.348 4.10% as of 6/13/25 2025 359.205 359.205 (3,860.480) -91.49%
2026 - (359.205) -100.00%
2027 - - #DIV/0!
2028 - - #DIV/0!
2029 - - #DIV/0!
2030 - - #DIV/0!
Table 6: Vehicle Maintenance Index
Series ID: Series Title:
2022 328.761 332.747 338.920 342.824 344.521 344.521 344.521 344.558 345.773 345.857 345.857 345.857 4,104.717 2023 355.897 356.987 356.987 356.582 357.420 357.383 357.547 357.547 358.856 358.856 363.772 363.772 4,301.606 196.889 4.80% 2024 364.260 364.260 364.260 364.292 364.292 364.292 364.292 364.292 364.292 365.424 365.424 365.424 4,374.804 73.198 1.70% as of 6/13/25 2025 365.424 365.424 (4,009.380) -91.65%
2026 - (365.424) -100.00%
2027 - - #DIV/0!
2028 - - #DIV/0!
2029 - - #DIV/0!
2030 - - #DIV/0!
Table 7: All Other Index
Series ID: Series Title:
2022 281.148 283.716 287.504 289.109 292.296 296.311 296.276 296.171 296.808 298.012 297.711 296.797 3,511.859 2023 299.170 300.840 301.836 303.363 304.127 305.109 305.691 307.026 307.789 307.671 307.051 306.746 3,656.419 144.560 4.12% 2024 308.417 310.326 312.332 313.548 314.069 314.175 314.540 314.796 315.301 315.664 315.493 315.605 3,764.266 107.847 2.95% as of 6/13/25 2025 317.671 319.082 319.799 320.795 321.465 1,598.812 (2,165.454) -57.53% 2026 - (1,598.812) -100.00%
2027 - - #DIV/0!
2028 - - #DIV/0!
2029 - - #DIV/0!
2030 - - #DIV/0!
Fiscal Year
January February March April May December Annual Total Difference from Prior Year
Index Percent
Change June July August September October November
Index Percent
Change
cuur0000sa0 Not Seasonally Adjusted, All Items, All Urban Consumers (CPI-U) for All US City average June July August September October November
Fiscal Year
January February March April May
December Annual Total Difference from
Prior Year Fiscal Year
December Annual Total Difference from
Prior Year
pcu3339243339243 Parts and attachments for Industrial work trucks January February March April May June July August September October November pcu336211336211 Truck, bus, car and other vehicle bodies, for sale separately Index Percent
Change
June July August September October November December Annual Total Difference from Prior Year
Diff. from Prior
Year
Index Percent
Change
Diesel Fuel Index California No 2 Diesel Ultra Low Sulfur (0-15 ppm) Fiscal Year
January February March April May
Fiscal Year
Quarter 1 Quarter 2 Quarter 3 Quarter 4 Annual Total
Index Percent
Change
All Other Costs Annual Total Diff. from Prior
Year
Index Percent
Change
cis201s000000000i Service-Producing Industries
Fiscal Year
Labor Cost Fuel Cost Vehicle Replacement Cost Vehicle Maintenance Cost Submitted: June 25, 2025 Page 8 of 10 61
Cloverdale RRI 9.1.2025 (Unlinked) - Submitted 6.25.25 - RRI Financials Recology - Cloverdale Request for Rate Increase
RRI Financials-Audited Financial Statement FY2024
Rates Effective 9/1/2025
Total Expenses AFS FY24 Categorized Expenses AFS FY24 % of Total Payroll & Related $ 728,377 Labor $ 728,377 42.05%
Liability Insurance 56,782 Fuel 114,310 6.60%
Disposal (MSW & Organics) 816,419 Replacement 189,770 10.96% 235,445 Maintenance 97,136 5.61%
Rent & lease 2,047 Other 602,517 34.79%
Supplies 38,369 $ 1,732,110
Repairs & Maintenance 97,136
Fuel & Oil 114,310 Costs Not Included:

Buildings & Facilities 7,778 Disposal (MSW & Organics) 816,419 Licenses & Permits 7,126 Recycling & COGS -
Utilities 2,638 Amortization & Gain/(Loss) 70,296
Freight 3,477 Total Expenses $ 2,618,825
Recycling & COGS -
Professional Services 35,566
Bad Debt 19,077
Travel, meals & entertainment 1,144
Office expenses 16,802
Taxes 8,831
Regional Allocations 34,922
Corporate Allocations 107,457
Other Operating Expenses 25,448
Depreciation & Depletion 40,909
Amortization 70,296
(Gain)/loss on sale (390)
I/C equipment & property 148,861
Total Expenses $ 2,618,825
Recycling Processing Fee
Submitted: June 25, 2025 Page 9 of 10 62
Cloverdale RRI 9.1.2025 (Unlinked) - Submitted 6.25.25 - Truck List 2025 Recology - Cloverdale Request for Rate Increase
Truck List
Rates Effective 9/1/2025
Veh # Lic # VIN Description
Gross
Vehicle
Max
Replacement
Schedule
13670 52647G3 5VCACDAF4NC235760 22 AUTOCAR CHASSIS 62,000 est. 2032 13671 52648G3 5VCACDAF6NC235761 22 AUTOCAR CHASSIS 62,000 est. 2032 11568 50474X2 5VCACLAF1NC235502 22 AUTOCAR CHASSIS 66,800 est. 2032 RO, sweeper, stakebed and other utility trucks are used from fleet, as necessary.

Back up trucks fill in for primary trucks, as needed.

Submitted: June 25, 2025 Page 10 of 10 63
City Council/Successor Agency
Agenda Item Summary Agenda Item: F.5
Meeting Date: September 24, 2025
Agenda Section:

Consent
Staff Contact:

Susie Holmes, Finance Director
Agenda Item Title:

Consider Amending the Water Leak Adjustment Policy
_______________________________________________________________________________________ Recommended Council Action(s):

Adopt a Resolution Entitled, “A Resolution of the Cloverdale City Council Amending the Water Leak Adjustment Policy increasing the one-time $410 credit to a $460 credit toward the water bill.” ________________________________________________________________________________________ Background:
• In 2005, the City Council revised its Water Leak Adjustment Policy, setting the maximum adjustment credit at $200.00 per account.
• In 2017, Resolution No. 012-2017 increased the leak adjustment from $200 to $250. • In March 2024, Resolution No. 13-2024 raised the credit from $250 to $365. • In August 2024, Resolution No. 45-2024 increased the credit further from $365 to $410 Under the current policy, a one-time leak adjustment is permitted, provided the account holder verifies that the leak has been corrected.
________________________________________________________________________________________ Summary:

City staff recommends that the maximum one-time leak adjustment credit be increased to reflect the annual increases in water rates. To align with the 12% water rate increase effective July 1, 2025, staff recommends adjusting the maximum credit from $410.00 to $460.00. This adjustment ensures that the credit remains proportional to rate changes. (see Table 1).

Fiscal Year Water Rate Increase
%
Leak Adjustment Amount
Adjusted for Water Rate Increases
16-17 $250.00
17-18 3% $257.50
18-19 3% $65.23
19-20 3% $273.18
20-21 0% $273.18
21-22 6% $289.57
22-23 12% $324.32
23-24 12% $363.24
24-25 12% $406.82
25-26 12% $455.64
64 City Council/Successor Agency Agenda Item Summary
Meeting Date: September 24, 2025

Page 2 of 2 ends

Table 1 – Recommend Leak Adjustment Credit Increases
The new maximum allowable amount of $460 would become effective immediately with the adoption of the attached resolution.
________________________________________________________________________________________ Options:

1. Reject the Resolution; or

2. Provide alternative direction to City staff.
________________________________________________________________________________________ Subcommittee Recommendation:

Administration recommends the adjustment to the full City Council for approval ________________________________________________________________________________________ Budget/Financial Impact:

The increase in the maximum leak adjustment credit will result in an estimated reduction of approximately $500 a year in the Water Enterprise Fund.
________________________________________________________________________________________ Attachments:

1. Resolution

2. Exhibit A - Water Sewer Leak Adjustment Policy and Form 65 CITY OF CLOVERDALE

CITY COUNCIL
RESOLUTION NO. XXX-2025

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CLOVERDALE APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO THE WATER LEAK ADJUSTMENT POLICY, INCREASING THE WATER LEAK ADJUSTMENT CREDIT FROM $410 TO $460.

WHEREAS, on August 28, 2024, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 045-2024 approving an amendment to the water leak credit Policy; and
WHEREAS, the August 2024 amendment to the Water Leak Adjustment Policy increased the one-time credit from $365 to $410; and
WHEREAS, since the August 2024 amendment to the one-time water rate credit, there has been a 12% water rate increase; and
WHEREAS, Water leak adjustments typically refer to adjustments made to a water bill when a customer experiences a leak on their property, leading to higher-than-normal water consumption. These adjustments are provided as a way to alleviate the financial burden on customers who may not be aware of or able to promptly address leaks; and
WHEREAS, to ensure that the leak adjustments align with the current water rates, staff recommend increasing the leak adjustment amount to $460.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Cloverdale hereby approves an Amendment to the Water Leak Adjustment Policy attached hereto as Exhibit A increasing the Water Leak Adjustment credit from $410 to $460.

The foregoing Resolution was duly introduced and adopted by the City Council of the City of Cloverdale at its regular meeting held on the ___ day of September 2025 by the following roll call vote:

YES: (X)
NO:(X)
ABSTAIN: (X)
ABSENT: (X)
APPROVED: ATTEST:
_______________________ ____________________________
Todd Lands, Mayor Mike Maloney, City Clerk
Attachments:

Exhibit A – Water Leak Adjustment Policy Rate Increase History 66 P.O. Box 217 • 124 North Cloverdale Blvd. • Cloverdale, CA 95425-0217 • Telephone (707) 894-2521 • FAX (707) 894-3451

WATER LEAK ADJUSTMENT POLICY
The water service connection, including the meter and the meter box and all distribution lines, will be repaired and maintained by the City at its own expense. The City, however, shall not be responsible for the installation and maintenance of water lines beyond the end of its service connection. (Cloverdale Municipal Code §13.04.330 Maintenance)
On rare occasions, a leak may occur as a result of a crack, breach, or flaw in the property owner’s system and in certain conditions, the City will grant a limited leak credit.

Important information to consider:
• The water leak must not have occurred as a result of a willful or negligent act on the part of the customer.
• Customers must make a written request for a leak adjustment using the attached form and explain the cause of the leak, where the leak occurred, and all other relevant factors. • Proof that the leak was fixed is required. Normally, this will be copies of receipts from the repair person or company, or supply receipts. The customer must be able to demonstrate that the repair was made within a reasonable time.
• The water usage must be two hundred percent (200%) or more of the normal usage based on the last twelve (12) months.
• Water leak credits are limited to $460 and only one (1) credit will be granted during the life of the account. Up to two (2) billing cycles demonstrating unusual usage will be eligible for an adjustment.
• To determine normal usage, consumption will be averaged using the previous twelve (12) months of water consumption. If the account is new and does not have a full year of history, the Finance Department staff will estimate average consumption based on available history, usage of similar residences in the neighborhood, and any other relevant factors. • The decision to grant a leak adjustment shall rest solely with the Finance Director, whose decision is final.

The process:
• Once your leak is repaired and you believe you qualify for a leak adjustment, complete the attached form and submit it to the Utility Department at City Hall. • Staff will review your request and if eligible for continued consideration, staff will go to your property and read your meter. The results will be used to determine usage resulting from the leak.
• Staff will calculate the adjustment, and if eligible, will submit all required documentation to the Finance Manager for review.
• Once approved or denied, a copy of the Residential Leak Adjustment Request form will be mailed to you.
• Please submit the balance due prior to the due date on your bill to prevent the assessment of penalties.
67 LEAK ADJUSTMENT

REQUEST
124 N. Cloverdale Blvd., Cloverdale, CA 95425
Phone: 707-894-1700 Fax: 707-894-3451
www.ci.cloverdale.ca.us
I understand that by completing this form it does not guarantee an adjustment will be made to my water bill. All adjustments are issued based on average usage for previous account history and are credited at a reduced rate for water loss only. It is my responsibility to make payment to the utility department of my balance due bringing my account current or penalties may be assessed if payment is not delivered timely.

I have read, understand and agree with the leak adjustment guidelines.

Signature of Account Holder _____________________________________________________ Printed Name ___________________________________ Date _________________________

RECEIVED DATE
STAMP
REMEMBER:
 Complete the entire form
 Attach Copies of Receipts
 Mail or deliver to City Hall
CUSTOMER INFORMATION: Enter all information below.

Name on Account ____________________________________________________ Account Number _______________________________ Service Address ________________________________________________________________________________________________________ (Cannot be P.O. Box) Contact Phone ________________________________________ Alternate Phone ________________________________________ Mailing Address (if different than above) ______________________________________________________________________________________ City ________________________________________________________ State ___________ Zip Code _______________ Copies of receipts for any materials or services related to the repair must be attached and are required for this request to be considered.

Briefly describe the receipts attached. ________________________________________________________________________________________. _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ LEAK REPAIR INFORMATION: Enter all details below.

RECEIPTS:

SIGNATURE OFFICE USE ONLY
Date Leak Discovered ___________________________________ Date Leak Repaired ___________________________________ Description of the Leak and Repair __________________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ □ Approved By ___________ Date ____________ Adjustment Amount ____________ Adjustment Made By ____________ Date __________ □ Denied By ___________ Date ____________ Reason for Denial _____________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________ Customer Notified Date __________ Balance Due ________________

CITY OF CLOVERDALE UTILITY DEPARTMENT USE ONLY
68 City Council/Successor
Agency
Agenda Item Summary
Agenda Item:

Meeting Date:

F.6
September 23, 2025
Agenda Section:

Consent
Staff Contact:

Derrick Montanye, Public Works Director
Agenda Item Title:

Award of Contract for Pond 3 Biosolids Removal Project at the City of Cloverdale Wastewater Treatment Plant Recommended Council Action(s):

Adopt a Resolution Entitled: “A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Cloverdale awarding the contract for the Pond 3 Biosolids Removal Project to Synagro WWT, Inc. in the amount of $598,309, with a 10% contingency ($59,831), for a total authorized budget not to exceed $658,140; and authorize the City Manager to draft and execute the agreement and approve change orders within the approved contingency ________________________________________________________________________________________ Background:

On May 14, 2025, staff identified a significant accumulation of sludge (biosolids) in Pond 3 following a pond turnover event. Sludge judge measurements confirmed an estimated 320 dry tons requiring removal. The City has completed similar biosolids removals in 2012 (505 dry tons), 2016 (372 dry tons), and 2022 (162 dry tons). Removal is necessary to maintain plant treatment performance and meet regulatory obligations. The City issued an RFP outlining required scope: onsite dewatering, hauling and disposal, pre/post sampling, and regulatory compliance.
________________________________________________________________________________________ Summary:

One proposal was received from Synagro WWT, Inc., a licensed California Class A General Engineering Contractor.

Their bid includes:
• Dredging & Dewatering: Hydraulic dredge with cutter head, centrifuge dewatering to 20–25% solids • Transport & Disposal: Hauling to permitted sites including Hay Road Landfill or Synagro’s land application programs
• Sampling & Compliance: Testing per 40 CFR Part 503, California Title 22, RWQCB, with reporting on a 100% dry weight basis
• Site Restoration: Demobilization and restoration of Pond 3 operations • Reporting: Monthly removal logs, compliance documentation, and annual reporting for EPA/State Bid Price:
• Mobilization – $56,813.50
• Dredge/Dewater/Transport/Disposal (320 dry tons @ $1,487/ton) – $475,840 • Demobilization – $56,813.50
• Bond (1.5%) – $8,842.00
• Total – $598,309
Contingency: A 10% contingency of $59,831.00 is recommended to address unforeseen conditions (e.g., higher tonnage, equipment adjustments, or compliance needs).

Total Project Authorization: $658,140
________________________________________________________________________________________ 69 City Council/Successor Agency Agenda Item Summary

Page 2 of 2 ends

Options:

1. Approve award to Synagro with contingency and authorize City Manager (staff recommendation).

2. Reject bid and re-solicit proposals.

3. Provide alternate direction.
________________________________________________________________________________________ Subcommittee Recommendation:

N/A
________________________________________________________________________________________ Budget/Financial Impact:

The $598,309 base cost plus $59,831 contingency will be funded through the Wastewater Enterprise Fund for a total authorization of $658,140.

Biosolids Removal Project Budgeted for $750,000 in the FY25/26 Budget ________________________________________________________________________________________ Attachments:

1. Resolution

2. Exhibit A - Bid
70 CITY OF CLOVERDALE

CITY COUNCIL
RESOLUTION NO. ____

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CLOVERDALE AWARDING THE CONTRACT FOR THE POND 3 BIOSOLIDS REMOVAL PROJECT TO SYNAGRO WWT, INC. IN THE AMOUNT OF $598,309.00, APPROVING A 10% CONTINGENCY FOR A TOTAL AUTHORIZED BUDGET OF $658,140.00, AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO DRAFT AND EXECUTE THE AGREEMENT

AND APPROVE CHANGE ORDERS WITHIN THE APPROVED CONTINGENCY WHEREAS, on May 14, 2025, staff identified significant sludge (biosolids) accumulation in Pond 3 of the Cloverdale Wastewater Treatment Plant following a pond turnover event, with an estimated 320 dry tons requiring removal ; and
WHEREAS, the City of Cloverdale has previously removed biosolids in 2012 (505 dry tons), 2016 (372 dry tons), and 2022 (162 dry tons), and removal is necessary to maintain treatment performance and ensure regulatory compliance; and
WHEREAS, the City issued a Request for Proposals seeking a qualified contractor to dredge, dewater, haul, dispose of, and provide required sampling and compliance reporting for biosolids removal in accordance with 40 CFR Part 503 and applicable state regulations; and
WHEREAS, the City received one responsive proposal from Synagro WWT, Inc., a licensed California Class A General Engineering Contractor, with a total bid of $598,309.00; and WHEREAS, staff recommends approval of a 10% contingency ($59,831.00) to address unforeseen conditions, for a total authorized project budget of $658,140.00; and WHEREAS, the project cost will be funded through the Wastewater Enterprise Fund, with sufficient reserves available and is a budgeted in the FY25/26 Budget
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Cloverdale hereby approves:

1. Awards the Pond 3 Biosolids Removal Project contract to Synagro WWT, Inc. in the amount of $598,309.00.

2. Approves a 10% contingency of $59,831.00, for a total authorized project budget not to exceed $658,140.00.

3. Authorizes the City Manager to draft and execute the agreement with Synagro WWT, Inc. and approve change orders within the approved contingency.

The foregoing Resolution was duly introduced and adopted by the City Council of the City of Cloverdale at its regular meeting held on the ___ day of _______ 2025 by the following roll call vote:

Ayes: (_) Councilmember Brigham, Councilmember Cruz, Councilmember Turner, Noes: (_) None

Absent: (_)
Abstaining: (_) None
71 APPROVED: ATTEST:
_________________________ __________________________
Todd Lands, Mayor Mike Maloney, City Clerk
Attachments:

Exhibit A – Synagro Bid
72 Bid to Provide
Settling Pond No. 3 Biosolids Removal Project
to the

CITY OF CLOVERDALE

CITY OF
CLOVER._DALE
Submitted on September 5, 2025

SYNAGRO

YOUR PARTNER FOR A CLEANER,

GREENER VVORLD
73 435 Williams Court, Suite 100
Baltimore, lvID 21220
www.synagro.com
September 9, 2025
Derrick Montanye Public Works Director
City of Cloverdale
124 N. Cloverdale Blvd.

Cloverdale, CA 95425
Dear Mr. Montanye:

SYNAGRO
Synagro WWT, Inc. (Synagro) a California Class A General Engineering Contractor, license #801688, DIR Registration #1000006919 is pleased to provide the following proposal to perform biosolids dredging, dewatering, transportation and disposal or beneficial end use for the City of Cloverdale, CA wastewater treatment facility.

Scope of Work:

Synagro will provide all of the necessary equipment and personnel to remove up to an estimated 320 dry tons (current volume estimate) of biosolids from the sludge storage basin located at the City of Cloverdale wastewater treatment facility in Cloverdale, CA. Synagro will utilize a cable driven dredge with a hydraulic suction cutter head, transfer the sludge to its processing, dewater the solids with centrifuges or belt filer presses and transport the dewatered solids cake to an approved end use facility or disposal site. The proposal details are as follows:

1. Laboratory Analysis - Sample collection and transfer to a California state certified laboratory where the material will undergo testing for the purpose of profiling the material for land application, composting, or disposal.

2. Mobilization - Delivery and installation of all equipment necessary to perform the solids removal, dewatering and transport to the composting area.

3. Dredging - Dredging or pumping of solids in ponds to either within approximately one (1) foot of ponds depth or to maximum contract amount, whichever occurs first.

4. Dewatering Solids will be dewatered to approximately 20-25%.

5. Transportation and end use - Solids will be loaded directly into end dump trailers and transported to a disposal or reuse facility permitted to accept this material.

6. Demobilization - Breakdown and removal of all equipment.

YOUR PARTNER FORA CLEANER, GREENERWORLD
74 435 Williams Court, Suite 100
Baltimore, MD 21220
www.synagro.com SYNAGRO
Measurement and Payment:

Synagro's pricing for the services mentioned above are as follows:

Description Unit of Units Unit Price Extended
Measure
Mobilization Lump sum 1 $56,813.50 $ 56,813.50
Dredge, dewater,
transportation and Dry ton (1) 320 (2) $ 1487.00(2) $475,840.00 disposal or end use of dewatered biosolids cake
Demobilization Lump sum 1 $56,813.50 $ 56,813.50
Total before bond cost ' $589,467.00
Bonding (1.5% of total Lump sum 1 $ 8,842.00 $ 8,842.00 price) Total $598,309.00
(1) Dry tons are determined by multiplying the actual tonnage removed per scale tickets by the percent solids as determined by a California state certified laboratory. For example, if 100 tons are removed and the percent solids is 32, the dry ton equivalent for measurement and payment would be 100 x 32% = 32 dry tons. Synagro will be responsible for the collection of a sample from each load and compositing it for the day. The sample will be delivered to a California State certified laboratory, which will conduct a percent solids test at Synagro's direction. Synagro will be responsible for payment of all percent solids laboratory fees and expenses. (2) The unit price included herein is valid/or all volumes between 240 and 400 dry tons (base quantity plus or minus 25%). In the event the final volume is either less than 240 dry tons or greater than 400, the city and Synagro agree to negotiate a pricing adjustment for the volumes outside this range.

Synagro further agrees not to exceed the contract quantity of 320 dry tons without the approval of a city representative authorized to approve such change.

YOUR PARTNER FORA CLEANER, GREENERWORLD
75 435 Williams Court, Suite 100
Baltimore, MD 21220
www.synagro.com
Other Terms and Conditions:

SYNAGRO

1. Synagro will be provided reasonable access to wastewater processing ponds and corresponding working areas.

2. Synagro will be responsible for providing its own temporary power and sanitation.

3. The city will make available up to 200 gallons per minute of reclaim or portable water. In the event the water must be obtained from the pond being dredged, Synagro will provide the pump and water line to deliver the water to the work area at its own expense and return filtrate or centrate to the pond system.

4. Synagro and City will agree to a mutually acceptable sampling and measurement protocol in order to determine the daily percent solids and total dry tons removed.

Net wet weight for measurement and payment will be based on 3rd party certified scale tickets (i.e., compost site or landfill scale).

5. Synagro will pay not less than the general prevailing rate of wages required by the State of California, Department of Industrial Relations.

Our proposal incorporates the following additional information provided herein:

Company profile
List of project references
DIR Registration and CA contractor's license information, but not limited to, Detailed work plan, including means and methods for execution of the project, identification of end use locations, list of submittals to be provided upon contract execution, project schedule and means for measurement and payment.

Please note that this proposal is based on Synagro's standard terms and conditions, a copy of which is attached and shall be strictly non-binding upon Synagro until the parties negotiate and execute a mutually acceptable contract.

Should you have any questions or require further information, please contact me at (650) 219-6380.

Very truly yours,
John Pugliaresi attachment

YOUR PARTNER FORA CLEANER, GREENERWORLD
76 YOUR PARTNER FOR A CLEANER,

GREENER WORLD V
Synagro Company Profile
Founded in 1986, Synagro's core business is the
environmentally sound and economically viable management of municipal biosolids, including project development,
operations and biosolids product distribution. Through this focus, Synagro has grown to be North America's leading
provider of high-quality, cost-effective biosolids management and beneficial use solutions. We have been successfully meeting the biosolids management needs of hundreds of
generators for more than 45 years. Synagro's experience in all areas of biosolids management is unparalleled.

Synagro annually manages more than 16 million tons of wastewater biosolids and other organic byproducts. Synagro employs a team of 1000+ professional engineers, soil scientists, agronomists, const:.tuction managers, financial managers and the largest, most diverse operational staff in the indust:.ty. Our team is dedicated to working with our clients to find the right solution to their organic residuals management challenges. Synagro, and its subsidiaries, are at the forefront of the environmental movement to safely process and market organic residual materials for beneficial uses.

Synagro owns no proprietary technology which enables us to offer nearly all commercially viable processing options and product marketing channels for biosolids and organic residuals and allows us to develop projects that fit a municipality's unique needs. Our breadth of experience developing, building, financing as necessaiy, and operating and maintaining the complete range of biosolids options listed below is unique to Synagro.
• Heat-chying and pelletization • Mobile dewatering
• Composting • Land application and reclamation
• Incineration • Lagoon and digester cleaning
• Digestion • Alkaline stabilization
• Product marketing • Rail transportation
• Dewatering (installation and operation)
Synagro currently operates 18 heat-drying facilities, three thermal processing facilities serving multiple regional generators, 9 composting facilities (8 of which provide an outlet for numerous generators), more than a dozen alkaline stabilization facilities, and in excess of 75 permanent and mobile dewatering facilities.

Company Profile
77 YOUR PARTNER FOR A CLEANER,

GREENER WORLD V
In addition, we provide final product distribution as a key component of many of these projects. Our Product Sales and Marketing team is responsible for successfully managing approximately 300,000 tons per year of AllGro® compost and 170,000 tons of Granulite® fertilizer pellets (heat-dried biosolids). We have unrivalled understanding of the markets for these products and continuously work to broaden the suite of outlets for these materials. As an example, Synagro pioneered the use of heat-dried biosolids as an alternative fuel resource in cement manufacturing. When Synagro operates a facility, we include product distribution se1-vices in our operation; however, we also work with municipally operated facilities to assist in managing their products.

In December 2020, Synagro was acquired by West Street Infrastructure Partners III, an infrastructure investment fund managed by Goldman Sachs Merchant Banking Division. Founded in 1869, The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. is a leading global investment banking, securities, and investment management firm. Goldman Sachs Merchant Banking Division (NIBD) is the primary center for the firm's long-term principal investing activity. MBD is one of the leading private capital investors in the world with investments across private equity, infrastrncture, private debt, growth equity and real estate.

Company Profile 2
78 SYNAGRO
City of Cloverdale - Pond 3 Biosolids Removal Project
Work Plan
Synagro WWT, Inc. (Synagro) will employ the following work plan for the removal, dewatering, transportation and disposal or beneficial use of the City of Cloverdale, CA wastewater treatment • plant pond 3 biosolids. The sequence of work is as follows:

1. Survey and sampling of biosolids to confirm volumes and dewaterability characteristics.

This step has been completed and based on the survey conducted, Synagro has confirmed that there are at least 320 recoverable dty tons in pond 3.

2. Sampling of material for profiling into Hay Road landfill or for land application for beneficial agricultural use will be conducted upon execution of contract or approval of Synagro's proposal by the Cloverdale City Council. Testing parameters will be provided in the form of a sample chain of custody, Profile submission to landfill and NANI (Notice and Necessa1y Information) documentation of meeting class b requirements will require signature of city personnel as owner. All testing will be in accordance with 40 CFR Part 503, California Title 22, and RWQCB requirements.

3. Pre-project submittals:
a. Run-off control plan - Synagro will identify all areas of concern regarding potential run-off and will employ mitigation measures agreeable to the city. b. Odor control plan - Synagro has not encountered odor control issues in past removal events. The prima1y plan is to maintain good housekeeping and minimize the amount of biosolids cake in the staging area at any one time, if additional measures are required, they may include tarping the stored biosolids cake or the introduction of ferric or ferrous chloride to mitigate odors. c. Health and Safety plan - Synagro will provide its standard Injuty and Illness Prevention Plan (IIPP) along with a site specific Hazardous Assessment Plan that includes contact information for emergency response, city personnel and Synagro personnel.

Cloverdale, CA Pond 3
79 SYNAGRO
d. Traffic control- Synagro anticipates loading S to 7 trncks per day. A truck route will be provided for city approval that indicates the route from highway 101 north to the plant, truck route within the plant, loading area, procedures for ensuring there is no tracking of sludge off-site and returning to highway 101 south. e. Biosolids spill response plan - Synagro maintains a vigorous spill response program that requires all drivers to be oriented with and trained on biosolids spill response.

They all carry a copy of the plan along with equipment and supplies for responding to small spills and emergency contact information in the event of a large spill. A copy of the spill response plan will be part of the pre-project submittals.

4. Upon execution of the contract and obtaining notice to proceed, Synagro will mobilize the necessaty equipment and personnel to execute the work. Synagro anticipates using the following equipment:

One cable driven dredge with submersible hydraulic cutter head Two high speed centrifuges
One 18,000 gallon mix tank
Pumps, pipe, hoses, and fittings as needed
Two portable generators - 350kw
One rnbber tired loader
End dump tractor/ trailer combinations for the transport and disposal or end use of dewatered biosolids cake.

Containment for staged biosolids
Run-off protection as needed
Synagro will utilize a SO to 100 ton crane to spot the centrifuges and dredge. Aerators will not be removed but will be moved to the side of the pond that is not being dredged. This will reduce the chance of damage to the aerators. It is anticipated that plant staff will perform the electrical disconnect.

5. Dredging and Dewatering- Synagro will dredge solids from pond 3 through float pipe in the pond to shore pipe installed along the levee. The shore pipe will convey the pumped sludge to the mi.'C tank. This will allow for homogenizing the sludge and will also provide an inventory of centrifuge feed while the dredge is being moved and is not operating.

Liquid sludge will be pumped from the mix tank to the two centrifuges. Polymer will be added as a flocculation agent through an in-line polymer make up system. The centrifuges will produce between 1 and 2 dry tons per hour per unit. The dewatered cake will be discharged into a containment area that is protected from potential run-off Cloverdale, CA Pond 3
80 SYNAGRO

6. Loading, transportation and disposal or end use - Synagro will use a rubber tired loader to load end dump trailers as production dictates. A minimal amount of material will be on site at any one time (one to two loads). As previously mentioned, the biosolids staging area will have sufficient containment to prevent the run-off of any material. This is consistent with previous removal activities.

Loaded trailers will be transported to one or more of the following locations:

Hay Road Landfill
Synagro's Silva Ranch Land Application Program, Sacramento County, CA Synagro's Merced County Land Application Program, various sites Every effort will be made to utilize beneficial use to the extent capacity is available. This will be dictated by the timing of the work to be done as capacity can become scarce due to weather conditions or permit restrictions. Copies of permits are available upon request by the city.

7. Demobilization and site restoration - Synagro will remove all equipment and restore the site to the pre-project condition. Aerators will be returned to the proper location for reconnection by plant staff.

8. Measurement and payment - Measurement of the chy tons removed will be based on the number of wet tons removed each day multiplied by the percent solids dry weight of a composite sample for that day. Grab samples will be extracted from each load and placed in a composite container. At the end of the day the container contents will be blended, and 200 mg samples will be placed into sample containers and refrigerated. These samples will be delivered to a California state certified laboratory for solids testing. Duplicate samples will be retained for use by the city, and if desired, percent solids can be an average of Synagro's laboratoi-y result and the city's laborato1y result. The specifics of the sampling, measurement and payment plan are subject to negotiation and agreement between Synagro and the city.

Synagro will invoice monthly. Billing will include a truck log that will indicate truck number, date, destination, gross, tare and net wet weights, percent solids for the day of transport and conversion to di-y tons. Each load will be supported by a certified weight ticket and a uniquely numbered Synagro cake ticket. The truck log will also update for total chy tonnage removed in order to prevent exceeding the contract quantity without city approval. Copies of lab reports will be provided for percent solids testing.

Cloverdale, CA Pond 3
81 SYNAGRO
Compliance reporting - Synagro will issue a monthly report detailing the disposition of all the material removed during the project. Additionally, Synagro will issue an annual report in January 2026 to facilitate completion of the plant's reporting requirements to the United States Environmental Protection Agency and the California Department of Water Resources.

9. Project Schedule -
Mobilization - 3 to 4 workdays Dredging, dewatering, transportation and end use -10 to 15 workdays Demobilization and site restoration - 3 to 4 workdays
Anticipated days and hours of operation - 12 hours per day, Monday through Saturday Cloverdale, CA Pond 3
82 Project References:

1. San Francisco Wastewater Enterprise
750 Phelps Street,
San Francisco, CA 94107

SYNAGRO
Ryan Batjiaka (628) 233-4807 [email protected]
Project Description: Digester Cleaning, dewatering, transport and end use, 2022-2024 Project Value: $2,000.000 per year

2. City of Stockton
2500 Navy Drive,
Stockton, CA
Attn: Ali Gharegozloo (209)93 7-8787 [email protected] Project Description: Digester and Lagoon Cleaning, 1998, 2002, 2009, 2013-2016, 2018 2023 to present Project Value: $500,000 to $4,000, 000 per year, depending on project scope

3. Town ofWindso1·
8200 Windsor Road, Windsor, CA
Dave Ernst (707)838-5328 [email protected] WWT Superintendent Project Description: Annual dredging, dewatering, transportation and end use of secondary waste activated sludge located in storage lagoon, 1998-2010, 2015 to present Project Value: $1,000,000 per year.

4. Tuolumne Utility District
18885 Nugget Road
Sonora, CA 95370
Michele Perkins (209)-532-5536x526) [email protected] Project Description: Clean clarifiers, dewater contents, transport and end use of solids, 2024 Project Value: $260,000.00

5. City of Sunnyvale CA
1440 Borregas Avenue
Sunnyvale, CA
Ryan Smith (408 730-7261
Project Description: Lagoon dredging, dewatering, hauling, land application of up to 2,000 to 5,000 dry tons per year. Ongoing since 2016
Project Value: $2,000,000 annually
83 6. Sonoma County Water Agency
404 Aviation Boulevard
Santa Rosa, CA 95403
George Lincoln 707-975-6333

SYNAGRO
Project Description: Lagoon dredging, dewatering, hauling & land application 550 Dry tons removed 2020,2022,2024
Value: $1,600,000.00
84 dl•.~partment of Industrial Relations

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

APPLICATION FOR

PUBLIC WORKS CONTRACTOR REGISTRATION
Registration Information
Type: Public Works
Period: 07/01/2024 06/30/2027
Contractor Information
Contractor Name: SYNAGRO-WWT, INC
Trade Name:

License Type Number: 1000006919
Contractor Physical Address
Physical Business Country: United States of America
Physical Business Address: 435 WILLIAMS COURT, SUITE 100 Contractor Mailing Address
Mailing Country: United States of America
Mailing Address: 435 WILLIAMS COURT, SUITE 100
Contact Info
Daytime Phone:

Mobile Phone:

Physical Business City/ BALTIMORE
Province:

Physical Business State: MD
Physical Business Postal 21220
Code:

Mailing City /Province: BALTIMORE
Mailing State: MD
Mailing Postal Code: 21220
Daytime Phone Ext.:

Business Email: [email protected]
Applicant's Email: [email protected]
Registration Services:: Page 1 of 2 6/17/2024 10:27:22 AM 85 Workers' Compensation
Professional Employer Organization (PEO)
Do you lease employees through Professional Employer Organization? No Workers' Compensation Overview
Carrier: AMERICAN GUARANTEE &
LIABILITY INS. CO.

Policyholder Name: Synagro Technologies, Inc
Policy Number: WC924396112
Certification
Inception Date: 08/01/2023
Expiration Date: August 1, 2024
Yes I certify that I do not have any delinquent liability to an employee or the state for any assessment of back wages or related damages, interest, fines, or penalties pursuant to any final judgment, order, or determination by a court or any federal, state, or local administrative agency, including a confirmed arbitration award Yes I certify that the contractor is not currently debarred under Section 1777.1 or under any other federal or state law providing for the debarment of contractors from public works.

Yes I certify that one of the following is true: (1) I am licensed by the Contractors State License Board (CSLB) in accordance with Chapter 9 (commencing with Section 7000) of the Business and Professions Code; or (2) my business or trade is not subject to licensing by the CSLB.

I understand refunds are not authorized
I, Emil Kneis, the undersigned, am, SYNAGRO-WWT, INC with the authority to act for and on behalf of the above named contractor. I certify under penalty of perjury that all of the above information provided is true and correct. I further acknowledge that any untruthful information provided in this application could result in the certification being canceled.

I certify this on: 10:23 AM
Legal Entity Information
Legal Entity Type: Corporation
Name: SYNAGRO-WWT, INC
Registration Services:: Page 2 of 2
86 oc:a CONTRACTORS STATE LICENSE BOARD

ACTIVE LICENSE
....... -801688 .,,...,CORP
-
.. ,_ SYNAGRO - WW T INC
~,,A
._,,.,, 12/31/2025
•
www.cslb.ca.9ov
87 SYNAGRO Materials Management Agreement
This Agreement made and entered into as of this __ day of _____ _ 2025_ by and between Contractor and Customer.

C
Customer Legal Name
u
s Street Address T
0 M
E City /Town County State Zip Code
R
C Synagro Legal Name
0 N
T Street Address
R
A
C City /Town State Zip Code T
0 R
Commencement Date I Expiration Date
T The "Term" of this Agreement shall be from the Commencement Date up to and including the Expiration Date. This Agreement and any extensions shall automatically renew on a year-to-year basis following expiration of the Term, until Contractor or E Customer delivers notice to the other party of its intent to terminate the Agreement. Such notice must be delivered at least 30 R days prior to the end of the then-current Term. If Contractor provides Contractor Services to Customer outside of the Term M without another written agreement, then such services shall be deemed provided pursuant to the terms of this Agreement (other than the Term) and Customer's request for or acceptance of Contractor Services shall be deemed consent to the terms of this Agreement. No such provision of services by Contractor shall be deemed an agreement to provide any further services or extend the term of this contract for additional periods.

Customer Contact Name Telephone#
B Street Number I P.O. Box Fax#
I
L Address Contact Person L
I
N E-mail Address
G
City/ State Zip Code
FOR CUSTOMER: Date
s
I Signature
G
N
A Name and Title
T
u FOR CONTRACTOR: Date
R
E Signature
s
Name and Title
Version 3/1/2018
88 SYNAGRO Materials Management Agreement

SCOPE OF SERVICES AND PRICING APPENDIX
Scope of Service.

Customer Materials.

Customer Materials shall consist of the following:

Method of Delivery of Customer Materials. The Customer Material shall be delivered to Contractor in the following manner:
"Customer Facility(ies) "shall mean the following locations where Customer Material(s) are generated or stored:

Contraster riglalt t0 ref1,1se loads. If tn,u;,ks 0r 00Rtain0rs are loa€lo€1 l:ly GustoA'l0r or its agents, GoRtraotor !:las tl:lo ri§l:lt to refuse lea€ls tl:lat are not witi:liR lesal weisl-lt restrictions, are €lefosti¥e, or are mit fille€1 to rnutuallr a~ree€1 ui;ioR A'liniA'IUA'IS or ma~EimuJTJs.

PRICE
The Agreement Price(s) shall be as follows:

SEE EXHIBIT A
Materials Management Agreement Page 2 of 7
Version 7/3/2021
89 SYNAGRO Materials Management Agreement
CPI. All Agreement Prices shall be adjusted as follows:

All Agreement Prices shall be adjusted annually beginning on __ _ , 20_ based on the Non-Seasonally Adjusted Consumer Price Index established by the United States Department of Commerce, Bureau of Labor Statistics, for _________________ with the CPI immediately preceding the Commencement Date being the base index. Said adjustment shall apply to all fees contained herein, and shall be based on the following formula:

New Price = (Price Adjustment) x First Year Agreement Price Current CPI - Base CPI
Price Adjustment = 1 + (---------------------------------) Base CPI
CPI= _______ _
Base CPI= ________ _
Once the CPI is available, the price adjustment shall take effect retroactively, where applicable, as of the dates specified above for price adjustments. No New Price shall ever be lower than any existing current Agreement Price in effect immediately before the annual adjustment.

Fuel Surcharge Adjustment
All Agreement Prices shall be adjusted monthly for a fuel surcharge ("Fuel Surcharge Adjustment") to reflect any increased change in diesel fuel prices, in accordance with the table below, if the cost of retail on-highway diesel fuel (Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration - ) is at, or exceeds, $ _____ per gallon (Base Price).

The Fuel Surcharge Adjustment will be based on the following chart and the Retail On-Highway Diesel Price - ____ _ as published by the U.S. Department of Energy's Energy Information Administration for ___________ and will be applied to the then current fixed or unit fee, as applicable. The Fuel Surcharge Adjustment will be no more than once a calendar month beginning with the second calendar month following the Commencement of Services and shall be adjusted as of the first day of each month. Fuel Surcharge Adjustment will then be applied as follows:

Diesel Price $/Gallon -Note1
< $(Base Price)
Base Price to Base Price plus
$.049
Base Price plus $0.05 to
Base Price plus $0.099 Base Price plus $0.1 to Base
Price olus $.0149
For each $0.05/gallon increase thereafter add 0.5%
EXAMPLE:

Base Price = $3.01 / Gallon
Diesel Price $/Gallon -
Note1
s $3.00 (Base Price)
$3.01 - $3.049
$3.05 - $3.099 $3.10 - $3.149
Fuel Surcharge
Adjustment%
None

0.5%

1.0%

1.5 %
Fuel Surcharge
Adjustment %
None

0.5%

1. %

1.5 %
Note 1 - Fuel Rate based on DOE EIA monthly retail on-highway diesel prices <~--~ Materials Management Agreement Page 3 of 7
Version 7/3/2021
90 SYNAGRO Materials Management Agreement

GENERAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS

1. Definitions. As used in this Agreement:

A. "Affiliate" shall mean any Person which, directly or indirectly, owns or controls, or is under common ownership or control with, or is owned or controlled by, such Person.

B. "Agreement" shall mean this agreement, and each and every exhibit, appendix and schedule attached hereto, and by reference made part of this Agreement.

C. "Agreement Price(s)" shall mean any one or, collectively, all the prices to be paid by the Customer to Contractor for Contractor Services.

D. "Authorizations" means all authorizations, permits,
applications, notices of intent, registrations, variances, and exemptions required for the removal, transportation and land application of Customer Materials in compliance with all Laws.

E. Agreement shall consist of the following documents which Customer acknowledges receiving copies of:

1. The Agreement

2. Scope of Service and Price Appendix

3. General Terms and Conditions
F. "Contractor Facility" shall mean a facility operated or controlled by Contractor or an Affiliate of Contractor.

G. "Contractor Services" shall be those services described in Scope of Service and Price Appendix.

H. "Customer" shall mean the entity identified as Customer in the first paragraph of this Agreement and its permitted successors and assigns.

I. "Customer Material(s)" shall mean the materials generated by or stored at the Customer's Facility which are described in Scope of Service and Price Appendix, Section A. 2. and meet(s) the requirements set forth in Appendix 2.

J. "Governmental Authority" means any governmental authority including the United States of America and any State, local authority, political subdivision, agency, department, commission, board, bureau, court, tribunal having jurisdiction over this Agreement, Customer Material(s), or Contractor, Customer, or Customer Facility.

K. "Hazardous Materials" means any "petroleum," "oil,"
"hazardous waste," "hazardous substance," "toxic substance," and "extremely hazardous substance" as such terms are defined, listed, or regulated under Laws.

L. "Intended Use" shall mean any use, placement or disposal of Customer Materials pursuant to this Agreement including by example, land application, composting, deposit in landfill, or incineration.

M. "Laws" means any Authorization and any applicable federal, state, or local law, rule, regulation, ordinance, order, decision, principle of common law, consent decree or order, of any Governmental Authority, now or hereafter in effect.

N. "Non-Conforming Material(s)" shall mean material(s) which (i) fail(s) to meet the description or characteristics described in Appendices 1 and/or 2, or (ii) are Hazardous Materials, or (iii) contain a concentration of polychlorinated biphenyls equal to or greater than 50 milligrams per kilogram of total solids (on a dry weight basis) or (iii) contains PFONPFAS levels in excess of any federal or state guidelines or regulations.

0. "Party" shall mean either Customer or Contractor; "Parties" shall mean Customer and Contractor.

P. "Person" shall mean any partnership, corporation,
Governmental Authority, trust or legal entity, as well as a natural person.

Q. "Term" shall mean the term of this Agreement including any extensions, as provided for in the Agreement.

3. Services.Contractor shall provide Contractor Services to Customer.

4. Price and Adjustments.

A. The Agreement Price(s) for Contractor Services is set forth in Scope of Services and Price.

B. Contractor will have no duty to handle Non-Conforming Materials unless Customer and Contractor mutually agree to terms including cost for the handling of such Non-Conforming Materials on a case-by-case basis. If Contractor discovers material is Non-Conforming after it takes possession, then Customer shall reimburse all costs and expenses of Contractor in handling such Non-Conforming Material until Customer arranges for removal and transportation of such NonConforming Material for appropriate processing and disposal, plus 10% of such costs and expenses.

C. Contractor shall be entitled to a price adjustment
commensurate with changes to the Consumer Price Index (CPI) and local conditions impacting the contracted work being performed if Notice to Proceed (NTP) is not given within ninety (90) Days from receipt of the Notice of Award (NOA). Contractor shall be granted the right to adjust the price, every ninety (90) days thereafter, until NTP is given by the customer. All pricing adjustments resulting from the conditions of this section will be commensurate with the CPI as provided by the Bureau of Labor Statistics for the region of the work being performed, and do not alter, adjust or cancel any section of this agreement, other than the base pricing resulting from the adjusted CPI rates.

5. Ownership of Materials. Customer shall retain all title to and ownership of the Customer Material and Non-Conforming Materials.

6. Rejection or Revocation of Acceptance of Materials.

A. Contractor shall have the right to reject any Non-Conforming Material prior to taking possession or revoking its acceptance after taking possession of any Non-Conforming Material, provided that Contractor notifies Customer by telephone or in writing of such rejection of Non-Conforming Materials promptly upon Contractor's discovery thereof. Any such notice of rejection not given initially in writing shall be promptly confirmed in writing to Customer. Contractor shall provide Customer with the documentation used to identify Customer Materials as Non-Conforming, and Customer shall have the right to re-test the Customer Materials.

B. Within twenty-four (24) hours after receipt of notice of rejection of Non-Conforming Material (or such longer period provided that Customer is acting
with due diligence). Customer shall in accordance
with Laws, arrange for and pay all costs associated with the testing , removal and transport of such Non-Conforming Material for appropriate processing and disposal. If Customer fails to remove Non-Conforming Material(s) within 10 business days of the date Customer is notified by Contractor, then Contractor shall have the right, but not the obligation, to remove, store, handle, transport, store, process and dispose of NonConforming Materials and Customer shall reimburse Contractor for all costs and expenses associated therewith, plus 10% of such costs and expenses.

C. Nothing in this section shall be construed to limit Customer's obligation to indemnify Contractor.

7. Change in Conditions Affecting Quality of Materials.

Customer shall immediately notify Contractor of changes or irregularities related to the creation, processing or conditions that would reasonably be expected to affect the quality, character or composition of Customer Materials. Customer shall promptly furnish to Contractor any information regarding known or suspected changes in the composition or characteristics of the Customer Materials.

8. Record Keeping. Contractor shall maintain records of the Contractor Services to the extent Contractor is required by Law, and further, shall maintain records to the extent specifically set forth in Scope of Services and Price. Customer shall maintain records to the extent Customer is required by Law. Customer shall keep and maintain records showing all data necessary for computation of the invoiced amounts during the term of the Agreement and for eighteen (18) months after the termination of the Agreement. Customer shall, upon reasonable notice from Contractor, allow Contractor to inspect and copy all records reasonably necessary for Contractor to compute the amounts to be invoiced.

9. Terms of Payment. Customer shall pay Contractor the full amount due under any invoice within thirty (30) days of the date of the invoice. Any invoice amount not paid in full within thirty (30) days of the date of the invoice shall bear interest at the lesser of: (i) one and one-half percent (1.5%) per month; or (ii) the maximum legally permissible interest rate on any unpaid balance thereof. Interest shall be computed from the date of the invoice. In the event of a dispute, Customer agrees to pay any undisputed amounts in accordance with the above terms.

10. Default Termination.

Material s Management
Agree
ment Page 4 of 7
Version 7/3/2021
91 SYN
AGRO Materials Management Agreement
A. In the event a Party seeks to terminate this Agreement because the other Party has failed to perform one or more of its material obligations hereunder, then the non-defaulting Party shall give a default notice to the defaulting party. Such default notice shall list with reasonable detail the nature of the default. Unless otherwise stated in Subsection B below, a defaulting Party shall have a right to cure a default within 10 days. If the defaulting Party fails to cure the default within 10 days after the receipt of the default notice, then this Agreement may be terminated by the non-defaulting party by delivery of notice of termination, effective on the termination date stated in in such termination notice.

B. Notwithstanding any provIsIon herein to the contrary, Contractor may immediately terminate this Agreement upon notice to Customer if:
(i) Customer fails to make full payment within 30 days of any invoice date;
(ii) there is a change in or to the interpretation of any Laws which increases Contractor's risk or cost, or which would serve to delay Contractor's performance of Contractor
Services;
(iii) Contractor reasonably determines that performing
Contractor Services will cause personal injury, or
damage to a Party's facilities, equipment or operation, or will cause Contractor to be in violation of Laws, or will produce or cause to be produced a process byproduct
that is classified as Hazardous Material(s); or
(iv) Customer fails to provide the NANI or NANI Equivalent as provided for in Section 29.A.4.b. of this Agreement.

C. Non-Default Termination
If the Customer has exercises a discretionary right to early termination that is not based on default, the Contractor will be compensated for early termination costs,
including but not limited to, recovery of capital costs, lost profit, demobilization costs, employment severance payments and cost to terminate subcontractors and equipment leases.

11. Indemnification.

A. Contractor shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless Customer, its directors, officers and agents from and against any and all claims, suits, actions, proceedings, liabilities, losses, damages, fines , penalties and expenses of every character whatsoever (including, but not limited to, liability for pollution, environmental or natural resource damage or restoration, nuisance, bodily injury, sickness and/or disease, including death, and loss of or damage to property), to the extent proximately caused by Contractor's negligence or breach of this Agreement. If any such suits, actions or proceedings are threatened or commenced, Customer shall promptly notify Contractor.

B. Customer shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless
Contractor, its partners, directors, officers, employees and agents from and against any and all claims, suits, actions, proceedings, liabilities, losses, damages, fines, penalties and expense of every character whatsoever (including, but not limited to, liability for pollution, environmental or natural resource damage or restoration, nuisance, bodily injury, sickness and/or disease, including death, and loss of or damage to property), to the extent they arise out of: (i) Customer's failure to comply with any of its obligations under this Agreement; (ii) Customer's delivery of Non-Conforming Material to Contractor; (iii) Contractor's acceptance, handling, use or application of NonConforming Material; and (iv) any other negligent act or omission or willful misconduct by Customer. If any such suits, actions or proceedings are threatened or commenced , Contractor shall promptly notify Customer.

12. Access. Customer shall provide Contractor access to Customer Facility(ies) as and when requested by Contractor in order to provide Contractor Services. Customer shall bear all costs or fees associated with providing access to Contractor.

13. Compliance with Laws. Unless otherwise specifically provided in this Agreement, Contractor shall comply with Laws directly regulating Contractor Services and Customer shall comply with all Laws imposed upon.

14. Physical Damage Responsibility; Insurance.

A. Contractor shall provide workers compensation insurance for all its employees providing services under this Agreement in accordance with applicable law. Contractor's liability and out of pocket expenses is capped at the insurance provided in this agreement.

B. Contractor shall provide commercial general liability insurance to cover the liabilities of Contractor arising out of the Contractor Services with limits of one million dollars ($1 ,000,000) for each claim, one million dollars ($1,000,000) products aggregate and two million dollars ($2,000,000) general aggregate. Such insurance shall provide that coverage shall not be canceled without thirty (30) days prior notice to Contractor and Customer, or ten (10) days' notice in the event that such coverage is cancelled for non-payment. Contractor shall provide evidence of said insurance, in the form of an insurance certificate, within thirty (30) days from the date hereof. Said certificate shall name Customer as an additional insured.

C. Contractor shall provide general liability and property damage insurance to cover the liabilities of Contractor arising out of the use of vehicles in in the performance of Contractor Services with a combined single limit of one million dollars ($1,000,000), with an umbrella policy of five million dollars ($5,000,000).

15. Force Majeure. Neither Party shall be liable to the other Party for breach or for failure or delay in the performance of its obligations hereunder caused by any act or occurrence beyond its reasonable control, including, but not limited to: fires; floods ; strikes (except any strikes involving a Party's personnel); a change in Federal, State, or local law or ordinance; orders or judgments of any Federal, State or local court, administrative agency or governmental body; change in permit conditions or requirements; accidents; extreme weather conditions including, for example, hurricanes, tornadoes, unusually high amounts of precipitation, unusual extremes of temperature or wind, or unusually extended periods of adverse weather conditions; acts of war, aggression or terrorism (foreign or domestic); equipment failure (other than due to the inadequate maintenance thereof); and acts of God. It is specifically understood that, without limitation, none of the following acts, events or circumstances shall constitute an act or occurrence beyond a Party's reasonable control: (i) reasonably anticipated weather conditions normal for the region in which the work is performed or (ii) any failure to pay any sums in accordance with the terms of this Agreement. Whenever the provisions of this Section are believed to apply, the Party relying thereon shall give prompt notice to the other Party of the circumstances, the basis for applicability of this Section and the time required to cure such breach or delay and Contractor and Customer shall use reasonable best efforts to agree on appropriate mitigating actions under the circumstances. This provision provides performance (including schedule) and financial relief if a Force Majeure event interferes with the Contractor's performance

16. Representation of Authority. Each person signing this Agreement represents and warrants that he or sh'e is duly authorized and has legal capacity to execute and deliver and perform this Agreement. Each Party represents and warrants to the other that the execution and delivery of the Agreement and the performance of such Party's obligations hereunder have been duly authorized and that the Agreement is a valid and legal agreement binding on such Party and enforceable in accordance with its terms.

17. Survival of Obligations. Notwithstanding the expiration or sooner termination of this Agreement, any duty or obligation which has been incurred and which has not been fully observed, performed and/or discharged, and any right, conditional or unconditional, which has been created and has not been fully enjoyed, enforced and/or satisfied, shall survive such expiration or termination until such duty or obligation has been fully observed, performed and/or discharged and such right has been fully enjoyed, enforced and/or satisfied.

18. Entire Agreement. This Agreement constitutes the entire agreement of the Parties with respect to the subject matter hereof and supersedes all prior agreements and understandings, both written and verbal, between the Parties with respect to the subject matter hereof.

19. Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed in counterparts, which together shall constitute one and the same contract. The Parties Materials Management Agreement Page 5 of 7
Version 7/3/2021
92 SYNAGRO Materials Management Agreement
may execute more than one copy of this Agreement, each of which shall constitute an original.

20. Assignment. This Agreement shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the Parties thereto and their successors and permitted assigns. The Agreement may not be assigned by either Party without the prior written consent of the other Party, which consent shall not be unreasonably withheld or delayed, except that Contractor may assign performance and/or collection to an Affiliate of Contractor without the consent of Customer.

21. Modification. This Agreement may not be amended, altered or modified except in writing signed by the Parties hereto.

22. Governing Law, Venue Selection. This Agreement shall be governed by and construed under the laws of the State of California.

23. No Third Party Liability. Neither this Agreement nor any Subcontract is intended to give rise to or recognize any third party beneficiary to this Agreement.

24. Partial Invalidity. If any provision of this Agreement is determined to be invalid, illegal or unenforceable for any reason, that provision shall be deleted from this Agreement and such deletion shall in no way affect, impair, or invalidate any other provision of this Agreement, unless ii was material to the consideration for the performance required. If a provision is deleted which is not material to such consideration, the remaining provisions shall be given the force and effect originally intended.

25. Consent to Breach Not Waiver. No term or provision hereof shall be deemed waived and no breach excused, unless such waiver or consent is in writing and signed by the Party claimed to have waived or consented. No consent by any Party to, or waiver of, a breach by the other Party shall constitute consent to, waiver of, or excuse of any other different or subsequent breach. No course of conduct or series of dealings shall constitute a waiver hereunder.

26. Notice. Except as otherwise specifically provided in this Agreement, all notices must be given in writing sent by recognized overnight courier or registered or certified US mail, postage prepaid, return receipt requested, addressed listed on the first page and with an additional copy of any notice to Contractor sent to:

Synagro WWT, Inc.
435 Williams Court, Suite 100
Baltimore, MD 21220
Attn: Legal Manager
Notice shall be sent to the referenced persons and addresses unless the Parties are otherwise notified in writing of a change in the name or address of the person to be notified.

27. Consequential Damages. In no event shall Contractor, its affiliated corporations and Affiliates or its and their directors, officers, employees or any of its subcontractors be liable for any incidental, indirect, special, punitive, economic or consequential damages, suffered or incurred by Customer or any of its agents or contractors as a result of Contractor's performance or non-performance of services pursuant to this Agreement. In no event shall Contractor's liability hereunder exceed the value of the payments to Contractor under this Agreement, regardless of legal theory.

28. Drafting Responsibility. Neither Contractor nor Customer shall be considered the drafter of this Agreement, and any ambiguities herein shall not be construed against either Contractor or Customer, both having participated in the drafting of this Agreement.

29. Customer Materials. Customer represents and warrants the following with respect to the quality of Customer Materials:

A. Biosolids.

1. Hazardous Materials. Customer will not provide Hazardous Materials to Contractor.

2. Polychlorinated Biphenyls. Customer Materials shall not contain a concentration of polychlorinated biphenyls (PCB's) equal to or greater than 50 milligrams per kilogram (dry weight basis), nor shall Customer Materials violate more stringent state or local standards, where applicable.

3. Suitability of Materials for Intended Use. All Customer Materials are suitable for their Intended Use and the qualities and characteristics of Customer Materials meet or exceed the minimum requirements under Laws for Intended Use.

4. Land Application of Biosolids. If land application is an Intended Use of Customer Materials, the following shall apply:
a. Customer agrees to provide Contractor with Customer
Materials that meet federal, state and local land application criteria at the time they are released to Contractor. • Where Contractor Services include pathogen reduction requirements and/or vector attraction reduction, Customer is not obligated to meet pathogen and/or vector attraction reduction requirements. b. Customer shall provide Contractor documentation that Customer's biosolids meet 40 CFR PART 503, state and local land application quality criteria with respect to the three biosolids quality criteria (i.e. metals content, pathogen reduction requirements, and vector attraction reduction requirements) unless Contractor has specifically agreed otherwise as part of the Contractor Services described below. This information is to be supplied to Contractor using a Notice and Necessary
Information ("NANI") form or NANI Equivalent within 45 days after the end of the Customer's monitoring period based on the biosolids testing frequency in 40 CFR 503.16. "NANI Equivalent" shall mean lab results which clearly show the three biosolids quality criteria are met (e.g. metal test results, fecal coliform test results, SOUR test results). If Customer has more than one Customer Facility, a NANI Form or NANI Equivalent is required for each Customer Facility at which Contractor Services are being provided. If Customer uses more than one treatment process within Customer Facility, (for example, customer produces anaerobically digested and lime stabilized biosolids) a NANI form or NANI Equivalent is required for each treatment process used by the Customer. If Customer has stored biosolids in more than one location/structure within Customer Facility produced over different lime periods or tested separately due to its unique characteristics or Customer's desired sampling program, a NANI form or NANI Equivalent are required for each Customer Facility storage location/structure. Contractor shall have the right to rely upon any information or certification provided by Customer and shall not have any independent duty to investigate or inquire regarding the subject matter of Customer's certification or of the information which Customer provides to Contractor. Where Contractor Services include pathogen reduction requirements , the NANI Form or NANI Equivalent provided Customer is not required to document compliance with pathogen reduction requirements by Law.

Where Contractor Services include vector attraction reduction, the NANI Form or NANI Equivalent provided by Customer is not required to document compliance with vector attraction
reduction requirements.
c. If Customer fails to provide the NANI Form or NANI
Equivalent when required by Law, Contractor shall have the immediate right, but not the obligation, to suspend or terminate Contractor Services or this Agreement. Customer shall be liable for all additional costs and expenses arising out of such suspension or termination.
d. Contractor will land apply Customer Materials based on the most current NANI Form or NANI equivalent test results provided to the Contractor.

5. Disposal of Biosolids into Landfill. Where Customer Materials are to be disposed of in landfill(s), Customer Materials must meet the requirements in 40 CFR Part 258 (e.g., pass paint filter test and be non-hazardous per 40 CFR Part 261) and any applicable state requirements
B. Industrial Residuals:

1. Hazardous Materials. Customer will not provide Hazardous Materials to Contractor.

2. Polychlorinated Biphenyls. Customer Materials shall not contain a concentration of polychlorinated biphenyls (PCB's) equal to or greater than 50 milligrams per kilogram (dry weight basis), nor Materials Management Agreement Page 6 of 7
Version 7/3/2021
93 SYNAGRO Materials Management Agreement
shall Customer Materials violate more stringent state or local standards, where applicable.

3. Suitability of Materials for Intended Use. All Customer Materials are suitable for their Intended Use and the qualities and characteristics of Customer Materials meet or exceed the minimum requirements under Laws for Intended Use.

4. Cadmium. Customer will provide Contractor with the total cadmium (Cd) concentration of the residuals in milligrams per kilograms (mg/kg) dry weight with the frequency required by Laws.

5. Disease Vectors. Customer Materials shall not attract disease vectors that endanger public health.

6. Disposal of Biosolids into Landfill. Where Customer Materials are to be disposed of in landfill(s), Customer Materials must meet the requirements in 40 CFR Part 258 (e.g., pass paint filter test and be non-hazardous per 40 CFR Part 261) and any applicable state requirements .

C. Additional Customer Materials (if any):

30. Ethics Reporting. In the event that you become aware of unethical or illegal behavior by any Synagro employee, please report such behavior to Synagro through its thirdparty hotline at 888-577-9486. Reports may be anonymous. You may also report it on-line at EthicsPoint - Synagro Technologies.

Materials Management Agreement Page 7 of 7
Version 7/3/ 2021
94 City Council/Successor Agency
Agenda Item Summary Agenda Item: F.7
Meeting Date: September 23, 2025
Agenda Section:

Consent
Staff Contact:

Hector Galvan-Parks & Streets Superintendent
Agenda Item Title:

Consider Approval of Construction Contract for Soda Springs Ranch Site Improvements Recommended Council Action(s):

Adopt a Resolution Entitled, "A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Cloverdale Awarding a Construction Contract to Andersen Excavating in an amount not to exceed $123,066.73, which includes both demolition and construction proposals, and Authorizing the City Manager to Execute the Agreement and Related Documents."
________________________________________________________________________________________ Background:

The Soda Springs Ranch property requires critical infrastructure and accessibility upgrades. Andersen Excavating submitted proposals addressing both demolition and site improvement needs. • Proposal 1 covers demolition and off-haul of existing structures, equipment, and debris at a total of $11,509.73
• Proposal 2 includes installation of a replacement arched culvert, construction of a 7,880 sq ft parking area, and ADA-compliant parking with striping, signage, and bumpers. The total cost is $100,369.12
These improvements are necessary to address drainage, parking, and accessibility at the Soda Springs Ranch site.
________________________________________________________________________________________ Summary:

The project includes the following major components:
• Demolition & Site Clearing: Removal of an outbuilding, off-haul of truck body, trailer, concrete pipe, and large stump for recycling/disposal.
• Infrastructure & Parking Improvements:
o Replacement of an existing 36” culvert with a new 29”x42”x30’ arched culvert. o Grading and compaction of a 7,880 sq ft parking area with 6” of ¾” blue base. o Installation of ADA-compliant parking spaces (1 van space and 1 auto space) with concrete slab, striping, signage, and bumpers.

The total cost of all work is $111,878.85, exclusive of contingency.

Options:

1. Approve the contract with Andersen Excavating.

2. Direct staff to seek additional bids.

3. Take no action
95 City Council/Successor Agency Agenda Item Summary

Page 2 of 2 ends

________________________________________________________________________________________ Subcommittee Recommendation:

The Infrastructure Subcommittee reviewed the proposals and recommended moving forward with Andersen Excavating due to scope, cost, and local experience.
________________________________________________________________________________________ Budget/Financial Impact:

The total contract amount is $111,878.85. A 10% contingency of $11,187.88 is recommended, for a total potential expenditure of $123,066.73. Funds are available in the approved Capital Improvement Project (CIP) budget for Soda Springs Ranch improvements.
________________________________________________________________________________________ Attachments:

1. Resolution with Andersen Excavating Proposal #1 (Demolition – $11,509.73)

2. Andersen Excavating Proposal
96 CITY OF CLOVERDALE

CITY COUNCIL
RESOLUTION NO. ____-2025

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CLOVERDALE AWARDING A CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT TO ANDERSEN EXCAVATING IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $123,066.73 FOR SODA

SPRINGS RANCH SITE IMPROVEMENTS, AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE THE

AGREEMENT AND RELATED DOCUMENTS
WHEREAS, The City of Cloverdale has identified the need for infrastructure and accessibility upgrades at the Soda Springs Ranch property, including drainage, parking, and ADA compliance improvements; and WHEREAS, Andersen Excavating submitted proposals dated July 15, 2025, addressing both demolition and site improvement needs; and
WHEREAS, Proposal 1 includes demolition and off-haul of an outbuilding, truck body, trailer, concrete pipe, and large stump, at a cost of $11,509.73; and
WHEREAS, Proposal 2 includes replacement of an existing culvert with a new 29”x42”x30’ arched culvert, construction of a 7,880 square foot parking area, and installation of ADA-compliant parking spaces, at a cost of $100,369.12; and
WHEREAS, The Infrastructure Subcommittee reviewed the proposals and recommended moving forward with Andersen Excavating based on scope, cost, and local experience; and WHEREAS, Funds are available in the approved Capital Improvement Project (CIP) budget for Soda Springs Ranch improvements.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: The City Council hereby awards the construction contract for the Soda Springs Ranch Site Improvements to Andersen Excavating in the amount of $111,878.85; and A 10% contingency in the amount of $11,187.88 is authorized, for a total potential expenditure of $123,066.73.

The City Manager is authorized to execute the Agreement and any related documents necessary to implement the project.

The foregoing Resolution was duly introduced and adopted by the City Council of the City of Cloverdale at its regular meeting held on the ___ day of _______ 2025 by the following roll call vote:

Ayes: (_) Councilmember Brigham, Councilmember Cruz, Councilmember Turner, Noes: (_) None

Absent: (_)
Abstaining: (_) None
97 APPROVED: ATTEST:
_________________________ __________________________
Todd Lands, Mayor Mike Maloney, City Clerk
Attachments:

Exhibit A – Proposals from Andersen Excavating
98 Andersen Excavating
PO Box 65
Cloverdale, CA 95425
(707)484-6122
Lic#876566

Page 1 ends

PROPOSAL 7/15/2025

BILL TO INSTRUCTIONS
City Of Cloverdale
Hector Galvan
Soda Springs Ranch

QUANTITY DESCRIPTION UNIT PRICE TOTAL
1 Replace 36” culvert with new 29”x42”x30’
arched culvert
Machinery & Labor 11,495.62
Material 3,096.00
Tax 309.60
Environmental fee 20.60
Total $14,921.82
1 Parking area 7880 sqft. Cut, shape and
compact sub grade to drain. Place and
compact 6” of ¾” blue base
Machinery & Labor 60,687.89
Material 3,672.00
Tax 367.20
Environmental fee 422.00
Total $65,149.09
1 Install ADA parking for 1 van space and 1
auto space. 22’ x 27’ x 6” concrete slab to
ADA specs, striping, signs and bumpers
LS 20,298.22
Job Total $100,369.12
99 Andersen Excavating
PO Box 65
Cloverdale, CA 95425
(707)484-6122
Lic#876566

Page 2 ends

ANDERSEN EXCAVATING, ACCEPTS THE

ABOVE SCOPE OF WORK, PROPOSED FOR
THE TOTAL AMOUNT. PROPOSAL GOOD
FOR 30 DAYS.

Thank you for your business!
100
Andersen Excavating
PO Box 65
Cloverdale, CA 95425
(707)484-6122
Lic#876566

Page 1 ends

PROPOSAL 7/15/2025

BILL TO INSTRUCTIONS
City Of Cloverdale
Hector Galvan
Soda Springs Ranch

QUANTITY DESCRIPTION UNIT PRICE TOTAL
1 Demo out building
Machinery & Labor 4,131.22
Dump fee 507.00
Total $4,638.22
1 Off haul truck body, trailer and concrete pipe
off haul to recycle. Off haul large stump
Machinery & Labor 6,871.51
Job Total $11,509.73

ANDERSEN EXCAVATING, ACCEPTS THE

ABOVE SCOPE OF WORK, PROPOSED FOR
THE TOTAL AMOUNT. PROPOSAL GOOD
FOR 30 DAYS.

Thank you for your business!
101
City Council/Successor Agency
Agenda Item Summary Agenda Item: F.8
Meeting Date: September 24, 2025
Agenda Section:

Consent
Staff Contact:

Hector Galvan – Parks & Streets Superintendent
Agenda Item Title:

Consider Approval of Cavallo Construction Proposal for City Park Picnic/Gazebo Structure Recommended Council Action(s):

Adopt a Resolution Entitled, "A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Cloverdale Awarding a Construction Contract to Cavallo Construction for a new picnic/gazebo structure at Cloverdale City Park in the amount not to exceed $65,813.00, Approving a budget Amendment to the FY 25/26 Budget and Authorizing the City Manager to Execute the Agreement and Related Documents." ________________________________________________________________________________________ Background: The City of Cloverdale has prioritized improvements to City Park to expand community amenities. The existing picnic structure requires replacement and modernization. Cavallo Construction has submitted a detailed estimate for the construction of a new 20’x20’ redwood picnic/gazebo structure with reinforced concrete slab, footings, and a new metal roof. ________________________________________________________________________________________ Summary:

Concrete Slab/Foundation: 30’x30’ 4” reinforced slab with 24”x24”x18” deep footings.

Structure: 20’x20’ con-heart redwood frame, brackets, screws, nails, bolts, sheathing, ice & water shield.

Roofing: Metal roofing (color TBD).

Finish: Stained to match existing park structures.

Materials & Insurance: $32,430.00
Labor: $27,400.00
Total Estimate: $59,830.00
Contingency $5,983.00 for a total of $65,813
Deposit required: 20% ($11,966.00) due prior to project start. ________________________________________________________________________________________ Options:

1. Adopt the resolution and authorize execution of the contract with Cavallo Construction.

2. Reject the bid and re-advertise the project.

3. Provide alternative direction to staff.
________________________________________________________________________________________ Subcommittee Recommendation:

Infrastructure subcommittee recommends this project to the City Council. ________________________________________________________________________________________ 102
City Council/Successor Agency Agenda Item Summary

Page 2 of 2 ends

Budget/Financial Impact:

The contract is funded by Park Impact Fees. The total project cost is $65,813.00. There is no impact to the General Fund.
______________________________________________________________________________________ Attachments:

1. Resolution

2. Exhibit A - Quote

3. Exhibit B - Budget Amendment
103

CITY OF CLOVERDALE

CITY COUNCIL
RESOLUTION NO. ____

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CLOVERDALE AWARDING A CONSTRUCTION

CONTRACT TO CAVALLO CONSTRUCTION FOR A NEW PICNIC/GAZEBO STRUCTURE AT CLOVERDALE CITY PARK IN THE AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $65,813.00, APPROVING A BUDGET AMENDMENT TO THE FY 25/26 BUDGET AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE THE

AGREEMENT AND RELATED DOCUMENTS
WHEREAS, the City of Cloverdale has prioritized improvements to City Park to expand community amenities; and WHEREAS, the existing picnic structure at City Park requires replacement and modernization to meet community needs; and
WHEREAS, Cavallo Construction has submitted a detailed estimate to construct a new 20’x20’ redwood picnic/gazebo structure with a reinforced 30’x30’ concrete slab foundation, footings, and new metal roof; and WHEREAS, the total cost of the project is $59,830.00, with $32,430.00 for materials and insurance and $27,400.00 for labor, plus a contingency amount of $5,983 for a total of $65,813. A deposit of $11,966.00 is due prior to the project start; and
WHEREAS, the Parks & Streets Subcommittee has reviewed and recommended approval of the proposal; and WHEREAS, the contract is fully funded through Park Impact Fees with no impact to the City’s General Fund NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Cloverdale hereby:

1. Awards a construction contract to Cavallo Construction in the amount of $59,830.00 plus $5,983 for the construction of a new picnic/gazebo structure at Cloverdale City Park.

2. Authorizes the City Manager to execute the agreement and all related documents necessary to carry out the project.

3. Directs staff to implement the project consistent with the approved scope, schedule, and budget.

The foregoing Resolution was duly introduced and adopted by the City Council of the City of Cloverdale at its regular meeting held on the ___ day of _______ 2025 by the following roll call vote:

Ayes: (_) Councilmember Brigham, Councilmember Cruz, Councilmember Turner, Noes: (_) None

Absent: (_)
Abstaining: (_) None
APPROVED: ATTEST:
_________________________ __________________________
Todd Lands, Mayor Mike Maloney, City Clerk
Attachments:

Exhibit A – Scope of Work from Cavallo Construction. 104 Cavallo Construction Estimate
For: City Of Cloverdale Estimate No: 53
Date: 08/21/2025
Description Amount
City park picnic structure materials
Slab
Base rock,rebar and ties, form boards,stakes, and concrete Structure
Wood to be all con hrt redwood
Brackets,screws,nails bolts,
Sheathing for roof
Ice and water shield
Metal roofing color to be determined
$29,140.00
Additional insurance costs $2,450.00
Rental equipment $840.00
Parts Subtotal $32,430.00
Description Amount
City park picnic structure
Pour 30’x30 4” reinforced concrete slab with 24x24x18” deep footings at each post location Build 20’x20’ redwood structure to match existing design of current picnic structure.

New structure will have metal roofing.

Stain will match existing
$27,400.00
Labor Subtotal $27,400.00
488 S Foothill Blvd
Cloverdale, CA 95425
Contractors Lic# 1008680
1 / 6
105
Payment Details
A <span>20%</span> deposit of <span>$11</span>,<span>966</ span>.<span>00</span> is required by <span>08/</span><span>29/</ span><span>2025</span>.

Subtotal $59,830.00
Total $59,830.00
Total $59,830.00
Pay Now Deposit due 08/29/2025 $11,966.00
Cavallo Construction - Estimate 53 - 08/21/2025
2 / 6
106
Photo 3
Cavallo Construction - Estimate 53 - 08/21/2025
3 / 6
107
Photo 4
Cavallo Construction - Estimate 53 - 08/21/2025
4 / 6
108
Photo 3
Cavallo Construction - Estimate 53 - 08/21/2025
5 / 6
109
Photo 4
Cavallo Construction - Estimate 53 - 08/21/2025
6 / 6
110
Budget Amendment Form

REVENUES AND OTHER FINANCING SOURCES
Fund Dept Amendment
Amount
100 00.999 65,813
REVENUE TOTAL 65,813

EXPENDITURES AND OTHER FINANCING USES
Fund Dept Amendment
Amount
100 40.404 65,813
508 00.999 65,813
EXPENDITURE TOTAL 131,626

PURPOSE
Date Date
Date Entered by Date
49130.000
49999.000
Transfer funds to cover picnic/gazebo @ 2nd St. Park
City Manager
Transfer Out
Department Head Finance Director
Date Prepared
September 16, 2025
Account Description Account No.

Parks
Transfer In
Account No.
39999.000
Construction
Requesting Department
Account Description
Prepared By
Hector Galvan
X:\Agenda Development\COUNCIL\2025 Reports\9-24-2025\Consent\Cavallo Construction - Budget Amendment\Attachment 3 - Exhibit B - Budget Amendment 111
City Council/Successor Agency
Agenda Item Summary Agenda Item: G.1
Meeting Date: September 24, 2025
Agenda Section:

Public Hearing
Staff Contact:

Kevin Thompson, City Manager
Agenda Item Title:

Consider Adoption of a Resolution adopting a mitigated negative declaration and mitigation monitoring and reporting program (MMRP) in connection with the open space easement for the Soda Springs Ranch Open Space Preserve
________________________________________________________________________________________ Recommended Council Action(s):

Adopt a Resolution Entitled, “A resolution of the City of Cloverdale City Council adopting a mitigated negative declaration and mitigation monitoring and reporting program (MMRP) in connection with the open space easement for the Soda Springs Ranch Open Space Preserve located at 180 Foothill Boulevard APNs 115-220-006, 115-220,007, 115-220-019.”
_______________________________________________________________________________________ Background:

The City of Cloverdale has prepared an Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) for the proposed Soda Springs Ranch Open Space Preserve project. The project aims to improve public recreational opportunities while enhancing habitat protection, wildfire safety, and open space management.

The IS/MND evaluates potential environmental impacts associated with proposed project activities and identifies mitigation measures that would reduce all potentially significant impacts to a less-than-significant level.
_______________________________________________________________________________________ Summary:

The proposed project would include the following key components:
• Closure of eight existing roads/hiking trails (totaling 0.9 miles) and demolition of several on-site structures.
• Development of three new multi-use trails and 11 new picnic sites, encompassing a total of 199.05 acres.
• Construction of a 2,000 square-foot parking lot to improve access. • Installation of new fencing, signage, and habitat buffer areas. • Vegetation removal and ongoing maintenance of the existing shaded fuel break for wildfire risk reduction.
_______________________________________________________________________________________ CEQA:

Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) is recommended for adoption by the City Council with the finding that mitigation measures included in the IS/MND would reduce all potentially significant impacts to a less-than-significant level.
112
City Council/Successor Agency Agenda Item Summary
Meeting Date: September 24, 2025

Page 2 of 2 ends

Options:

1. Reject the Resolution; or

2. Provide alternative direction to City staff.
________________________________________________________________________________________ Subcommittee Recommendation:

Bring forward for full Council consideration
_______________________________________________________________________________________ Budget/Financial Impact:

Project improvements are funded through a combination of grant funding and city open space funds. Ongoing maintenance will be incorporated into the Parks and Public Works Department’s operational budget. ________________________________________________________________________________________ Attachments

1. Resolution

2. Exhibit A: Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration and Appendices

3. Appendix A

4. Appendix B

5. Appendix C

6. Appendix D

7. Appendix E

8. Exhibit B: Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program

9. Presentation
113

CITY OF CLOVERDALE

CITY COUNCIL
RESOLUTION NO. ___-2025

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CLOVERDALE

ADOPTING A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION (MND) AND MITIGATION

MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM (MMRP) IN CONNECTION WITH THE

OPEN SPACE EASEMENT FOR THE SODA SPRINGS RANCH OPEN SPACE PRESERVE LOCATED AT 180 FOOTHILL BOULEVARD APN 115-220-006, 115-220,007, 115-220-019 WHEREAS, the City of Cloverdale (“City”) proposes to implement the Soda Springs Ranch Open Space Preserve project, which includes closure of existing roads and trails, demolition of select structures, development of new multi-use trails and picnic sites, construction of a parking lot, installation of fencing and signage, creation of habitat buffer areas, and vegetation management for wildfire risk reduction; and WHEREAS, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq., and the CEQA Guidelines, the City prepared an Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (“IS/MND”) to evaluate the potential environmental impacts of the project; and WHEREAS, the IS/MND identified potentially significant impacts in the areas of air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, geology and soils, and hazards/hazardous materials, but determined that, with implementation of the identified mitigation measures, all impacts would be reduced to less-thansignificant levels; and WHEREAS, the City prepared a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (“MMRP”) in compliance with CEQA Section 21081.6 to ensure that mitigation measures will be implemented as conditions of project approval; and
WHEREAS, the IS/MND and MMRP were circulated for public review in accordance with CEQA, and all comments received were reviewed and considered by City staff and the City Council; and WHEREAS, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing on September 24, 2025, to consider adoption of the IS/MND and MMRP for the Soda Springs Ranch Open Space Preserve project.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the above recitations are true and correct and are incorporated by reference into this action.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City Council hereby makes the following findings:

1. The City Council finds, based on the whole record, including the IS/MND, MMRP, staff reports, and all public comments received, that there is no substantial evidence that the Soda Springs Ranch Open Space Preserve project will have a significant effect on the environment with implementation of the identified mitigation measures.

2. The City Council hereby adopts the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) for the Soda Springs Ranch Open Space Preserve project, attached hereto as Exhibit A.

3. The City Council hereby adopts the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) for the project, attached hereto as Exhibit B, and directs staff to implement and enforce the mitigation measures as conditions of approval.

4. The City Manager, or designee, is authorized and directed to take all necessary actions to carry out the intent of this Resolution.
114
IT IS HEREBY CERTIFIED that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Cloverdale held on the 24th day of September 2025, by the following vote:

AYES: ()
NOES: ()
ABSTAIN: ()
ABSENT: ()
APPROVED: ATTEST:
_______________________ _____________________
Todd Lands, Mayor Mike Maloney, City Clerk
Exhibits:

A. Exhibit A: Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration and Appendices B. Exhibit B: Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 115
Soda Springs Ranch Open Space Preserve
Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
City of Cloverdale, Sonoma County, California
PREPARED FOR:

City of Cloverdale
124 North Cloverdale Boulevard
Cloverdale, CA 95425
707.894.2521
Contact: Kevin Thompson
City Manager | Community Development Director
PREPARED BY:

FirstCarbon Solutions
2999 Oak Road, Suite 250
Walnut Creek, CA 94597
925.357.2562
Contact: Mary Bean, Project Director
Madelyn Dolan, Project Manager
September 8, 2025
116

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
117

S O D A SPRINGS RANCH OPEN SPACE PRESERVE

INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
FCS iii
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/4859/48590006/ISMND/48590006 Soda Springs Ranch Open Space Preserve ISMND.docx Table of Contents
Acronyms and Abbreviations v
1 - Introduction 1

1.1 - Purpose 1

1.2 - Project Location 1

1.3 - Environmental Setting 2

1.4 - Exhibit General Plan and Zoning Designations 7

1.5 - Project Description 8

1.5.1 - Annexation into the City 8

1.5.2 - Trail/Road Closures, Demolition, and Removal 8

1.5.3 - Land Uses 8

1.5.4 - Proposed General Land Use Designation and Zoning District 12

1.6 - Required Discretionary Approvals 12

1.7 - Intended Uses of This Document 12
2 - Environmental Checklist and Environmental Evaluation 17

2.1 Aesthetics 18

2.2 Agriculture and Forestry Resources 22

2.3 Air Quality 27

2.4 Biological Resources 37

2.5 Cultural Resources and Tribal Cultural Resources 55

2.6 Energy 62

2.7 Geology and Soils 68

2.8 Greenhouse Gas Emissions 77

2.9 Hazards and Hazardous Materials 92

2.10 Hydrology and Water Quality 100

2.11 Land Use and Planning 106

2.12 Mineral Resources 108

2.13 Noise 110

2.14 Population and Housing 117

2.15 Public Services 119

2.16 Recreation 122

2.17 Transportation 124

2.18 Utilities and Service Systems 130

2.19 Wildfire 133

2.20 Mandatory Findings of Significance 139
3 - List of Preparers 141
118

S O D A SPRINGS RANCH OPEN SPACE PRESERV E

INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
iv FCS
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/4859/48590006/ISMND/48590006 Soda Springs Ranch Open Space Preserve ISMND.docx Appendix A: Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Supporting Information
Appendix B: Biological Resources Supporting Information Appendix C: Cultural Resources Supporting Information
Appendix D: Geology and Soils Supporting Information
Appendix E: Noise Supporting Information
Tables
Table 1: Development Summary 11
Table 2: Thresholds of Significance 29
Table 3: Construction Regional Criteria Pollutant Exhaust Emissions 33 Table 4: Operational Regional Criteria Pollutant Emissions 34 Table 5: Description of Greenhouse Gases of Concern 78
Table 6: Proposed Project Construction GHG Emissions 90 Table 7: Public Transit Service and Facilities 126
Exhibits
Exhibit 1: Regional Vicinity Map 3
Exhibit 2: Local Vicinity Map 5
Exhibit 3: Site Plan 9
Exhibit 4: Site Photographs 15
Exhibit 5: Rare Plant Survey Map 49
Exhibit 6: Fire Hazard Severity Zone 135
Figures
Figure 1: Observed and Projected Temperatures for Climate Change in the Project Area 81
Figure 2: California GHG Emissions by Scoping Plan Sector (2022) 83 Figure 3: Bay Area Air District GHG Emissions by Scoping Plan Sector 84 119

S O D A SPRINGS RANCH OPEN SPACE PRESERV E

INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
FCS v
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/4859/48590006/ISMND/48590006 Soda Springs Ranch Open Space Preserve ISMND.docx

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
°F degrees Fahrenheit
µg/m3 micrograms per cubic meter
AAQS Ambient Air Quality Standard
AB Assembly Bill
ACC II Advanced Clean Cars II
ACM asbestos-containing materials
ADA Americans with Disabilities Act
ADT Average Daily Traffic
ADU accessory dwelling unit
ALUC Airport Land Use Commission
APN Assessor’s Parcel Number
AR Agricultural Residential
ARB California Air Resources Board
ATCM Airborne Toxic Control Measure
Bay Area Air District Bay Area Air Quality Management District BERD California Built Environment Resource Directory
BMP Best Management Practice
BRA Biological Resources Assessment
CAFE Corporate Average Fuel Economy
CAL FIRE California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection CalEEMod California Emissions Estimator Model
Cal/EPA California Environmental Protection Agency
CALGreen California Green Building Standards Code
CalRecycle California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery Caltrans California Department of Transportation
CALUP Comprehensive Airport Land Use Plan
CAP Climate Action Plan
CBC California Building Standards Code
CDFW California Department of Fish and Wildlife
CEC California Energy Commission
CEQA California Environmental Quality Act
CESA California Endangered Species Act
CF Conservation Feature
120

S O D A SPRINGS RANCH OPEN SPACE PRESERV E

INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
vi FCS
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/4859/48590006/ISMND/48590006 Soda Springs Ranch Open Space Preserve ISMND.docx CFC chlorofluorocarbon
CH4 methane
CHL California Historical Landmarks
CI compression ignition
CNDDB California Natural Diversity Database
CNEL Community Noise Equivalent Level
CNPS California Native Plant Society
CNPS Inventory CNPS Inventory of Rare Plants
CO carbon monoxide
CO2 carbon dioxide
CO2e carbon dioxide equivalent
CPHI California Points of Historical Interest
CRHR California Register of Historical Resources
CUSD Cloverdale Unified School District
CWA Clean Water Act
dB decibel
dBA A-weighted decibel
DBH diameter at breast height
DBR daily breathing rate
DOE United States Department of Energy
DPM diesel particulate matter
DTSC California Department of Toxic Substances Control
EIA United States Energy Information Administration
EMFAC EMission FACtors mobile source emissions model
EPA United States Environmental Protection Agency
EV electric vehicle
FAA Federal Aviation Administration
FAR Federal Aviation Regulations
FCS FirstCarbon Solutions
FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency
FHSZ Fire Hazard Severity Zone
FMMP Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program
FTA Federal Transit Administration
GHG greenhouse gas
GWP global warming potential
HASP Health and Safety Plan
121

S O D A SPRINGS RANCH OPEN SPACE PRESERV E

INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
FCS vii
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/4859/48590006/ISMND/48590006 Soda Springs Ranch Open Space Preserve ISMND.docx HCP Habitat Conservation Plan
HFC hydrofluorocarbon
I&M Inspection and Maintenance
in/sec inches per second
IPCC United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change IS/MND Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
ITE Institute of Transportation Engineers
kBTU kilo-British Thermal Unit
kW kilowatt
kWh kilowatt-hour
kWh/year kilowatt-hour per year
LAFCo Local Agency Formation Commission
lbs pounds
LCFS Low Carbon Fuel Standard
LCI California Governor’s Office of Land Use and Climate Innovation Ldn day/night sound level
LDR Low Density Residential
Leq equivalent sound level
LEV Low Emission Standards
LID Low Impact Development
Lmax maximum noise/sound level
Lmin minimum noise/sound level
LOS Level of Service
LRA Local Responsibility Area
LSI large spark-ignition
LUST Leaking Underground Storage Tank
M1 Limited Urban Industrial
MBTA Migratory Bird Treaty Act
MDR Medium Density Residential
mgd million gallons per day
MIR Maximum Impacted Sensitive Receptor
MLD Most Likely Descendant
MM Mitigation Measure
MMT million metric tons
mph miles per hour
mph miles per hour
122

S O D A SPRINGS RANCH OPEN SPACE PRESERV E

INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
viii FCS
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/4859/48590006/ISMND/48590006 Soda Springs Ranch Open Space Preserve ISMND.docx MRZ Mineral Resource Zone
MS4 Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System
MSL mean sea level
MT metric ton
MW megawatt
N2O nitrous oxide
NAHC Native American Heritage Commission
NASA National Aeronautics and Space Administration
NCEI National Centers for Environmental Information
NF3 nitrogen trifluoride
NFHL National Flood Hazard Layer
NO2 nitrogen dioxide
NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
NoSoCoAir Northern Sonoma County Air Pollution Control District NOX nitrogen oxide
NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
NRHP National Register of Historic Places
NWIC Northwest Information Center
OPR California Governor’s Office of Planning and Research PFC perfluorocarbon
PG&E Pacific Gas and Electric Company
PHEV Plug-in Hybrid-Electric Vehicle
PM10 particulate matter less than 10 microns in diameter PM2.5 particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in diameter ppm parts per million
PPV peak particle velocity
RCP Representative Concentration Pathway
ROG reactive organic gas
RPS Renewable Portfolio Standard
RRD Resources and Rural Development
RWQCB Regional Water Quality Control Board
SB Senate Bill
SCDEH Sonoma County Department of Environmental Health
SCS Sustainable Communities Strategy
SCTA Sonoma County Transportation Authority
SF6 sulfur hexafluoride
123

S O D A SPRINGS RANCH OPEN SPACE PRESERV E

INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
FCS ix
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/4859/48590006/ISMND/48590006 Soda Springs Ranch Open Space Preserve ISMND.docx SFBAAB San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin
SLF Sacred Lands File
SMARA California Surface Mining and Reclamation Act
SMART Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit
SO2 sulfur dioxide
SOI Sphere of Influence
SORE Small Off-Road Engine
SOX sulfur oxide
SR State Route
SRA State Responsibility Area
State Water Board California State Water Resources Control Board SVP Society of Vertebrate Paleontology
SWMP Storm Water Management Plan
SWPPP Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan
TAC toxic air contaminant
TCR Tribal Cultural Resource
UCMP University of California Museum of Paleontology
USACE United States Army Corp of Engineers
USFWS United States Fish and Wildlife Service
USGS United States Geological Survey
UWMP Urban Water Management Plan
VMT Vehicle Miles Traveled
VOC volatile organic compounds
W/m2 watts per square meter
WDR Waste Discharge Requirement
WEAP Worder Environmental Awareness Program
ZEV Zero-Emission Vehicle
124

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
125
Soda Springs Ranch Open Space Preserve
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
FCS 1
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/4859/48590006/ISMND/48590006 Soda Springs Ranch Open Space Preserve ISMND.docx 1 - INTRODUCTION

1.1 - Purpose
The purpose of this Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (Draft IS/MND) is to identify any potential environmental impacts that would result from implementation of the proposed Soda Springs Ranch Open Space Preserve Project (proposed project), which includes annexation of the site into the City of Cloverdale, California. Pursuant to California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15367, the City of Cloverdale has discretionary authority over the proposed project and is the Lead Agency in the preparation of this Draft IS/MND and any additional environmental documentation required for the proposed project.

The remainder of this section provides a brief description of the project location and the primary project characteristics. Section 2 includes an environmental checklist that provides an overview of the potential impacts that may result from project implementation, elaborates on the information contained in the environmental checklist, and provides justification for each checklist response.

Feasible mitigations are analyzed to reduce all impacts to below a level of significance. Section 3 contains the List of Preparers.

1.2 - Project Location
The project site is located immediately west and north of the City of Cloverdale in Sonoma County, California (Exhibit 1). It is within the Porterfield Creek Watershed and is surrounded by open space to the north, south, and west, as well as residential development to the east. The 208.72-acre project site consists of Assessor’s Parcel Numbers (APNs) 115-220-006, 115-220-007, and 115-220-019.

The project site is directly outside and adjacent to the Cloverdale city limits but within the City’s Sphere of Influence (SOI) and Urban Growth Boundary.
1 The City’s SOI is the area of the Citydesignated for future annexation, which would require approval from the Sonoma County Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCo). The City of Cloverdale General Plan (General Plan) designates the entirety of the project site as Conservation Feature (CF). The purpose of the CF land use designation is to manage and preserve valuable biological, visual, and agricultural resources in the Cloverdale Planning Area.2
The project site is located within an Open Space Preserve zoned for natural resource conservation and very low-density residential development. It is currently and has historically been used for open space, recreational, grazing, hunting, and equipment storage purposes. The project site lies north of 1 Permit Sonoma. 2025. City of Cloverdale. Website:
https://permitsonoma.org/Microsites/Permit%20Sonoma/Documents/Divisions/Administration/GIS/Downloadable%20Map /City-Cloverdale-Urban-Boundaries.pdf. Accessed March 11, 2025. 2 City of Cloverdale. 2009. General Plan.
126

S O D A SPRINGS RANCH OPEN SPACE PRESERV E

INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
2 FCS
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/4859/48590006/ISMND/48590006 Soda Springs Ranch Open Space Preserve ISMND.docx West Cherry Creek Road to the south, which extends east via South Cloverdale Boulevard to the U.S. Highway 101 (US-101; Redwood Highway). Specifically, the project site is located on the Cloverdale, California United States Geological Survey (USGS) 7.5-minute Topographical Quadrangle, Township 11 North, Range 11 West, Section 13 Mt. Diablo Base and Meridian (Approximately Latitude 38° North 0’ 38.78” and Longitude -123° West 0’ -123.03”).

1.3 - Environmental Setting
The site is developed with trails for recreation and maintenance access. There is an existing openwalled shed in the easternmost portion of the project site in proximity to the site’s eastern access point on Foothill Boulevard, as well as an unoccupied trailer, a covered hand well, and real estate signage. An established fuel break3 borders the southeastern corner of the site adjacent to residences on Port Circle. Fencing runs along the northern and eastern boundaries, and an overhead utility line runs along the southern boundary of the site near Cherry Creek Road.

The eastern and southeastern portions of the project site contain grassland and forest habitat lying at 390 mean sea level (MSL) and 473 MSL respectively. The central and western portions of the project site contain rolling, undeveloped land at 780 MSL and 1100 MSL, which are primarily interspersed with oak woodland and forest habitat. Common tree species include Oregon oak (Quercus garryana), coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia), Douglas fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii), and coast redwood (Sequoia sempervirens).

There are drainage features on-site that convey stormwater. Manufactured features include 12- to 25- foot ditch relief culverts that exist throughout the project site underneath trail crossings and riparian inlets. Most of the culverts are in operation, with the exception of an inboard ditch relief culvert located in the southern portion of the site (Exhibit 1). Existing steel culverts located in the southeast portion would be removed as a part of the proposed project (Exhibit 2). Natural drainage features include the North Branch of the Porterfield Creek along the site’s southwestern boundary and an unnamed tributary to Cloverdale Creek along the project site’s northern boundary, which both eventually drain to the Russian River.
4 Areas surrounding the project site consist of a mixture of low-density residential, public institutional, and undeveloped lands (Exhibit 2). Bordering the project site to the east are single-family homes. To the south and southeast are several institutional facilities, including the Clearwater Ranch Community and the Cloverdale Healthcare Center, in addition to undeveloped lands composed of oak woodland and forest. To the north are undeveloped lands composed of oak woodland and forest habitat. US101 lies approximately 1.10 miles east of the project site. 3 A block or stirp of land where vegetation and other flammable material is removed to prevent the spread of wildfire. 4 Hollis Agricultural Consulting. 2023. Soda Springs Ranch Open Space Preserve Conservation Easement: Baseline Documentation. May.
127
48590006 • 07/2025 | 1_ regio nal.m xd
Exhibit 1
So urce: Census 2000 Data, Th e Califo rnia Sp atial Info rm atio n Library (CaSIL). !
·|}þ175
·|}þ116
£¤101
·|}þ1
·|}þ128
Mendocino County
Sonoma County
Guerneville Russian
River
Austin Creek
State Rec Area
Salt
Point State
Park
Mendocino NF
North
Lakeport
Lakeport
Finley Soda Bay
Glenhaven
Pepperwood
Grove
Lucerne
Kelseyville
Pine Grove
Cloverdale
Asti
Las Lomas
Geyserville
Healdsburg
Cazadero
Windsor
Larkfield-Wikiup
Fulton
Forestville
Monte Rio Villa Grande
Lake Sonoma
Clear Lake
¥ 5 2.5 0 5
Miles
F C S
Regio nal Lo catio n Map

CITY OF CLOVERDALE
!
Text
Pro ject Site
Pro ject Site
Legend
City o f Clo verdale

S O D A S P R I N G S R A N C H O P E N S P A C E P R E S E R V E I N I T I A L S T U D Y / M I T I G A T E D N E G A T I V E D E C L A R A T I O N -, '
I·-• I
,_
' _________ _.
-
L" ' I
-,
·-'
' .. -
I
'
--'--
' I
-----.. ·--.
' I -- I
'--' '•- I I
-------!..
'\
.. . ...

J
.

I,
,,
(
'
128

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
129
48590006 • 07/2025 | 2_local_vic inity.m x d
Exhibit 2
S ourc e: ES RI Aerial Im ag ery. County of S onom a. Perm it S onom a. S onom a Loc al Ag ency Form ation Com m ission (LAFCO; May 2003, upd ated Decem ber 2024)

S O D A S P R I N G S R A N C H O P E N S P A C E P R E S E R V E I N I T I A L S T U D Y / M I T I G A T E D N E G A T I V E D E C L A R A T I O N !(
North Branch Portfield Creek
Cherry Creek Rd
Foothill Blvd
Jefferson St
Jefferson St
2nd St
Port Cir
!( Vintage
Meadows
Park
!(
Cloverdale City Park
!(
!(
Cloverdale High School
Jefferson Elementary School
!(
Soda Spring Feature
City of Cloverdale
115-220-007 Open-walled Shed
115-220-006
115-220-019
!(
Cloverdale Healthcare Center !(
Clearwater Ranch Community
¥ 1,000 500 0 1,000
Feet
F C S
Loc al Vic inity Map

CITY OF CLOVERDALE
Legend
Projec t S ite
City Lim it
Urban Grow th Bound ary
Interm ittent S tream
Open-walled Shed
130

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
131

SOD A SPRINGS RANCH OPEN SPACE PRESERV E

INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
FCS 7
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/4859/48590006/ISMND/48590006 Soda Springs Ranch Open Space Preserve ISMND.docx

1.4 - Exhibit General Plan and Zoning Designations
The Sonoma County General Plan designates the entirety of the project site as both Resources and Rural Development (RRD)5 and B8. The purpose of the RRD designation is to protect lands needed for commercial timber, wildlife habitat, and certain agricultural production activities, as well as allowing for very low-density residential development and recreational and visitor-serving uses. The RRD B8 designation is intended to “freeze” parcels that are:
1) Designated Rural Residential in the General Plan and subject to a Williamson Act Contract; 2) Within the City’s designated urban service boundary where the City intends to limit urban growth upon annexation or a similar occurrence; or
3) Within a specific plan or plan policy where the City intends to limit urban development.

None of the parcels are subject to a Williamson Act Contract.6 The County of Sonoma Zoning Code classifies the parcels comprising the project site under the following classifications:
• Parcel 115-220-006: RRD B8, NONE
• Parcel 115-220-007: RRD B8, RC50/50 VOH
• Parcel 115-220-019: RRD B8 Z, RC50/50
APN 115-220-006 is zoned RRD B8 Z, where Z provides for the exclusion of accessory dwelling units (ADUs) in areas with inadequate water supply, potential for sewer or groundwater contamination, potential traffic hazards, or significant fire hazard.

APN 115-220-007 is zoned Valley Oak Habitat Combining District (VOH), demarcating the preservation of valley oak woodlands.

Both APN 115-220-019 and APN 115-220-007 are zoned RC50/50, or Riparian Corridor Combining Zone, indicating a 50-foot setback requirement for critical biotic habitats along riparian corridors.

The General Plan designates the entirety of the site as CF. The purpose of this designation is to manage and preserve valuable biological, visual, and agricultural resources in the Cloverdale Planning Area. The primary uses intended under this designation include river/stream-related recreation, open space buffers, and agricultural production. Since the project site is located outside of the city limits, the site does not currently have City-designated zoning. 5 County of Sonoma. 2025. ArcGIS Web Map Viewer: Zoning & Land Use Map. Website:
https://sonomacounty.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=06ac7fe1b8554171b4682dc141293962.

Accessed February 20, 2025.
6 Ibid.
132

S O D A SPRINGS RANCH OPEN SPACE PRESERV E

INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
8 FCS
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/4859/48590006/ISMND/48590006 Soda Springs Ranch Open Space Preserve ISMND.docx

1.5 - Project Description
The project is an Open Space Preserve, located at 600 Cherry Creek Road (APN 115-220-007, -006, and -019). The proposed project would establish a conservation easement over the site, resulting in the closure of unnecessary trails, the repair of existing roads, the development of multiuse trails, and additional proposed improvements, as further described below.

1.5.1 - Annexation into the City
The proposed project is located in an unincorporated area of Sonoma County immediately west of the City of Cloverdale. The proposed project would include annexation of the entire project site into the City. The project site would be pre-zoned as Conservation.

1.5.2 - Trail/Road Closures, Demolition, and Removal
The proposed project would result in the closure of eight existing roads, which are also used as hiking trails, resulting in the closure of approximately 0.90 mile of existing trails/roads and the removal of associated signage, fencing, and equipment. The proposed project would also involve the demolition of several on-site structures, including an open-walled shed, a trailer adjacent to the West Second Street access gate at the eastern edge of the site, a culvert on the southeastern corner of the site, and a culvert in the eastern portion of the site. The proposed project would include vegetation removal (including brush clearance) as needed, consistent with annual maintenance for fire safety.

1.5.3 - Land Uses
The proposed project would include the development of three new multiuse trails, resulting in the development of approximately 0.94 mile of new trail, as well as the development of 11 new picnic sites and a new 2,000-square-foot parking site (Exhibit 3). The project applicant would also incorporate site-specific improvements, including the installation of new fencing, signage, and a buffer areas alongside site boundaries and sensitive habitat areas.

The proposed project would include the installation of signs, trees, and scattered vegetation to discourage the usage of the closed trails. As part of the 208.66-acre conservation easement that would cover the entirety of the site, the proposed project would preserve existing open space adjacent to the proposed improvements; these areas would not contain any new trails or facilities.

The proposed project would also include coordination with the Northern Sonoma County Fire Department to maintain an existing shaded fuel break between the conservation space and the residences along Port Circle. The proposed project components are summarized in Table 1. 133
Source: CALTOPO.

F C S 48590006 • 07/2025 | 3_site_plan.cdr
Exhibit 3
Site Plan

S O D A S P R I N G S R A N C H O P E N S P A C E P R E S E R V E I N I T I A L S T U D Y / M I T I G A T E D N E G A T I V E

C I T Y O F C L O V E R D A L E
Ranch Roads
Roads to be Closed
Multi-Use Trails
Parking Area
Picnic Tables
Gates
Large
Concrete
Culvert
Port Cir
Foothill Blvd
2nd St
Cherry Creek Rd
Angeli Ln
134

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
135

SOD A SPRINGS RANCH OPEN SPACE PRESERV E

INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
FCS 11
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/4859/48590006/ISMND/48590006 Soda Springs Ranch Open Space Preserve ISMND.docx Table 1: Development Summary
Parcel
Gross Acreage
(includes street
dedication area) Development
Open
Space/Conservation
Area (acres)
115-220-006 6.36 acres One new parking area 6.30
115-220-007 199.05 acres Three new multiuse trails, 11 picnic sites 199.05 115-220-019 3.31 acres None 3.31
Total 208.72 acres One new parking area, three new multiuse trails, 11 new picnic sites
208.66
Sources: Hollis Agricultural Consulting. 2023.

Circulation
Access to the project site is currently provided by a gated dirt road at the western terminus of West Second Street. The proposed project would implement accessibility improvements, including curbside improvements and signage as well as repair improvements to existing roads within the project site.

Eight underutilized trails would be closed and three new trails for bike and pedestrian use would be created. An additional access point to the site, along its eastern flank, would be incorporated at Foothill Boulevard, and proposed curbside improvements and right-of-way improvements, including signage and fencing, would increase visibility (Exhibit 3).

Parking
The proposed project would include a total of up to seven open-air parking spaces within the approximately 2,000-square-foot proposed parking area (Exhibit 3). These would be located adjacent to the Preserve’s entrance on West Second Street and Foothill Boulevard.

Open Space and Recreational Facilities
The proposed project would preserve a total of 208.66 acres of open space, including oak woodland, chaparral, grasslands, fir forest, redwood groves, and riparian vegetation surrounding creeks. This would include preservation of key riparian corridors and landmark features, including the North Branch of Porterfield Creek, a General Plan-designated Priority Riparian Corridor, and Soda Springs, a natural soda water spring along the site’s northern boundary. Upon installation of new picnic areas and multiuse trails as shown on Exhibit 3, the site would incorporate necessary setbacks along site boundaries and maintain an existing shaded fuel break along the site’s southeastern boundary near Port Circle.

Utilities
Proposed modifications to the existing on-site storm drainage system would consist of culverts, inlets, and basins to detain waters on-site and provide natural filtration and pre-treatment. 136

S O D A SPRINGS RANCH OPEN SPACE PRESERV E

INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
12 FCS
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/4859/48590006/ISMND/48590006 Soda Springs Ranch Open Space Preserve ISMND.docx The proposed project would not require any modification to existing sewer lines, electricity, or natural gas lines. Electricity and natural gas would continue to be provided by Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E), which provides electricity and natural gas to the City of Cloverdale. 7 Sonoma
Clean Power would provide any electric generation service, while PG&E would deliver electricity through the existing grid.8
Demolition and Construction Activities
The proposed project would include the demolition of an open-sided shed and trailer, the removal and replacement of two culverts, widening of the West Second Street access entry area to accommodate fire trucks, construction of a parking area including Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) spaces, and the construction of new trails. Construction equipment would include a box grader and excavator.

Demolition and construction activities are anticipated to begin as soon as all permits and mitigation activities allow and would have a duration of approximately 3 months.

1.5.4 - Proposed General Land Use Designation and Zoning District The project site is designated by the City's General Plan as CF. The proposed project would not require changes to the existing General Plan land use designation. As part of the proposed annexation, the City proposes to pre-zone the site as Conservation. The proposed project would be consistent with the proposed Conservation zoning.

1.6 - Required Discretionary Approvals
As mentioned previously, the City of Cloverdale has discretionary authority over the proposed project and is the CEQA Lead Agency for the preparation of this Draft IS/MND. In order to implement the proposed project, the City of Cloverdale would need to secure the following permits/approvals:
• Site Plan Design Review
• Annexation of County parcels to the City of Cloverdale (approval by LAFCo.)

1.7 - Intended Uses of This Document
This Draft IS/MND has been prepared to document the potential significant adverse environmental impacts associated with the proposed project and identify feasible mitigation that would reduce impacts to below a level of significance. This document will also serve as a basis for soliciting comments and input from members of the public and public agencies regarding the proposed project.

The Draft IS/MND will be circulated for a minimum of 30 days, during which comments concerning the analysis contained in the Draft IS/MND should be sent to:
7 City of Cloverdale. 2008. General Plan Update Draft EIR. October. 8 Sonoma Clean Power. 2025. Who We Are. Website: https://sonomacleanpower.org/whoweare. Accessed February 14, 2025.
137

SOD A SPRINGS RANCH OPEN SPACE PRESERV E

INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
FCS 13
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/4859/48590006/ISMND/48590006 Soda Springs Ranch Open Space Preserve ISMND.docx Kevin Thompson
City Manager | Community Development Director
City of Cloverdale
124 North Cloverdale Boulevard
Cloverdale, CA 95425
707.894.1723
Email: [email protected]
138

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
139
Photograph 4: View of utility line and Cherry Creek Road running adjacent to site's southwestern boundary.

Photograph 3: Cut wood in field and 25-inch ditch relief culvert near the site's eastern boundary. The culvert will be removed by the City.

Photograph 2: View of the existing open-walled shed and trailer along the site's northeastern boundary. The shed will be demolished and the trailer will be removed by the City.

Photograph 1: View of the firebreak along the site's southeastern boundary near Port Circle.

Source: Hollis Ag, April 2023.

F C S 48590006 • 07/2025 | 4_site_photographs.cdr
Exhibit 4
Site Photographs

C I T Y O F C L O V E R D A L E

S O D A S P R I N G S R A N C H O P E N S P A C E P R E S E R V E I N I T I A L S T U D Y / M I T I G A T E D N E G A T I V E 140

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
141
Soda Springs Ranch Open Space Preserve
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
FCS 17
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/4859/48590006/ISMND/48590006 Soda Springs Ranch Open Space Preserve ISMND.docx 2 - ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST AND

ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
Environmental Factors Potentially Affected
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a “Potentially Significant Impact” as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.

Aesthetics Agriculture and Forestry Resources Air Quality Biological Resources Cultural Resources and Tribal
Cultural Resources
Energy
Geology and Soils Greenhouse Gas Emissions Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Hydrology and Water Quality Land Use and Planning Mineral Resources Noise Population and Housing Public Services
Recreation Transportation Mandatory Findings of
Significance
Utilities and Services
Systems
Wildfire
Environmental Determination
On the basis of this initial evaluation:

I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.

I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.

I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.

I find that the proposed project MAY have a “potentially significant impact” or “potentially significant unless mitigated” impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measure based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.

I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required.

Date: Signed:
142

S O D A SPRINGS RANCH OPEN SPACE PRESERV E

INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
18 FCS
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/4859/48590006/ISMND/48590006 Soda Springs Ranch Open Space Preserve ISMND.docx Environmental Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact No Impact

2.1 Aesthetics
Except as provided in Public Resources Code Section 21099, would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a
scenic vista?
b) Substantially damage scenic resources,
including, but not limited to, trees, rock
outcroppings, and historic building within
a State Scenic Highway?
c) In non-urbanized areas, substantially
degrade the existing visual character or
quality of public views of the site and its
surroundings? (Public views are those
that are experienced from publicly
accessible vantage point). If the project is
in an urbanized area, would the project
conflict with applicable zoning and other
regulations governing scenic quality?
d) Create a new source of substantial light or
glare which would adversely affect day or
nighttime views in the area?
Environmental Evaluation
Setting
This section provides a description of existing visual conditions near the project site and an assessment of changes to those conditions that would occur from implementation of the proposed project. Effects of the proposed project on the visual environment are generally defined in terms of the following: a project’s physical characteristics and potential visibility, the extent to which the proposed project’s presence would change the perceived visual character and quality of the environment where it would be located, and the expected level of sensitivity that the viewing public may have in areas where project facilities would alter existing views.

The aesthetic quality of a community is composed of visual resources, which are those physical features that make up the visible landscape, including land, water, vegetation, and the built environment (e.g., buildings, roadways, and structures). 143

SOD A SPRINGS RANCH OPEN SPACE PRESERV E

INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
FCS 19
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/4859/48590006/ISMND/48590006 Soda Springs Ranch Open Space Preserve ISMND.docx The City is located in a small, flat valley running roughly north to south following the Russian River and is surrounded by gently rolling hills covered with oak trees, grassland, and other vegetation. The Redwood Highway provides both northbound and southbound views of the City. Views in the City consist of the Russian River northbound, and views southbound consist of Fitch Mountain and the Mayacamas Mountains, which are in prominent view in the background. Views of the surrounding foothills and open space areas, agricultural lands, creeks, and oak woodlands can be seen from a number of public vantage points throughout the City.

The project site is located to the west of the urbanized City and adjacent to rural unincorporated Sonoma County lands to the north, west, and south. The project site is almost entirely undeveloped (except for one open-walled shed, trailer, and on-site drainage features). There are substantial natural wooded hillsides throughout a majority of the project site. The western and northern areas of the project site are surrounded by undeveloped, primarily natural woodlands. The southern and eastern portions of the site are primarily composed of natural woodland and grassland.

Visual Setting
Views of the site are unobstructed from Foothill Boulevard east of the project site. All other public views, including those from Port Circle, are obstructed by either residential development or trees, and views from West Cherry Creek Road are obstructed by trees, including oak woodland.

The General Plan Conservation, Design, and Open Space Element has goals and policies that aim to preserve scenic resources that include natural features such as woodland areas, foothills, and agricultural land. General Plan Exhibit 6-1, Conservation Element Map, designates “prominent ridgeline buffers” and “river/creek buffers” throughout the City of Cloverdale.9 Prominent ridgelines are designated in the northwestern corner of the project site, and river/creek buffers are designated, to include the North Branch of Porterfield Creek and an unnamed tributary of Cloverdale Creek which runs along the site’s northern boundary. There are no other designated scenic resources on or adjacent to the project site. The project site consists of foothills above the 400-foot elevation contour throughout the northern, central, and western portions of the project site as well as relatively flat grasslands areas to the east and south.

Sources of daytime glare from the adjacent residential uses to the east include direct beam sunlight and reflections from windows, architectural coatings, glass, and other reflective surfaces. Nighttime illumination and associated glare are generally divided into two sources: stationary and mobile.

Stationary sources include structure lighting and decorative landscaping, lighted signs, solar panels, and streetlights. Mobile sources are primarily headlights from motor vehicles. There is no stationary lighting located within the Open Space Preserve. Limited lighting from City-owned and maintenance staff vehicle headlights may occur at the site.
9 City of Cloverdale. 2009. General Plan.
144

S O D A SPRINGS RANCH OPEN SPACE PRESERV E

INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
20 FCS
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/4859/48590006/ISMND/48590006 Soda Springs Ranch Open Space Preserve ISMND.docx The City of Cloverdale Urban Lighting Element protects light resources through goals, policies, and programs that aim to preserve nighttime sky and reduce light spillage. General Plan Policy UL 1-2 requires projects to minimize light spillage off-site.

Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? No impact. The General Plan Exhibit 6-1, Conservation Element Map, designates “prominent ridgeline buffers” and “river/creek buffers” throughout the City of Cloverdale, including within the project site. The project would not result in the construction of new structures or features that could obstruct these scenic resources. In fact, the proposed project would enhance public access to these features via recreational improvements in the form of new trails. Therefore, no impact would occur. b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic building within a State Scenic Highway? No impact. There is one California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) “Eligible” State Scenic Highways along the northern boundary of the City of Cloverdale, State Route (SR) 128, located approximately 0.80 mile north of the project site.
10 Residential development located between the
northern ridgeline of the project site and SR-128 either partially or completely obstructs views of scenic resources. Since the proposed project would not entail structural development and the proposed project would not occur within the vicinity of State Scenic Highway, the proposed project would not substantially damage scenic resources within a State Scenic Highway. No impact would occur.
c) In non-urbanized areas, substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings? (Public views are those that are experienced from publicly accessible vantage point). If the project is in an urbanized area, would the project conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality?
No impact. The proposed project is in a non-urbanized area designated as RRD and B8. Public views of the project site’s hillsides and ridgelines would primarily be experienced from West Second Street, Foothill Boulevard, and Port Circle. Views of the project site from Foothill Boulevard and Port Circle include views of existing fencing as well as proposed fencing along the eastern boundary of the site, as well as hillsides and ridgelines. Given the project site’s topography and setback from adjacent uses, a small portion of the project site would be visible from public vantage points.

The project would be consistent with General Plan Goal CDO 2 and Policies CDO 2-2 and 2-4 because it would preserve areas above the 400-foot elevation line as open space. Consistent with the Cloverdale Municipal Code Section 18.09.040, Hillside Protection, the proposed project includes 10 California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), 2025. California State Scenic Highway System Map. Website:
https://caltrans.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=465dfd3d807c46cc8e8057116f1aacaa. Accessed February 24, 2025.
145

SOD A SPRINGS RANCH OPEN SPACE PRESERV E

INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
FCS 21
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/4859/48590006/ISMND/48590006 Soda Springs Ranch Open Space Preserve ISMND.docx preservation of the 400-foot elevation line and would permanently preserve the existing ridgelines and woodland hillsides of the site as open space. Additionally, the proposed project would install setbacks alongside site boundaries and buffer areas alongside sensitive habitat areas, minimizing disruption to hills or forests.

The proposed project would not result in the construction of new structures or features that could degrade the existing visual character and quality of public views of the site. In fact, the proposed project would enhance public access to these features via recreational improvements in the form of new trails. Therefore, no impact would occur.
d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?
No impact. Existing sources of light and glare in the vicinity of the project site include the area to the east of the project site, across Foothill Boulevard and Port Circle, which contain single-family homes and existing light and glare from urban infrastructure such as roads, windows, and lighting. However, the majority of the project site and areas to the north, west, and south are mostly undeveloped, aside from the Clearwater Ranch Community, and currently contain few lighting sources. No buildings are proposed and there would be no new stationary sources of light associated with the proposed project.

Project-related traffic is not expected to substantially increase mobile sources of light because uses of the proposed project would generally be limited to the daytime. No impact would occur.

Mitigation Measures
None.
146

S O D A SPRINGS RANCH OPEN SPACE PRESERV E

INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
22 FCS
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/4859/48590006/ISMND/48590006 Soda Springs Ranch Open Space Preserve ISMND.docx Environmental Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact

2.2 Agriculture and Forestry Resources
In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. In determining whether impacts to forest resources, including timberland, are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to information compiled by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection regarding the State’s inventory of forest land, including the Forest and Range Assessment Project and the Forest Legacy Assessment project; and forest carbon measurement methodology provided in Forest Protocols adopted by the California Air Resources Board.

Would the project:
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or
Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland),
as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to
the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring
Program of the California Resources Agency,
to nonagricultural use?
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural
use, or a Williamson Act Contract?
c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause
rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public
Resources Code Section 12220(g)), timberland
(as defined by Public Resources Code Section
4526), or timberland zoned Timberland
Production (as defined by Government Code
Section 51104(g))?
d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion
of forest land to non-forest use?
e) Involve other changes in the existing
environment which, due to their location or
nature, could result in conversion of farmland,
to nonagricultural use or conversion of forest
land to non-forest use?
147

SOD A SPRINGS RANCH OPEN SPACE PRESERV E

INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
FCS 23
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/4859/48590006/ISMND/48590006 Soda Springs Ranch Open Space Preserve ISMND.docx Environmental Evaluation
Agricultural Resources
The California Department of Conservation Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program (FMMP) was established by the State Legislature in 1982 to assess the location, quality, and quantity of agricultural lands and conversion of these lands over time. The FMMP has established five farmland categories:
• Prime Farmland is farmland with the best combination of physical and chemical features able to sustain long-term agricultural production. This land must have been used for irrigated agricultural production at some time during the last 4 years before the mapping date and have the ability to store moisture in soil well.
• Farmland of Statewide Importance is similar to Prime Farmland but contains greater slopes and a lesser ability to store soil moisture.
• Unique Farmland is usually irrigated, but may include non-irrigated orchards or vineyards as found in some climate zones in California. This land must still have been cropped some time during 4 years prior to the mapping date.
• Farmland of Local Importance is important to the local agricultural economy as determined by each county’s board of supervisors and local advisory committee. • Grazing Land is land on which the existing vegetation is suited to the grazing livestock. This category was developed in cooperation with the California Cattlemen’s Association, University of California Cooperative Extension, and other groups interested in the extent of grazing activities.

The FMMP classifies the project site as grazing land. Areas to the east and south of the project site are classified as urban/built-up land. Further south are areas are areas classified as Farmland of Local Importance. There is no Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance located within the vicinity of the project site. The project site is zoned for agricultural uses, including crop cultivation and livestock raising.

Forest Resources
The Williamson Act, classified in 1965 as the California Land Conversation Act, allows local governments to enter into contracts with private landowners, offering tax incentives in exchange for an agreement that the land will remain undeveloped or related open space use only for a period of 10 years. There are currently no properties under the Williamson Act within the City of Cloverdale.

CEQA requires the evaluation of forest and timber resources where those resources are present. The project site is within Forested Lands as described in Public Resources Code Section 12220(g) Timberland as defined under Public Resources Code Section 4526 and is zoned for various uses, including commercial timber production.
148

S O D A SPRINGS RANCH OPEN SPACE PRESERV E

INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
24 FCS
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/4859/48590006/ISMND/48590006 Soda Springs Ranch Open Space Preserve ISMND.docx Would the project:
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to nonagricultural use? No impact. As described previously, the project site is classified as grazing land. There is no Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance located within the project area.11 Therefore, development of the proposed project would not convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance to nonagricultural use. No impact would occur. b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act Contract? Less than significant impact. The project site is designated RRD by the Sonoma County Zoning Code, which permits recreational uses in addition to certain agricultural uses and very low residential development. There are currently no properties under Williamson contract located on the project site or surrounding area.12 The proposed project would expand recreational uses of the site in accordance with designated zoning, which is currently vacant and not being used for agricultural purposes. Thus, the proposed project would not conflict with existing zoning, including any existing agricultural uses, or a Williamson Act Contract. Thus, impacts would be less than significant. c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code Section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code Section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code Section 51104(g))?
Less than significant impact. The entire project site contains forest land, including timberland zoned for commercial timberland production. APN 115-220-007 specifically is zoned VOH and both APN 115-220-007 and APN 115-220-019 are zoned RC50/50 in addition to the RRD designation. The project site is vacant and is currently not being used for timberland production. 13 The proposed project would expand recreational uses for the site in accordance with RRD zoning.

The proposed project would not conflict with the zoning of forest lands for the site and any vegetation clearance would be conducted in accordance with applicable requirements for RRD zoning, specifically the VOH district, including the retention of existing valley oaks, the planting of replacement valley oaks, or the payment an in lieu fee per tree removal as described in County Municipal Code Section 26.67, Oak Woodland Combining District and VOH Valley Oak Habitat Combining District. Furthermore, the proposed project would comply with the provisions of the 11 California Department of Conservation. 2025. California Important Farmland Finder. Website:
https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/DLRP/CIFF/. Accessed March 6, 2025. 12 California Department of Conservation. 2023. California Williamson Act Enrollment Finder. Website:
https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/dlrp/WilliamsonAct/App/index.html. Accessed March 6, 2025. 13 California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE). 2025. CAL FIRE Timber Harvesting Plans All TA83.

Website: https://forest-practice-calfire-forestry.hub.arcgis.com/maps/04777bf6e6ce4b4d93298f4e3ba88d7f/about.

Accessed March 6, 2025.
149

SOD A SPRINGS RANCH OPEN SPACE PRESERV E

INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
FCS 25
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/4859/48590006/ISMND/48590006 Soda Springs Ranch Open Space Preserve ISMND.docx County’s Oak Woodland CEQA Requirement (Public Resources Code [PRC] § 21083.4), which requires the avoidance of or mitigation of any impacts to oak woodlands, and would also comply with Municipal Code Section 18.17, Tree Preservation. As such, the proposed project would not conflict with existing zoning or cause rezoning of forest lands defined under Public Resources Code Section 12220(g) and impacts would be less than significant.
d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? Less than significant impact. The entirety of the project site is designated as CF by the City and contains hillside oak woodlands.14 According to the General Plan, Conservation, Design, and Open Space Element, Policy CDO 6-2, the City must protect distinctive natural vegetation such as oak woodlands, riparian corridors, and mixed evergreen forests, by maintaining the natural features as a whole. The proposed project would preserve a total of 208.66 acres of open space, including forest habitat and oak woodland. Preservation would entail the closure of approximately 0.94 mile of existing trail through existing forest and oak woodland areas and vegetation clearance for the development of 0.94 mile of new trail. The proposed project would allow for regrowth in areas of closed trails and would include vegetation clearance in compliance with the County’s Oak Woodland CEQA Requirement, County Municipal Code Section 26.67, and City Municipal Code Section 18.17 for protected forest habitat and oak woodland areas. Thus, a majority of the existing forest and on-site oak woodland would be preserved, ensuring no significant loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. e) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to nonagricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?
Less than significant impact. A significant impact would occur if the proposed project would indirectly result in the conversion of farmland to nonagricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest uses. As previously described, the project site contains oak woodland habitat and has not historically been and is not currently being used for timberland production. While the project site is zoned for certain agricultural uses, there are no existing agricultural uses occurring on-site. The area surrounding the project site is composed of open space, low-density residential development, and public institutional development.

Additionally, the surrounding area to the south and east of the project site is already urbanized and contains no designated Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance.

Furthermore, no parcels are under a Williamson Act Contract. While the site contains abundant oak woodland and forest habitat, as previously described, the proposed project would not result in a net loss forest land. Therefore, the proposed project, which would be consistent with the existing land use designation (CF) and zoning use (RRD), would thus not indirectly result in the conversion of farmland 14 City of Cloverdale. 2009. General Plan.
150

S O D A SPRINGS RANCH OPEN SPACE PRESERV E

INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
26 FCS
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/4859/48590006/ISMND/48590006 Soda Springs Ranch Open Space Preserve ISMND.docx to nonagricultural use or the conversion of forest land to non-forest use and impacts would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures
None required.
151

SOD A SPRINGS RANCH OPEN SPACE PRESERV E

INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
FCS 27
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/4859/48590006/ISMND/48590006 Soda Springs Ranch Open Space Preserve ISMND.docx Environmental Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact

2.3 Air Quality
Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management district or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations.

Would the project:
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the
applicable air quality plan?
b) 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?
c) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial
pollutant concentrations?
d) Result in other emissions (such as those
leading to odors or) adversely affecting a
substantial number of people?
Environmental Evaluation
Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management district or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations.

Setting
Air pollutants relevant to the CEQA checklist questions for Air Quality are briefly described below. • Ozone is a gas that is formed when reactive organic gases (ROG) and nitrogen oxides (NOX)— both byproducts of internal combustion engine exhaust—undergo slow photochemical reactions in the presence of sunlight. Ozone concentrations are generally highest during the summer months when direct sunlight, light wind, and warm temperature conditions are conducive to its formation. Health effects can include, but not be limited to irritated respiratory system, reduced lung function, and aggravated chronic lung diseases. • ROG, or volatile organic compounds (VOCs), are defined as any compound of carbon— excluding carbon monoxide (CO), carbon dioxide (CO2), carbonic acid, metallic carbides or carbonates, and ammonium carbonate—that participates in atmospheric photochemical 152

S O D A SPRINGS RANCH OPEN SPACE PRESERV E

INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
28 FCS
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/4859/48590006/ISMND/48590006 Soda Springs Ranch Open Space Preserve ISMND.docx reactions. Although there are slight differences in the definition of ROG and VOCs, the two terms are often used interchangeably.
• Nitrogen dioxide (NO2) forms quickly from NOX emissions. Health effects from NO2 can include the following: potential to aggravate chronic respiratory disease and respiratory symptoms in sensitive groups; risk to public health implied by pulmonary and extra-pulmonary biochemical and cellular changes and pulmonary structural changes; contribution to atmospheric discoloration; increased visits to hospital for respiratory illnesses. • CO is a colorless, odorless gas produced by the incomplete combustion of fuels. CO concentrations tend to be the highest during the winter morning, with little to no wind, when surface-based inversions trap the pollutant at ground levels. Because CO is emitted directly from internal combustion engines—unlike ozone—and motor vehicles operating at slow speeds are a primary source of CO in the Sonoma County region, the highest ambient CO concentrations are generally found near congested transportation corridors and intersections. Potential health effects from CO depends on exposure and can include slight headaches; nausea; aggravation of angina pectoris (chest pain) and other aspects of coronary heart disease; decreased exercise tolerance in persons with peripheral vascular disease and lung disease; impairment of central nervous system functions; possible increased risk to fetuses; death. • Sulfur dioxide (SO2) is a colorless, pungent gas. At levels greater than 0.5 parts per million (ppm), the gas has a strong odor, similar to rotten eggs. Sulfur oxide (SOX) include SO2 and sulfur trioxide. Sulfuric acid is formed from sulfur dioxide, which can lead to acid deposition and can harm natural resources and materials. Although SO2 concentrations have been reduced to levels well below State and federal standards, further reductions are desirable because SO2 is a precursor to sulfate and PM10.
• Respirable particulate matter (PM10) and fine particulate matter (PM2.5) consist of extremely small, suspended particles or droplets 10 microns and 2.5 microns or smaller in diameter.

Some sources of particulate matter, like pollen and windstorms, are naturally occurring.

However, in populated areas, most particulate matter is caused by road dust, diesel soot, combustion products, abrasion of tires and brakes, and construction activities. Health effects from short-term exposure (hours/days) can include the following: irrigation of the eyes, nose, throat; coughing; phlegm; chest tightness; shortness of breath; aggravate existing lung disease, causing asthma attacks and acute bronchitis; those with heart disease can suffer heart attacks and arrhythmias. Health effects from long-term exposure can include the following: reduced lung function; chronic bronchitis; changes in lung morphology; or death. • Toxic air contaminants (TACs) refer to a diverse group of air pollutants that can affect human health but have not had ambient air quality standards established for them. Diesel particulate matter (DPM) is a toxic air contaminant that is emitted from construction equipment and dieselfueled vehicles and trucks. Some short-term (acute) effects of DPM exposure include eye, nose, throat, and lung irritation, coughs, headaches, light-headedness, and nausea. Studies have linked elevated particle levels in the air to increased hospital admissions, emergency room visits, asthma attacks, and premature deaths among those suffering from respiratory problems. Human 153

SOD A SPRINGS RANCH OPEN SPACE PRESERV E

INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
FCS 29
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/4859/48590006/ISMND/48590006 Soda Springs Ranch Open Space Preserve ISMND.docx studies on the carcinogenicity of DPM demonstrate an increased risk of lung cancer, although the increased risk cannot be clearly attributed to diesel exhaust exposure.

The project site is located in the North Coast Air Basin, within the jurisdiction of the Northern Sonoma County Air Pollution Control District (NoSoCoAir). Where available, the significance criteria established or recommended by NoSoCoAir were used to make determinations related to the air quality CEQA checklist impact questions. The NoSoCoAir has not adopted standards of significance for operational activities and instead suggests the use of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (Bay Area Air District) guidance, thresholds and mitigation measures. In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.7 (Thresholds of Significance), the City exercises its own discretion to use the significance thresholds in the Bay Area Air District CEQA thresholds based on substantial evidence contained in Bay Area Air District’s record for adoption of the thresholds (which is relied on and incorporated herein). Accordingly, the assessment of the project’s air quality impacts uses the thresholds and methodologies from Bay Area Air District’s 2022 CEQA Air Quality Guidelines to determine the potential impacts of the project on the existing environment.15 The significance thresholds used in this analysis are based on Bay Area Air District standards and as set forth in Table 2 below. In developing thresholds of significance for air pollutants, the Bay Area Air District considered the emission levels for which a project’s individual emissions would be cumulatively considerable. If a project exceeds the identified significance thresholds, its emissions would be cumulatively considerable, resulting in significant adverse air quality impacts to the region’s existing air quality conditions.

Table 2: Thresholds of Significance
Pollutant
Construction
Thresholds
Average Daily
Emissions
Operational Thresholds
Average Daily
Emissions
Annual Average
Emissions
Criteria Air Pollutants
ROG 54 pounds/day 54 pounds/day 10 tons/year
NOX 54 pounds/day 54 pounds/day 10 tons/year
PM10 82 pounds/day 82 pounds/day 15 tons/year
PM2.5 54 pounds/day 54 pounds/day 10 tons/year
CO Not Applicable 9.0 ppm (8-hour average) or

20.0 ppm (1-hour average)
Fugitive Dust Construction Dust
Ordinance or other Best
Management Practices
Not Applicable
15 Bay Area Air Quality Management District (Bay Area Air District). 2022. CEQA Guidelines and Thresholds Update. April.

Website: https://www.baaqmd.gov/plans-and-climate/california-environmental-quality-act-ceqa/updated-ceqa-guidelines.

Accessed April 16, 2025.
154

S O D A SPRINGS RANCH OPEN SPACE PRESERV E

INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
30 FCS
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/4859/48590006/ISMND/48590006 Soda Springs Ranch Open Space Preserve ISMND.docx Pollutant
Construction
Thresholds
Average Daily
Emissions
Operational Thresholds
Average Daily
Emissions
Annual Average
Emissions
Health Risks and Hazards for New Sources
Excess Cancer Risk 10 per 1 million 10 per 1 million
Chronic or Acute Hazard Index 1.0 1.0
Incremental annual average PM2.5 0.3 µg/m3 0.3 µg/m3
Health Risks and Hazards for Sensitive Receptors (Cumulative from All Sources Within 1,000-foot Zone of Influence) and Cumulative Thresholds for New Sources Excess Cancer Risk 100 per 1 million
Chronic Hazard Index 10.0
Annual Average PM2.5 0.8 µg/m3
Notes:
µg/m3 = micrograms per cubic meter
CO = carbon monoxide
NOX = nitrogen oxides
PM10 = particulate matter less than 10 microns in diameter PM2.5 =particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in diameter ppm = parts per million
ROG = reactive organic gas
VOC = volatile organic compounds
Source: Bay Area Air Quality Management District (Bay Area Air District). 2022. CEQA Guidelines and Thresholds Update.

April. Website: https://www.baaqmd.gov/plans-and-climate/california-environmental-quality-act-ceqa/updated-ceqaguidelines. Accessed April 16, 2025.

Would the project:
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? No impact. The proposed project is located in the North Coast Air Basin (Air Basin), where air quality is regulated by the NoSoCoAir. The Air Basin is in attainment for all federal and State ambient air quality standards. Therefore, NoSoCoAir is not required to prepare or implement an air quality plan.

There is no applicable air quality plan. As such, no impacts would occur. b) 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?
Less than significant impact. This impact is related to the cumulative effect of a project’s regional criteria pollutant emissions. As described above, the region is currently in attainment for all federal and State ambient air quality standards. By its nature, air pollution is largely a cumulative impact resulting from emissions generated over a large geographic region. The attainment status of regional pollutants is 155

SOD A SPRINGS RANCH OPEN SPACE PRESERV E

INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
FCS 31
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/4859/48590006/ISMND/48590006 Soda Springs Ranch Open Space Preserve ISMND.docx a result of past and present development within the Air Basin, and this potential regional impact is a cumulative impact. In other words, new development projects (such as the project) within the Air Basin would contribute to this impact only on a cumulative basis. No single project would be sufficient in size, by itself, to result in nonattainment of regional air quality standards. Instead, a project’s emissions may be individually limited, but cumulatively considerable when taken in combination with past, present, and future development projects.

The cumulative analysis focuses on whether a specific project would result in cumulatively considerable emissions. According to Section 15064(h)(4) of the CEQA Guidelines, the existence of significant cumulative impacts caused by other projects alone does not constitute substantial evidence that the project’s incremental effects would be cumulatively considerable. As previously stated, the NoSoCoAir has not adopted standards of significance for construction or operational activities and instead suggests the use of the Bay Area Air District thresholds and mitigation measures. Therefore, the determination of cumulative air quality impacts for construction and operational emissions is based on whether the proposed project would result in regional emissions that exceed the Bay Area Air District regional thresholds of significance for construction and operations on a project level. Projects that generate emissions below the Bay Area Air District significance thresholds would be considered consistent with regional air quality planning efforts would not generate cumulatively considerable emissions.

The proposed project’s regional construction and operational emissions, which include both on- and off-site emissions, are evaluated separately below. Construction and operational emissions from the proposed project were estimated using the California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod) version 2022.1.
16 A detailed description of the assumptions used to estimate emissions and the complete CalEEMod output files are contained in Appendix A.

Construction Emissions
Construction emissions from the proposed project would be “short-term” or temporary in nature and duration. Construction of the proposed project would result in the temporary generation of ROG, NOX, CO, PM10, and PM2.5 emissions from construction activities including during demolition, site preparation, grading, and asphalt paving. Fugitive dust emissions are primarily associated with earth disturbance and grading activities and vary as a function of soil silt content, soil moisture, wind speed, acreage of disturbance area, and miles traveled by construction vehicles on-site and off-site.

Construction-related NOX emissions are primarily generated by exhaust emissions from heavy-duty construction equipment, material and haul trucks, and construction worker vehicles. ROG emissions are mainly generated by off-gas emissions associated with architectural coatings and asphalt paving.

Construction Fugitive Dust
The Bay Area Air District does not recommend a numerical threshold for fugitive dust particulate matter emissions. Instead, the Bay Area Air District bases the determination of significance for fugitive 16 California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod). Version 2022.1.1. Website: http://caleemod.com/. Accessed April 16, 2025.
156

S O D A SPRINGS RANCH OPEN SPACE PRESERV E

INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
32 FCS
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/4859/48590006/ISMND/48590006 Soda Springs Ranch Open Space Preserve ISMND.docx dust on a consideration of the control measures to be implemented. If all appropriate emissions control measures are implemented for a project as recommended by the Bay Area Air District, then fugitive dust emissions during construction are not considered significant. During construction activities, the following air pollution control measures shall be implemented as outlined in Mitigation Measure (MM) AIR-1. With incorporation of this measure, short-term construction impacts associated with the generation of fugitive dust would be less than significant.

Construction Air Pollutant Emissions: ROG, NOX, PM10, and PM2.5 Construction emissions were quantified and estimated using CalEEMod Version 2022.1 for a typical construction scenario for a land use project of this size. CalEEMod provides a consistent platform for estimating construction and operational emissions from a wide variety of land use projects and is the model recommended by the Bay Area Air District for estimating project emissions. Construction emissions were estimated and compared with the applicable thresholds of significance established by the Bay Area Air District to assess ROG, NOX, exhaust PM10, and exhaust PM2.5 construction emissions to determine significance for this criterion.

The following project characteristics and assumptions were utilized in the analysis:
• Demolition and construction activities are anticipated to begin as soon as all permits and mitigation activities allow and last approximately 3 months. Because fuels and equipment fleets become cleaner over time, construction-related emissions decrease over time as well.

Therefore, if construction begins in later years, construction-related emissions will be lower than when modeled to occur in earlier years.
• Demolition of the existing open-sided shed and trailer would result in approximately 42 tons of waste.
• The modeling assumed various on-site construction, including culvert replacement; widening of the access entry area to accommodate firetrucks; parking area including ADA spaces; the construction of trails (assuming 4 feet for the trail bed and 10 feet of total disturbance). • Construction equipment assumed to be used is based on applicant-provided information combined with equipment typical to this type and level of construction activity. • The modeling assumed implementation of the MM AIR-1 for fugitive dust.

Additional details on the assumptions and inputs are included in the California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod) output reports (Appendix A).

Table 3 shows the proposed project’s average daily emissions from construction-related exhaust emissions. As indicated in Table 3, construction exhaust emissions from all construction activities would be below the recommended thresholds of significance; therefore, the proposed project's construction would have less than significant impact related to emissions of ROG, NOX, exhaust PM10, and exhaust PM2.5.
157

SOD A SPRINGS RANCH OPEN SPACE PRESERV E

INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
FCS 33
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/4859/48590006/ISMND/48590006 Soda Springs Ranch Open Space Preserve ISMND.docx Table 3: Construction Regional Criteria Pollutant Exhaust Emissions Total Emissions (pounds)
Air Pollutants (lbs/day)
Year ROG NOX
PM10
(Exhaust)
PM2.5
(Exhaust)
Total Project Construction1 2026 826.34 1,260.50 63.18 56.21 Average Daily Emissions (lbs/day)2 13.12 20.01 1 0.89
Significance Threshold (lbs/day) 54 54 82 54
Exceeds Significance Threshold? No No No No
Notes:
lbs = pounds
NOX = oxides of nitrogen
PM10 = particulate matter less than 10 microns in diameter PM2.5 = particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in diameter ROG = reactive organic gases

1. Total emissions in pounds from all phases of construction.

2. Calculated by dividing the pounds of emissions by the number of non-overlapping working days of construction (63 workdays).

Source: California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod) Output (see Appendix A).

Operational Emissions
Operational Air Pollutant Emissions: ROG, NOX, PM10, and PM2.5 Operational emissions would include mobile sources. Operational emissions were quantified and estimated using CalEEMod Version 2022.1 for the operational scenario for the proposed project. As described earlier, the proposed project’s ongoing operational-related emissions would only include mobile emissions from vehicles visiting the park.

Table 4 shows estimated operational emissions compared with the applicable thresholds of significance established by the Bay Area Air District to assess ROG, NOX, PM10, and PM2.5 operational emissions to determine significance for this criterion. As shown in Table 4, the proposed project’s regional daily operational emissions would not exceed any of the Bay Area Air District thresholds of significance. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is nonattainment during operation or construction and impacts would be less than significant. 158

S O D A SPRINGS RANCH OPEN SPACE PRESERV E

INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
34 FCS
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/4859/48590006/ISMND/48590006 Soda Springs Ranch Open Space Preserve ISMND.docx Table 4: Operational Regional Criteria Pollutant Emissions Emissions Source

ROG NOX
PM10
(Total)
PM2.5
(Total)
Emissions
Total Average (lbs per day)–Mobile 23.42 12.92 10.63 2.83 Bay Area Air District Significance Threshold
(lbs/day)
54 54 82 54
Exceeds Significance Threshold? No No No No
Annual Average (tons/year) 0.01 0.01 0.01 0
BAAQMD Significance Threshold (tons/year) 10 10 15 10
Exceeds Significance Threshold? No No No No
Notes:

BAAQMD = Bay Area Air Quality Management District
lbs = pounds
NOX = nitrogen oxides
PM10 = particulate matter less than 10 microns in diameter PM2.5 = particulate matterless than 2.5 microns in diameter ROG = reactive organic gases
Source: Appendix A.

Operational Carbon Monoxide Hotspot
A CO hotspot is a localized concentration of CO that is above a CO Ambient Air Quality Standard (AAQS). Localized CO hotspots can occur at areas with high vehicle density, such as intersections with heavy peak-hour traffic. The CO emissions from traffic generated by the proposed project could be a concern at the local level if project trip generation could lead to congested intersections that can result in high localized concentrations of CO. However, as previously stated, the proposed project is anticipated to result in very few additional mobile trips associated with visitors. The newly constructed parking lot would accommodate seven vehicles. The addition of these few mobile trips would not result in a localized concentration of CO that is above a CO AAQS. Therefore, the proposed project would have a less than significant impact related to CO. c) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? Less than significant impact. Residences are located along the park’s eastern border. However, as described previously, the low intensity and short duration of construction (3 months) would not present substantial pollutant concentrations to the residences. In addition, the vast majority of the construction of the new trails would take place thousands of feet from the residences and would be very minor in nature. As described previously, the quantity of pollutants emitted during construction would be small and occur for a very short time. The distance between most of the trail construction and these residences would allow dispersal of emissions, particularly given frequent winds in the 159

SOD A SPRINGS RANCH OPEN SPACE PRESERV E

INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
FCS 35
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/4859/48590006/ISMND/48590006 Soda Springs Ranch Open Space Preserve ISMND.docx area. These short-term emissions would not constitute a substantial pollutant concentration at these residences. Future use of the trails would attract additional trips to the project site, but the increase over ambient traffic would be minimal. The parking lot would includes spaces for only seven vehicles.

The small increase would not be expected to result in substantial pollutant concentrations at these residences. Therefore, the impact to sensitive receptors would be less than significant. d) Result in other emission (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people?
Less than significant impact. According to Bay Area Air District 2022 CEQA Guidelines, odor impacts could occur if the proposed project introduces a new odor source near existing receptors. If the proposed project would be an odor-generating facility, then the Bay Area Air District provides a list of recommended odor screening distances for evaluating potential odor impacts. According to the Bay Area Air District, recreational parks are not odor-generating facilities.

Construction
Potential sources that may emit odors during construction activities include exhaust from diesel construction equipment. However, because of the temporary nature of these emissions, the intermittent duration of construction activities, and the highly diffusive properties of DPM exhaust, nearby receptors would not be affected by diesel exhaust odors associated with project construction.

Odors from these sources would be localized and generally confined to the immediate area surrounding the project site. The proposed project would utilize typical construction techniques, and the odors would be typical of most construction sites and temporary in nature. Thus, the proposed project would not introduce a new odor source near existing receptors.

Operation
The proposed project would result in the addition of mobile source emissions from vehicles visiting the Preserve. As previously stated, recreational parks are not identified by Bay Area Air District as sources of objectionable odors. Minor sources of odors, such as exhaust from mobile sources, are not typically associated with odor complaints, and potential odors would be temporary and insignificant. Therefore, the proposed project would have less than significant odor impacts during operation.

Summary
In conclusion, the proposed project would not result in odors that would adversely affect a substantial number of people during project construction or operation and impacts would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures
MM AIR-1 Best Management Practices for Fugitive Dust
The following measures shall be implemented during all phases of construction to control dust and exhaust at the project site. Measures that are not applicable to the proposed project or are infeasible shall not be implemented. 160

S O D A SPRINGS RANCH OPEN SPACE PRESERV E

INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
36 FCS
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/4859/48590006/ISMND/48590006 Soda Springs Ranch Open Space Preserve ISMND.docx • Water all exposed surfaces (e.g., parking areas, staging areas, soil piles, graded areas, and unpaved access roads) when dusty conditions are generated by construction activities.
• Cover trucks hauling soil, sand, and other loose materials off-site. • Remove all visible soil on Second Street/Foothill Boulevard as needed using street sweeping brooms at least once per day. The use of dry power sweeping is prohibited.
• Limit all vehicle speeds on unpaved roads to 15 miles per hour (mph). • Pave new or improved roadways, driveways, and sidewalks as soon as possible (not applicable to proposed project).
• Lay building pads as soon as possible after grading unless seeding or soil binders are used (not applicable to proposed project).
• Suspend all excavation, grading and/or demolition activities when average wind speeds exceed 20 mph.
• Wash off all trucks and equipment, including their tires, prior to leaving the site (not feasible to implement).
• Treat unpaved roads providing access to sites located 100 feet or further from a paved road with a 6- to 12-inch layer of compacted wood chips, mulch, or gravel (not applicable to proposed project).
• Minimize idling times either by shutting off equipment when not in use or reducing the maximum idling time to no more than 2 minutes (A 5-minute limit is required by State Airborne Toxics Control Measures [Title 13, Sections 2449(d)(3) and 2485 of the California Code of Regulations]). Provide clear signage for construction workers at all access points.
• Maintain and properly tune construction equipment in accordance with manufacturers’ specifications. A certified mechanic shall check all equipment and record a determination of “running in proper condition” prior to operation. • Post a publicly visible sign with the name and phone number of an on-site construction coordinator to contact regarding dust complaints. The on-site construction coordinator shall respond and take corrective action within 48 hours.

The sign shall also provide the City’s Code Enforcement Complaints email and number and the Bay Area Air Quality Management District’s (Bay Area Air District’s) General Air Pollution Complaints number to ensure compliance with applicable regulations.

Conclusion
There would be less than significant impacts related to air quality after implementation of MM AIR-1. 161

SOD A SPRINGS RANCH OPEN SPACE PRESERV E

INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
FCS 37
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/4859/48590006/ISMND/48590006 Soda Springs Ranch Open Space Preserve ISMND.docx Environmental Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact

2.4 Biological Resources
Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either
directly or through habitat modifications, on any
species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or
special-status species in local or regional
plans, policies, or regulations, or by the
California Department of Fish and Wildlife or
United States Fish and Wildlife Service?
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any
riparian habitat or other sensitive natural
community identified in local or regional plans,
policies, and regulations or by the California
Department of Fish and Wildlife or United
States Fish and Wildlife Service?
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on State or
federally protected wetlands (including, but not
limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.)
through direct removal, filling, hydrological
interruption, or other means?
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of
any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife
species or with established native resident or
migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use
of wildlife nursery sites?
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances
protecting biological resources, such as a tree
preservation policy or ordinance?
f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted
Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community
Conservation Plan, or other approved local,
regional, or State Habitat Conservation Plan?
162

S O D A SPRINGS RANCH OPEN SPACE PRESERV E

INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
38 FCS
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/4859/48590006/ISMND/48590006 Soda Springs Ranch Open Space Preserve ISMND.docx Environmental Evaluation
Setting
The following environmental evaluation is based, in part, on the Soda Springs Ranch Open Space Preserve Biological Resources Assessment (BRA), prepared by FirstCarbon Solutions (FCS) in June 2025. A field survey to support the BRA was conducted in May 2025 by FCS Biologists. The BRA, with supporting documentation, including the project-specific desktop review, and site photographs, is found in Appendix B. A detailed description of the environmental setting as it relates to biological resources is included in Section 2 of the BRA.

The project site is located within the northern portion of Sonoma County. The project site and surrounding area consists of mountainous terrain, including Cloverdale Creek to the north of the project site, Russian River to the east, Pritchett Peaks and Lake Sonoma to the south, and Cherry Creek to the west. Biological resources within the City of Cloverdale are diverse, despite its semi developed nature. The City contains natural ecological communities, harboring a diverse population of birds, mammals, reptiles, amphibians, and native plants. The City’s biological resources exist among urban geography of open space parklands, urban forests, and natural undeveloped areas.

The City has significant areas of natural ecosystems, including woodlands, grasslands, riparian habitat, and aquatic features that could support protected biological resources.

The proposed project site is undeveloped and surrounded by open space and residential development. The site is located west of North Foothill Boulevard, within the City of Cloverdale’s SOI.

The project site is composed of an Open Space Preserve containing an intermittent creek supporting riparian vegetation, a series of ephemeral drainages, various native woodlands and grasslands, and dirt roads traversing the site. Vegetation communities on-site include California bay (Umbellularia californica) riparian woodland, Douglas fir woodland alliance, coast redwood forest, Pacific madrone (Arbutus menziesii) woodland, mixed oak (Quercus sp.) woodland, manzanita (Arctostaphylos sp.) chaparral, needle grass (Stipa sp.) and melic grass (Melica sp.) serpentine grassland, wild oat (Avena sp.) and annual brome (Bromus sp.) grassland. Existing ephemeral drainages are dispersed throughout the site, with culverts and associated inlets and outlets that divert flows under the existing dirt roads.

Dominant oak species within the mixed oak alliance include coast live oak, interior live oak (Quercus wislizeni), valley oak (Quercus lobata), Oregon white oak, blue oak (Quercus douglasii), and California black oak (Quercus kelloggii). The mixed oak woodland, coast live oak woodland, Douglas fir woodland, and Pacific madrone woodland have shrub understories consisting of coyote brush (Baccharis pilularis), toyon (Heteromeles arbutifolia), tanoak (Notholithocarpus densiflorus), poison oak (Toxicodendron diversilobum), manzanita, rose (Rosa sp.), and non-native species surrounding the roads including French broom (Genista monspessulana) and Spanish broom (Spartium junceum).

The herbaceous layer is abundant and dominated by native grasses. The California bay woodland on-site occurs surrounding the intermittent creek running west to east along the northern border of the project site. This community also includes bigleaf maple (Acer macrophyllum) and a few scattered black oak, coast redwood, and Douglas fir trees. The coast redwood forest on-site is also mainly 163

SOD A SPRINGS RANCH OPEN SPACE PRESERV E

INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
FCS 39
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/4859/48590006/ISMND/48590006 Soda Springs Ranch Open Space Preserve ISMND.docx surrounding the intermittent creek or the other drainages present on-site. These forest patches occur as classic stands of redwoods without many other tree species present; however, there are a few California bay and bigleaf maple growing along the drainages in some of these forest sections. The California bay woodland and coast redwood forest on-site do not have dominant shrub or grassy herbaceous understories, instead featuring drainages, bare ground, or leaf litter. Both communities have a high diversity of ferns that are not commonly seen in the other communities on-site, including coastal woodfern (Dryopteris arguta), California maidenhair (Adiantum jordanii), California sword fern (Polystichum californicum), polypody fern (Polypodium sp.), and bracken fern (Pteridium aquilinum).

The manzanita chaparral on-site is composed of moderate to dense manzanita with some toyon and a robust herbaceous understory of mostly non-native grasses with a variety of native forbs, including winecup clarkia (Clarkia purpurea), golden fairy lantern (Calochortus amabilis), soap plant (Chlorogalum pomeridianum), blue dicks (Dipterostemon capitatus), grassy tarweed (Madia gracilis), and iris (Iris sp.). The wild oat-annual brome grassland on-site is dominated by non-native and invasive grass species, such as wild oat (Avena sp.), soft brome (Bromus hordeaceus), ripgut brome (Bromus diandrus), and false brome (Brachypodium distachyon). The needle grass-melic grass serpentine grassland is characterized by the presence of purple needle grass (Stipa pulchra), as well as other serpentine associated species including California oat grass (Danthonia californica), coast range mariposa lily (Calochortus vestae), and dwarf plantain (Plantago erecta).

Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special-status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or United States Fish and Wildlife Service? Less than significant with mitigation incorporated. As discussed above, potential impacts to special-status species and associated mitigation are based on the BRA prepared by FCS in June 2025. Prior to the May 2025 reconnaissance-level field surveys, FCS conducted literature reviews to identify potential biological resources that could be present on-site, including database searches of the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) and the California Native Plant Society (CNPS) Inventory of Rare Plants (CNPS Inventory).

Both search queries were found within the Cloverdale, California USGS 7.5-minute Topographic Quadrangle Map and eight surrounding quadrangles (Appendix B).

The literature review performed by FCS identified a total of 71 special-status species within the project vicinity. The database identified 58 potential special-status plant species, seven of which have a moderate to high potential to occur on-site, including Howell's manzanita (Arctostaphylos hispidula), serpentine reed grass (Calamagrostis ophitidis), Rincon Ridge ceanothus (Ceanothus confusus), congested-headed hayfield tarplant (Hemizonia congesta ssp. congesta), bristly leptosiphon (Leptosiphon aureus), Cobb Mountain lupine (Lupinus sericatus), and bearded jewelflower (Streptanthus barbiger). The database identified 13 special-status wildlife species, four of which have the potential to occur on-site, including foothill yellow-legged frog (Rana boylii pop. 1), purple martin 164

S O D A SPRINGS RANCH OPEN SPACE PRESERV E

INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
40 FCS
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/4859/48590006/ISMND/48590006 Soda Springs Ranch Open Space Preserve ISMND.docx (Progne subis), Crotch's bumble bee (Bombus crotchii), and northwestern pond turtle (Actinemys marmorata). These species are discussed in further detail below.

Special-status Plant Species
The project site contains suitable habitat to support seven potential special-status plant species.

Project ground-disturbing activities, including vegetation removal, could have the potential to impact special-status plant species occurring on-site, resulting in potentially significant impacts. Therefore, with the implementation of rare plant surveys (MM BIO-1a), potential impacts to special-status plant species, including Howell’s manzanita, serpentine reed grass, Rincon Ridge ceanothus, congestedheaded hayfield tarplant, bristly leptosiphon, Cobb Mountain lupine, and bearded jewel flower, would be reduced to less than significant levels. Additional discussion of the potential special-status plant species is further discussed below.

Howell's Manzanita
Howell’s manzanita is a perennial shrub in the Ericaceae family with a California Rare Plant Rank (CRPR) of 4.2 from the CNPS. There is potentially suitable habitat for this species in the chaparral and edge habitats on serpentine grassland on the project site.

Serpentine Reed Grass
Serpentine reed grass is a perennial herb in the Poaceae family with a CRPR of 4.3 from the CNPS.

There is potentially suitable habitat for this species in the rocky areas of the chaparral, Douglas fir forest, redwood forest, California bay woodland, mixed oak woodland, coast live oak woodland, grasslands, and drainages on-site.

Rincon Ridge Ceanothus
Rincon Ridge ceanothus is a perennial shrub in the Rhamnaceae family with a CRPR of 1B.1 from the CNPS. There is potentially suitable habitat for this species in the chaparral, Douglas fir forest, redwood forest, California bay woodland, mixed oak woodland, and coast live oak woodland on-site.

Congested-headed Hayfield Tarplant
Congested-headed hayfield tarplant is an annual herb in the Asteraceae family with a CRPR of 1B.2 from the CNPS. There is potentially suitable habitat for this species in the grasslands and disturbed roadsides on-site.

Bristly Leptosiphon
Bristly leptosiphon is an annual herb in the Polemoniaceae family with a CRPR of 4.2 from the CNPS.

There is potentially suitable habitat for this species in the chaparral, Douglas fir forest, redwood forest, California bay woodland, mixed oak woodland, coast live oak woodland, and grasslands onsite. 165

SOD A SPRINGS RANCH OPEN SPACE PRESERV E

INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
FCS 41
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/4859/48590006/ISMND/48590006 Soda Springs Ranch Open Space Preserve ISMND.docx Cobb Mountain Lupine
Cobb Mountain lupine is a perennial herb in the Fabaceae family with a CRPR of 1B.2 from the CNPS. There is potentially suitable habitat for this species in the chaparral, Douglas fir forest, redwood forest, California bay woodland, mixed oak woodland, and coast live oak woodland on-site.

Bearded Jewelflower
Bearded jewelflower is an annual herb in the Brassicaceae family with a CRPR of 4.2 from the CNPS.

There is potentially suitable habitat for this species in the chaparral and edge habitats on serpentine grassland on-site.

Special-status Wildlife Species
The project site contains suitable habitat to support seven potential special-status wildlife species, discussed below.

Foothill Yellow-legged Frog
Foothill yellow-legged frog is a Species of Special Concern (SSC) protected by the CDFW and has a moderate potential to occur on-site. This species is typically found in partially shaded shallow streams and riffles with a rocky substrate in a variety of habitats. The species requires at least some cobblesized substrate for egg-laying and at least 15 weeks to attain metamorphosis. The project site contains marginally suitable drainages and a creek with riparian woodland. However, the existing aquatic features on-site do not contain the required microhabitat, specifically cobble-sized substrate, to support larvae and breeding activities. One CNDDB occurrence was recorded approximately 0.5 mile southwest of the project site in 2002 along Cherry Creek Road. Additionally, one occurrence was previously recorded approximately 0.75 mile south of the project site in 2018, along Porterfield Creek.

Because of the recent occurrence of the foothill yellow-legged frog, within dispersal distance, and the potential for individuals to traverse the site in search of suitable breeding habitat, pre-construction surveys and appropriate avoidance buffers, if present on-site, are required (MM BIO-1b).

Implementation of avoidance and minimization measures would ensure that impacts to foothill yellowlegged frog would be reduced to less than significant levels.

Crotch’s Bumble Bee
Crotch’s bumble bee is a candidate for listing and receives protections under the Endangered Species Act and has a moderate potential to occur on-site. The are typically found in coastal California east to the Sierra-Cascade crest and south into Mexico. Food plant genera include Antirrhinum, Phacelia, Clarkia, Dendromecon, Eschscholzia, and Eriogonum. The project site contains the required host plant Eschscholzia, Clarkia, and Eriogonum for foraging to support this species. One CNDDB occurrence was recorded approximately 9.5 miles south of the project site in 2023. Because of the suitable host plants on-site, and recent occurrence within the project vicinity, it cannot be ruled out that Crotch’s bumble bee individuals could occupy the site. Ground-disturbing activities, including vegetation removal, could result in potentially significant impacts to Crotch’s bumble bee. Therefore, with the implementation of pre-construction surveys, as well as CDFW 166

S O D A SPRINGS RANCH OPEN SPACE PRESERV E

INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
42 FCS
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/4859/48590006/ISMND/48590006 Soda Springs Ranch Open Space Preserve ISMND.docx consultation where required (MM BIO-1c), potential impacts to Crotch’s bumble bee would be reduced to less than significant levels.

Northwestern Pond Turtle
Northwestern pond turtle is a SSC protected by the CDFW and has a moderate potential to occur onsite. This species is a thoroughly aquatic turtle found in ponds, marshes, rivers, streams, and irrigation ditches, usually with aquatic vegetation below 6,000 feet elevation. The species requires basking sites and suitable upland habitat (sandy banks or grassy open fields) up to 0.5 km from water for egg-laying. The project site contains drainages and a creek that supports riparian woodland and nearby grassland habitat. Two CNDDB occurrences were recorded in 2002 within the Russian River approximately 1 mile east of the project site, within dispersal distance, and approximately 3.5 miles southeast of the project site. Because of the recent occurrences in proximity of the Russian River and suitable aquatic features to support this species, it cannot be ruled out that northwestern pond turtle individuals could occupy the site. Therefore, with the implementation of pre-construction surveys, as well as CDFW consultation where required (MM BIO-1d), potential impacts to northwestern pond turtle would be reduced to less than significant levels.

Protected Nesting Birds (Including Purple Martin)
The project site’s existing trees, shrubs, and riparian woodland habitats may provide potential nesting habitat for birds, including purple martin. The entirety of the project site, channel banks and riparian vegetation along the northern intermittent creek, and areas adjacent to the project site contain a number of trees and shrubs that could provide potential nesting habitat could be used by the specialstatus birds. Should these be present, construction-related activities could result in their loss, which would result in a significant impact to special-status bird species. With implementation of preconstruction nesting bird surveys, as well as the establishment of avoidance buffers where required (MM BIO-1e), potential impacts to special-status bird species, including purple martin, would be reduced to less than significant levels.
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, and regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or United States Fish and Wildlife Service?
Less than significant with mitigation incorporated. Potential impacts to sensitive natural communities and associated mitigation are based on the BRA prepared by FCS in June 2025.

Vegetation communities with a State Rarity of S1 (Critically Imperiled), S2 (Imperiled), and S3 (Vulnerable) are considered a sensitive natural community. As previously discussed, the sensitive vegetation community on-site consists of mixed manzanita alliance (S3). Existing ephemeral drainages and culverts, with associated inlets and outlets, are dispersed throughout the site, currently used as the site’s drainage system. These drainage channels run adjacent to and divert flows under the existing dirt roads. All drainages and associated riparian habitat, whether a sensitive vegetation alliance or association or not, are protected by State and federal laws and regulations as waters of the United States and State and by CDFW’s Streambed Alteration Program. 167

SOD A SPRINGS RANCH OPEN SPACE PRESERV E

INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
FCS 43
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/4859/48590006/ISMND/48590006 Soda Springs Ranch Open Space Preserve ISMND.docx The proposed project would include the closure of unnecessary trails, the repair of existing roads, and the development of multiuse trails throughout the site. Additionally, proposed modifications to the existing on-site storm drainage system would consist of culverts, inlets, and basins to detain waters on-site. The proposed project could impact sensitive riparian habitat directly if trees or other vegetation within the riparian zone are removed or damaged during maintenance or construction activities. Additionally, the proposed project has the potential to impact the water quality of the drainage system. Potential temporary indirect impacts (during construction) and permanent indirect impacts (during project operation) include pollutant loading, increased erosion and sedimentation, and trash or debris dispersal into existing aquatic and riparian habitats. Temporary and indirect impacts to sensitive natural communities and/or jurisdictional features would be considered potentially significant under CEQA.

Construction of the proposed project would result in potential impacts to potential State or federally protected waters; and potential impacts to the associated riparian habitat during the proposed trail improvements during minor grading and vegetation removal activities. Trail improvement-related impacts would be regulated pursuant the CWA, Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act, and Fish and Game Code Section 1602, et seq., and would require the project proponent to implement MM BIO-2a and comply with avoidance, minimization, and compensatory mitigation measures defined by the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), and CDFW to avoid and/or offset temporary impacts to the existing jurisdictional features and riparian habitat associated with the proposed trail improvements.

Construction of the proposed project would result in potential impacts to potential State or federally protected waters and potential impacts to existing riparian habitat during the proposed drainage improvements. Although the proposed project would not include permanent impacts (e.g., placement of fill) to the existing drainage system on-site, the proposed project has the potential for adverse impacts to the drainages through work that may occur below the drainage’s top of bank and associated riparian canopy during the proposed modifications. To reduce impacts to the potential jurisdictional features, the project applicant shall implement MM BIO-2b and MM BIO-2c, which requires the applicant to coordinate with applicable regulatory agencies, including the CDFW, RWQCB, and USACE, to obtain the appropriate permits (1602, Waste Discharge Requirement [WDR]/401, 404) and/or no permit letters, to the extent required by applicable laws and regulations.

Compliance with regulatory permitting requirements and any conditions of approval determined by CDFW, RWQCB, and/or USACE would reduce impacts to riparian habitat and/or potential jurisdictional features to a less than significant level. c) Have a substantial adverse effect on State or federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? No impact. The reconnaissance field survey conducted by FCS Biologists in May 2025 determined that no jurisdictional wetlands were observed within the project site survey area within the project limits of disturbance. No wetland indicators were present at any of the data collection points on-site. 168

S O D A SPRINGS RANCH OPEN SPACE PRESERV E

INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
44 FCS
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/4859/48590006/ISMND/48590006 Soda Springs Ranch Open Space Preserve ISMND.docx The BRA concluded that the project site does not contain any State or federally protected wetlands; therefore, no impacts would occur.
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of wildlife nursery sites?
Less than significant with mitigation incorporated. Wildlife corridors are generally described as pathways or habitat linkages that connect discrete areas of natural open space otherwise separated or fragmented by topography, changes in vegetation, and other natural or human induced factors, such as urbanization. The fragmentation of natural habitat creates isolated “islands” of vegetation that may not provide sufficient area or resources to accommodate sustainable populations for a number of species, thus adversely affecting both genetic and species diversity. Corridors often partially or largely eliminate the adverse effects of fragmentation by (1) allowing wildlife to move between remaining habitats to replenish depleted populations and increase the gene pool available; (2) providing escape routes from fire, predators, and human disturbances, thus reducing the risk that catastrophic events (such as fire or disease) would result in population or species extinction; and (3) serving as travel paths for individual animals moving throughout their home range in search of food, water, mates, and other needs, or for dispersing juveniles in search of new home ranges.

The project site and associated habitat likely serve as a wildlife movement corridor. Because of the undeveloped nature of the project site and vegetation communities present, it may serve as a movement corridor for common area wildlife (i.e., raccoon, skunk, opossum, deer, and coyote).

Additionally, the project site contains mature trees and dense canopy throughout the site, making it a suitable nursery site for wildlife species, including protected nesting birds and roosting bats.

The proposed project would result in less than significant impacts to wildlife movement corridors and wildlife nursery sites. While the proposed project may result in minor, temporary impacts to wildlife movement and/or nursery sites during construction, implementation of pre-construction nesting bird surveys, as well as the establishment of avoidance buffers where required (MM BIO-1e), potential impacts to nesting birds and roosting bats would be reduced to less than significant levels. e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance?
Less than significant impact. City of Cloverdale General Plan policies and Municipal Code Ordinance(s) pertaining to biological resources are outlined below:

City of Cloverdale General Plan
The 2009 City of Cloverdale General Plan (General Plan) both contain policies to protect natural resource lands including, but not limited to, watershed, fish and wildlife habitat, biotic areas, and habitat connectivity corridors.
169

SOD A SPRINGS RANCH OPEN SPACE PRESERV E

INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
FCS 45
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/4859/48590006/ISMND/48590006 Soda Springs Ranch Open Space Preserve ISMND.docx Policy CDO 6-1 Maintain and expand the tree canopy within and outside the developed areas of the City, including old growth and newly planted trees. Prepare tree protection standards that can be implemented with or without a tree preservation ordinance.

Policy CDO 6-1 Maintain and expand the tree canopy within and outside the developed areas of the City, including old growth and newly planted trees, including best practice provisions for installation, maintenance and succession planting.

Policy CDO 6-2 Protect distinctive natural vegetation such as oak woodlands, riparian corridors and mixed evergreen forests by maintaining the natural features as a whole.

Preservation of individual trees or features rather than the larger habitat does not satisfy this policy.

Policy CDO 6-3 Large or otherwise significant trees shall be maintained both in residential, nonresidential, and open space areas by: (1) Revising development plans that would remove significant trees so that those trees are saved. (2) Developing standard conditions of approval to minimize damage during construction and provisions to assure that building foundations, utilities, walkways, irrigation, or use patterns will not damage root structures, trunks or crowns.

Policy CDO 6-4 New private and public development, including public street, sidewalk, utility, and park construction, shall provide a mix of trees with a crown that can provide shade and summer cooling and trees with height to create a silhouette against the skyline.

Policy CDO 6-5 New public and private development shall provide street trees parallel to streets— in planter strips, in sidewalks, or at back of sidewalks, spaced at regular intervals along the street. Tree intervals shall provide a canopy with leaves touching at maturity. Tree locations shall be identified prior to design of utilities, drainage, hydrants, electrical equipment boxes, vaults, etc., and those features should be subservient to tree locations.

Policy CDO 7-1 Conserve and protect the area's natural vegetation by: (1) Ensuring that drainage and runoff from City sources is not impairing the water quality of the Russian River. (2) Retaining existing riparian vegetation within the conservation buffers along all natural watercourses to preserve riparian vegetation and habitat. (3) Restoring degraded riparian habitats where feasible. (4) Prohibiting agricultural activities within the conservation buffers along all natural watercourses. (5) Avoiding the contamination of groundwater supplies.

City of Cloverdale Municipal Code
the City has implemented Chapter 18.17–Tree Preservation of the Municipal Code (Tree Ordinance) to establish standards and programs to protect, preserve, and maintain groves and stands of mature trees and specified individual protected trees through discretionary permits. 170

S O D A SPRINGS RANCH OPEN SPACE PRESERV E

INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
46 FCS
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/4859/48590006/ISMND/48590006 Soda Springs Ranch Open Space Preserve ISMND.docx Chapter 18.17–Tree Preservation
The City defines a protected trees any tree following tree species with a diameter at breast height (DBH) of 24 inches or greater: native oaks (Quercus sp.) including, but not limited to, black oak, valley oak, blue oak, interior live oak, coast live oak, Oracle oak (Quercus x morehus), and Oregon oak; American sycamore (Platanus occidentalis); California bay (Umbellularia californica), Douglas fir, Ponderosa pine (Pinus ponderosa), Black walnut (Juglans nigra), and English walnut (Juglans regia).

The City also considers California or coast redwood (Sequoia sp.) with a DBH of 48 inches or greater as a protected tree. Multi-trunk trees must possess at least one trunk with the stated DBH above to be considered a protected tree. All trees designated as a heritage tree or located within a riparian corridor, public right-of-way, or mitigation plantings are considered protected trees.

The City prohibits the removal of or damage to protected trees without a tree removal permit. Tree removal permit applications require an arborist report, identifying all protected trees on-site and which are proposed for removal. A landscape plan must depict the location of all in-kind replacement tree plantings and/or proof of in lieu fee payment. Some tree removals may be exempt from the City’s Tree Ordinance in emergency situations. If the City determines that a protected tree poses an imminent threat to the public safety or general welfare, or to private property or persons, or is deemed a fire hazard, it is exempt from the Tree Ordinance.

If tree(s) are proposed for removal, applicants must adhere to the City’s mitigation and tree replacement requirements, including, but not limited to, the replacement ratio for any removed trees, whether replacement should be on-site or through the payment of an in lieu fee, and the types of trees which may be planted as replacement trees, shall be determined by the planning commission or City council. Tree replacement ratios are required as the following in relation to the trees permitted to be removed:
• All protected trees permitted to be removed which have been determined by a qualified Arborist to be in excellent or good health and/or with moderate to good structure shall be replaced on a one-to-one trunk diameter basis.
• All protected trees permitted to be removed which have been determined by a qualified Arborist to have moderate or marginal health and/or with marginal structure shall be replaced on a twoto-one trunk diameter basis. • All protected trees permitted to be removed and determined by a qualified Arborist to have poor health or poor structure shall not be required to be replaced.

The Tree Ordinance states that the design of every development project shall preserve trees to the greatest extent possible. The design of proposed development shall address preservation of the most desirable and significant of the healthy trees and developers are encouraged to utilize creative land planning techniques to achieve this goal. All applicants for a development project shall include a tree preservation plan, including the following items: (1) a Tree inventory with tree locations, size (trunk DBH), health, and species; (2) Identification of all protected trees; (3) Proposed locations of all new 171

SOD A SPRINGS RANCH OPEN SPACE PRESERV E

INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
FCS 47
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/4859/48590006/ISMND/48590006 Soda Springs Ranch Open Space Preserve ISMND.docx trees to be planted; (4) Existing vegetation and proposed landscape plans; (5) Location of trees to be removed; and (6) Preservation measures.

All developments must adhere to the City’s guidelines to protect trees during construction activities, including, but limited to: (1) Protective barriers must be placed around all newly planted and mature trees on-site; (2) All personnel must remain outside the established Environmental Sensitive Area; (3) No grading may occur within the tree ESAs; (4) No signage or other attachments can be fixed to trees; (5) Any required work within the tree ESAs may only be completed using hand tools; (6) Harmful liquids must remain away from the tree; and (7) No equipment, solvents, paint, asphalt, or debris of any kind shall be placed, stored, or allowed within the ESAs.

The proposed project would adhere to General Plan policies (Policies LU 3-4, CDO 6-1, CDO 6-2, CDO 6-3, CDO 6-4, CDO 6-5, CDO 7-1) through project design features, obtaining tree removal permits, BMPs, and avoidance measures to preserve existing trees and natural vegetation communities within the project site to the maximum possible. Additionally, the proposed project would remain consistent with the City’s Tree Ordinance through project design features, obtaining the required permits, if necessary, and tree avoidance to preserve protected trees and heritage trees onsite. All trees proposed for removal are downed and considered a hazard on-site, therefore, would be exempt from the City’s Tree Ordinance. All other trees on-site would be avoided and preserved as a part of the proposed design. The proposed project would not conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, impacts would be less than significant. f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or State Habitat Conservation Plan?
No impact. The project site, does not fall under an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP)/Natural Community Conservation Plan (NCCP), or other approved local, regional, or State HCP. However, the project site will be subject to the Sonoma County HCP, currently under review, once adopted by the County. Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with the provisions of the adopted regional conservation plan and no impacts would occur.

Mitigation Measures
MM BIO-1a Protocol-level Rare Plant Surveys
A qualified Plant Biologist shall conduct three surveys within the Rare Plant Survey Area (See Exhibit 5) for special-status plant species according to the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) Protocols for Surveying and Evaluating Impacts to Special Status Native Plant Populations and Sensitive Natural Communities (2018, rev. 2021). These surveys shall be timed to capture the local blooming period of special-status plant species with a moderate to high potential to occur on-site, including Howell’s manzanita, serpentine reed grass, Rincon Ridge ceanothus, congested-headed hayfield tarplant, bristly leptosiphon, Cobb Mountain lupine, and bearded jewel flower.
172

S O D A SPRINGS RANCH OPEN SPACE PRESERV E

INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
48 FCS
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/4859/48590006/ISMND/48590006 Soda Springs Ranch Open Space Preserve ISMND.docx If any special-status plant species are found within the project site impact area, the occurrences shall be mapped, recorded, and submitted to CNDDB. The Rare Plant Survey Report shall detail any special-status plant species or sensitive natural communities found on-site, as well as propose potential avoidance or mitigation measures based upon specific occurrences.
173
Port Cir
2nd St
North Branch Portfield Creek

S O D A S P R I N G S R A N C H O P E N S P A C E P R E S E R V E I N I T I A L S T U D Y / M I T I G A T E D N E G A T I V E D E C L A R A T I O N

CITY OF CLOVERDALE
48590006 • 07/2025 | 5_s urvey_map.mxd
Sourc e: ESRI Aerial Imagery. County of Sonoma. CalTopo Data. ¥ 450 225 0 450
Feet
F C S
Rare Plant Survey Map
Legend
Projec t Site220.35 acres
Staging Area0.82 acre
Rare Plant Survey Area3.09 acres
Propos ed Multi-Us e Trails
Exis ting Ranc h Roads
Exhibit 5
174

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
175

SOD A SPRINGS RANCH OPEN SPACE PRESERV E

INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
FCS 51
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/4859/48590006/ISMND/48590006 Soda Springs Ranch Open Space Preserve ISMND.docx MM BIO-1b Foothill Yellow-legged Frog Pre-construction Survey and Avoidance To the extent practicable, the applicant shall avoid construction during the wet season when foothill yellow-legged frog (FYLF) are most active. Except for limited vegetation clearing (necessary to minimize effects to nesting birds) work shall be limited to the dry season (from June 1 to October 31).

No more than 15 days prior to the first ground-disturbing activities, the applicant shall retain a qualified Wildlife Biologist to conduct a focused survey for FYLF of the ground disturbance area and immediate vicinity to determine presence or absence of this species. If the species is observed within the Study Area during the focused survey, the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) shall be contacted and all construction activities within the disturbance area shall be delayed until an appropriate course of action is established and approved by CDFW.

Before any activities begin on the project, the applicant shall retain an approved Biologist to conduct Worker Environmental Awareness Program (WEAP) training for all construction personnel. At a minimum, the training shall include a description of the FYLF and its habitat, the specific measures that are being implemented to conserve the FYLF for the current project, and the boundaries within which the project may be accomplished. Brochures, books, and briefings may be used in the WEAP, provided that a qualified person is on hand to answer any questions.

The applicant shall limit the number of access routes, size of staging areas, and the total area of the construction activity to the minimum necessary to achieve the project goal. Environmentally Sensitive Areas shall be established to confine access routes and construction areas to the minimum area necessary to complete construction, and minimize the impact to FYLF habitat; this goal includes locating access routes and construction areas outside of riparian areas to the maximum extent practicable.

MM BIO-1c Protocol-level Crotch’s Bumble Bee Surveys
A qualified Biologist shall conduct focused Crotch’s bumble bee surveys, in accordance with survey guidelines described in the 2023 California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) Survey Considerations for California Endangered Species Act (CESA) Candidate Bumble Bee Species, within 1 year of initiation of grounddisturbing activities (i.e., grubbing, grading, disking, etc.). If the focused surveys are positive for Crotch’s bumblebee, the project applicant shall obtain take authorization under CESA in the form of an Incidental Take Permit (ITP) issued by CDFW prior to conducting any ground-disturbing activities. Mitigation measures outlined in the ITP shall be used to offset impacts to this species.

Areas scheduled for grading and/or vegetation shall be revegetated utilizing an assemblage of native upland vegetation suitable for the area. Invasive, exotic plants 176

S O D A SPRINGS RANCH OPEN SPACE PRESERV E

INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
52 FCS
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/4859/48590006/ISMND/48590006 Soda Springs Ranch Open Space Preserve ISMND.docx shall be controlled to the maximum extent practicable during construction. This measure shall be implemented in all areas disturbed by activities associated with the project unless the CDFW, the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), and the project applicant determine that it is not feasible or practical.

MM BIO-1d Northwestern Pond Turtle Pre-construction Survey and Avoidance A qualified Biologist with relevant survey experience shall conduct a survey within the project site impact area for northwestern pond turtle no more than 5 days prior to beginning ground disturbance and/or construction. If any life stage of the northwestern pond turtle is detected, construction activities shall not be allowed to commence until consultation with California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) and the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) has occurred.

Before any activities begin on the project, a qualified Biologist shall conduct Worker Environmental Awareness Program (WEAP) training for all construction personnel. At a minimum, the training shall include a description of the northwestern pond turtle and its habitat, the specific measures that are being implemented to conserve the northwestern pond turtle for the current project, and the boundaries within which the project may be accomplished. Barrier fencing shall be installed around the worksite to prevent northwestern pond turtle from entering the work area. A qualified Biologist shall be present during the installation of exclusion fencing. Barrier fencing shall be removed within 72 hours of completion of work.

Areas scheduled for grading and/or vegetation shall be revegetated utilizing an assemblage of native upland vegetation suitable for the area.  Invasive, exotic plants shall be controlled to the maximum extent practicable during construction. This measure shall be implemented in all areas disturbed by activities associated with the project unless the CDFW, the USFWS, and the project applicant determine that it is not feasible or practical.

MM BIO-1e Protection of Active Bird Nests (includes pre-construction survey and implementation of avoidance buffer, if found)
If the proposed project initiates construction/maintenance activities during the avian nesting season, the project applicant shall retain a qualified Biologist to perform preconstruction surveys for nesting birds, including purple martin. The survey shall be conducted 5 days prior to the initiation of project activities to determine whether active nests are present. If an active nest is located, the qualified Biologist shall determine an appropriately sized avoidance buffer based on the species and anticipated disturbance level. A qualified Biologist shall delineate the avoidance buffer using Environmentally Sensitive Area (ESA) fencing, pin flags, and or yellow caution tape. No construction/maintenance activities or other foot traffic is allowed to occur within the avoidance buffer(s). The ESA buffer zone shall be maintained around the 177

SOD A SPRINGS RANCH OPEN SPACE PRESERV E

INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
FCS 53
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/4859/48590006/ISMND/48590006 Soda Springs Ranch Open Space Preserve ISMND.docx active nest site(s) until the qualified Biologist determines that the young have fledged and are foraging independently. The qualified Biologist shall monitor the active nest during maintenance and/or construction activities and stop or divert project activities in the vicinity, as needed, to prevent any potential impacts that may result from the construction of the proposed project until the young have fledged.

MM BIO-2a Avoidance and Minimization of Impacts to Aquatic Features and Riparian Habitat
No substances toxic to fish and wildlife shall be discharged or allowed to leach into the existing aquatic features on-site. Reasonable precautions to protect aquatic habitats of the potentially jurisdictional features from pollution with harmful materials (e.g., fuels, oils, lubricants, and solvents) shall be implemented. Specifically, all potentially hazardous materials shall be controlled, cleaned up, and properly disposed of in accordance with the proposed project’s water quality control permits and plans. Materials deleterious or toxic to fish and wildlife, including, but not limited to, asphalt, tires, concrete, construction materials, treated wood, and creosotecontaining materials, shall not be stockpiled within 100 feet of the existing drainage features. Refueling and maintenance areas for equipment shall be limited to areas 100 feet from the existing drainage features on-site.

At no time shall silt-laden runoff be allowed to enter the drainage features. Erosion control measures shall be utilized throughout all phases of construction where sediment runoff from the proposed project may enter the aquatic features. Best Management Plans (BMPs) to avoid erosion and uncontrolled stormwater runoff shall be implemented. BMPs typically include silt fencing, coir rolls, and/or straw bale dikes.

MM BIO-2b Obtain Approval of and File CDFW Notification of Streambed Alteration Agreement Prior to Work
The project applicant, after coordination with the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW), shall obtain and file a notification of a Streambed Alteration Agreement, if and to the extent required by applicable laws and regulations, prior to conducting construction and/or maintenance activities within any aquatic resources or associated riparian habitat that may qualify as streams or sensitive natural communities under CDFW jurisdiction (i.e., those having bed and bank and at least periodical flow). If required, the project applicant shall implement all mitigation measures imposed by the CDFW related to the subject Streambed Alteration Agreement, which may include but not be limited to the implementation of erosion and bank stabilization measures, seasonal work restrictions, and/or restoration and revegetation of the riparian corridor, as determined by the CDFW. 178

S O D A SPRINGS RANCH OPEN SPACE PRESERV E

INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
54 FCS
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/4859/48590006/ISMND/48590006 Soda Springs Ranch Open Space Preserve ISMND.docx MM BIO-2c Obtain Appropriate Permits Prior to Construction (CWA Sections 404/401 or Waste Discharge Requirement)
Prior to the fill of any potentially jurisdictional waters as part of the proposed project, the project applicant shall consult with the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) to determine the extent, if at all, that waters of the United States may be impacted by the proposed project.

The applicant shall obtain a Section 404 Clean Water Act (CWA) permit for impacts to waters of the United States and Section 401 Water Quality Certification from the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). These permits and certifications shall be obtained prior to issuance of grading permits for the implementation of the proposed project. If the existing drainage features on-site are found to be exempt from being regulated by the USACE as a water of the United States, the applicant shall consult with the RWQCB and obtain a Waste Discharge Requirement (WDR) if deemed necessary. The applicant shall design the proposed project to result in no net loss of functions and values of waters of the United States by incorporating impact avoidance, impact minimization, and/or compensatory mitigation for the impact, as determined in the CWA 404/401 or WDR.

Compensatory mitigation may consist of (1) obtaining credits from a mitigation bank; (2) making a payment to an in lieu fee program that shall conduct wetland, stream, or other aquatic resource restoration, creation, enhancement, or preservation activities; and/or (3) providing compensatory mitigation through an aquatic resource restoration, establishment, enhancement, and/or preservation activity. This final type of compensatory mitigation may be provided at or adjacent to the impact site (i.e., onsite mitigation) or at another location, usually within the same watershed as the permitted impact (i.e., off-site mitigation). The project/permit applicant retains responsibility for the implementation and success of the mitigation project. 179

SOD A SPRINGS RANCH OPEN SPACE PRESERV E

INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
FCS 55
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/4859/48590006/ISMND/48590006 Soda Springs Ranch Open Space Preserve ISMND.docx Environmental Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact

2.5 Cultural Resources and Tribal Cultural Resources
Would the project:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of a historical resource as
pursuant to Section 15064.5?
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of an archaeological resource
pursuant to Section 15064.5?
c) Disturb any human remains, including those
interred outside of formal cemeteries?
Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a Tribal Cultural Resource, defined in Public Resources Code Section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American Tribe, and that is:
d) Listed or eligible for listing in the California
Register of Historical Resources, or in a local
register of historical resources as defined in
Public Resources Code Section 5020.1(k), or
e) A resource determined by the lead agency, in
its discretion and supported by substantial
evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria
set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources
Code Section 5024.1. In applying the criteria
set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resource
Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall
consider the significance of the resource to a
California Native American Tribe.

Environmental Evaluation
Setting
This section describes the existing cultural setting and potential effects from the project implementation on the project site and its surrounding area. The following discussion is based on a 180

S O D A SPRINGS RANCH OPEN SPACE PRESERV E

INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
56 FCS
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/4859/48590006/ISMND/48590006 Soda Springs Ranch Open Space Preserve ISMND.docx records search at the Northwest Information Center (NWIC), the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC), and a cultural resources pedestrian survey conducted by FCS. The nonconfidential NWIC records search, pedestrian survey photographs, and NAHC correspondence is included in Appendix C.

Northwest Information Center
On March 10, 2025, a records search was conducted at the NWIC, located at Sonoma State University in Rohnert Park, California, for the project site and a 0.5-mile radius beyond the project boundaries. The current inventories of the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP), the California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR), the California Historical Landmarks (CHL) list, the California Points of Historical Interest (CPHI) list, and the California Built Environment Resource Directory (BERD) for Sonoma County were also reviewed to determine the existence of previously documented local historic resources. The results of the records search indicate that no cultural resources have been recorded within the project site; however, 30 cultural resources (four pre-contact and 26 historic) have been recorded within the 0.5-mile search radius. In addition, 32 area-specific survey reports on file with the NWIC, three of which partially address the project site, indicating that the project site has been previously partially surveyed for cultural resources.

Native American Heritage Commission
On February 10, 2025, FCS sent a request to the NAHC in an effort to determine whether any sacred sites are listed on its Sacred Lands File (SLF) for the project site. A response was received on February 12, 2025, indicating that the SLF search was positive for Native American cultural resources in the immediate project site. The NAHC included a list of 33 Tribal representatives available for consultation. To ensure that all Native American knowledge and concerns over potential Tribal Cultural Resources (TCRs) that may be affected by the proposed project are addressed, a letter containing project information and requesting any additional information was sent to each Tribal representative on February 12, 2025. A reply from the Big Valley Band of Pomo Indians of the Big Valley Rancheria was received on February 27, 2025, indicating that the project site does not fall within the Tribal boundaries and defer to local Tribes. On March 10, 2025, a reply from the MishewalWappo Tribe of Alexander Valley deferring to the local Tribes. No additional responses have been received to date.

Pedestrian Survey
On April 23, 2025, FCS Senior Archaeologist Dr. Dana DePietro, and FCS Staff surveyed the proposed trail alignments and picnic bench areas order to identify any unrecorded cultural resources within the project boundary. The survey began in the east of the park boundary and moved clockwise, closely examining the full extent of each of the four proposed trail alignments located in the east, south-central, north-central, and western portions of the park. Eleven proposed picnic table locations were also surveyed in their entirety.

Overall visibility of native soils was poor, ranging from 10 to 20 percent, due to vegetation and ground cover. Bioturbation and intermittent inspection using a hand trowel allowed for limited observation, however. Soil composition along the proposed eastern trail alignment consisted of reddish-brown clay 181

SOD A SPRINGS RANCH OPEN SPACE PRESERV E

INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
FCS 57
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/4859/48590006/ISMND/48590006 Soda Springs Ranch Open Space Preserve ISMND.docx soils (Munsel 10 YR 4/6) interspersed with medium (3-5 cm) stones composed primarily of quartz and schist. Soil composition along the proposed south-central trail alignment consisted of light brown silty soils (Munsel 10 YR 5/3) interspersed with small (1-3 cm) stones composed primarily of schist and chalk. Soil composition along the proposed western trail alignment consisted of dark brown soils (Munsel 10 YR 4/2) heavily interspersed with decaying foliage and organic material, and soil composition along the proposed north-central trail alignment consisted of medium red-brown iron rich soils (Munsel 7.5 YR 4/3) interspersed with small (1-3 cm) stones composed primarily of quartz, schist and some unworked chert.

Survey conditions were documented using digital photographs and field notes. During the survey, Dr.

DePietro examined all areas of the exposed ground surface for prehistoric artifacts (e.g., fire-affected rock, milling tools, flaked stone tools, toolmaking debris, ceramics), soil discoloration and depressions that might indicate the presence of a cultural midden, faunal and human osteological remains, and features indicative of the former presence of structures or buildings (e.g., postholes, standing exterior walls, foundations) or historic debris (e.g., glass, metal, ceramics). Particular attention was paid to areas immediately adjacent to creeks and drainages as these natural resources may have been utilized by Native American Tribes in antiquity.

Overall, no indications of potentially eligible historic structures or pre-contact archaeological resources were encountered over the course of the pedestrian survey.

Buried Site Potential
In addition to the pedestrian survey, the potential for yet identified cultural resources in the project vicinity was reviewed against geologic and topographic geographic information system data for the general area and information from other nearby projects. The proposed project was evaluated against a set of criteria originally identified by a Geoarchaeological Overview of the nine Bay Area counties in Caltrans District 4 that was prepared for Caltrans.
17 This study mapped the “archaeological
sensitivity,” or potential to support the presence of buried pre-contact archaeological deposits, throughout the Bay Area based on geology and environmental parameters including distance to water and landform slope. The methodology used in the study is applicable to other parts of California, and generally concluded that sites consisting of flat, Holocene-era deposits in close proximity to water sources had a moderate to high probability of containing subsurface archaeological deposits when compared to earlier Pleistocene deposits situated on slopes or further away from drainages, lakes, and rivers.

The project site is situated on the sloping terrain. According to the geological map of Blake, et.al. (2002), the surface of the project site consists entirely of Franciscan Complex, which consist of Cretaceous Period sandstone (TKfa) and graywacke (KJfs) deposits. Applying the criteria set forth above, all Holocene-era deposits have the potential to contain archaeological deposits, which 17 Meyer, Jack, and Jefferey S. Rosenthal. 2007. A Geoarchaeological Overview for the Nine Bay Area Counties of Caltrans District 4. Far Western Anthropological Research Group, Inc., Davis, California. Submitted to the California Department of Transportation, District 4, Oakland.
182

S O D A SPRINGS RANCH OPEN SPACE PRESERV E

INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
58 FCS
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/4859/48590006/ISMND/48590006 Soda Springs Ranch Open Space Preserve ISMND.docx increases with the ease of the slope and proximity to water sources. Although the project site is situated on sloping Cretaceous Period deposits, the proximity to Cherry Creek, located 2.75 miles east of Cherry Creek, and the positive NAHC SLF search, would suggest a low potential for unanticipated buried cultural resources to be impacted by project construction.

Cultural Resources
Would the project:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as pursuant to Section 15064.5?
No impact. Historical resources in this context refer to the built environment, mainly buildings and structures over 45 years in age that may be eligible for inclusion on the CRHR or NRHP. Records search results conducted at the NWIC did not identify any historical resources within the proposed project boundaries; however, 24 historical resources have been recorded within the 0.5-mile search radius. Additionally, the pedestrian survey failed to identify any historical resources. Thus, the proposed project would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of any such known resources. No mitigation measures are required and impacts to historical resources would be less than significant.
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to Section 15064.5?
Less than significant with mitigation incorporated. The results from the NWIC indicate that 6 archaeological resources are recorded within 0.5 mile of the project site, none of which are located within the proposed project boundaries. The results of the pedestrian survey failed to locate or identify any archaeological resources due to the lack of soil visibility across the project site. Buried Site Potential indicates that the entirety of the proposed project rests entirely on Cretaceous period Franciscan Complex, which suggests a low potential for archaeological resources; however, the results of the NAHC SLF search was positive for TCRs, which increases the probability of encountering archaeological resources.

As such, it is possible that earthmoving activities associated with project construction could encounter previously undiscovered archaeological resources. Archaeological resources can include but are not limited to stone, bone, wood, or shell artifacts or features, including hearths and structural elements.

Damage or destruction of these resources would have a potentially significant impact. Implementation MM CUL-1, MM CUL-2, and MM CUL-3 would ensure that potential impacts to archaeological resources would be reduced to a level of less than significant. c) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? Less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated. While no formal cemeteries or areas containing human remains are known to be in the project site’s vicinity, the possibility always exists that construction-related ground disturbance may uncover previously undiscovered human remains. 183

SOD A SPRINGS RANCH OPEN SPACE PRESERV E

INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
FCS 59
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/4859/48590006/ISMND/48590006 Soda Springs Ranch Open Space Preserve ISMND.docx In the unlikely event such a discovery is made, CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5, Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5, and Public Resources Code Section 5097.94 and Section 5097.98 must be followed. Additionally, implementation of MM CUL-1 and MM CUL-3, which details inadvertent discovery procedures, would reduce potential impacts of previously undiscovered human remains to a less than significant level.

Tribal Cultural Resources
Would the proposed project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a Tribal Cultural Resource, defined in Public Resources Code Section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American Tribe, and that is:
d) Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code Section 5020.1(k), or
Less than significant with mitigation incorporated. A review of the CRHR, local registers of historic resources, a records search conducted at the NWIC, and a pedestrian survey failed to identify any listed TCRs that may be adversely affected by the proposed project. The NAHC SLF results were positive for TCRs in the project site. However, subsequent outreach to Tribal representatives for additional information and responses from the Big Valley Band of Pomo Indians of the Big Valley Rancheria indicated that the project site does not fall within the Tribal boundaries and deferred to local Tribes, and the Mishewal-Wappo Tribe of Alexander Valley deferred to the local Tribes. As such, no eligible or potentially eligible TCRs would adversely be affected by the proposed project. Should any undiscovered TCRs be encountered during project construction, implementation of MM CUL-1, MM CUL-2 and MM CUL-3 would ensure that potential impacts to TCRs would be reduced to a level of less than significant.
e) A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resource Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American Tribe.

TBD. Tribal consultation efforts conducted by the City of Cloverdale pursuant to Assembly Bill (AB) 52 to identify additional significant TCRs meeting the criteria set forth in subdivision(c) pf Public Resources Code Section 5024.1 is yet to be determined.

Mitigation Measures
MM CUL-1 Prior to the initiation of construction activities, all construction personnel conducting ground disturbance at the site shall be provided a Worker Environmental Awareness Program (WEAP) cultural resources “tailgate” training. The training shall include visual aids, a discussion of applicable laws and statutes relating to archaeological 184

S O D A SPRINGS RANCH OPEN SPACE PRESERV E

INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
60 FCS
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/4859/48590006/ISMND/48590006 Soda Springs Ranch Open Space Preserve ISMND.docx resources, types of resources that may be found within the project site, and procedures to be followed in the event such resources are encountered. The training shall be conducted by an Archaeologist who meets the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualification Standards for archaeology.

Furthermore, inadvertent discovery protocols and procedures shall be implemented.

Should exposed soils indicate cultural materials may be present, this may be followed by full-time or weekly “spot-checks” archaeological monitoring, as determined by the Lead Archaeologist; however, full-time monitoring is not recommended at this time.

MM CUL-2 In the event that buried archaeological resources are discovered during construction, operations shall stop within a 100-foot radius of the find and an Archaeologist who meets the Secretary of Interior’s Professional Qualification Standards for archaeology shall be consulted to determine whether the resource requires further study. The qualified Archaeologist shall make recommendations to the lead agency on the measures that shall be implemented to protect the discovered resources, including but not limited to excavation of the finds and evaluation of the finds in accordance with Section 15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines. Potentially significant cultural resources consist of, but are not limited to, stone, bone, fossils, wood, or shell artifacts or features, including hearths, structural remains, or historic dumpsites. Any previously undiscovered resources found during construction within the project area shall be recorded on appropriate California Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR) forms and evaluated for significance in terms of CEQA criteria. If the resources are determined to be unique historic resources as defined under Section 15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines, mitigation measures shall be identified by the monitor and recommended to the lead agency. Appropriate mitigation measures for significant resources could include avoidance or capping, incorporation of the site in green space, parks, or open space, or data recovery excavations of the finds. The lead agency, along with other relevant or Tribal officials, shall be contacted upon the discovery of cultural resources to begin coordination on the disposition of the find(s).

Treatment of any significant cultural resources shall be undertaken with the approval of the lead agency. No further grading shall occur in the area of the discovery until the lead agency approves the measures to protect these resources. Upon coordination with the lead agency, any archaeological artifacts recovered shall be donated to an appropriate Tribal custodian or a qualified scientific institution where they would be afforded applicable cultural resources laws and guidelines.

MM CUL-3 In the event of the accidental discovery or recognition of any human remains, CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5, Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5, and Public Resources Code Sections 5097.94 and Section 5097.98 shall be followed. If during the course of project construction, there is accidental discovery or recognition of any human remains, the following steps shall be taken:
185

SOD A SPRINGS RANCH OPEN SPACE PRESERV E

INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
FCS 61
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/4859/48590006/ISMND/48590006 Soda Springs Ranch Open Space Preserve ISMND.docx

1. There shall be no further excavation or disturbance of the site where human remains are discovered and/or any nearby area reasonably suspected to overlie adjacent human remains until the County Coroner is contacted to determine whether the remains are Native American and if an investigation of the cause of death is required. If the Coroner determines the remains to be Native American, the Coroner shall contact the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) within 24 hours, and the NAHC shall identify the person or persons it believes to be the Most Likely Descendant (MLD) of the deceased Native American. The MLD may make recommendations to the landowner or the person responsible for the excavation work within 48 hours, for means of treating or disposing of, with appropriate dignity, the human remains, and any associated grave goods as provided in Public Resources Code Section 5097.98.

2. Where the following conditions occur, the landowner or his or her authorized representative shall rebury the Native American human remains and associated grave goods with appropriate dignity either in accordance with the recommendations of the MLD or on the project site in a location not subject to further subsurface disturbance:
• The NAHC is unable to identify an MLD or the MLD failed to make a recommendation within 48 hours after being notified by the commission. • The descendant identified fails to make a recommendation. • The landowner or his authorized representative rejects the recommendation of the descendant, and mediation by the NAHC fails to provide measures acceptable to the landowner.
186

S O D A SPRINGS RANCH OPEN SPACE PRESERV E

INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
62 FCS
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/4859/48590006/ISMND/48590006 Soda Springs Ranch Open Space Preserve ISMND.docx Environmental Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact

2.6 Energy
Would the project:
a) Result in potentially significant environmental
impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or
unnecessary consumption of energy
resources, during project construction or
operation?
b) Conflict with or obstruct a State or local plan
for renewable energy or energy efficiency?
Environmental Evaluation
Setting
This section describes the existing energy setting in the proposed project area as well as the relevant regulatory framework. Energy consumption focuses on traditional fossil fuels as well as replacement with renewable sources. This section focuses primarily on energy regulations and policies, with references to greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and air quality regulations that also reduce energy consumption.

Energy Usage Sectors
Energy use in an area is distributed across several sectors: industrial, residential, and commercial energy and transportation.
• Transportation Sector: This is a significant consumer of energy, primarily in the form of gasoline and diesel for vehicles.
• Industrial Sector: The industrial sector includes consumption from construction, in addition to manufacturing, agriculture and mining.
• Residential and Commercial Sectors: The residential sector covers energy used in homes, businesses, offices, stores, and other commercial establishments for heating, cooling, lighting, and appliances.

The information presented below is related to the transportation and construction sectors which are relevant to the proposed project.
187

SOD A SPRINGS RANCH OPEN SPACE PRESERV E

INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
FCS 63
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/4859/48590006/ISMND/48590006 Soda Springs Ranch Open Space Preserve ISMND.docx Transportation Sector
Estimated sales of transportation fuels in the State were 13,576 million gallons of gasoline and 2,982 million gallons of diesel in 2023.18 A variety of alternative fuels are used to reduce petroleum-based fuel demand. The use of these fuels is encouraged through various Statewide regulations and plans, such as the Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS) and Senate Bill (SB) 32. Conventional gasoline and diesel may be replaced, depending on the capability of the vehicle, with transportation fuels including hydrogen, biodiesel, and electricity. In 2023, the State had 597 renewable diesel refueling stations and 57 private hydrogen stations and seven retail hydrogen stations.19 Electricity can be used to power electric vehicles (EVs) and Plug-in Hybrid-Electric Vehicles (PHEVs) directly from the power grid. Electricity used to power vehicles is generally provided by the electricity grid and stored in the vehicles’ batteries. Fuel cells are being explored to use electricity generated onboard the vehicle to power electric motors. As of August 2024, California had a reported 153,034 public and shared private electric vehicle chargers.

Construction Sector
While estimates of construction fuel are not available as a subcategory of industrial usage, construction fuel is known to be a significant contributor to industrial fuel consumption. The construction industry is a major user of diesel fuel as it is utilized almost exclusively in off-road construction equipment. Diesel is the fuel of choice because it has 12 percent more energy per gallon than gasoline and has fuel properties that prolong engine life making it ideal for heavy-duty vehicle applications. Biodiesel was introduced into California in 2000 and Renewable Diesel in 2012.

Biodiesel is predominantly made from soybean and recycled oils into a unique diesel fuel (it can be blended into transportation fuels but is not a substitute for diesel fuel). Renewable Diesel is predominantly made from animal waste oils and the finished fuel is nearly identical to petroleumbased diesel.20 The chemical and structural properties of renewable diesel are similar to petroleumderived (conventional) diesel and can be used as a direct substitute for conventional diesel (up to 100 percent or R100). Blends of renewable diesel and conventional diesel are labeled with an R followed by the percentage (by volume) of the renewable diesel content. 21 California consumed nearly 40 million barrels of renewable diesel in 2022,22 compared to 1 million barrels in 2011 and 28 million barrels in 2021. This is largely a result of the LCFS which went into 18 California Energy Commission (CEC). 2024 Transportation Energy - California Retail Fuel Outlet Annual Reporting (CECA15) Result. Website: https://www.energy.ca.gov/data-reports/energy-almanac/transportation-energy/california-retail-fueloutlet-annual-reporting. Accessed February 2, 2025. 19 United States Department of Energy (DOE). 2024. Alternative Fueling Station Counts by State. Website:
https://afdc.energy.gov/stations/states. Accessed on February 2, 2025. 20 California Energy Commission (CEC). 2024. Diesel Fuel Data, Facts, and Statistics. Website:
https://www.energy.ca.gov/data-reports/energy-almanac/transportation-energy/diesel-fuel-data-facts-and-statistics.

Accessed February 2, 2025.
21 California Air Resources Board (ARB). 2024. Fact Sheet: Renewable Diesel Fuel Requirements. Website:
https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/resources/fact-sheets/fact-sheet-renewable-diesel-fuel-requirements. Accessed February 2, 2025. 22 United States Energy Information Administration (EIA). 2024. State Profiles and Energy Estimates. Website:
https://www.eia.gov/state/seds/sep_fuel/html/pdf/fuel_use_rd.pdf. Accessed February 2, 2025. 188

S O D A SPRINGS RANCH OPEN SPACE PRESERV E

INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
64 FCS
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/4859/48590006/ISMND/48590006 Soda Springs Ranch Open Space Preserve ISMND.docx effect in 2011.23 This represents a significant shift away from traditional diesel with clean fuels replacing over 50 percent of the diesel used in the State in the first quarter of 2023.24 Regulatory Framework
Federal energy regulations were first introduced in 1975 with the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975 in response to the 1973–1974 Arab Oil Embargo to improve the average fuel economy of cars and light trucks in the US. Other subsequent federal rules included the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (which introduced numerous energy efficiency standards for appliances–building off the existing Energy Star Program) and The Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (which strengthened the vehicular fuel economy standards).

These regulations set important groundwork and foundation for subsequently promulgated California regulations.

State
Because federal regulations generally preempt State and local regulations, they set the foundation for subsequent State regulations to build upon. The following addresses State regulations related to transportation fuel efficiency, and regulations related to commercial and residential energy usage related to building envelope and appliance usage.

Transportation Sector
California adheres to the federal Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards, but also has several other State programs that influence emissions and fuel efficiency. These regulations include the following:
• Pavley Regulations and Fuel Efficiency Standards (AB 1493) • Low Emission Standards (LEV Program)
• Zero-Emission Vehicle (ZEV Program)
• Advanced Clean Cars Program
• CA Phase 2 GHG Trailer Certification
• Truck and Bus Regulations
• Heavy-duty Diesel GHG Certification Program
• Heavy-duty Inspection and Maintenance (I&M) Regulation • Clean Miles Standard
These GHG or air quality regulations aim to reduce emissions of criteria pollutants, air toxics, and GHGs, resulting in decreased energy consumption. However, they are not energy regulations or 23 United States Energy Information Administration (EIA). 2023. Almost all U.S. renewable diesel is consumed in California; most is not made there. Website: https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=57180#. July 20. Accessed March 10, 2025.
24 California Air Resources Board (ARB). 2023. Press Release 23-24: Low Carbon Fuel Standard drives shift away from petroleum. Website: https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/news/first-time-50-california-diesel-fuel-replaced-clean-fuels. August 23.

Accessed March 10, 2025.
189

SOD A SPRINGS RANCH OPEN SPACE PRESERV E

INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
FCS 65
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/4859/48590006/ISMND/48590006 Soda Springs Ranch Open Space Preserve ISMND.docx policies per se. While these regulations increase energy efficiency and consumption from vehicles, they typically apply to vehicle/engine manufacturers or vehicle maintenance and operation rather than directly to land use developers. Developers can influence on-site operational factors that affect energy consumption by enforcing air quality regulations and measures that influence emissions from vehicles, such as limits on idling of commercial motor vehicles and construction equipment.

The California Code of Regulations Title 13, Section 2485, Airborne Toxic Control Measure to Limit Diesel-Fueled Commercial Motor Vehicle Idling, prohibits diesel-fueled commercial vehicles from idling for more than five minutes at any given location. Compliance with this measure results in energy savings through reduced fuel consumption from unnecessary idling.

The Sustainable Communities and Climate Protection Act of 2008 (SB 375) requires land use projects to meet target reductions of Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) to reduce GHG emissions. Because VMT is directly related to fuel consumption, this regulation also serves to reduce energy consumption related to passenger vehicle travel.

Construction Sector
Land use development projects consume fuel during construction operations. Because of energy and efficiency requirements, off-road diesel equipment dominates the industry. Provisions in California’s In-use Off-road Diesel Fleets regulation under California Code of Regulations Title 13 not only provide protection from air pollution but also promote the use of newer, well-tuned, and maintained equipment, and provide regulatory limits on unnecessary idling. These measures minimize toxic diesel exhaust and result in energy efficiency and avoidance of wasteful energy use.

Regional
The Bay Area Air District implements various policies and regulations to enhance energy efficiency and promote clean energy usage in the region. The 2017 Clean Air Plan, titled “Spare the Air, Cool the Climate,” outlines several strategies to achieve these goals:

Clean Air Plan Control Measures
The Clean Air Plan includes specific control measures aimed at reducing energy consumption and promoting clean energy:

BL1 Green Building Standards: Encourages the adoption of green building standards that exceed the mandatory requirements, promoting energy-efficient building designs and technologies.

BL2 Decarbonizing Buildings: Focuses on reducing greenhouse gas emissions from buildings by promoting electrification and the use of renewable energy sources.

BL4 Energy Efficiency: Implements programs to improve energy efficiency in existing buildings through retrofits and upgrades.
190

S O D A SPRINGS RANCH OPEN SPACE PRESERV E

INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
66 FCS
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/4859/48590006/ISMND/48590006 Soda Springs Ranch Open Space Preserve ISMND.docx CEQA Guidelines define a significant effect on the environment as “a substantial, or potentially substantial, adverse change in the environment.” To determine whether a project would have a significant impact on energy, the type, level, and impact of emissions generated by the proposed project must be evaluated.

Would the project:
a) Result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation?
Less than significant. The proposed involves demolition of a few small structures and signage; closure of existing trails via the installation of informational signs and vegetative planting; the construction of 0.94 mile of new unpaved trails; and the construction of a small parking lot. The proposed project’s construction was assumed to begin in January 2026 and last approximately three months based on model defaults and assumptions and applicant-provided information. If the construction schedule moves to later years, construction energy usage would be anticipated to decrease because of improvements in technology and more stringent regulatory requirements as older, less efficient equipment is replaced by newer and cleaner equipment. The proposed project would require light demolition, site preparation, grading, and paving. The construction phase would require energy for the preparation of the site (e.g., site clearing and grading), and paving. Petroleumbased fuels, such as diesel fuel and gasoline, would be the primary sources of energy for these tasks.

Fuel use associated with construction vehicle trips generated by the proposed project was also estimated; trips include construction worker trips, haul truck trips for material transport, on-site trucks, and vendor trips for construction material deliveries. Fuel use from these vehicles traveling to the project site was based on (1) the projected number of trips the proposed project would generate during construction, (2) average trip distances by trip type, and (3) fuel efficiencies estimated in the California Air Resources Board (ARB) Emissions Factor (EMFAC) mobile source emission model. The specific parameters used to estimate fuel usage are included in Appendix A. In total, the proposed project is conservatively estimated to generate 17,678 VMT and 11,484 gallons of combined gasoline and diesel for vehicle travel during construction. The assumptions utilized in the modeling represent a worst-case, conservative scenario.

The overall construction schedule and process is designed to be efficient in order to avoid excess monetary costs. For example, equipment and fuel are not typically used wastefully due to the added expense associated with renting the equipment, maintaining it, and fueling it. Therefore, the opportunities for future efficiency gains during construction are limited. Compliance with regulations such as the In-use Off-road Airborne Toxic Control Measures (ATCMs) minimizes emissions by using a modern fleet, keeping equipment well-tuned and limiting idling to 5 minutes or less. Thus, it is anticipated that the construction phase of the proposed project would not result in wasteful, inefficient, and unnecessary consumption of energy. Construction-related energy impacts would be less than significant.
191

SOD A SPRINGS RANCH OPEN SPACE PRESERV E

INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
FCS 67
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/4859/48590006/ISMND/48590006 Soda Springs Ranch Open Space Preserve ISMND.docx Once operational, the proposed project would attract people who would access the site by motor vehicles, and the proposed project would include a parking lot with seven parking spaces to accommodate the traffic. This would represent a minor source of vehicle trips and related energy use.

In addition, the proposed project would permanently conserve over 200 acres of natural forestland.

For these reasons, it is concluded that the proposed project would have a negligible effect on the State’s energy resources. Operational-related energy impacts would be less than significant.

Therefore, there is no evidence that the proposed project would result in wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary use of energy that would result in significant environmental effects nor is there evidence that the proposed project would result in wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary use of energy that would result in significant environmental effects.
b) Conflict with or obstruct a State or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency?
Less than significant. Construction practices would comply with all local and State regulatory requirements related to equipment age, operation, and design. Adherence with Bay Area Air District Basic Construction Mitigation Measures (MM AIR-1) would ensure that idling time of trucks is limited to 5 minutes. Construction equipment would be maintained and tuned according to manufacturer specifications, which would promote fuel efficiency. Compliance with the ARB Regulation for In-use Off-road Diesel-fueled Fleets (Off-road Diesel Regulation) would address unnecessary idling for offroad construction equipment, preventing the unnecessary or wasteful use of energy.

As stated, once operational, the proposed project would attract people who would access the site by motor vehicles, and the proposed project would include a parking lot with eight parking spaces to accommodate the traffic. This would represent a minor source of vehicle trips and related energy use.

In addition, the proposed project would permanently conserve over 200 acres of natural forestland.

The proposed project would be associated with a negligible amount of energy to provide a long-term environmental and recreational benefit. The proposed project would be consistent with State and local plans aimed at natural land conservation and goals to provide protection for environmental resources. Therefore, the proposed project is not inconsistent with any plan for energy efficiency, and impacts would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures
None required.
192

S O D A SPRINGS RANCH OPEN SPACE PRESERV E

INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
68 FCS
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/4859/48590006/ISMND/48590006 Soda Springs Ranch Open Space Preserve ISMND.docx Environmental Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact

2.7 Geology and Soils
Would the project:
a) Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:
i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as
delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo
Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the
State Geologist for the area or based on
other substantial evidence of a known fault?
Refer to Division of Mines and Geology
Special Publication 42.
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking?
iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including
liquefaction?
iv) Landslides?
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of
topsoil?
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is
unstable, or that would become unstable as a
result of the project, and potentially result in
on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading,
subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in
Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code
(1994), creating substantial direct or indirect
risks to life or property?
e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting
the use of septic tanks or alternative
wastewater disposal systems where sewers
are not available for the disposal of
wastewater?
193

SOD A SPRINGS RANCH OPEN SPACE PRESERV E

INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
FCS 69
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/4859/48590006/ISMND/48590006 Soda Springs Ranch Open Space Preserve ISMND.docx Environmental Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
f) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique
paleontological resource or site or unique
geologic feature?
Environmental Evaluation
Setting
The analysis in this section is based in part on documents, databases, and geologic mapping at the State and local levels. A paleontological records search was prepared by Patricia A. Holroyd, Senior Museum Scientist from the University of California Museum of Paleontology (UCMP). The results of the records search are provided in Appendix (D) of this Draft IS/MND.

The project site is located in the northern section of the Coast Ranges geomorphic province consisting of northwest-trending mountain ranges and valleys sub parallel to the San Andreas Fault.25 The region is dominated by irregular topography comprised of the Franciscan Complex east of the San Andreas Fault with a mélange of sedimentary, metamorphic, and igneous rocks that formed during the Jurassic Period to the Oligocene Epoch from the continuous accretion of terranes comprised of oceanic rocks delivered from the subducting Farallon Plate forming an accretionary wedge below the North American Plate and above the subducting slab. Rock units in the Franciscan Complex have been metamorphosed to some degree and include greywacke sandstone, radiolarian chert, limestone, greenstone, serpentine, high-grade blueschist, and basalt. Two rock units from the Franciscan Complex are located on the project site with the eastern portion consisting of the Central “terrane” Graywacke and mélange (KJfs) derived from tectonic or sedimentary mixing of several terranes composed of a matrix of argillite and lithic sandstone with graywacke sandstone, greenstone, radiolarian chert, limestone, and serpentine, and the Coastal Belt Sandstone (TKfss) on the western side of the project site having very low grade and moderately lithic to quartz feldspathic graywacke sandstone with laumontite facies overlaying minor greenstone, radiolarian chert, and pelagic limestone.26
The westernmost portion of Sonoma County is a seismically active region within the San Andreas Fault Zone consisting of many right-lateral strike slip faults striking in a northwest direction including the Maacama Fault Zone approximately 5 miles east of the project site along with other lesser-known 25 Wagner D.L. 2002. California Geomorphic Provinces Note 36. December. 26 Blake Jr, M.C., R.W. Graymer, and R.E. Stamski. 2022. Geologic Map and Map Database of Western Sonoma, Northernmost Marin, and Southernmost Mendocino Counties, California. 194

S O D A SPRINGS RANCH OPEN SPACE PRESERV E

INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
70 FCS
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/4859/48590006/ISMND/48590006 Soda Springs Ranch Open Space Preserve ISMND.docx sub faults. The San Andreas Fault is located approximately 21 miles to the west of the project site extending 600 miles from the Gulf of California in the south to Point Arena in the north. According to the California Department of Conservation Geological Survey’s Regulatory Mapping System, the Maacama Fault Zone connects to the San Andreas Fault from the Rodger Creek-Healdsburg, Hayward, and Calaveras Faults to the south.27
The General Plan, which is a long-term document intended to guide physical development and the use of land within its planning area outlines several goals, policies, and implementation programs to reduce the effects of seismic and subsurface hazards and to maintain the preservation of paleontological resources.28
Goals, policies, and implementation programs related to Geology and Soils include the following:

Goal CDO 4 Investigate historic, archaeological, and paleontological resources and preserve or conserve resources that help residents and visitors understand the history of Cloverdale
Policy CDO 4-4Preserve paleontological resources if identified by discovery or if the area is found to have resources by other investigations or databases.

Goal PS 1 Prevent unnecessary exposure of people and property to risks of damage or injury from earthquakes, landslides, and other geologic hazards.

Policy PS 1-1 Continue to utilize all available data on geologic hazards and related risks from the appropriate agencies.

Policy PS 1-2 Continue to utilize studies of geologic hazards prepared during the development review process.

Policy PS 1-6 Require dynamic analysis of structural response to earthquake forces prior to City approval of building permits for structures whose irregularity or other factors prevent reasonable load determination and distribution by static analysis.

Policy PS 1-8 Roads, public facilities and other Public Agency projects should incorporate measures to mitigate identified geologic hazards to acceptable levels.

Goal PS 5 Reduce damage to life and property from natural hazards to the greatest extent possible.
27 California Department of Conservation. 2025. Regulatory Mapping System. Website:
https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/informationwarehouse/eqzapp/. Accessed March 7, 2025. 28 City of Cloverdale. 2009. City of Clover General Plan. May 13. 195

SOD A SPRINGS RANCH OPEN SPACE PRESERV E

INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
FCS 71
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/4859/48590006/ISMND/48590006 Soda Springs Ranch Open Space Preserve ISMND.docx Policy PS 5-12 Require development adjacent to hillside areas to minimize geologic and fire hazards. Require all new development, including single-family residential, to provide built-in fire protection (i.e., automatic fire sprinklers).

Implementation PS 1-5
For projects proposed in hazardous geologic areas, require a geologic report that includes analysis of soils foundation, grading, erosion, and sediment control.

Require a geotechnical investigation prior to project approval for new development and redevelopment projects in areas with identified significant geologic hazards or where the City Engineer determines such hazards may exist, including liquefactionrelated failures, slope stability and erosion hazard analysis in hillside areas, existing or potential soil instability, or expansive soils. The report shall include an assessment of geologic and seismic hazards, and all recommendations contained in the report shall be implemented.

Require new development projects to incorporate sound soil conservation practices and keep land alteration (grading) to a practical minimum by the following (a) minimize cuts and fills, (b) limit grading to the smallest practical area of land, (c) limit time land is exposed to accelerated erosion from grading, (d) apply best management practices for winterization, (e) replant graded areas to ensure permanent plant cover, and (f) design project-specific erosion control measures.

Would the project:
a) Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury or death involving:
i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent AlquistPriolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42.

No impact. As described previously, the project site is not located on or within a designated AlquistPriolo Earthquake Fault Zone as defined by the California Department of Conservation. The nearest faults to the project site are the Healdsburg, Maacama, and Rodgers Creek Faults, none of which run through the project site. The closest Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone is the Maacama Fault Zone, located approximately 5.0 miles east of the project site. This distance precludes the possibility exposure to fault rupture. Furthermore, the proposed project would not result in the construction of any buildings. Therefore, no impact would occur.
196

S O D A SPRINGS RANCH OPEN SPACE PRESERV E

INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
72 FCS
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/4859/48590006/ISMND/48590006 Soda Springs Ranch Open Space Preserve ISMND.docx ii) Strong seismic ground shaking?
Less than significant impact. The project site could experience seismic ground shaking similar to other parts of the Bay Area. However, the proposed project would not result in the construction of any buildings. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? No impact. According to the California Natural Resources Agency Seismic Hazards Program for Liquefaction Zones map, the project site is not located in a liquefaction zone.29 Furthermore, the proposed project would not result in the construction of any new buildings. Therefore, no impacts would occur.
iv) Landslides?
Less than significant impact. According to the General Plan, there are landslide risks in the hills along the west side of the City, which includes the project site. The proposed project would construct three new multiuse trails, which would comply with all regulations of the California Building Standards Code (CBC) and would be required to implement best practices for areas with landslide risks. The project site is already used for recreational purposes and the proposed project would not change this use. As such, the proposed project would not increase the risk of loss, injury, or death involving landslides. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? Less than significant impact. According to the General Plan, many soils in the hillsides have a high erosion potential. However, natural vegetative cover partially protects soils from accelerated erosion.

Ground disturbance during construction of the new trails could expose and loosen soils, although the proposed project would be subject to compliance with the National Pollutant Discharge Effluent Standards (NPDES) General Permit for Stormwater Discharges Associated with Construction and Land Disturbance Activities (Construction General Permit). The Construction General Permit requires development and implementation of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) and monitoring plan, which must include erosion control and sediment control Best Management Practices (BMPs) that would meet or exceed measures required by the Construction General Permit to control potential construction-related pollutants. Compliance with these standard requirements would reduce impacts to less than significant.

Operation of the proposed project would include new maintained trails and the installation of trees and scattered vegetation. As such, soil erosion would not increase during project operation. Impacts would be less than significant.
29 California Natural Resources Agency. 2025. CGS Seismic Hazards Program: Liquefaction Zones. Website:
https://gis.data.cnra.ca.gov/datasets/cadoc::cgs-seismic-hazards-program-liquefactionzones/explore?location=38.794078%2C-123.011366%2C13.85. Accessed May 23, 2025 197

SOD A SPRINGS RANCH OPEN SPACE PRESERV E

INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
FCS 73
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/4859/48590006/ISMND/48590006 Soda Springs Ranch Open Space Preserve ISMND.docx c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?
Less than significant impact. As described above, there are potentially unstable soils at the project site. The proposed project would construct three new multiuse trails, which would comply with all CBC regulations and would be required to implement BMPs regarding soil instability. The project site is already used for recreational purposes and the proposed project would not change this use, nor would it result in the construction of any buildings. As such, the proposed project would not increase the risks of soil instability. Impacts would be less than significant. d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property? Less than significant impact. According to the General Plan, all soils in the planning area, including the project site are moderately to occasionally highly expansive. The proposed project would result in the construction of three new multiuse trails, which would comply with all CBC regulations and would be required to implement BMPs regarding expansive soils. The project site is already used for recreational purposes and the proposed project would not change this use, nor would it result in the construction of any buildings. As such, impacts would be less than significant. e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater?
No impact. The proposed project would not include the use of septic tanks. Portable restrooms be included in the parking area on the western end of the site. The portable restrooms would be transported off-site and disposed of at the appropriate wastewater treatment facility. The portable restrooms would be located in the parking area and would not be placed on unstable soils. As such, the impact would be less than significant.
f) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature?
Less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated. Paleontological resources are nonrenewable resources consisting of the preserved remains of prehistoric organisms including vertebrates, invertebrates, plants, and microscopically small organisms. The Society of Vertebrate Paleontology (SVP) Standard Procedures considers significant paleontological resources to be identifiable large or small vertebrate fossils, uncommon invertebrate, plant, or trace fossils older than the middle Holocene, or those that provide data on taphonomic, taxonomic, phylogenetic, paleoecologic, stratigraphic, and/or biochronologic information. According to the SVP Standard Procedures, sedimentary formations, some volcaniclastic formations, and low-grade metamorphic rocks that have previously yielded significant paleontological resources within their geographic extent and that are lithologically suitable for the preservation of fossils are considered to have a high potential for containing significant paleontological resources. 198

S O D A SPRINGS RANCH OPEN SPACE PRESERV E

INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
74 FCS
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/4859/48590006/ISMND/48590006 Soda Springs Ranch Open Space Preserve ISMND.docx As previously mentioned, the project site is located on the Franciscan Complex consisting of the Central “terrane” Graywacke and mélange (KJfs) on the eastern portion of the project site, and the Coastal Belt Sandstone (TKfss) on the west side of the project site. Rock units from the Franciscan Complex have provided a variety of paleontological resources such as radiolarians in the radiolarian chert and foraminifers embedded in limestone, invertebrates consisting of bivalves and cephalopods, and marine and nonmarine vertebrates. Rock units from both terranes that underly the project site have preserved paleontological resources as the Central “terrane” Graywacke and mélange (KJfs) has furnished megafossils and microfossils within the graywacke sandstone, argillite, radiolarian chert, and greenstone from the Late Cretaceous, while the Coastal Belt Sandstone (TKfss) has provided fossils from the pelagic limestone and graywacke sandstone from the Late Cretaceous to Late Eocene.30
The UCMP Locality Search Online Database was utilized to identify any fossil localities in the project region or those that are associated with the rock units underlying the project site. A total of 492 invertebrate fossil localities are located within Sonoma County with 32 identified in rock units from the Jurassic to Cretaceous periods similar to the age of the Franciscan Complex terranes that underlie the project site. Furthermore, around 10 fossil localities may be related to the project region with three localities named after Dutcher Creek Road which begins approximately 2.2 miles southeast of the project site, and seven localities named after Dry Creek which transects through the Coastal Belt Sandstone (Tkfss) and parts of the Central “terrane” Graywacke and mélange (KJfs) approximately six miles west of the project site. Although the UCMP Locality Search identified vertebrate, microfossil, and plant localities in Sonoma County, the age and relative location of these localities are not affiliated with the rock units on the project site or are located in the surrounding vicinity.

The UCMP conducted a records search for the project site and surrounding area and determined that no fossil localities have been identified on the project site. However, one vertebrate locality (UCMP locality V5213) approximately 0.85-mile southwest of the project site yielded two specimens in 1952.

The specimens consisted of a left third molar and a right second molar which assisted with the naming of a new mastodon species from North America: Mammut pacificus from the Pleistocene Epoch.31
Since the sedimentary and low-metamorphosed rock units on the project site are known to yield microorganisms and invertebrates, are considered as having high paleontological potential based on the definitions provided by the SVP Standard Procedures, and one vertebrate locality and several invertebrate localities have been uncovered in the project region, ground-disturbing activities within those rock units identified as having high paleontological potential could disturb significant paleontological resources. As mentioned above, the Cloverdale General Plan includes Policy CDO 4- 4 which requires preservation for the discovery of identified paleontological resources or in areas found to have such resources. To ensure consistency with Policy CDO 4-4, the construction phase of 30 Blake M.C., Jr., R.W. Graymer, and R.E. Stamski. 2022. Geologic Map and Map Database of Western Sonoma, Northernmost Marin, and Southernmost Mendocino Counties, California. 31 Dooley Jr, A.C. et al. 2019. Mammut pacificus sp. nov., a newly recognized species of mastodon from the Pleistocene of western North America. March 27.
199

SOD A SPRINGS RANCH OPEN SPACE PRESERV E

INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
FCS 75
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/4859/48590006/ISMND/48590006 Soda Springs Ranch Open Space Preserve ISMND.docx the proposed project would be required to implement MM GEO-1a through MM GEO-2c which would ensure the protection and recovery of any identified paleontological resources. As such, implementation of MM GEO-1a through MM GEO-2c would ensure that impacts related to potential damage to unique paleontological resources would be reduced to less than significant.

Mitigation Measures
MM GEO-1a On the first day of ground disturbance and prior to the start of any ground-disturbing activities, a qualified professional Paleontologist that meets SVP Standard Procedures shall be retained to prepare and conduct a project-wide Worker Environmental Awareness Program (WEAP) training. The WEAP training shall contain unanticipated discovery measures to be followed if paleontological resources are encountered while the qualified professional Paleontologist or certified Paleontological Resource Monitor is not present during ground-disturbing activities.

The WEAP shall be conducted by a qualified environmental trainer under the supervision of a qualified professional Paleontologist. The training session shall focus on the recognition and understanding of significant paleontological resources pertinent to the regions geography and geology that may be encountered, a review of applicable federal, State, and local regulations that outline the importance and require the protection and preservation of significant paleontological resources, and procedures to be followed if any significant paleontological resources are encountered. In the event construction crews are phased in, additional training shall be conducted for new construction personnel.

MM GEO-1b All project-related ground disturbances that may impact high potential rock units at the surface or subsurface shall undergo full-time monitoring by the qualified professional Paleontologist or certified Paleontological Resources Monitor. The qualified professional Paleontologist shall have the authority to temporarily halt ground-disturbing activities in the event significant paleontological resources are discovered to examine the importance of the specimens and provide recommendations for appropriate removal, treatment, or any future monitoring or mitigation measures that need to be implemented. Construction workers should not attempt to remove paleontological resources. If no significant specimens are encountered during ground-disturbing activities, full-time monitoring can be reduced to spot-checking or suspended entirely, at the discretion of the qualified professional Paleontologist. The qualified professional Paleontologist may screen a test sample of

0.4 cubic yards/meters (600 lbs) from bulk matrix sampling followed by screen washing through appropriately sized mesh screens for rock units that may contain microfossils. If returns from the sample are significant, the qualified professional Paleontologist may extract a standard sample of 4.0 cubic yards/meters (6,000 lbs) or at a larger size deemed necessary. Samples may be excavated and processed offsite to avoid construction delays. 200

S O D A SPRINGS RANCH OPEN SPACE PRESERV E

INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
76 FCS
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/4859/48590006/ISMND/48590006 Soda Springs Ranch Open Space Preserve ISMND.docx MM GEO-1c For paleontological resources that are uncovered during excavation activities, the qualified professional Paleontologist shall be required to document the discovery and assess the significance of the find using criteria from CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5. The qualified professional Paleontologist shall identify, catalog uncovered specimens to the lowest taxonomic level possible, and shall prepare a list of specimens that shall be added to a collection before being transported and curated at a recognized repository facility (such as the UCMP) for future research. The qualified professional Paleontologist shall notify the appropriate agencies to determine procedures to be followed before ground-disturbing activities are allowed to resume.

If the applicant determines avoidance is not feasible, the qualified professional Paleontologist shall prepare an excavation plan for mitigating the effect of construction activities on the discovery to the extent feasible. 201

SOD A SPRINGS RANCH OPEN SPACE PRESERV E

INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
FCS 77
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/4859/48590006/ISMND/48590006 Soda Springs Ranch Open Space Preserve ISMND.docx Environmental Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact

2.8 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Would the project:
a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either
directly or indirectly, that may have a significant
impact on the environment?
b) Conflict with any applicable plan, policy or
regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing
the emissions of greenhouse gases?
Environmental Evaluation
This section describes existing climate conditions as well as the relevant regulatory framework. The “Environmental Setting” provides a description of GHG emissions and the current state of the climate.

The “Regulatory Framework” provides a description of relevant federal, State, and local regulatory policies that serve to reduce GHG emissions and are applicable to the proposed project.

Setting
Earth’s temperature is rising,32 and although the global climate has varied over the long-range time scale, there is strong scientific consensus that the rapid heating in recent decades is both unusual and caused by emissions of GHGs from human activities such as the burning of fossil fuels including coal and oil.33 Gases that trap heat in the atmosphere are referred to as GHGs. The effect is analogous to the way a greenhouse retains heat. Prominent GHGs contributing to the greenhouse effect are CO2, methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), hydrofluorocarbons (HFC), chlorofluorocarbons (CFC), and sulfur hexafluoride (SF6). Atmospheric concentrations of CO2, the most prominent GHG, have been increasing rapidly in recent decades, from approximately 280ppm before the start of the Industrial Revolution in the 1760s, to more than 400 ppm as of 2013.34 According to the United 32 National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI) National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). 2024.

Website: https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/access/monitoring/climate-at-a-glance/global/time-series. Accessed March 15, 2025. 33 K. Myers, et al., 2021. Consensus revisited: quantifying scientific agreement on climate change and climate expertise among Earth scientists 10 years later. Environmental Research Letters Vol.16 No. 10, 104030. October.

DOI:10.1088/1748-9326/ac2774. Accessed March 15, 2025.
34 Global Monitoring Library, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). 2024. Website:
https://www.noaa.gov/news-release/greenhouse-gases-continued-to-increase-rapidly-in-2022. Accessed March 15, 2025. 202

S O D A SPRINGS RANCH OPEN SPACE PRESERV E

INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
78 FCS
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/4859/48590006/ISMND/48590006 Soda Springs Ranch Open Space Preserve ISMND.docx Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), it is extremely unlikely that global climate change of the past 50 years can be explained without the contribution from human activities.

As the concentration of these gases continues to increase in the atmosphere, Earth’s temperature has increased by about 1.2 to 1.4°F (degrees Fahrenheit) since 1900.35 Even if GHG emissions could be reduced to zero overnight, global temperatures will continue to rise in future years due to the buildup of GHGs that have already accumulated in the atmosphere and the oceans. As future emissions increase the atmospheric concentrations of CO2 and other GHGs, the impacts of the warming greenhouse effect are projected to steadily worsen.

Global climate change is not confined to a particular project area and is generally accepted as the consequence of global industrialization over the last 200 years. A typical project, even a very large one, does not generate enough GHG emissions on its own to influence global climate change significantly; hence, the issue of global climate change is, by definition, a cumulative environmental impact. Therefore, this section discusses the proposed project’s contribution to the cumulative GHG impact.

Greenhouse Gases
Unlike emissions of criteria and toxic air pollutants, which have local or regional impacts, emissions of GHGs that contribute to global warming or global climate change have a broader, global impact.

Global warming is a process whereby GHGs accumulating in the atmosphere contribute to an increase in the temperature of the earth’s atmosphere. The principal GHGs contributing to global warming are CO2, CH4, N2O, and fluorinated gases (Table 5). These gases allow visible and ultraviolet light from the sun to pass through the atmosphere, but they prevent heat from escaping back out into space.

GHGs have long atmospheric lifetimes, ranging from several years to several thousand years. GHGs persist in the atmosphere for a long enough time to be dispersed around the globe, cumulatively combining to cause a global climate effect.

Table 5: Description of Greenhouse Gases of Concern
Greenhouse Gas Description and Sources and (Sinks)
Atmospheric
Lifetime
Percent of US
Emissions
Carbon Dioxide (CO2) • Fossil fuel combustion
• Forest clearing
• Cement production
• (Plants)
50-200 79.7
Methane (CH4) • Livestock
• Landfills
• Leaks from oil and natural gas production
12 11.1
35 National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). 2024. World of Change: Global Temperatures. Website:
https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/world-of-change/global-temperatures. Accessed March 15, 2025. 203

SOD A SPRINGS RANCH OPEN SPACE PRESERV E

INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
FCS 79
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/4859/48590006/ISMND/48590006 Soda Springs Ranch Open Space Preserve ISMND.docx Greenhouse Gas Description and Sources and (Sinks)
Atmospheric
Lifetime
Percent of US
Emissions
Nitrous Oxide (N2O) • Fertilizers
• Manure
• Fossil Fuel Combustion
• Nylon production
• Semiconductor Manufacturing
• Wastewater treatment
114 6.1
Hydrofluorocarbons
(HFCs)
• Automobile air conditioners
• Refrigerants.
1-50,000

3.1 Perfluorocarbons
(PFCs)
• Primary aluminum production
• Semiconductor manufacturing 10,000-50,000
Sulfur hexafluoride
(SF6)
• Electrical power transmission equipment
• Magnesium industry
• Semiconductor manufacturing
3,200
Nitrogen trifluoride
(NF3)
• Electronics manufacture for
semiconductors and liquid crystal displays. 740
Source: United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2024. Overview of Greenhouse Gases.

GHG emissions contributing to global climate change are attributable in large part to human activities associated with the transportation, industrial/manufacturing, utility, residential, commercial, and agricultural sectors. Emissions of CO2 are byproducts of fossil fuel combustion. Methane, a highly potent GHG is largely associated with agricultural practices and landfills. N2O is also largely attributable to agricultural practices and soil management. CO2 sinks, or reservoirs, include vegetation and the ocean, which absorb CO2 through sequestration and dissolution, respectively.

Climate Impacts
Global Warming
Even if GHG emissions could be reduced to zero overnight, global temperatures will continue to rise in future years due to the buildup of GHGs that have already accumulated in the atmosphere and the oceans. As future emissions increase the atmospheric concentrations of CO2 and other GHGs, the impacts of the warming greenhouse effect are projected to steadily worsen.

Statewide Climate Impacts
These impacts—including substantially higher temperatures, more extreme weather, increased wildfire events and sea level rise—are already being experienced in California today. As reported by the California Natural Resources Agency in 2009, despite annual variations in weather patterns, California has seen a trend of increased average temperatures, more extreme hot days, fewer cold nights, longer growing seasons, less winter snow, and earlier snowmelt and rainwater runoff.

California’s coastal oceans warmed by 1.26°F from 1900 to 2016, and a larger proportion of total 204

S O D A SPRINGS RANCH OPEN SPACE PRESERV E

INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
80 FCS
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/4859/48590006/ISMND/48590006 Soda Springs Ranch Open Space Preserve ISMND.docx precipitation is falling as rain instead of snow.36 Sea level rose by as much as 7 inches along the California coast over the last century, leading to increased erosion and adding pressure to the State’s infrastructure, water supplies, and natural resources. Within the past decade, California has experienced some of the most extreme climate events in its recorded history—a severe 4-year drought, a dramatic reduction in Sierra Nevada winter snowpack, five of the State’s 20 largest forest fires since 1932, and 2 years back-to-back of the hottest recorded average temperatures.

Regional Climate Impacts
The San Francisco Bay Area, where the project site is located, has experienced similar trends as California. Averaged across the region, mean annual temperature has increased nearly 1°F in the last 30 years over the previous 30-year period.37
These observed trends in the San Francisco Bay Area are anticipated to continue in the future:
• Substantial increases in temperatures and more extreme hot days. By 2050, Bay Area temperatures are projected to rise by 2.7°F, with very hot days and severe heat waves more than doubling.38
• More precipitation extremes, more rain, and less snow. The Sierra Nevada, crucial for Bay Area water supply, faces more extreme wet and dry years, challenging water storage and distribution.39
• Sea level rise. Sea level at the Golden Gate Bridge has risen 8 inches in the last 100 years, affecting coastal flooding and erosion.
• Increased frequency of wildfires. Higher temperatures, winds, and drought are increasing wildfires, causing air pollution spikes and emitting CO2 and black carbon.40 • Exacerbation of air quality problems and impacts on public health. More extreme-heat days correlate with higher ozone levels, leading to respiratory issues, heat-related illnesses, and increased vector-borne diseases.41
• Higher temperatures exacerbate pollution from cars and industry. Higher temperatures boost air conditioner use in buildings and cars, leading to more fossil fuel combustion and higher levels of ozone precursors, particulates, TACs, and GHGs.42 36 California Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR). 2019. California’s Fourth Climate Change Assessment.

California’s Changing Climate 2018. January 16.
37 Bay Area Air Quality Management District (Bay Area Air District). Clean Air Plan 2017. Website:
https://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/files/planning-and-research/plans/2017-clean-air-plan/attachment-a_-proposed-finalcap-vol-1-pdf. Accessed March 15, 2025. 38 Ibid.
39 Ibid.
40 Ibid.
41 Ibid.
42 Ibid.
205

SOD A SPRINGS RANCH OPEN SPACE PRESERV E

INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
FCS 81
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/4859/48590006/ISMND/48590006 Soda Springs Ranch Open Space Preserve ISMND.docx While the impacts are felt locally, climate change is a global issue because GHGs are global pollutants. Pollutants with localized air quality effects, including criteria air pollutants and TACs, have relatively short atmospheric lifetimes (approximately 1 day) and generally do not travel greatly beyond their point of emission (refer to Section 2.3, Air Quality, for further discussion). By contrast, GHGs have long atmospheric lifetimes, ranging from several years to several thousand years. GHGs persist in the atmosphere for a long enough time to be dispersed around the globe, cumulatively combining to cause a global climate effect.

Local Climate Impacts–Temperature
Cal-Adapt provides a way to explore peer-reviewed data that portrays how climate change might affect California at both the State and local level. Figure 1 provides the Cal-Adapt generated snapshot of climate change impacts, showcasing both historical data and projected annual average temperatures for the project area of Sonoma County.

Figure 1: Observed and Projected Temperatures for Climate Change in the Project Area
Source: Cal-Adapt. 2024. Local Climate Snapshots.

Cal-Adapt uses globally recognized Representative Concentration Pathways (RCPs) based on different GHG emission levels to project climate impacts for California. A high emissions scenario (RCP 8.5) assumes GHG emissions will rise throughout the twenty-first century, leading to a radiative 206

S O D A SPRINGS RANCH OPEN SPACE PRESERV E

INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
82 FCS
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/4859/48590006/ISMND/48590006 Soda Springs Ranch Open Space Preserve ISMND.docx forcing of 8.5 watts per square meter (W/m²) by 2100.43 A medium emissions scenario (RCP 4.5) assumes emissions will peak around 2040 and then decline, stabilizing radiative forcing at 4.5 W/m² by 2100 due to moderate mitigation efforts.44
For climate planning up to 2050, the California Governor’s Office of Land Use and Climate Innovation (LCI) (formerly the California Governor’s Office of Planning and Research [OPR]) recommends using the high emissions scenario (RCP 8.5) because temperature projections under different scenarios do not differ much before midcentury and to account for potential high emissions.45 For analyses beyond 2050, LCI suggests using the medium emissions scenario (RCP 4.5) to reflect moderate mitigation efforts. These guidelines ensure robust climate impact assessments, aiding long-term planning and compliance with CEQA.

The chart in Figure 1 highlights trends and potential future scenarios, offering valuable insights for climate planning and adaptation. The results indicate that, for Sonoma County, temperatures are predicted to increase by 4.1°F under the high emissions scenario in the midcentury period (2035– 2064) and by 4.3°F under the medium emissions scenario by the end of the century (2070–2099).

Predicted temperatures would increase by 7.2°F by the end of the century under the business-asusual high emissions scenario, highlighting the importance of mitigation measures for GHG emissions.

GHG Emissions and Inventories
The GHGs regulated by AB 32, the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, include CO₂, CH₄, N₂O, HFC, perfluorocarbon (PFC), and SF₆. Each GHG has its own global warming potential (GWP), which measures how much heat the gas can trap in the atmosphere compared to CO₂ over a specified time period.

GWP measures how much heat a greenhouse gas traps in the atmosphere over a specific time period, usually 100 years, compared to CO₂. This allows for comparing the impacts of different gases on global warming. According to the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report:
• CH₄: GWP of 25
• N₂O: GWP of 298
• HFCs: GWPs range from hundreds to thousands
• PFCs: Very long atmospheric lifetimes, often thousands of years • SF₆: GWP of 23,500, the most potent GHG emission known 43 van Vuuren, Detlef P., et al. 2011. The representative concentration pathways: an overview. Climatic Change (2011) 109:5–31. DOI 10.1007/s10584-011-0148-z. Accessed March 15, 2025. 44 van Vuuren, Detlef P., et al. 2011. The representative concentration pathways: an overview. Climatic Change (2011) 109:5–31. DOI 10.1007/s10584-011-0148-z. Accessed March 15, 2025. 45 California Energy Commission (CEC). 2024. Website: https://cal-adapt.org/help/faqs/which-rcp-scenarios-should-i-usein-my-analysis/. Accessed March 15, 2025. 207

SOD A SPRINGS RANCH OPEN SPACE PRESERV E

INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
FCS 83
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/4859/48590006/ISMND/48590006 Soda Springs Ranch Open Space Preserve ISMND.docx GWP factors are used to convert emissions into a common unit called carbon dioxide equivalent (CO₂e). CO₂e is calculated by multiplying the emissions of each GHG by its GWP and summing the results. Since CO₂ is the basis, its GWP is 1.

California Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory
California contributed GHG emissions of 371.1 million metric tons (MMT) of CO2e into the atmosphere in 2022.46 Anthropogenic CO2 is largely the byproduct of fossil fuel combustion and attributable to transportation, industry/ manufacturing, electricity generation, natural gas consumption, and agriculture processes. As shown in Figure 2, the transportation sector is the largest emitter at approximately 38 percent of GHG emissions, followed by industrial at approximately 19 percent of GHG emissions.

Figure 2: California GHG Emissions by Scoping Plan Sector (2022) Source: California Air Resources Board (ARB). 2024. Current California GHG Emission Inventory Data 2000– 2022.

Regional Greenhouse Gas Inventory
The most recent Bay Area Air District emissions inventory, shown in Figure 3, was published in 2017, based on 2011 projected emissions.
46 California Air Resources Board (ARB). 2021. Current California GHG Emission Inventory Data. Website:
https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/ghg-inventory-data. Accessed March 15, 2025.

Transportation
38%
Industrial
19%
Electricity
16%
Commercial
& Residential
11%
Agriculture
8%
High GWP
Waste 6%
2%
371.1 MMT CO2e
208

S O D A SPRINGS RANCH OPEN SPACE PRESERV E

INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
84 FCS
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/4859/48590006/ISMND/48590006 Soda Springs Ranch Open Space Preserve ISMND.docx Figure 3: Bay Area Air District GHG Emissions by Scoping Plan Sector Source: Bay Area Air Quality Management District (Bay Area Air District). 2017. Bay Area Emissions Inventory:

Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Forecasts.

This production-based emissions inventory analyzes GHG emissions that are produced within the Bay Area. The report categorizes GHG emissions from anthropogenic activities into seven major emissions inventory sectors and presents emissions for a base year of 2015. This report describes preliminary work to forecast trends in GHG emissions in the San Francisco Bay Area up to the year 2050. The report describes the Bay Area Air District efforts to include adopted and expected policies to improve the accuracy of regional GHG forecasts.

The Bay Area Air District has a planned inventory update in 2025 as it is currently reassessing the regional CH4 emissions inventory. Recent studies utilizing facility-scale measurements have found that bottom-up inventorying methods are underestimating CH4 emissions. The Bay Area Air District is incorporating these measurement-based CH4 assessments to improve the emissions inventory, wherever feasible.

Regulatory Framework
The following section describes federal, State, regional, and local regulations and policies that are relevant to GHG emissions.

The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is the governing body responsible for regulating air pollution in the United States and setting nationwide air quality and emissions standards. The EPA adopts and implements several regulations to reduce GHG emissions as well.

These include GHG emission reduction standards for passenger cars and light-duty trucks, heavyduty trucks (including buses), commercial aircraft and large business jets, heavy equipment (with Transportation
42%
Industrial
26% Electricity
14%
Commercial +
Residential
10%
Agriculture
+Farming
1%
High GWP
4% Recycling + Waste…

84.7 MMT CO2e
209

SOD A SPRINGS RANCH OPEN SPACE PRESERV E

INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
FCS 85
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/4859/48590006/ISMND/48590006 Soda Springs Ranch Open Space Preserve ISMND.docx spark-ignition engines and compression ignition [CI] diesel engines), locomotives, marine vessels, recreational vehicles, and small equipment/tools.

California has implemented more stringent GHG emissions reduction regulations on the same sources listed above (except commercial aircraft and large business jets). Therefore, those regulations and their impact are discussed in greater detail below.

State Regulations for GHGs
California has taken several legislative steps to reduce Statewide GHG emissions and is internationally known for its leadership on action to address climate change. In 2006, California legislature passed AB 32, which created a comprehensive, multi-year program to reduce GHG emissions in California and required the State (by law) to reduce GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020. The legislature built upon this law by passing SB 32, which requires the State to reduce GHG emissions 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030, and later passed AB 1279, which requires the State to achieve net-zero GHG emissions by 2045 and net-negative emissions thereafter. To achieve these State-mandated emissions reduction targets, a document known as the Scoping Plan was required to be created by the ARB beginning in 2007 and to be updated at least once every 5 years to “ensure the GHG emissions reduction activities to be adopted and implemented by the state board are complementary, nonduplicative, and can be implemented in an efficient and cost-effective manner.” The Scoping Plan outlines strategies across nearly all levels of California’s government and economy and defines—at a granular level—the regulatory actions needed to reduce GHG emissions from all economic sectors to meet the targets.

The ARB is the Statewide governing body which focuses on California’s unique air quality challenges by setting the State’s own, stricter, GHG and air pollutant emissions standards for a range of Statewide pollution sources including vehicles, fuels, on- and off-road equipment, and consumer products. The ARB also manages the cap-and-trade program to achieve GHG emission reductions from large industrial facilities. The ARB has pioneered a range of approaches in California that have set the standard for effective air and climate programs for the nation and the world. ARB regulations, based on extensive research and established science, have driven innovation, leading to significant technological developments such as the production of low- and zero-emission cars and trucks and cleaner fuels. As stated, ARB is tasked by the legislature with updating the Scoping Plan, which was most recently adopted in 2022 (2022 Scoping Plan), to ensure the State carries out actions to meet the 2030 and 2045 GHG emissions reduction targets.

Other State agencies responsible for regulating GHGs include:
• California Energy Commission (CEC): The State’s energy policy and planning agency, responsible for climate change related programs including energy efficiency and leading the State to a 100 percent clean energy reality. The CEC mandates building energy efficiency standards (in new and existing buildings) and manages the Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS).
210

S O D A SPRINGS RANCH OPEN SPACE PRESERV E

INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
86 FCS
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/4859/48590006/ISMND/48590006 Soda Springs Ranch Open Space Preserve ISMND.docx • California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle): California’s recycling and waste management agency, responsible for implementation of State climate policies including landfill methane emissions reduction, waste-to-energy production, and composting requirements. CalRecycle implements food and yard waste recycling regulations, including mandates to cut organic waste disposal 75 percent by 2025. • California Governor’s Office of Land Use and Climate Innovation: Formerly the OPR, the LCI is California’s long-range planning agency, responsible for implementing CEQA review and conducting Statewide research on all climate change policies and impacts.

As a result of these actions, California reached its 2020 GHG emissions reduction target of reducing GHG emissions back to 1990 levels 4 years early and is on track to meet the 2030 GHG reduction target. Below is a summary of State regulations that are applicable to the proposed project and will serve to reduce GHG emissions now and in the future to ensure California stays on the path to meeting the State-mandated 2030 and 2045 targets:
• Advanced Clean Cars II (ACC II): Designed to reach 100 percent new vehicle Zero-Emission Vehicles (ZEVs) and clean PHEVs in California by the 2035 model year. • Small Off-Road Engine (SORE) Regulations: Transition 100 percent of small off-road sparkignition engines (at or below 25.5 horsepower and used in non-stationary equipment) to zeroemission by 2035 (where feasible). 47 • Zero-Emission Forklifts: The regulation will achieve emission reductions of both criteria pollutants and GHG emissions by requiring the phase-out of forklifts using large spark-ignition (LSI) engines, such as those running on propane and gasoline.48 The regulation is expected to result in a significant shift of the forklift segment in California to zero-emission technology. • Low Carbon Fuel Standard: Increase the availability and use of low carbon fuels, including renewable diesel, biodiesel, renewable and natural gas by mandating that the fuel carbon intensity in California must achieve a 20 percent reduction by 2030.49 • Renewable Portfolio Standard: One of California’s key programs for advancing renewable energy, it sets continuously escalating renewable energy procurement requirements for the State’s load-serving entities. All entities must procure 60 percent of their electricity portfolio from renew able energy resources by 2030.
• Building Energy Efficiency Standards–Title 24, Part 6 (Energy Code): Contain energy and water efficiency requirements (and indoor air quality requirements) for newly constructed 47 California Air Resources Board (ARB). 2024. SORE–Small Engine Fact Sheet. Website:
https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/resources/fact-sheets/sore-small-engine-fact-sheet. Accessed March 22, 2025. 48 California Air Resources Board (ARB). 2024. Zero-Emission Forklifts. Website: https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/ourwork/programs/zero-emission-forklifts. Accessed March 22, 2025. 49 California Air Resources Board (ARB). 2024. Low Carbon Fuel Standard. Website: https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/ourwork/programs/low-carbon-fuel-standard/about. Accessed March 22, 2025. 211

SOD A SPRINGS RANCH OPEN SPACE PRESERV E

INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
FCS 87
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/4859/48590006/ISMND/48590006 Soda Springs Ranch Open Space Preserve ISMND.docx buildings; the requirements have gradually increased in efficiency and technology over the past decades. The current standard, known as the 2022 Energy Code, builds on California’s technology innovations, and includes encouraging heat pumps, requiring electric-ready singlefamily homes, and solar/battery storage standards for various building types. The 2022 Energy Code also strengthens ventilation standards to improve indoor air quality.

California Green Building Standards Code–Title 24, Part 11 (CALGreen) Mandatory green building standards code for the State with the goal of reducing GHG emissions from buildings, including reducing energy and water consumption.

Regional Regulations for GHGs
The Bay Area Air District is one of 35 local air pollution control districts in California tasked with regulating air pollutant emissions from businesses and stationary sources within the Bay Area. The Bay Area Air District’s efforts are crucial in supporting California’s broader GHG reduction goals and ensuring compliance with State and federal regulations.

The Bay Area Air District’s Spare the Air Clean Air Plan is a comprehensive strategy aimed at improving air quality and reducing GHG emissions in the Bay Area. Key components of the plan include promoting clean transportation, reducing industrial emissions, enhancing energy efficiency, and increasing the use of renewable energy.

In addition to the Spare the Air Clean Air Plan, the Bay Area Air District has developed a Regional Climate Protection Strategy that outlines specific actions to reduce GHG emissions across various sectors, including transportation, buildings, energy, and waste management. This strategy complements State-level initiatives and ensures that the Bay Area contributes effectively to California’s climate goals.

The Bay Area Air District implements various control measures to achieve these goals, such as:
• Regulating Industrial Emissions: Enforcing stricter emissions standards for industrial facilities and promoting the adoption of cleaner technologies. These regulations are codified in the Bay Area Air District’s rules and regulations, which set limits on emissions of pollutants and GHGs from various sources.
• Vehicle Emissions Programs: Encouraging the use of EVs and expanding EV charging infrastructure. This includes regulations that require reductions in emissions from mobile sources, aligning with California’s ACC regulation.
• Energy Efficiency Programs: Supporting energy efficiency improvements in residential, commercial, and industrial sectors. These efforts are guided by regulations that mandate energy efficiency standards and promote the use of low emission technologies. • Renewable Energy Initiatives: Promoting the use of renewable energy sources like solar and wind power. This is supported by regulations that incentivize renewable energy adoption and set targets for renewable energy use.
212

S O D A SPRINGS RANCH OPEN SPACE PRESERV E

INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
88 FCS
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/4859/48590006/ISMND/48590006 Soda Springs Ranch Open Space Preserve ISMND.docx • Land Use and Development: Integrating air quality and GHG reduction measures into land use planning and development processes. This includes promoting smart growth principles, encouraging higher-density development near transit hubs, and implementing green building standards. The Bay Area Air District provides technical assistance and policy guidance to local governments to ensure that land use decisions contribute to regional air quality and climate goals.

The Bay Area Air District works closely with local governments, providing technical assistance, funding opportunities, and policy guidance to support the development and implementation of local Climate Action Plans (CAPs).

The Bay Area Air District’s efforts are closely tied to its CEQA thresholds. The Bay Area Air District provides specific CEQA Guidelines and thresholds for GHG emissions, helping local agencies assess and mitigate the environmental impacts of proposed projects. By aligning its regulations and control measures with CEQA requirements, the Bay Area Air District ensures that projects within its jurisdiction contribute to regional and State GHG reduction goals while complying with environmental review processes. In 2022, the Bay Area Air District Board of Directors adopted CEQA Thresholds for Evaluating the Significance of Climate Impacts from Land Use Projects and Plans. These thresholds and associated guidance assist lead agencies in evaluating air quality and climate impacts from proposed land use projects in the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin (SFBAAB) during the environmental review process.

Sonoma County Climate Action 2020 and Beyond Regional Climate Action Plan In 2016, Sonoma County adopted the Climate Action 2020 and Beyond Regional Climate Action Plan which establishes the County GHG reduction goals below 1990 levels: 25 percent by 2020, 40 percent by 2030, and 80 percent by 2050, consistent with the State requirements.50 The CAP outlines the reduction efforts in six major GHG source areas, including building energy, transportation and land use, solid waste, water and wastewater, livestock and fertilizer, and advanced climate initiatives.

Notably, based on projections from the 2010 GHG inventory, Sonoma County is not expected to meet the 2015 goal of 25 percent below 1990 levels. Furthermore, the County’s population is projected to increase by 5 percent between 2010 and 2020, and employment is projected to increase by 13 percent over the same period. The two main factors which influence the growth of GHG emissions in the County are from population and economic growth. In addition, Appendix A of the County’s CAP includes a consistency checklist in which projects can identify all applicable mandatory local or regional measures in the CAP in order to demonstrate consistency. Projects that implement all applicable mandatory CAP measures can conclude that their impacts related to GHG emissions would be less than significant under CEQA. However, since the CAP checklist is intended for residential, commercial, and mixed-use projects, the proposed project is not a type of project addressed within the CAP. Thus, the County’s CAP does not apply to the proposed project. 50 County of Sonoma. 2024. Climate Resilience Comprehensive Action Plan. https://sonomacounty.ca.gov/Main%20County%20Site/Administrative%20Support%20%26%20Fiscal%20Services/CAO/ Documents/Climate%20Action%20and%20Resiliency/Climate-Resilience-Comprehensive-Action-Plan.pdf. August. 213

SOD A SPRINGS RANCH OPEN SPACE PRESERV E

INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
FCS 89
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/4859/48590006/ISMND/48590006 Soda Springs Ranch Open Space Preserve ISMND.docx Impact Discussion
The CEQA Guidelines define a significant effect on the environment as “a substantial, or potentially substantial, adverse change in the environment.” To determine whether a proposed project would have a significant impact on GHGs, the type, level, and impact of emissions generated by the proposed project must be evaluated.

Thresholds of Significance for the Proposed Project
The Lead Agency utilizes the criteria in CEQA Guidelines Appendix G Environmental Checklist to determine whether GHG emission impacts are significant environmental effects. For purposes of this Draft IS/MND, a GHG emission impact is considered significant if the proposed project would:
a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment.
b) Conflict with any applicable plan, policy or regulation of an agency adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases.

Bay Area Air District Guidance
Where available, significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon as a methodology to reach significance determinations.

The Lead Agency, in its discretion, has determined to utilize the Bay Area Air District significance criteria for purposes of this analysis.

Construction-related GHG Emissions
The Bay Area Air District’s 2022 CEQA Guidelines state that, because construction emissions are temporary and variable, the Bay Area Air District has not developed a quantitative threshold of significance for construction-related GHG emissions. However, the lead agency should quantify and disclose GHG emissions that would occur during construction. Citing LCI’s (formerly OPR’s) Discussion Draft Climate Change Advisory document, it is recommended that lead agencies quantify a project’s construction (as well as its operational) GHG emissions, using available data and tools, to determine the amount, types, and sources of GHG emissions resulting from the proposed project.

Operational-Related GHG Emissions
As previously stated, the proposed project would not be associated with ongoing operational-related impacts with the exception of the few mobile trips from visitors accessing the park. The Bay Area Air District’s 2022 CEQA Guidelines do not include a GHG threshold for parks or recreational-only land uses.
214

S O D A SPRINGS RANCH OPEN SPACE PRESERV E

INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
90 FCS
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/4859/48590006/ISMND/48590006 Soda Springs Ranch Open Space Preserve ISMND.docx Would the project:
a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment?
Less than significant. Both construction and operational activities have the potential to generate GHG emissions.

Project Emissions (for Informational Purposes)
Construction
The proposed project would generate GHG emissions during temporary (short-term) construction activities such as demolition, site grading, operation of construction equipment, operation of on-site heavy-duty construction vehicles, hauling of materials to and from the project site, asphalt paving, and construction worker vehicle trips. On-site construction activities would vary depending on the level of construction activity.

The proposed project’s construction emissions are presented in Table 6. It should be noted that the analysis conservatively assumes that construction would begin January 2026. As vehicle and equipment fuel efficiencies and emission control standards continue to incrementally improve with each year, project construction emissions are likely to decrease nominally from what is shown in Table 6 should the construction schedule move to later years. In addition, the construction-related assumptions to calculate worker VMT and fuel use are conservative and represent a worst-case modeling scenario. Therefore, the construction GHG emissions contained in Table 6 represent a conservative assessment of project construction emissions.

Table 6: Proposed Project Construction GHG Emissions
Year
Total GHG Emissions
(MT CO2e per year)
2026 122
Total Construction Emissions 122
Emissions Amortized Over 30 Years1 4
Notes:

GHG = greenhouse gas
MT CO2e = metric tons carbon dioxide equivalent
Source: Appendix A.

As shown above, the proposed project could generate approximately 122 MT CO2e during construction, however it is anticipated that the construction worker VMT and fuel use would be lower than what was estimated. There is no existing or proposed construction-related climate impact threshold at this time. GHG emissions from construction represent a very small portion of a project’s lifetime GHG emissions. The proposed thresholds for land use projects are designed to address 215

SOD A SPRINGS RANCH OPEN SPACE PRESERV E

INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
FCS 91
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/4859/48590006/ISMND/48590006 Soda Springs Ranch Open Space Preserve ISMND.docx operational GHG emissions, which represent the vast majority of project GHG emissions.

Furthermore, construction GHG emissions are amortized over 30 years and accounted for as part of operational GHG emissions. Therefore, construction-related impacts would be less than significant.

Operation
Operational or long-term emissions occur over the life of the proposed project and would be associated with mobile emissions from visitor trips. As previously stated, the number of visitor trips is anticipated to be negligible, as the parking lot provides spaces for only eight vehicles. In addition, the proposed project would permanently conserve over 200 acres of natural forestland which acts as a carbon sequestration sink. Therefore, operational-related impacts would be less than significant. b) Conflict with any applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?
Less than significant. Both construction and operational activities have the potential to generate GHG emissions. As described in the previous analysis, the proposed project would generate insignificant GHG emissions compared to the emissions from other sources in California or the world.

Once construction is complete, the proposed project would generate minimal vehicle-related emissions. In addition, many of these visitors would likely be driving to another park or preserve on the coast to meet their recreational needs if the proposed project was not constructed. Also, the proposed project supports the State’s goal to protect natural and working lands and promote natural carbon sequestration opportunities. Accordingly, it is concluded that the proposed project would not conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions.

Mitigation Measures
None required.
216

S O D A SPRINGS RANCH OPEN SPACE PRESERV E

INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
92 FCS
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/4859/48590006/ISMND/48590006 Soda Springs Ranch Open Space Preserve ISMND.docx Environmental Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact No Impact

2.9 Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Would the project:
a) Create a significant hazard to the public
or the environment through the routine
transport, use, or disposal of hazardous
materials?
b) Create a significant hazard to the public
or the environment through reasonably
foreseeable upset and accident
conditions involving the release of
hazardous materials into the
environment?
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle
hazardous or acutely hazardous
materials, substances, or waste within
one-quarter mile of an existing or
proposed school?
d) Be located on a site which is included
on a list of hazardous materials sites
compiled pursuant to Government Code
Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would
it create a significant hazard to the
public or the environment?
e) For a project located within an airport
land use plan or, where such a plan has
not been adopted, within two miles of a
public airport or public use airport,
would the project result in a safety
hazard or excessive noise for people
residing or working in the project area?
f) Impair implementation of or physically
interfere with an adopted emergency
response plan or emergency evacuation
plan?
217

SOD A SPRINGS RANCH OPEN SPACE PRESERV E

INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
FCS 93
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/4859/48590006/ISMND/48590006 Soda Springs Ranch Open Space Preserve ISMND.docx Environmental Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact No Impact
g) Expose people or structures, either
directly or indirectly to a significant risk
of loss, injury or death involving wildland
fires?
Environmental Evaluation
Setting
Site Uses
Based on a records search conducted from the NWIC for the project area consisting of historical aerial photographs and topographic maps dating back to 1961, little development has occurred within the project site boundaries apart from the existence of roads and trails. This network of trails and roads have been altered overtime by the prior private owners, where the site is currently being used for recreational and conservation uses.51
Existing structures include an open-walled shed and trailer located near the site’s northeastern boundary. Although the wooden and metal open-walled shed was likely constructed prior to 1980, asbestos-containing materials (ACMs) were typically used in building construction materials for insulation and as a fire retardant, roofing shingles, ceiling and floor tiles, and asbestos cement products.
52 Therefore, the shed does not likely contain ACMs. The existing open-walled shed does not include paint along the building surfaces and, therefore, does not contain lead-based paint.

Based on a regulatory database search of the California State Water Resources Control Board (State Water Board) GeoTracker and the California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) EnviroStor, there are no leaking underground storage tank (LUST) or hazardous materials contamination cases at the site that represent an environmental concern.

Surrounding Uses
The project site is surrounded by residential uses to the east, residences and several institutional facilities, to the south and southeast, in addition to undeveloped lands that consist of oak woodland and forest. To the north and west are undeveloped lands composed of oak woodland and forest 51 Hollis Agricultural Consulting. 2023. Soda Springs Ranch Open Space Preserve Conservation Easement: Baseline Documentation. Pages 10-11.
52 United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Learn About Asbestos. https://www.epa.gov/asbestos/learnabout-asbestos. Accessed June 9, 2025. 218

S O D A SPRINGS RANCH OPEN SPACE PRESERV E

INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
94 FCS
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/4859/48590006/ISMND/48590006 Soda Springs Ranch Open Space Preserve ISMND.docx habitat. Based on a regulatory database search of the State Water Board GeoTracker and DTSC EnviroStor, the nearest off-site hazardous materials case is located approximately 0.1 mile of the project site’s southwestern boundary north of Cherry Creek Road, involved the closure of an illegal methamphetamine operation on the property in 1999 where waste pit materials and contaminated soil were removed. A follow-up soil assessment confirmed the site’s status as a closed case in 2003.53 There are 27 off-site hazardous materials sites within a 1 -mile radius of the project site. 54 All of these
sites are documented as closed cases and are located at lower elevation. Save for the 2003 site, all of them are located east of the project site’s eastern boundary past Foothill Boulevard. Given the absence of the widespread use and production of hazardous materials based on lack of historical and current uses, and documented cleanup efforts for surrounding former sites, there is minimal evidence to suggest the exposure or on-site contamination of hazardous materials on the project site.

Regulatory Framework
The following section describes federal, State, regional, and local regulations and policies that are relevant to hazards and hazardous materials.

Federal
Federal Aviation Regulations, FAR Part 77
The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) issued a final rule on July 21, 2010, to Code of Federal Regulations Part 77, Title 14, for the “Safe, Efficient Use and Preservation of the Navigable Airspace.” The rule became effective on January 18, 2011. Federal Aviation Regulations Part 77, Title 14 (FAR Part 77) establishes standards and notification requirements for objects affecting navigable airspace.

Any person/organization who intends to sponsor any of the following construction or alterations must notify the FAA Administrator:
• Any construction or alteration exceeding 200 feet above ground level • Any construction or alteration:
- within 20,000 feet of a public use or military airport which exceeds a 100:1 surface from any point on the runway of each airport with at least one runway more than 3,200 feet - within 10,000 feet of a public use or military airport which exceeds a 50:1 surface from any point on the runway of each airport with its longest runway no more than 3,200 feet - within 5,000 feet of a public use heliport which exceeds a 25:1 surface • Any highway, railroad or other traverse way whose prescribed adjusted height would exceed that above noted standards
53 California Environmental Protection Agency (Cal/EPA). Cortese Data List Resources. Website:
https://calepa.ca.gov/sitecleanup/corteselist/. Accessed June 5, 2025. 54 Ibid.
219

SOD A SPRINGS RANCH OPEN SPACE PRESERV E

INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
FCS 95
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/4859/48590006/ISMND/48590006 Soda Springs Ranch Open Space Preserve ISMND.docx • Any construction or alteration located on a public use airport or heliport regardless of height or location
• When requested by the FAA55
State
Government Code Section 65962.5
Government Code Section 65962.5 of the Government Code requires Cal/EPA to compile and annually update a list of hazardous waste and substances sites, referred to as the Cortese List.56 The Cortese List is used by State, local agencies, and developers to comply with CEQA requirements. 57 The Cortese List includes hazardous substance release sites identified by the State Water Board and DTSC.

Regional
Sonoma County Airport Land Use Commission Comprehensive Airport Land Use Plan The County of Sonoma’s Comprehensive Airport Land Use Plan (CALUP) was adopted by the Sonoma County Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) in January 2001. The CALUP applies to all six airports in the County, including the Cloverdale Municipal Airport. It establishes referral boundaries, airport influence area, air space protection standards, airport safety zones, and noise standards around each airport which set forth restrictions on allowed land uses and establish standards for open space retention and allowed density and lot coverage.58 The Cloverdale Municipal Airport includes six airport safety zones, including the runway protection zone, inner safety zone, inner turning zone, outer safety zone, sideline safety zone, and traffic pattern zone.59 The CALUP includes land use standards and restrictions on the density and development within these zones to reduce the risk of aircraft safety hazards.

Local
City of Cloverdale General Plan
Policy PS 3-2 Consider the severity of natural fire hazards, potential damage from wildland and structural fires, adequacy of fire protection and mitigation measures consistent with this element in the review of projects.

Goal PS 4 While maintaining the autonomy granted to it pursuant to State zoning laws, implement State and County requirements for the storage, transport, disposal and 55 Federal Aviation Administration. Notification of Proposed Construction or Alteration on Airport Part 77. Website:
https://www.faa.gov/airports/central/engineering/part77. Accessed June 8, 2025. 56 Ibid.
57 Ibid.
58 Sonoma County Permit Sonoma. Airport Land Use Commission: Comprehensive Airport Land Use Plan. Website:
https://permitsonoma.org/boardscommissionsandcommittees/airportlandusecommission. Accessed June 3, 2025. 59 Sonoma County Permit Sonoma. Airport Safety Zones. Website:
https://permitsonoma.org/regulationsandlongrangeplans/longrangeplans/airportlanduseplan/chapter8/airportsafetyzonesa irportsinsonomacounty. Accessed June 4, 2025.
220

S O D A SPRINGS RANCH OPEN SPACE PRESERV E

INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
96 FCS
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/4859/48590006/ISMND/48590006 Soda Springs Ranch Open Space Preserve ISMND.docx use of hazardous materials, including requirements for management plans, security precautions, and contingency plans.

Policy PS 4-1 Where allowed by law, regulate the transportation of hazardous materials to minimize the potential for damage. Seek regulation by other agencies consistent with adopted City policies.

Would the project:
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials?
Less than significant impact. The proposed Open Space Preserve would be open to the public and include roads/trails that would primarily be used for hiking. Picnic tables would also be constructed for users of the Preserve. Operational maintenance activities would include the clearance of debris from the roads/trails, litter removal, minor pruning of vegetation, and the cleaning of picnic tables and signs. The proposed project would include the use of small quantities of cleaning and maintenance chemicals during project operations. However, no hazardous chemicals would be stored on the site.

The proposed project would comply with applicable federal, State, and local handling and disposal requirements, including the compliance with DTSC requirements pertaining to the use and transport of hazardous chemicals. Therefore, small quantities of cleaning supplies and maintenance chemicals that would be used on-site would not result in a significant hazard to on-site workers or the environment through routine transport, use, or disposal of the chemicals. As such, the impact would be less than significant.
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment?
Less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated. The proposed project would include the demolition of an open-walled shed, removal of two culverts, and the construction of roads/trails and picnic tables, as well as the installation of new gates, signs, and the replacement of two culverts.

As described above, there are no hazardous materials or LUST cases identified at the site; therefore, no known contaminants of concern have been identified for the site. Construction workers would not likely be exposed to significant soil contamination. However, the proposed project would be required to implement a site-specific Health and Safety Plan (HASP) to ensure the proper handling and disposal of the site’s soils during construction (refer to MM HAZ-1). The implementation of MM HAZ-1 would reduce the impact of the accidental release of hazardous materials from unknown contaminated soil on construction workers’ to less than significant. With the implementation of the implementation of MM HAZ-1, the proposed project would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment during construction. As such, the impact would be less than significant with mitigation.

As described in the response to checklist question (a), the proposed project would comply with the applicable federal, State and local handling and disposal requirements for the small quantity of 221

SOD A SPRINGS RANCH OPEN SPACE PRESERV E

INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
FCS 97
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/4859/48590006/ISMND/48590006 Soda Springs Ranch Open Space Preserve ISMND.docx chemicals that would be used during project operations. The proposed project would comply with applicable State and local handling and disposal requirements, including the compliance with DTSC requirements pertaining to the use and transport of hazardous chemicals. Therefore, during project operations, the proposed project would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment. As such, the impact would be less than significant. c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? No impact. There are no existing or proposed schools within one-quarter mile of the project site. The nearest school to the site is Washington School, located at 129 South Washington Street, approximately 0.27 miles from the site’s eastern boundary at Foothill Boulevard. Therefore, the proposed project would not emit or handle hazardous materials, substances, or waste within 0.25 mile of an existing or proposed school. As such, no impact would occur. d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? No Impact. The project site is not on a list of hazardous materials sites in regulatory databases, the State Water Board’s GeoTracker and DTSC EnviroStor databases, pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5.60 As such, the proposed project would not be located on a hazardous materials site that would create a significant hazard to the public or the environment. Therefore, no impact would occur.
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area?
No impact. The project site is located within the airport influence area within the CALUP, adopted by the ALUC. The nearest airport to the site is the Cloverdale Municipal Airport, which is approximately 2 miles southeast of the site. The project site is located outside of the airport safety zones configured around the Cloverdale Municipal Airport.
61 The project would include the construction of roads/trails, picnic tables and gates (which would be less than 10 feet in height), and a parking area. Thus, the proposed project would not include the construction or alteration of structures that would exceed FAA Part 77 height standards. The distance of the longest Cloverdale Municipal Airport runway from the site is between 10,000 and 20,000 feet and the length of the runway is approximately 2,910 feet; 60 California Environmental Protection Agency (Cal/EPA). Cortese Data List Resources. https://calepa.ca.gov/sitecleanup/corteselist/. Accessed June 5, 2025. 61 Sonoma County Permit Sonoma. Cloverdale Municipal Airport Referral Area. Website:
https://permitsonoma.org/regulationsandlongrangeplans/longrangeplans/airportlanduseplan/chapter8/cloverdaleairport.

Accessed June 4, 2025.
222

S O D A SPRINGS RANCH OPEN SPACE PRESERV E

INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
98 FCS
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/4859/48590006/ISMND/48590006 Soda Springs Ranch Open Space Preserve ISMND.docx given the runway’s distance from the site and that the length of the runway is less than 3,200 feet, the proposed project would not result in a significant aircraft hazard. For the above reasons, the proposed project is not subject to the FAA notification requirements for the construction or alteration of structures. As a result, the proposed project would not result in a safety hazard, related to airport/aircraft operations, for people residing or working in the project area. As such, no impact would occur.
f) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
Less than significant impact. The proposed Open Space Preserve would primarily be accessed by pedestrians. Users of the Preserve would park on the street or in the Cloverdale City Park parking lot on West Second Street and then walk to the West Second Street entrance. Users could also park along South Foothill Boulevard and then walk to the South Foothill Boulevard entrance. Vehicles that could access the site would be City-owned vehicles, maintenance staff vehicles, and emergency vehicles. Vehicles would access the site via the West Second Street gate shown on Exhibit 4, Site Plan. Based on the City’s adopted Emergency Operations Plan and Evacuation Zone Map, the proposed project’s West Second Street access is located on the border of Evacuation Zones 1 and 3.

The primary evacuation route for Zone 1 is from North Street to Cloverdale Boulevard, to US-101.

The primary evacuation route for Zone 3 is from Healdsburg Avenue to Cloverdale Boulevard, to Citrus Fair, and then to US-101.62 The addition of approximately 54 daily vehicle trips (i.e., 50 daily trips from Open Space Preserve users and four trips from City-owned and maintenance staff vehicles) would not interfere with the City’s Emergency Operations Plan or emergency evacuation plan. As such, the impact would be less than significant. g) Expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires?
Less than significant impact. The project site is located within a designated High Fire Hazard Severity Zone within a State Responsibility Area (SRA). The project site is surrounded by areas of similar or higher fire hazard severity, including a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone to the southeast.63 The proposed project would involve vegetation management for the creation of new trails and picnic areas and would therefore not result in significant alterations to the project site that would increase wildfire risk. Furthermore, the proposed project would maintain an existing fuel break located between the conservation space and the residences along Port Circle, further reducing wildfire risks.

Therefore, the proposed project would not result in a significant risk of loss, injury, or death to people or structures as a result of increased exposure. Impacts would be less than significant. 62 City of Cloverdale. Emergency Operation Plan and Evacuation Plan. https://www.cloverdale.net/457/EmergencyOperation-Plan-and-Evacuation-. Accessed June 9, 2025. 63 California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE). Fire Hazard Severity Zone (FHSZ) Viewer. Website:
https://experience.arcgis.com/experience/6a9cb66bb1824cd98756812af41292a0. Accessed June 2, 2025. 223

SOD A SPRINGS RANCH OPEN SPACE PRESERV E

INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
FCS 99
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/4859/48590006/ISMND/48590006 Soda Springs Ranch Open Space Preserve ISMND.docx Mitigation Measures
MM HAZ-1 Prior to the issuance of any demolition or grading permits (whichever occurs first), a Health and Safety Plan (HASP) shall be prepared to establish health and safety protocols for construction workers at the site. All measures identified in the HASP shall be implemented during all phases of construction, as applicable. The HASP shall be prepared by an environmental professional and submitted to the Sonoma County Department of Environmental Health (SCDEH).
224

S O D A SPRINGS RANCH OPEN SPACE PRESERV E

INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
100 FCS
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/4859/48590006/ISMND/48590006 Soda Springs Ranch Open Space Preserve ISMND.docx Environmental Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact

2.10 Hydrology and Water Quality
Would the project:
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste
discharge requirements or otherwise
substantially degrade surface or groundwater
quality?
b) Substantially decrease groundwater supplies
or interfere substantially with groundwater
recharge such that the project may impede
sustainable groundwater management of the
basin?
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern
of the site or area, including through the
alteration of the course of a stream or river or
through the addition of impervious surfaces, in
a manner which would:
(i) result in substantial erosion or siltation onor off-site; (ii) substantially increase the rate or amount of
surface runoff in a manner which would
result in flooding on- or off-site;
(iii)create or contribute runoff water which
would exceed the capacity of existing or
planned stormwater drainage systems or
provide substantial additional sources of
polluted runoff; or
(iv) impede or redirect flood flows?
d) In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk
release of pollutants due to project inundation?
e) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a
water quality control plan or sustainable
groundwater management plan?
225

SOD A SPRINGS RANCH OPEN SPACE PRESERV E

INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
FCS 101
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/4859/48590006/ISMND/48590006 Soda Springs Ranch Open Space Preserve ISMND.docx Environmental Evaluation
Setting
The City’s water supply relies on seven wells under the direct influence of surface water from the Russian River. The City is located within the Alexander Valley Groundwater Basin. In partnership with Sonoma County and the City of Santa Rosa, the City of Cloverdale is a co-permittee on a Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) Phase 1 Permit, to regulate stormwater discharges into its system, to exempt specific non-stormwater discharges, and to adopt Low Impact Development (LID) BMPs. To comply with the permit, the City adopted a stormwater ordinance to regulate stormwater discharges into its system.

The proposed project comprises three parcels located in the Porterfield Creek Watershed, which drains into the Russian River. The North Branch of Porterfield Creek flows across the southwestern portion of the site and an unnamed tributary to Cloverdale Creek flows along the project site’s northern boundary (Figure 2). Soda Spring, a natural soda water spring, is located in the northern portion of the project site.

To manage stormwater discharge and to reduce erosion on-site, the project site contains an existing drainage system comprised of LID measures such as above ground culverts and drainage ditches. The site is currently undeveloped and does not use groundwater or surface water resources.

Would the project:
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or groundwater quality?
Less than significant impact. The proposed project has the potential to release water pollutants during both construction and operation that may violate water quality standards and degrade surface or groundwater quality.

During construction activity, runoff carrying eroded soils and pollutants could enter storm drainage systems and enter the Russian River, increasing sedimentation and degrading downstream water quality. These sediments also would be carried downstream and discharged into the San Francisco Bay and Pacific Ocean, degrading surface water quality, or allowed to seep into the associated groundwater table. This would represent a potentially significant construction impact related to surface and groundwater quality.

As previously mentioned under Section 2.10, Hydrology and Water Quality, the site currently contains a network of culverts and drainage ditches that collect surface runoff from the site. During site grading for the proposed parking area and vegetation clearance conducted for the proposed trails, eroded soils and pollutants could enter storm drainage systems and enter the Russian River, increasing sedimentation and degrading downstream water quality. This would represent a potentially significant construction impact related to surface and groundwater quality. Under the NPDES General Construction Permit (NPDES No. CAS000002, Order No. 99-08-DWQ) process, projects that disturb 1 or more acres of lands are required to obtain a permit before the start of construction activity. Since 226

S O D A SPRINGS RANCH OPEN SPACE PRESERV E

INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
102 FCS
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/4859/48590006/ISMND/48590006 Soda Springs Ranch Open Space Preserve ISMND.docx the proposed project would disturb less than 1 acre of land including grading for an approximately 2,000-square-foot parking area and vegetation clearance for 0.91 acre of proposed trails (i.e., approximately 41,600 square feet of disturbance),
64 the proposed project would not be required to
prepare and implement a SWPPP. The SWPPP would identify structural and nonstructural BMPs intended to prevent erosion and reduce the impacts to water quality during construction. The proposed project’s construction BMPs would include the installation of silt fences, installation of fiber rolls, and stabilization of stockpiles. Although construction activities have the potential to generate increased sedimentation, compliance with applicable policies and regulations would minimize the potential to degrade water quality in downstream water bodies to the maximum extent possible. As a result, construction-related project impacts related to surface and groundwater water quality would be less than significant.

Under existing conditions, the entire site is composed almost entirely of pervious surfaces. The proposed project would be composed almost entirely of pervious surfaces, with the addition of 500 square feet of impervious surfaces in the approximately 2,000-square-foot parking area, located near the proposed eastern entrance on West Second Street. Although the proposed project would involve the removal and replacement of two culverts, this work would be done to prevent trail erosion and would not alter the rest of the existing drainage system. Therefore, the proposed project would be consistent with Municipal Code Chapter 16.10, Storm Water, as it would rely on the existing natural drainage system to reduce peak runoff flow and remove pollutants, thus reducing impacts to water quality downstream. These standard best practices currently being used on the project site would ensure that the proposed project is consistent with the Cloverdale Municipal Code, reducing potential impacts to less than significant.
b) Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin?
Less than significant impact. The City is located within the Alexander Valley Groundwater Basin but does not currently pump groundwater from the Alexander Valley Groundwater Basin or use groundwater as part of its water supply. The City obtains water from the Russian River via seven wells along its west bank.65 The use of these wells is directly under the influence of surface water from the Russian River and is not tied to the use of aquifers or groundwater basins.

The project site is composed largely of pervious surfaces and would utilize existing BMPs provided for through the existing on-site drainage system, comprising of LID treatment measures such as culverts and drainage ditches, to reduce peak runoff flow and therefore interference with groundwater discharge. Therefore, stormwater would be retained on-site and interference with groundwater recharge would be reduced. Impacts would be less than significant. 64 (4,965 feet of total trail length x and 8 foot wide soil disturbance)/ 43,560 square feet/one acre = 0.91 acres 65 City of Cloverdale. 2015 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP). Page 6-2. 227

SOD A SPRINGS RANCH OPEN SPACE PRESERV E

INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
FCS 103
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/4859/48590006/ISMND/48590006 Soda Springs Ranch Open Space Preserve ISMND.docx c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would:
(i) result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site; Less than significant impact. During construction and grading the proposed project would likely alter the drainage pattern. However, as described in Impact 10(a) the proposed project would be required to implement a SWPPP as part of its Construction General Permit. The SWPPP is designed to ensure that erosion and siltation are prevented or minimized to the maximum extent feasible during construction.

As discussed in Impact 10(a), the 208.66-acre site is almost completely composed of pervious surfaces. The proposed project would include an approximately 2,000-square-foot parking area with approximately 500 square feet of impervious surfaces; approximately 1,500square feet of the parking area would consist of pervious gravel. The addition of 800 square feet of impervious surfaces would not substantially increase the amount of stormwater runoff that could carry sediments and pollutants into the Russian River. Furthermore, the proposed project would restrict vegetation clearance as part of construction of the proposed trails and the installation of picnic tables throughout the site, as shown in Exhibit 3. This would minimize impacts on existing oak woodland and forest habitat and would reduce the possibility for increased surface runoff and erosion.

The proposed project would also involve the removal of two culverts to prevent erosion on proposed trails, by allowing stormwater to drain through existing natural systems. The removal of culverts would be conducted within a largely flat, previously graded area that contains an open-walled shed as shown in Exhibit 4, Site Photographs.
66 The removal would be compliant with the Cloverdale
Municipal Code Chapter 16.10, Stormwater, which includes LID and BMPs as mitigation. Impacts related to alterations of drainage patterns resulting from erosion or siltation would be less than significant.
(ii) substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site;
Less than significant impact. As discussed in Impact 10(a), the site is almost completely composed of pervious surfaces. The proposed project would not increase the amount of impervious surfaces and so would not increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner that could result in flooding and surface runoff.

Surface runoff generated by the proposed project would be managed by the existing on-site drainage system, which is designed to detain and meter the release of peak runoff in order to avoid inundating downstream waterways in a manner that creates substantial flooding on- or off-site. As mentioned, this would consist of LID treatment and BMPs consistent with the Cloverdale Municipal Code Chapter 16.10, 66 Hollis Agricultural Consulting. 2023. Soda Springs Ranch Open Space Preserve Conservation Easement: Baseline Documentation. May
228

S O D A SPRINGS RANCH OPEN SPACE PRESERV E

INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
104 FCS
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/4859/48590006/ISMND/48590006 Soda Springs Ranch Open Space Preserve ISMND.docx Storm Water. Although the proposed project would involve the removal of several large culverts, this would be done to reduce erosion and increased surface runoff. Thus, the possibility of flooding resulting from increased surface runoff from the proposed project would be low and impacts would be less than significant.
(iii) create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff; or
Less than significant impact. The proposed project would not increase the amount of impervious surfaces on-site; therefore, the proposed project is not expected to increase the amount of surface runoff generated. Consistent with the Construction General Permit, the proposed project would implement a SWPPP during construction which would identify structural and nonstructural BMPs intended to prevent significant polluted runoff during construction. The storm drainage system is designed to detain and meter the release of peak runoff to avoid inundating downstream waterways in a manner that could exceed the capacity of storm drainage facilities. Impacts would be less than significant.
(iv) impede or redirect flood flows?
Less than significant impact. According to FEMA’s National Flood Hazard Layer, the proposed project is not within a designated flood hazard zone67. The nearest flood hazard zone is located 270 feet east of the project site, near the project site boundary with Port Circle. As already discussed, the proposed project would not increase the amount of impervious surfaces and would also remove several culverts, thereby reducing the amount of runoff in downstream waterways by allowing natural drainage systems to detain and meter the release of peak runoff to avoid inundating downstream waterways. Accordingly, the proposed project is unlikely to impact or redirect flood flows. Thus, impacts would be less than significant.
d) In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to project inundation?
Less than significant impact. As mentioned in Impact c(iv), the proposed project is not within a designated flood hazard zone.
68 Since the project sits at a slightly higher elevation (361 MSL) than the adjacent flood zone (353 MSL), the proposed project is at a reduced risk of pollutant release due to flood inundation.

Seiches and tsunamis are short duration earthquake-generated water waves in large, enclosed bodies of water and the open ocean. The project site is not near any large inland bodies of water and 67 Federal Emergency Management Authority (FEMA). National Flood Hazard Layer (NFHL) Viewer. Website:
https://www.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=8b0adb51996444d4879338b5529aa9cd. Accessed May 15, 2025.
68 Ibid.
229

SOD A SPRINGS RANCH OPEN SPACE PRESERV E

INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
FCS 105
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/4859/48590006/ISMND/48590006 Soda Springs Ranch Open Space Preserve ISMND.docx is more than 20 miles from the Pacific Ocean and 4 miles from Lake Sonoma, a condition that precludes inundation by tsunami or seiche. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. e) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan?
Less than significant impact. Given that proposed construction would disturb less than 1 acre of land, the proposed project would not be required to implement a SWPPP and associated BMPs for LID treatment The preparation of a SWPPP to identify potential structural and nonstructural BMPs during construction, combined with LID treatment measures and bioretention features existing on the project site, would be sufficient to ensure reduction of pollutants entering surface waters or groundwater basins.

As previously discussed under Impact 10(b), the City does not currently pump groundwater and groundwater resources are not proposed for the project site. Thus, the proposed project would not conflict with or obstruct a water quality control plan or groundwater management plan. Impacts would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures
None required.
230

S O D A SPRINGS RANCH OPEN SPACE PRESERV E

INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
106 FCS
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/4859/48590006/ISMND/48590006 Soda Springs Ranch Open Space Preserve ISMND.docx Environmental Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact

2.11 Land Use and Planning
Would the project:
a) Physically divide an established community?
b) Cause a significant environmental impact due
to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or
regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding
or mitigating an environmental effect?
Environmental Evaluation
Setting
The project site is located in unincorporated Sonoma County, directly outside and adjacent to the City but within the City’s SOI and Urban Growth Boundary, as shown in Exhibit 2. The City General Plan designates and pre-zones the entirety of the project site as CF. The primary uses under CF land use designation are to manage and preserve valuable biological, visual, and agricultural resources in the City’s planning area. The Sonoma County General Plan designates the entirety of the project site as both Resources and Rural Development (RRD)4 and B8. The purpose of the RRD designation is to protect lands needed for commercial timber, wildlife habitat, and certain agricultural production activities, as well as allowing for very low-density residential development and recreational and visitor-serving uses. The RRD B8 designation is intended to “freeze” parcels that are:
1) Designated Rural Residential in the General Plan and subject to a Williamson Act Contract; 2) Within the City’s designated urban service boundary where the City intends to limit urban growth upon annexation or a similar occurrence; or
3) Within a specific plan or plan policy where the City intends to limit urban development.

Since the project site is currently located outside of the City, it does not have City-designated zoning; however, it is pre-zoned CF, which would become enacted upon annexation of the entire project site into the City as part of the proposed project.
231

SOD A SPRINGS RANCH OPEN SPACE PRESERV E

INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
FCS 107
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/4859/48590006/ISMND/48590006 Soda Springs Ranch Open Space Preserve ISMND.docx Would the project:
a) Physically divide an established community?
No Impact. The physical division of an established community would occur if construction of a large linear feature such as a railroad or interstate highway separated an existing community or if a feature that connects a community is removed, such as a bridge.

The proposed project includes enhancements to an existing open space area that would facilitate greater community use of existing and proposed trails and recreational facilities. Accordingly, the proposed project would not divide an established community; there would be no impact. b) Cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?
Less than significant impact. The project site is within the City’s SOI. As described in the General Plan, the City SOI is the area of the City that has been approved for future annexation by the Sonoma County Local Agency Formation Commission. The Sonoma County General Plan uses the SOI to define the ultimate area to be annexed to the City.”69 Because the project site is currently located outside of the city limits, the proposed project would require annexation into the City of Cloverdale.

The General Plan designates the project site as CF and the project site has been pre-zoned as CF.

A significant impact would occur if the project would conflict with policies and regulations stipulated in the City’s General Plan or Zoning Code. Since the proposed project would establish a conservation easement over the entire Open Space Preserve and would entail only minor utility and circulation improvements over a portion of the site with prior grading and clearance, impacts to biological, visual, and agricultural resources would be less than is significant. Thus, there would be no conflict with the project site’s land use designation and pre-zoning classification, and impacts would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures
None required.
69 City of Cloverdale. 2015. General Plan. January 28. Page 7. Website:
http://www.cloverdale.net/documentcenter/view/1673. Accessed March 7, 2019. 232

S O D A SPRINGS RANCH OPEN SPACE PRESERV E

INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
108 FCS
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/4859/48590006/ISMND/48590006 Soda Springs Ranch Open Space Preserve ISMND.docx Environmental Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact

2.12 Mineral Resources
Would the project:
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known
mineral resource that would be of value to the
region and the residents of the State?
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally
important mineral resource recovery site
delineated on a local general plan, specific
plan or other land use plan?
Environmental Evaluation
Setting
There are no areas in Cloverdale that are designated by the State Mining and Geology Board under the California Surface Mining and Reclamation Act of 1975 (SMARA). According to the California Geological Survey Updated Mineral Land Classification Map, Cloverdale is classified as a Mineral Resource Zone (MRZ)-3 area. An MRZ-3 area contains mineral occurrences of undetermined mineral resource significance.70 There are no active mineral recovery sites within a 1-mile radius of the project location. The closest mineral recovery site to the project site is the Russian River, located approximately 1.70 miles east from the project site.71
Would the project:
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the State?
No impact. The project site does not support any mineral extraction activities, nor do any known mineral deposits exist on-site. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would not result in 70 California Department of Conservation. 2011. Mineral Land Classification.

Website:https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/minerals/?page=Mineral-LandClassification#data_s=id%3AdataSource_335-18a47b5b8e5-layer-10-192c08351d6-layer-28%3A21. Accessed April 14, 2025.
71 Stinson, M.C., Manson, M.W., and Plapper, J.J. 1987. State Report 146. Part III: Mineral Land Classification: Aggregate Materials in the San Francisco-Monterey Bay Area: Classification of Aggregate Resource Areas: North San Francisco Bay Production-Consumption Region. Website: https://www.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/Documents/Publications/SpecialReports/SR_146-MLC-Report03.pdf. Accessed April 14, 2025. 233

SOD A SPRINGS RANCH OPEN SPACE PRESERV E

INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
FCS 109
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/4859/48590006/ISMND/48590006 Soda Springs Ranch Open Space Preserve ISMND.docx the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the State. Therefore, no impact would occur. b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? No Impact. As described previously, the project site is designated as CF under the City General Plan.

This land use designation does not allow for mineral resource recovery sites. As a result, this condition precludes the possibility of the project’s impact on a locally important mineral resource as delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan. Thus, no impact would occur.

Mitigation Measures
None required.
234

S O D A SPRINGS RANCH OPEN SPACE PRESERV E

INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
110 FCS
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/4859/48590006/ISMND/48590006 Soda Springs Ranch Open Space Preserve ISMND.docx Environmental Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact

2.13 Noise
Would the project result in:
a) Generation of a substantial temporary or
permanent increase in ambient noise levels in
the vicinity of the project in excess of standards
established in the local general plan or noise
ordinance, or applicable standards of other
agencies?
b) Generation of excessive groundborne vibration
or groundborne noise levels?
c) For a project located within the vicinity of a
private airstrip or an airport land use plan or,
where such a plan has not been adopted,
within two miles of a public airport or public use
airport, would the project expose people
residing or working in the project area to
excessive noise levels?
Environmental Evaluation
Setting
The project site is located within the City of Cloverdale in the County of Sonoma, California. It is within the Porterfield Creek Watershed and is surrounded by open space to the north, south, and west and by residential development to the east. The primary noise sources near the project site include traffic from West Cherry Creek Road to the south and Port Circle to the east. The closest noise-sensitive receptors to the project site are single-family residences located east of the project site.

Characteristics of Noise
Noise is defined as unwanted sound. Sound levels are usually measured and expressed in decibels (dB), with 0 dB corresponding roughly to the threshold of hearing. Most of the sounds that 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. Noise is typically generated by transportation, specific land uses, and ongoing human activity. 235

SOD A SPRINGS RANCH OPEN SPACE PRESERV E

INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
FCS 111
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/4859/48590006/ISMND/48590006 Soda Springs Ranch Open Space Preserve ISMND.docx The standard unit of measurement of the loudness of sound is the dB. The 0 point on the dB scale is based on the lowest sound level that the healthy, unimpaired human ear can detect. Changes of 3 dB or less are only perceptible in laboratory environments. A change of 3 dB is the lowest change that can be perceptible to the human ear in outdoor environments. While a change of 5 A-weighted decibel (dBA) is considered to be the minimum readily perceptible change to the human ear in outdoor environments.

Since the human ear is not equally sensitive to sound at all frequencies, the dBA scale was derived to relate noise to the sensitivity of humans, it gives greater weight to the frequencies of sound to which the human ear is most sensitive. The A-weighted sound level is the basis for a number of various sound level metrics, including the day/night sound level (Ldn) and the Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL), both of which represent how humans are more sensitive to sound at night. In addition, the equivalent continuous sound level (Leq) is the average sound energy of time-varying noise over a sample period and the Lmax is the maximum instantaneous noise level occurring over a sample period.

Regulatory Framework
The City addresses noise in the Noise Element of the General Plan. 72 Cloverdale General Plan
Land Use and Noise Compatibility Standards are established in Exhibit 4.1 and 4.2 of the Noise Element. The land use category that applies closest to the open space proposed project is playgrounds and neighborhood parks. According to the City’s Land Use and Noise Compatibility Standards, noise environments with noise levels up to 70 dBA CNEL are considered to be normally acceptable, while noise environments from 70 dBA to 75 dBA CNEL are considered to be conditionally acceptable, for new playgrounds and neighborhood parks land use developments. The General Plan does not have interior land use standards for open space land uses.

Policy NE 1-3 Noise from stationary sources, such as music, machinery and pumps, and air conditioners, shall be contained on the generating site and shall not exceed the standards of Exhibit 4.1 Land Use and Noise Compatibility Standards-Exterior for the generating and receiving site at the property line. According to Exhibit 4.1, noise levels up to 60 dBA CNEL is normally acceptable for residential land uses.

Would the project result in:
a) Generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? 72 City of Cloverdale. 2009. General Plan Noise Element. Website:
http://www.cloverdale.net/DocumentCenter/Home/View/537. Accessed on April 29, 2019. 236

S O D A SPRINGS RANCH OPEN SPACE PRESERV E

INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
112 FCS
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/4859/48590006/ISMND/48590006 Soda Springs Ranch Open Space Preserve ISMND.docx Short-term Construction Impacts
Less than significant impact. For purposes of this analysis, a significant impact would occur if construction activities would result in a substantial temporary increase in ambient noise levels in excess of the City’s established standards applicable to construction noise.

While the City does not establish noise level thresholds for construction activities, this analysis uses the noise limits established by the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) to identify the potential for impacts due to substantial temporary construction noise. The FTA identifies construction noise limits in the Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual.73 During daytime hours, a significant temporary increase would be an increase in excess of the 8-hour average noise level of 80 dBA Leq as measured at a receiving residential land use.

Noise impacts from construction activities associated with the proposed project would be a function of the noise generated by construction equipment, equipment location, sensitivity of nearby land uses, and the timing and duration of the construction activities.

Construction is completed in discrete steps, each of which has its own mix of equipment and, consequently, its own noise characteristics. These various sequential phases would change the character of the noise generated on the site and, therefore, the noise levels surrounding the site as construction progresses. Despite the variety in the type and size of construction equipment, similarities in the dominant noise sources and patterns of operation allow construction-related noise ranges to be categorized by work phase. Typical operating cycles for these types of construction equipment may involve 1 or 2 minutes of full-power operation followed by 3 or 4 minutes at lower power settings. Impact equipment such as pile drivers would not be used during construction of the proposed project.

Construction of the proposed project would require the use of graders, excavators, dozers, front-end loaders, and backhoes. The maximum noise level generated by each bulldozer, excavator, and grader is assumed to be 85 dBA Lmax at 50 feet from this equipment.

The closest noise-sensitive receptors to the project site are single-family residences located east of the project site, on North Foothill Boulevard near the proposed Second Street entrance. The closest residence would be located approximately 90 feet from the acoustic center of construction where multiple pieces of heavy construction equipment would potentially operate simultaneously at the project site. At this distance, worst-case construction noise levels could range up to approximately 74 dBA Leq, at the façade of the nearest sensitive receptor. The calculation spreadsheet with detailed modeling assumptions is provided in Appendix H.

These reasonable worst-case construction noise levels would only occur periodically throughout the day as construction equipment operates along the nearest project boundaries. Additionally, these noise levels would drop off at a rate of 6 dBA per doubling of distance as the equipment moves over 73 Federal Transit Administration (FTA). 2018. Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual. September. 237

SOD A SPRINGS RANCH OPEN SPACE PRESERV E

INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
FCS 113
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/4859/48590006/ISMND/48590006 Soda Springs Ranch Open Space Preserve ISMND.docx the project site. Therefore, the calculated reasonable worst-case 8-hour average noise level for construction assuming construction equipment moves over the project site would be 68 dBA Leq(8-hour) as measured at the nearest residential receptor.

These calculated conservative worst-case construction noise levels would not exceed the FTA’s threshold of 80 dBA Leq(8-hour) as measured at the nearest residential receptors. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in a substantial temporary increase in noise levels in excess of established standards and construction noise impacts on sensitive receptors in the project vicinity would be less than significant.

Operational/Stationary Source Noise Impacts
Less than significant impact. A significant impact would occur if operational noise levels generated by stationary noise sources at the project site would result in a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in excess of any of the noise performance thresholds established by the City.

According to Policy NE 1-3, in the Noise Element of the General Plan, noise from stationary sources such as music, machinery, pumps, and air conditioners should not exceed the City’s normally acceptable land use compatibility standards as measured at a receiving property line. The City’s normally acceptable thresholds are 60 dBA CNEL and 65 dBA CNEL for residential and commercial land uses. The City’s normally acceptable thresholds are 70 dBA CNEL for new playgrounds and neighborhood parks land use developments.

The primary new stationary noise source associated with implementation of the proposed project would be the new parking lot activity. Potential impacts associated with this new noise source is analyzed below.

Parking Lot Activities
Typical parking lot activities include people conversing, doors shutting, and vehicles idling which generate noise levels ranging up to 60 dBA Leq at 50 feet. These activities are expected to occur sporadically throughout the day, as visitors arrive and leave parking lot areas at the project site.

The nearest residential sensitive receptors, single-family residences located east of the project site, on North Foothill Boulevard near the proposed Second Street entrance, would be located approximately 110 feet from the acoustic center of the nearest proposed parking area. Because of distance attenuation, noise levels from typical parking lot activity, assuming a reasonable worst-case of one parking movement for each parking stall in 1 hour, would attenuate to 48 dBA Leq as measured at the nearest residential receptor. Assuming these worst-case hourly average noise conditions occurred each hour during the day when the park is open, the resulting 24-hour average could range up to 47 dBA CNEL as measured at the nearest residential receptor. The calculation sheet is provided in Appendix H.

These noise levels would not exceed the Cloverdale General Plan operational stationary noise performance thresholds of 60 dBA CNEL for receiving residential land uses, nor would they exceed the threshold of 70 dBA CNEL for adjacent open space land uses. 238

S O D A SPRINGS RANCH OPEN SPACE PRESERV E

INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
114 FCS
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/4859/48590006/ISMND/48590006 Soda Springs Ranch Open Space Preserve ISMND.docx Therefore, noise generated by parking lot activities would not result in a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in excess of established thresholds as measured at the nearest noise-sensitive land use property line and the potential impact would be less than significant.

Operational/Mobile Source Noise Impacts
Less than significant impact. A significant impact would occur if project-generated traffic would result in a substantial increase in ambient noise levels compared with those that would exist without the proposed project. Typically, a doubling of the traffic volumes on a roadway segment is required in order to result in an increase of 3 dBA in traffic noise levels; which, as discussed in the characteristics of noise discussion above, is the lowest change that can be perceptible to the human ear in outdoor environments. Therefore, for the purposes of this analysis, a doubling of the existing Average Daily Traffic (ADT) or peak-hour traffic volumes could result in a substantial permanent increase in traffic noise levels.

According to the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Manual, 74 the existing average daily trip
generation for the six homes located at the end of North Foothill Boulevard, past the proposed parking lot entrance, is a minimum of 51 trips per day.

According to the project applicant, the proposed project is projected to generate a maximum of 25 daily trips on weekends (Saturday–Sunday) and a maximum of 10 trips per weekday (Monday–Friday).

Therefore, proposed project trips would not double existing trips on the roadway segments that access the parking lot for the project. This project-related increase in trips would result in a less than 1 dBA increase in traffic noise levels along any roadway segment in the project vicinity. This increase is below a level that would be a perceptible increase and well below a level that would be considered a substantial increase in traffic noise levels. Therefore, the proposed project would not double average daily trips on North Foothill Boulevard adjacent to the project site and would not generate 3 dBA increase in traffic noise levels. Thus, the proposed project would not result in a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels from project-generated traffic trips, and mobile source operational noise impacts would be less than significant. b) Generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? Less than significant impact. A significant impact would occur if the proposed project would generate groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels in excess of established standards. For determining construction-related vibration impacts, the FTA Construction Vibration Impact Criteria are utilized. The FTA has established industry-accepted standards for vibration impact assessment in its Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual, dated September 2018.

Groundborne noise is generated when vibrating building components radiate sound, or noise generated by groundborne vibration. In general, if groundborne vibration levels are do not exceed levels considered to be perceptible, then groundborne noise levels would not be perceptible in most 74 Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual, 11th Edition. 2021. 239

SOD A SPRINGS RANCH OPEN SPACE PRESERV E

INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
FCS 115
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/4859/48590006/ISMND/48590006 Soda Springs Ranch Open Space Preserve ISMND.docx interior environments. Therefore, this analysis focuses on determining exceedances of groundborne vibration levels.

In extreme cases, excessive groundborne vibration has the potential to cause structural damage to buildings. Common sources of groundborne vibration include construction activities such as blasting, pile driving and operating heavy earthmoving equipment. Construction vibration impacts on building structures are generally assessed in terms of inches per second (in/sec) peak particle velocity (PPV).

Short-term Construction Vibration Impacts
For purposes of this analysis, a significant impact would occur if the proposed project would generate groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels in excess of the FTA impact assessment criteria for construction (i.e., 0.2 in/sec PPV for buildings of non-engineer timber and masonry construction).

Of the variety of equipment used during construction, the excavators that are anticipated to be used for improvements at the proposed parking area would produce the highest groundborne vibration levels. Excavators produce groundborne vibration levels ranging up to 0.089 in/sec PPV at 25 feet from the operating equipment.

The nearest off-site receptor to the project site is the single-family residences located east of the project site, on North Foothill Boulevard near the proposed Second Street entrance. The façade of this building would be located approximately 90 feet from the nearest construction footprint where the heaviest construction equipment would potentially operate. At this distance, groundborne vibration levels would range up to 0.013 in/sec PPV from operation of the types of equipment that would produce the highest vibration levels. This is below the FTA’s Construction Vibration Impact Criteria of

0.2 in/sec PPV for this type of structure, a building of nonengineered timber and masonry construction. Therefore, the impact of short-term groundborne vibration associated with construction to off-site receptors would be less than significant.

Operational Vibration Impacts
A significant impact would occur if the project would generate excessive groundborne vibration levels at sensitive receptors in the project vicinity. Implementation of the proposed project would not include any permanent sources of vibration that would expose persons in the project vicinity to groundborne vibration levels that could be perceptible without instruments at any existing sensitive land use in the vicinity of the project site. Therefore, operational groundborne vibration impacts would be less than significant.
c) For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?
No impact. A significant impact would occur if the project would expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels for a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or 240

S O D A SPRINGS RANCH OPEN SPACE PRESERV E

INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
116 FCS
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/4859/48590006/ISMND/48590006 Soda Springs Ranch Open Space Preserve ISMND.docx an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within 2 miles of a public airport or public use airport.

The project site is not located within the vicinity of a private airstrip. The nearest public airport to the project site is the Cloverdale Municipal Airport, located approximately 2 miles southeast of the project site. The project site is located outside of the 55 dBA CNEL airport noise contours of this closest airport. While aircraft noise is occasionally audible on the project site from aircraft flyovers, aircraft noise associated with nearby airport activity would not expose people residing or working near the project site to excessive noise levels. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would not expose persons residing or working in the project vicinity to noise levels from airport activity that would be in excess of normally acceptable standards for the proposed land use development, and no impact would occur.

Mitigation Measures
None required.
241

SOD A SPRINGS RANCH OPEN SPACE PRESERV E

INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
FCS 117
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/4859/48590006/ISMND/48590006 Soda Springs Ranch Open Space Preserve ISMND.docx Environmental Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact

2.14 Population and Housing
Would the project:
a) Induce substantial unplanned population
growth in an area, either directly (for example,
by proposing new homes and businesses) or
indirectly (for example, through extension of
roads or other infrastructure)?
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing
people or housing, necessitating the
construction of replacement housing
elsewhere?
Environmental Evaluation
Setting
As of 2024, the City had a population of 8,710, a decrease of 3.32 percent from 2020. 75 The City
currently provides 1,849 jobs, one of the lowest jobs to housing units ratios in the County and seeks to improve these through localized job growth. Currently, approximately 14 percent of the City’s workforce is employed in natural resources, construction, and maintenance operations. 76 Would the project:
a) Induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)?
No Impact. Unplanned direct population growth would occur if the proposed project results in population growth not considered by the City in its General Plan. The proposed project would establish a conservation easement across three undeveloped parcels within the City’s SOI, which would provide recreational opportunities and preserve biological, visual, and agricultural resources.

The Open Space Preserve would serve the existing residents in area. The project site would be used for recreational purposes and the proposed project would not add new housing. In addition, the Open 75 California Department of Finance. 2025. E-5 Population and Housing Estimates for Cities, Counties, and the State, 2020–2024, with 2020 Census Benchmark. May.
76 City of Cloverdale. 2023. Housing Element Update. April. 242

S O D A SPRINGS RANCH OPEN SPACE PRESERV E

INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
118 FCS
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/4859/48590006/ISMND/48590006 Soda Springs Ranch Open Space Preserve ISMND.docx Space Preserve would not add new jobs, and the Preserve would be served by the City’s existing employees and maintenance staff. Therefore, the proposed project would not induce substantial unplanned direct population growth within the City.

Unplanned indirect population growth would occur if the project expanded infrastructure and extended roadways that would result in unplanned growth. The proposed project would include the construction of internal trails/roads, removal and replacement of culverts, and improvements at West Second Street entrance to allow for emergency vehicle access. The proposed project would not require the extension of City roadways or infrastructure. As such, the proposed project would not result in substantial indirect unplanned growth.

The proposed project would not result in either direct or indirect population growth. Thus, there would be no impact.
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
No Impact. The project site consists of open space, trees, a vacant open-walled shed and trailer, and roads/trails and does not contain residences or businesses. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in the displacement of people or housing and does not necessitate the construction of housing elsewhere. As such, there would be no impact.

Mitigation Measures
None required.
243

SOD A SPRINGS RANCH OPEN SPACE PRESERV E

INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
FCS 119
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/4859/48590006/ISMND/48590006 Soda Springs Ranch Open Space Preserve ISMND.docx Environmental Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact

2.15 Public Services
Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services:
a) Fire protection?
b) Police protection?
c) Schools?
d) Parks?
e) Other public facilities?
Environmental Evaluation
Setting
Cloverdale Fire Protection District provides fire services for the City. The Cloverdale Fire Protection District protects over 75 square miles in northern Sonoma County, including the City.

The Cloverdale Police Department provides protection services for the City. The Cloverdale Police Department is split into four divisions: Administration, Auxiliary Services, Communications and Records, and Field Services and Investigations. The Dispatch Unit staffs five full-time Public Safety Dispatchers/Records Technicians. The Patrol Division staffs three sergeants and 10 officers and runs a K-9 Unit. The Police Station is approximately 0.53 mile east of the project site.

Cloverdale Unified School District (CUSD) provides education throughout the City. CUSD serves a maximum of 1,480 students at its four schools: Jefferson Elementary School (pre-K–4), Washington School (5–8), Cloverdale High School (9–12), and Johanna Echols–Hansen Continuation High (11– 12). The closest school to the project site is Washington School, located approximately 0.32 miles to the southeast.

The City maintains 44.3 acres of active use parkland including several different types of parks with various uses. Sonoma County Regional Parks and the City jointly manage 58.2 acres of passive open space. The closest parkland to the project site is Cloverdale City Park, approximately 200 feet to the east.

Section 16, Recreation, details City parks and recreational facilities at greater length. 244

S O D A SPRINGS RANCH OPEN SPACE PRESERV E

INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
120 FCS
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/4859/48590006/ISMND/48590006 Soda Springs Ranch Open Space Preserve ISMND.docx The Cloverdale Regional Library is part of the Sonoma County Library System and is approximately

0.5 mile east of the project site.

Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services:
a) Fire protection?
Less than significant impact. The Cloverdale Fire Protection Station (301 Sunrise Drive) is located

1.6 miles to the north of the project site. The CAL FIRE Sonoma Lake Napa Unit—Cloverdale (1001 South Cloverdale Boulevard) is located approximately 1.12 miles southeast of the project site. The project site is located in excess of an 8-minute response time from the nearest fire station; according to the Cloverdale Fire Protection District, this exceeds local and national standards for fire service delivery.77 These are existing conditions not caused by the proposed project.

The proposed project would be accessed via a proposed entrance off the intersection of West Second Street and North Foothill Boulevard. Measurements for the proposed entrance would be designed to be consistent with requirements for ingress and egress stipulated by the Cloverdale Municipal Code Chapter 15.14, including Sections 503.2.4 and 503.4 for emergency vehicle access. Therefore, the proposed project would comply with Policy PS 5-12 of the General Plan requiring incorporation of emergency vehicle access for proposed development.

The proposed project is already within the Cloverdale Fire Protection District and would include maintenance of an existing shaded fuel brake between the conservation space and the residences along Port Circle. The existing use at the project site would not change. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
b) Police protection?
Less than significant impact. As previously mentioned in Section 2.14, Population and Housing, the proposed project would facilitate conservation and open space; it would not result in either direct or indirect population growth. It would not change the existing uses of the area. Therefore, the proposed project would not impact demands on police services outside of the scope of the General Plan.

Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
77 FirstCarbon Solutions (FCS). 2020. Draft Baumgardner Ranch Development Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration. February.
245

SOD A SPRINGS RANCH OPEN SPACE PRESERV E

INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
FCS 121
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/4859/48590006/ISMND/48590006 Soda Springs Ranch Open Space Preserve ISMND.docx c) Schools?
No Impact. As previously mentioned, the proposed project would be implemented for conservation aims and would not either directly or indirectly impact population growth. Thus, there would be no impact.
d) Parks?
No Impact. The proposed project is intended to facilitate recreational use through the installation of trail facilities and accessibility improvements, including the creation of a new parking area. However, since the City General Plan has designated the project site as CF and the project site has been prezoned CF pending annexation into the City, the proposed project is not expected to increase demand on park resources beyond what is projected for in the General Plan. Thus, impacts would be less than significant.
e) Other public facilities?
No Impact. The proposed project would not result in either direct or indirect population growth and would thus not increase demand on library services. Therefore, there would be no impact.

Mitigation Measures
None required.
246

S O D A SPRINGS RANCH OPEN SPACE PRESERV E

INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
122 FCS
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/4859/48590006/ISMND/48590006 Soda Springs Ranch Open Space Preserve ISMND.docx Environmental Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact

2.16 Recreation
a) Would the project increase the use of existing
neighborhood and regional parks or other
recreational facilities such that substantial
physical deterioration of the facility would occur
or be accelerated?
b) Does the project include recreational facilities
or require the construction or expansion of
recreational facilities, which might have an
adverse physical effect on the environment?
Environmental Evaluation
Setting
The City currently maintains 44.3 acres of active use parkland, including three neighborhood and two community parks, three active use open spaces, and two community centers.78 Sonoma County Regional Parks and the City jointly manage the 58.2 acres of passive open space in River Park and 250 acres in the Porterfield Creek Open Space Preserve. Upon annexation into the City, the proposed project would increase the City’s provision of passive open space to 22.2 acres per 1,000 residents by five-fold, from 4.9 acres per 1,000 residents, furthering the City’s current exceedance of its goal of 1.5 acres of open space per 1,000 residents. 79 a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated?
Less than significant impact. The proposed project would be confined to the development of a new Open Space Preserve, to be annexed into the City under the zoning use CF. The proposed project would therefore be designed to accommodate recreational uses and would thus reduce, not increase, the use of other recreational facilities in the area.

While the proposed project would not include the installation of new restroom facilities and would thus require that visitors use nearby restroom facilities located in nearby Cloverdale City Park, 0.11 mile 78 City of Cloverdale. 2009. City of Cloverdale General Plan, page 61. May. Amended January 28, 2015. 79 Ibid.
247

SOD A SPRINGS RANCH OPEN SPACE PRESERV E

INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
FCS 123
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/4859/48590006/ISMND/48590006 Soda Springs Ranch Open Space Preserve ISMND.docx east of the project site, this would not be expected to significantly increase demand on park facilities.

As noted by the City, the proposed project would result in no greater than 25 park visitors daily, both during weekdays and weekends.
80 This minimal increase in park users to the area would thus result in nominal increases to nearby park facilities, thereby avoiding the physical deterioration of those facilities. Impacts would be less than significant.
b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities, which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment?
Less than significant impact. The proposed project would involve the construction of approximately

0.94 miles of new multiuse trail, primarily within the northern and central regions of the project site.

Given that this would also involve the closure of approximately 0.90 mile of unused trails in the western and southeastern regions of the project site, the proposed project would not result in net loss of vegetation and would require only minor grading, minimizing physical disturbance. Furthermore, the proposed parking area, located in the southeastern portion of the project site, would also involve only minor grading, occurring over a relatively flat, previously graded terrain previously used to house temporary office structures. Therefore, the proposed project would result in minimal physical effects on the environment and impacts would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures
None required.
80 Figures provided through correspondence with City.
248

S O D A SPRINGS RANCH OPEN SPACE PRESERV E

INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
124 FCS
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/4859/48590006/ISMND/48590006 Soda Springs Ranch Open Space Preserve ISMND.docx Environmental Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact

2.17 Transportation
Would the project:
a) Conflict with a program plan, ordinance or
policy of the circulation system, including
transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian
facilities?
b) Would the project conflict or be inconsistent
with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3,
subdivision (b)?
c) Substantially increase hazards due to a
geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or
dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses
(e.g., farm equipment)?
d) Result in inadequate emergency access?
Environmental Evaluation
Setting
This section includes a discussion of the existing transportation setting in the project area. The existing roadway network, including roadways that provide regional and local access to the site, as well as the existing transit, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities in the project area, are described below.

Existing Roadway Network
Regional Access
US-101 is a four-lane highway that extends north to south within the eastern side of the City. US-101 is a heavily traveled highway connecting San Francisco to coastal regions to the north (Marin County and Sonoma County), south (San Mateo County and Santa Cruz County), and beyond. Access to the project area is provided via an interchange at Citrus Fair Drive.

Local Access
Arterials
Arterials are generally classified by the City as roadways carrying large volumes over long distances.

The primary arterial in the project area is described below. 249

SOD A SPRINGS RANCH OPEN SPACE PRESERV E

INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
FCS 125
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/4859/48590006/ISMND/48590006 Soda Springs Ranch Open Space Preserve ISMND.docx Cloverdale Boulevard
Cloverdale Boulevard is a north–south arterial, generally with one to two lanes in each direction, connecting SR-128 in the north to Dutcher Creek Road in the south. In the project vicinity, North Cloverdale Boulevard provides access to the site via its intersection with West Second Street, which provides direct access to the project site.

Collectors
The City generally classifies collectors as roadways that carry local area traffic to the arterial system.

The primary collectors in the project area are described below.

North Jefferson Street
North Jefferson Street is primarily a north–south collector with one lane in each direction connecting the western city limits to East First Street to the south. North Jefferson Street provides access to the site via its intersection with West Second Street, which provides direct access to the project site.

South Franklin Street
South Franklin Street is a north–south collector with one lane in each direction connecting North Franklin Street and West First Street to South Cloverdale Boulevard.

West Cherry Creek Road
West Cherry Creek Road is a one lane, east–west collector connecting the western city limits to South Cloverdale Boulevard. West Cherry Creek Road connects to Foothill Boulevard, which will include a future pedestrian access to the project site.

Local Streets
Local roads/streets connect blocks and land parcels, and the primary emphasis is on land access. In most cases, local streets connect to other local roads/streets and collectors. In some cases, local streets connect to minor arterials.

North Franklin Street
North Franklin Street is a northwest local street, with one lane in each direction, that extends from West First Street to its intersection with West Second Street, which provides direct access to the project site.

West Second Street
West Second Street is a local street, with one lane in each direction, that runs from North Cloverdale Boulevard (an arterial roadway) to North Foothill Boulevard. Access to the project site is provided via the West Second Street Soda Springs Open Space Preserve gate entrance at this intersection. The site is currently accessed by the City and maintenance staff and is not currently open to the public. 250

S O D A SPRINGS RANCH OPEN SPACE PRESERV E

INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
126 FCS
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/4859/48590006/ISMND/48590006 Soda Springs Ranch Open Space Preserve ISMND.docx Foothill Boulevard
Foothill Boulevard is a north–south local road, with one lane in each direction, which runs from West Cherry Creek Road to where Foothill Boulevard terminates, approximately 625 feet north of Merlot Drive. Future pedestrian access to the site would be located approximately 400 feet north of Merlot Drive.

Existing Transit, Bicycle, and Pedestrian Facilities
The City has bus and rail service provided by three transit providers: Sonoma County Transit, Amtrak, and Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit (SMART). Table 7 shows operational information for the City’s transit services. The nearest transit stop to the project site is a bus stop located on South Cloverdale Boulevard and South Street, approximately 0.5 miles east of the site.

Table 7: Public Transit Service and Facilities
Service Description
Cloverdale Shuttle, Local 68 Provides local weekday shuttle service within the City. Route 68 primarily travels along Cloverdale Boulevard beginning in the north at Champlain Avenue and ending in the south at Treadway Drive.

Sonoma County Transit, Route
60 Provides daily bus service to and from the City with connections to the greater Sonoma County Area.

Amtrak Thruway Service Provides intercity bus service to the City via the Cloverdale Depot located at Citrus Fair Drive and Asti Road.

Planned Sonoma-Marin Area
Rail Transit (SMART)
SMART consists of 70 miles of rail service connecting Sonoma and Marin Counties and serving 16 stations from Cloverdale in Sonoma County to the San Francisco-bound ferry terminal in Larkspur, Marin County. Currently, SMART serves various stations in Larkspur, San Rafael, Marin, Novato, Petaluma, Cotati, Rohnert Park, Santa Rosa, and Sonoma County. Windsor, Healdsburg, Petaluma North, and Cloverdale facilities are planned but not completed currently. The Cloverdale station is expected to be completed as funding becomes available, the timing of which is unknown.

Source: City of Cloverdale. 2024. Sonoma County Transit. 2024.

The Caltrans Highway Design Manual81 classifies bikeways into four categories:
• Class I Bikeway (Bike Path)–Provides a completely separate facility for the exclusive use of bicycles and pedestrians with crossflow by vehicles minimized. • Class II Bikeway (Bike Lane)–Provides a striped lane for one-way bike travel on a street or highway.
81 California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). 2019. Highway Design Manual, Seventh Edition. Website:
https://dot.ca.gov/programs/design/manual-highway-design-manual-hdm. Accessed June 9, 2025. 251

SOD A SPRINGS RANCH OPEN SPACE PRESERV E

INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
FCS 127
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/4859/48590006/ISMND/48590006 Soda Springs Ranch Open Space Preserve ISMND.docx • Class III Bikeway (Bike Route)–Provides for shared use with pedestrian or motor vehicle traffic. • Class IV Bikeway (Separated Bikeway)–Provides for the exclusive use of bicycles and includes a separation (e.g., grade separation, flexible posts, inflexible physical barrier, or on-street parking) required between the separated bikeway and the through vehicular traffic.

Based on Exhibit 3.1-3 in the City’s Circulation Element Subsequent EIR, bikeways in the project vicinity include Class II bicycle lanes on Foothill Boulevard, south of West First Street. In addition, Class III bicycle lanes are located West First Street, East of South Franklin Street.

Pedestrian facilities are present throughout the City to varying degrees. They consist of sidewalks, trails, crosswalks, curb ramps, and signals. Pedestrian facilities in the site’s vicinity include a sidewalk located on the southern portion of West Second Street and the western portion of South Foothill Boulevard.

Regulatory Framework
Senate Bill 743
In November 2017, the OPR (now the LCI) released a technical advisory containing recommendations regarding the assessment of VMT, proposed thresholds of significance, and potential mitigation measures for lead agencies to use while implementing the required changes contained in SB 743. Also in November 2017, LCI released the proposed text for Section 15064.3, Determining the Significance of Transportation Impacts, which summarized the criteria for analyzing transportation impacts for land use projects and transportation projects and directs lead agencies to “choose the most appropriate methodology to evaluate a project’s VMT, including whether to express the change in absolute terms, per capita, per household or in any other measure.” LCI recommends that for most instances a per service population threshold should be adopted and that a 15 percent reduction below that of existing development would be a reasonable threshold.

The LCI’s technical advisory notes that many agencies use screening thresholds to identify when a project should be expected to cause a less than significant impact without conducting a detailed study. The technical advisory also suggests that lead agencies may screen out VMT impacts using project size, VMT maps for residential and office projects, and transit availability.

Screening Threshold for Small Projects
The technical advisory states that many local agencies have developed screening thresholds to indicate when detailed analysis is needed. Based on the technical advisory, assuming there is no substantial evidence indicating that a project would generate a potentially significant level of VMT, or inconsistency with a Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS) or General Plan, projects that generate or attract fewer than 110 trips per day may generally be assumed to cause a less than significant transportation impact.
252

S O D A SPRINGS RANCH OPEN SPACE PRESERV E

INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
128 FCS
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/4859/48590006/ISMND/48590006 Soda Springs Ranch Open Space Preserve ISMND.docx Would the project:
a) Conflict with a program plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities? Less than significant. The proposed project would include the construction of trails/roads within the Open Space Preserve which would primarily be used by pedestrians for hiking and recreation. The proposed project would add a pedestrian access point to the Preserve on South Foothill Boulevard.

The City’s Circulation Element includes policies to improve the City’s roadways in compliance with the Complete Streets Act. The Complete Streets Act requires any substantive revision of the Circulation Element of a City or County’s General Plan to identify how it will safely accommodate the circulation of all users of the roadway including pedestrians, bicyclists, children, seniors, individuals with disabilities, and transit riders, as well as motorists.

Circulation Element Policy CE 1-1 requires the development and maintenance of the network of freeways, arterials, collectors, and local streets with adequate capacity and safety to address complete streets.

The Circulation Element also includes policies to promote bicycle safety when infrastructure improvements are made in accordance with the objectives of Plan Bay Area 2050, the Complete Streets Act, and the Caltrans District 4 Bike and Pedestrian Plans. For example, the Circulation Element Implementation CE 1-1.a (under Policy CE 1-1) requires the City to design, construct, upgrade, and maintain the bicycle and pedestrian circulation system according to the functions they are intended to serve. Further, Circulation Element Policies CE 3-1 and CE 3-2 require City streets to be designed as complete streets, which integrate walking, biking, transit uses, green infrastructure, and natural features.

The proposed project would improve pedestrian access to the site by adding an entrance to the Preserve on Foothill Boulevard. The project would not require improvements that would interfere with the roadway, bicycle, pedestrian, and transit policies established in the Circulation Element.

Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with a program plan, or policies addressing the City’s circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities. As such, the impact would be less than significant.
b) Would the project conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3, subdivision (b)?
Less than significant impact. As described above, CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3 requires an analysis of transportation impacts based on VMT. CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3, subdivision (b), gives local agencies discretion to select the most appropriate methodologies and significance thresholds for evaluating VMT. The City analyzes project VMT impacts based on the LCI’s technical advisory.

Based on the City’s data for a similar Open Space Preserve, the Porterfield Creek Preserve in the City of Cloverdale, the proposed Soda Springs Open Space Preserve would have an average of 25 253

SOD A SPRINGS RANCH OPEN SPACE PRESERV E

INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
FCS 129
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/4859/48590006/ISMND/48590006 Soda Springs Ranch Open Space Preserve ISMND.docx pedestrian users per day. City-owned vehicles and maintenance staff may also travel to and from the Preserve, resulting in four vehicle trips per day. The proposed project would, therefore, would result in approximately 54 vehicle trips per day. The project would generate less than 110 vehicle trips, would not generate significant VMT, and would not interfere with the implementation of an SCS such as Plan Bay Area 2050.
82 As such, the proposed project would meet LCI’s VMT screening threshold for small projects. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in a significant VMT impact and the impact would be less than significant.
c) Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? Less than significant impact. The proposed project would construct new roads/trails which would primarily be used for pedestrian access. City-owned vehicles and maintenance staff vehicles could access the site via the West Second Street entrance. The proposed roads/trails would be designed to be consistent with the City’s standards for driveway widths (a minimum of 20 feet wide at the West Second Street access point) and internal roads/trails for Open Space Preserves. The proposed project would not increase hazards due to geometric design features or incompatible uses. As such, the impact would be less than significant.
d) Result in inadequate emergency access?
Less than significant impact. Emergency vehicles would access the site via the West Second Street entrance (refer to Exhibit 4). All roads and the West Second Street access point would be designed for fire safety accessibility, conforming with the requirements of the California Fire Code and Cloverdale Municipal Code Chapter 15.14 requirements for driveway minimum width of not less than 20 feet. In addition, the City’s Fire Department will review the project’s site plans prior to project approval to ensure the proposed project would include adequate emergency access. As such, the proposed project would provide adequate emergency access and would not conflict with California Fire Code standards. Thus, impacts would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures
None required.
82 Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC). Plan Bay Area 2050. Website: https://mtc.ca.gov/planning/long-rangeplanning/plan-bay-area-2050. Accessed June 9, 2025. 254

S O D A SPRINGS RANCH OPEN SPACE PRESERV E

INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
130 FCS
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/4859/48590006/ISMND/48590006 Soda Springs Ranch Open Space Preserve ISMND.docx Environmental Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact

2.18 Utilities and Service Systems
Would the project:
a) Require or result in the relocation or
construction of new or expanded water,
wastewater treatment or stormwater drainage,
electric power, natural gas, or
telecommunications facilities, the construction
or relocation of which could cause significant
environmental effects?
b) Have sufficient water supplies available to
serve the project and reasonably foreseeable
future development during normal, dry and
multiple dry years?
c) Result in a determination by the wastewater
treatment provider which serves or may serve
the project that it has adequate capacity to
serve the project’s projected demand in
addition to the provider’s existing
commitments?
d) Generate solid waste in excess of State or
local standards, or in excess of the capacity of
local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the
attainment of solid waste reduction goals?
e) Comply with federal, State, and local
management and reduction statutes and
regulations related to solid waste?
Environmental Evaluation
Setting
The proposed project would not entail the construction or extension of new or existing utility lines.

Although the proposed project consists of a network of culverts and drainage ditches, these features are above ground and used to divert surface water to manage surface water flow and to prevent trail erosion; two culverts would be removed and replaced as part of the proposed project to prevent trail 255

SOD A SPRINGS RANCH OPEN SPACE PRESERV E

INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
FCS 131
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/4859/48590006/ISMND/48590006 Soda Springs Ranch Open Space Preserve ISMND.docx erosion. As such, the proposed project would not result in new and expanded sewer and water infrastructure, expanded wastewater collection services, or the installation of new electric, natural gas, or telecommunications lines. All existing utility lines, for natural gas and electricity, would continue to be provided by PG &E, which would continue to be serviced by Sonoma Clean Power.

The proposed project would locate several wastebins within the vicinity of the proposed parking area to manage solid waste. Any solid waste would be collected by the City and transported to the nearest landfill with available capacity. The closest landfills within the vicinity of the project site are the Portero Hills Landfill (69 miles); the Kellery Canyon Landfill (81 miles); and the Vasco Road Sanitary Landfill (101 miles).

Would the project:
a) Require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or stormwater drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects?
Less than significant impact. As previously mentioned, the proposed project is a conservation easement. The proposed project would not require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities.

The existing on-site drainage system, consisting of culverts and drainage ditches, is above ground and would involve only minor alterations as part of the proposed project. This would include the removal of several large culverts to prevent trail erosion, thus minimizing environmental impacts.

Since the proposed project would only involve minor alterations to the existing utility system to reduce environmental impacts and would not involve the construction of relocation of any other utility facilities, impacts would be less than significant.
b) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry and multiple dry years? Less than significant impact. The proposed project would establish a conservation easement over the site. It would not result in the development of new structures and would thus not require the provision of additional water supplies following the implementation of the proposed project.

Furthermore, the proposed project would be serviced by an existing on-site drainage system consisting of culverts and ditches, which would effectively manage water flow, thereby reducing “pooling” or contamination of existing water sources on-site. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
c) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments? Less than significant impact. As previously mentioned, the proposed project would not result in an expansion of wastewater treatment or services. The proposed project would involve the removal of several existing on-site culverts to prevent trail erosion, but these modifications would be restricted to 256

S O D A SPRINGS RANCH OPEN SPACE PRESERV E

INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
132 FCS
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/4859/48590006/ISMND/48590006 Soda Springs Ranch Open Space Preserve ISMND.docx only a few large culverts to prevent trail erosion and are not projected to have any significant impact on the current on-site system for managing wastewater. Thus, the proposed project would not result in exceedance of adequate capacity for managing the project site’s wastewater demands, which would be minimal as the site would simply be reclassified as a conservation feature. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
d) Generate solid waste in excess of State or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals?
Less than significant impact. As noted under Section 2.16, Recreation, the proposed project would be expected to generate a maximum of 25 visitors per day to the site. 83 This nominal number of
visitors, which would be expected to engage in largely recreational activities involving hiking and movement, is not expected to result in the significant deposition of solid waste, let alone one which would exceed State or local standards for ensuring adequate capacity for existing solid waste facilities. Furthermore, the City would provide one solid waste bin adjacent to the proposed parking area to manage solid waste needs. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. e) Comply with federal, State, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste?
Less than significant impact. As previously mentioned, the proposed project would result in a nominal number of visitors, approximately 25 per day.
84 This number would result in an insignificant
amount of solid waste per the proposed project’s intended use, which would be to maximize recreational activities involving hiking and other movement. Thus, the provision of a single solid waste bin adjacent to the proposed parking area would be sufficient for the proposed project’s solid waste needs and the proposed project would be compliant with federal, State, and local management reduction statutes and regulations for solid waste. Impacts would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures
None.
83 Figures provided through correspondence with City.
84 Ibid.
257

SOD A SPRINGS RANCH OPEN SPACE PRESERV E

INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
FCS 133
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/4859/48590006/ISMND/48590006 Soda Springs Ranch Open Space Preserve ISMND.docx Environmental Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact

2.19 Wildfire
If located in or near State Responsibility Areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the project:
a) Substantially impair an adopted emergency
response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
b) Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other
factors, exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby
expose project occupants to, pollutant
concentrations from a wildfire or the
uncontrolled spread of a wildfire?
c) Require the installation or maintenance of
associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel
breaks, emergency water sources, power lines
or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk
or that may result in temporary or ongoing
impacts to the environment?
d) Expose people or structures to significant risks,
including downslope or downstream flooding or
landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope
instability, or drainage changes?
Environmental Evaluation
Setting
An SRA refers to areas of the State in which the financial responsibility of preventing and suppressing fires has been determined to be primarily the responsibility of the State. The project site is located in a designated as a High Fire Hazard Severity Zone in an SRA. It is surrounded by areas of similar or higher fire hazard severity, including a Very Fire Hazard Severity Zone to the southeast (refer to Exhibit 6).85
85 California Department of forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE). Fire Hazard Severity Zone (FHSZ) Viewer. Website:
https://experience.arcgis.com/experience/6a9cb66bb1824cd98756812af41292a0. Accessed April 16, 2025. 258

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
259
48590006 • 07/2025 | 6_FHSZ.m xd
Exhibit 6
Source: ESRI Aerial Im ag ery. Coun ty of Son om a. CAL FIRE FRAP. City of Cloverdale.

S O D A S P R I N G S R A N C H O P E N S P A C E P R E S E R V E I N I T I A L S T U D Y / M I T I G A T E D N E G A T I V E D E C L A R A T I O N North Branch Portfield Creek
Cherry Creek Rd
Foothill Blvd
Jefferson St
2nd St
Port Cir
!(
Cloverdale City Park
¥ 1,000 500 0 1,000
Feet
F C S
Fire Hazard Severity Zon es

CITY OF CLOVERDALE
Legend
Project Site
Responsibility Areas
Local Respon sibility Area (LRA)
State Respon sibility Area (SRA)
Fire Hazard Severity Zones
Very Hig h
Hig h
Moderate
...............
: : : : : : : ~~~ i f(,:
.......... ::: : ::::· .... ..................
.... .. .......... . :::: ::::::::c·· ................
::~ ~~~~: :~~~~~~~~~~~~~
:::r::::::t.::::::::::::: ...... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: i :::
::::::::::::: ::::::::ll:::::::J:
,, .. . :
260

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
261

SOD A SPRINGS RANCH OPEN SPACE PRESERV E

INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
FCS 137
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/4859/48590006/ISMND/48590006 Soda Springs Ranch Open Space Preserve ISMND.docx Would the project:
a) Substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
Less than significant impact. The City’s Public Health and Safety Element identifies emergency evacuation routes for each of its identified emergency evacuation zones within City boundaries, as shown in Figure 10-26 of the General Plan.
86 The proposed project is closest to Evacuation Zone 3, which borders the eastern boundary of the project site, and identifies Healdsburg Avenue as a primary emergency evacuation route and West First Street as a secondary emergency evacuation route.

During project construction, construction vehicles and equipment would access the project site via the proposed entrance on West Second Street from Cloverdale Avenue on the project site’s eastern boundary. The proposed project would involve only minor accessibility improvements to surrounding streets (e.g., curb striping, signage) and would thus not require diversion routes or temporary street closures along designated evacuation routes, including Healdsburg Avenue and West First Street. As a result, the proposed project would not impair emergency evacuation because access to the main evacuation route in the project area, Healdsburg Lane and West First Street, would still be accessible. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. b) Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose project occupants to, pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire?
Less than significant impact. The northwest portion of the project site is interspersed with oak woodland and forest habitat, at 780 MSL and 1100 MSL respectively, whereas the southern and eastern portions of the site comprise grassland and forest habitat at 390 MSL and 473 MSL. As such, the slope of the project site is a contributing factor to wildfire risk.

The University of California Davis’s McLaughlin Reserve, located approximately 33 miles east of the project site, is an open space reserve with a field station that monitors weather data, including average wind speeds. The McLaughlin Reserve is located in an area with a similar climate as the City and as such, similar average wind speeds. At the McLaughlin Reserve/Knoxville Creek Station, the average wind speed from April 2024 to April 2025 was 5.9 mph.87 The project site would be expected to experience similar wind speed conditions as experienced at the McLaughlin Reserve/Knoxville Creek Station and would thus not be susceptible to significantly high wind speeds that could exacerbate risk due to the spread of wildfires.
86 City of Cloverdale. 2021. General Plan. Chapter 10: Public Health and Safety Element Background Report. Website:
https://www.cloverdale.net/DocumentCenter/View/4949/Cloverdale_GP_BG_Chap_10_PHS_2021-11-10. Accessed April 16, 2025.
87 Western Regional Climate Center. 2019. Knoxville Creek California Station Daily Summary. Website:
https://wrcc.dri.edu/cgi-bin/rawMAIN.pl?caCKNO. Accessed April 16, 2025. 262

SOD A SPRINGS RANCH OPEN SPACE PRESERV E

INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
138 FCS
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/4859/48590006/ISMND/48590006 Soda Springs Ranch Open Space Preserve ISMND.docx The recreational uses at the project site would not change. As such, the proposed project would not result in increased exposure to wildfire risks. In fact, part of the proposed project is to maintain an existing shaded fuel break between the conservation space and the residences along Port Circle, reducing wildfire risks. As such, impacts would be less than significant. c) Require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment?
Less than significant impact. The proposed project would not require any modification to existing sewer lines, electricity, or natural gas lines. The proposed project would involve the maintenance of an existing fuel break in partnership with the Northern Sonoma County Fire Department. This is expected to reduce wildfire risk. Vegetation management typically does not result in ongoing impacts to the environment. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. d) Expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes?
Less than significant impact. The last fire to occur within the project site was in 1945; since then, the project site has not been affected by previous wildfires in recent years that could have resulted in drainage changes or loss of vegetation.88 Although the project site contains steep slopes that range from 780 MSL to 1100 MSL, and thus risks of landslides, the majority of these slopes would be preserved as open space. Additionally, the closure of the 0.90 miles of existing trail and the construction of 0.94 miles of new trail would not result in a net loss in vegetation. Furthermore, modifications to the existing on-site drainage system would be limited to improvements to existing onsite features to prevent post-fire slope instability or runoff, including the removal of several large culverts to prevent trail erosion. Thus, impacts related to flooding and landslide hazards due to postfire slope instability or drainage changes would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures
None.
88 California Department of Fire (CAL FIRE). California Historical Fire Perimeters ArcGIS Map Viewer. Website:
https://gis.data.ca.gov/maps/c3c10388e3b24cec8a954ba10458039d/about. Accessed April 16, 2025. 263

SOD A SPRINGS RANCH OPEN SPACE PRESERV E

INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
FCS 139
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/4859/48590006/ISMND/48590006 Soda Springs Ranch Open Space Preserve ISMND.docx Environmental Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact

2.20 Mandatory Findings of Significance
a) Does the project have the potential to
substantially degrade the quality of the
environment, substantially reduce the habitat of
a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife
population to drop below self-sustaining levels,
threaten to eliminate a plant or animal
community, substantially reduce the number or
restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant
or animal, or eliminate important examples of
the major periods of California history or
prehistory?
b) Does the project have impacts that are
individually limited, but cumulatively
considerable? (“Cumulatively considerable”
means that the incremental effects of a project
are considerable when viewed in connection
with the effects of past projects, the effects of
other current projects, and the effects of
probable future projects)?
c) Does the project have environmental effects,
which will cause substantial adverse effects on
human beings, either directly or indirectly?
Environmental Evaluation
a) Does the project have the potential to substantially degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, substantially reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal, or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory?
Less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated. The proposed project may result in impacts associated with air quality, GHG emissions, biological, cultural, geology and soils, hazards and hazardous materials, noise, and transportation resources that could be significant if left 264

SOD A SPRINGS RANCH OPEN SPACE PRESERV E

INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
140 FCS
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/4859/48590006/ISMND/48590006 Soda Springs Ranch Open Space Preserve ISMND.docx unmitigated. Implementation of mitigation measures as outlined in the respective sections of this Draft IS/MND would fully mitigate all potential impacts on these resources to levels that are less than significant.
b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (“Cumulatively considerable” means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)?
Less than significant cumulative impact with mitigation incorporated. Implementation of mitigation as outlined in this Draft IS/MND would reduce all potentially significant impacts to less than significant. Given the proposed project’s size and impacts with associated mitigation measures, the incremental effects of this project are not considerable relative to the effects of past, current, and probable future projects. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in cumulatively considerable impacts and impacts would be less than significant. c) Does the project have environmental effects, which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? Less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated. As described throughout the preceding checklist portion of this Draft IS/MND, the proposed project would not have any substantial environmental effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly. All impacts identified throughout this document either do not require mitigation or would be mitigated to levels that are less than significant. The proposed mitigation measures, once implemented, would ensure that no substantial adverse effects on human beings would result from the project. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant with mitigation.

Mitigation Measures
Implement MM AIR-1, MM BIO-1, MM CUL-1, MM GEO-1a, MM GEO-1b, MM GEO-1c, and MM HAZ-1.
265
Soda Springs Ranch Open Space Preserve
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
FCS 141
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/4859/48590006/ISMND/48590006 Soda Springs Ranch Open Space Preserve ISMND.docx 3 - LIST OF PREPARERS
FirstCarbon Solutions
2999 Oak Road, Suite 250
Walnut Creek, CA 94597
Phone: 925.357.2562
Project Director........................................................................................................................Mary Bean Project Manager ............................................................................................................... Madolyn Dolan Legal Counsel................................................................................................................. Megan Starr, JD Director of Biological and Cultural Resources................................................ Dana DePietro, PhD, RPA Field Manager....................................................................................................................Natalie Adame Senior Biologist ..................................................................................................................Robert Carroll Managing Biologist/Lead Arboriculturist .........................................................................Hannah Carney Associate Biologist ...........................................................................................................Juliet Simpson Director of Noise and Air Quality ............................................................................. Phil Ault, LEED® AP Senior Air Quality Scientist ................................................................................................ Jackie Winkel Noise Associate II .............................................................................................................Sara Landucci Analyst ................................................................................................................................. Heather Carr Senior Managing Editor........................................................................................................ Susie Harris Publications Manager............................................................................................................. Alec Harris Technical Editor ...................................................................................................................... Sarah Vine Technical Document Manager....................................................................................... Melissa Ramirez GIS/Graphics .............................................................................................................. Karlee McCracken GIS/Graphics ................................................................................................................Sebastian Macias 266

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
267
Soda Springs Ranch Open Space Preserve
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
FCS
Appendix A:

Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas
Emissions Supporting Information
268

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
269
Soda Springs Open Space Preserve Custom Report, 5/9/2025 Soda Springs Open Space Preserve Custom Report
Table of Contents

1. Basic Project Information

1.1. Basic Project Information

1.2. Land Use Types

1.3. User-Selected Emission Reduction Measures by Emissions Sector

2. Emissions Summary

2.1. Construction Emissions Compared Against Thresholds

2.2. Construction Emissions by Year, Unmitigated

2.4. Operations Emissions Compared Against Thresholds

2.5. Operations Emissions by Sector, Unmitigated

3. Construction Emissions Details

3.1. Demolition (2026) - Unmitigated

3.3. Site Preparation (2026) - Unmitigated

3.5. Grading (2026) - Unmitigated

3.7. Paving (2026) - Unmitigated

4. Operations Emissions Details
Soda Springs Preserve - Appendix A 1
270
Soda Springs Open Space Preserve Custom Report, 5/9/2025

4.1. Mobile Emissions by Land Use

4.1.1. Unmitigated

4.2. Energy

4.2.1. Electricity Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated

4.2.3. Natural Gas Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated

4.3. Area Emissions by Source

4.3.1. Unmitigated

4.4. Water Emissions by Land Use

4.4.1. Unmitigated

4.5. Waste Emissions by Land Use

4.5.1. Unmitigated

4.6. Refrigerant Emissions by Land Use

4.6.1. Unmitigated

4.7. Offroad Emissions By Equipment Type

4.7.1. Unmitigated

4.8. Stationary Emissions By Equipment Type

4.8.1. Unmitigated

4.9. User Defined Emissions By Equipment Type
Soda Springs Preserve - Appendix A 2
271
Soda Springs Open Space Preserve Custom Report, 5/9/2025

4.9.1. Unmitigated

4.10. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type

4.10.1. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type - Unmitigated

4.10.2. Above and Belowground Carbon Accumulation by Land Use Type - Unmitigated

4.10.3. Avoided and Sequestered Emissions by Species - Unmitigated

5. Activity Data

5.1. Construction Schedule

5.2. Off-Road Equipment

5.2.1. Unmitigated

5.3. Construction Vehicles

5.3.1. Unmitigated

5.4. Vehicles

5.4.1. Construction Vehicle Control Strategies

5.5. Architectural Coatings

5.6. Dust Mitigation

5.6.1. Construction Earthmoving Activities

5.6.2. Construction Earthmoving Control Strategies

5.7. Construction Paving
Soda Springs Preserve - Appendix A 3
272
Soda Springs Open Space Preserve Custom Report, 5/9/2025

5.8. Construction Electricity Consumption and Emissions Factors

5.9. Operational Mobile Sources

5.9.1. Unmitigated

5.10. Operational Area Sources

5.10.1. Hearths

5.10.1.1. Unmitigated

5.10.2. Architectural Coatings

5.10.3. Landscape Equipment

5.11. Operational Energy Consumption

5.11.1. Unmitigated

5.12. Operational Water and Wastewater Consumption

5.12.1. Unmitigated

5.13. Operational Waste Generation

5.13.1. Unmitigated

5.14. Operational Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Equipment

5.14.1. Unmitigated

5.15. Operational Off-Road Equipment

5.15.1. Unmitigated
Soda Springs Preserve - Appendix A 4
273
Soda Springs Open Space Preserve Custom Report, 5/9/2025

5.16. Stationary Sources

5.16.1. Emergency Generators and Fire Pumps

5.16.2. Process Boilers

5.17. User Defined
Soda Springs Preserve - Appendix A 5
274
Soda Springs Open Space Preserve Custom Report, 5/9/2025

1. Basic Project Information

1.1. Basic Project Information
Data Field Value
Project Name Soda Springs Open Space Preserve
Construction Start Date 1/1/2026
Operational Year 2026
Lead Agency —
Land Use Scale Project/site
Analysis Level for Defaults County
Windspeed (m/s) 2.20
Precipitation (days) 49.6
Location 600 W Cherry Creek Rd, Cloverdale, CA 95425, USA County Sonoma-North Coast
City Unincorporated
Air District Northern Sonoma County APCD
Air Basin North Coast
TAZ 886
EDFZ 2
Electric Utility Sonoma Clean Power
Gas Utility Pacific Gas & Electric
App Version 2022.1.1.29

1.2. Land Use Types
Land Use Subtype Size Unit Lot Acreage Building Area (sq ft) Landscape Area (sq ft)
Special Landscape
Area (sq ft)
Population Description
Soda Springs Preserve - Appendix A 6
275
Soda Springs Open Space Preserve Custom Report, 5/9/2025 City Park 2.50 Acre 2.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 — Includes the
construction of 2.1
miles of trails
(unpaved,
according to City).
205.51 acres of the
site will remain
untouched and
preserved as open
space.

Other Asphalt
Surfaces

1.00 Acre 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — Includes parking lot
for 8 cars, assumed
to be asphalt,
culvert expansion,
ADA parking
spaces, widening of
access entry area
to accommodate
fire trucks, and tree
removal

1.3. User-Selected Emission Reduction Measures by Emissions Sector No measures selected

2. Emissions Summary

2.1. Construction Emissions Compared Against Thresholds Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Un/Mit. TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 39.2 38.2 37.0 86.8 0.07 2.07 7.97 10.0 1.80 4.01 5.82 — 7,893 7,893 0.32 0.09 0.04 7,930 Average
Daily
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 2.35 2.26 3.45 6.52 0.01 0.17 0.61 0.78 0.15 0.30 0.45 — 731 731 0.03 0.01 0.07 735 Soda Springs Preserve - Appendix A 7
276
Soda Springs Open Space Preserve Custom Report, 5/9/2025 Annual
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 0.43 0.41 0.63 1.19 < 0.005 0.03 0.11 0.14 0.03 0.05 0.08 — 121 121 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 122

2.2. Construction Emissions by Year, Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Year TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily -
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily -
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2026 39.2 38.2 37.0 86.8 0.07 2.07 7.97 10.0 1.80 4.01 5.82 — 7,893 7,893 0.32 0.09 0.04 7,930 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2026 2.35 2.26 3.45 6.52 0.01 0.17 0.61 0.78 0.15 0.30 0.45 — 731 731 0.03 0.01 0.07 735 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2026 0.43 0.41 0.63 1.19 < 0.005 0.03 0.11 0.14 0.03 0.05 0.08 — 121 121 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 122

2.4. Operations Emissions Compared Against Thresholds
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Un/Mit. TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 0.12 0.11 0.06 0.42 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.05 0.05 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 0.00 63.6 63.6 0.01 < 0.005 0.24 65.3 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 0.11 0.11 0.07 0.48 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.05 0.05 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 0.00 61.6 61.6 0.01 < 0.005 0.01 63.2 Soda Springs Preserve - Appendix A 8
277
Soda Springs Open Space Preserve Custom Report, 5/9/2025 Average
Daily
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 0.07 0.06 0.04 0.25 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 0.03 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 0.00 35.5 35.5 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.06 36.5 Annual
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.05 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 5.88 5.88 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 6.04

2.5. Operations Emissions by Sector, Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Sector TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 0.11 0.11 0.06 0.42 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.05 0.05 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 — 63.6 63.6 0.01 < 0.005 0.24 65.3 Area < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Energy 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Water — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00
Total 0.12 0.11 0.06 0.42 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.05 0.05 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 0.00 63.6 63.6 0.01 < 0.005 0.24 65.3 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 0.11 0.11 0.07 0.48 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.05 0.05 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 — 61.6 61.6 0.01 < 0.005 0.01 63.2 Area < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Energy 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Water — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00
Total 0.11 0.11 0.07 0.48 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.05 0.05 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 0.00 61.6 61.6 0.01 < 0.005 0.01 63.2 Soda Springs Preserve - Appendix A 9
278
Soda Springs Open Space Preserve Custom Report, 5/9/2025 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 0.06 0.06 0.04 0.25 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 0.03 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 — 35.5 35.5 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.06 36.5 Area < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Energy 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Water — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00
Total 0.07 0.06 0.04 0.25 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 0.03 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 0.00 35.5 35.5 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.06 36.5 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.05 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 5.88 5.88 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 6.04 Area < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Energy 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Water — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00
Total 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.05 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 5.88 5.88 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 6.04

3. Construction Emissions Details

3.1. Demolition (2026) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Soda Springs Preserve - Appendix A 10
279
Soda Springs Open Space Preserve Custom Report, 5/9/2025 Off-Roa
Equipment

2.72 2.29 20.7 19.0 0.03 0.84 — 0.84 0.78 — 0.78 — 3,427 3,427 0.14 0.03 — 3,438 Demoliti
on
— — — — — — 0.18 0.18 — 0.03 0.03 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

0.04 0.03 0.28 0.26 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 46.9 46.9 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 47.1 Demoliti
on
— — — — — — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — — — — — — — Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

0.01 0.01 0.05 0.05 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 7.77 7.77 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 7.80 Demoliti
on
— — — — — — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — — — — — — — Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.81 0.00 0.00 0.12 0.12 0.00 0.03 0.03 — 122 122 0.01 0.01 0.01 124 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling < 0.005 < 0.005 0.21 0.03 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.04 0.04 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 — 152 152 < 0.005 0.02 0.01 159 Soda Springs Preserve - Appendix A 11
280
Soda Springs Open Space Preserve Custom Report, 5/9/2025 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.70 1.70 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.73 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 2.08 2.08 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 2.18 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.28 0.28 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.29 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.34 0.34 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.36

← All documents from this meeting