FINAL
ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT
REPORT
FOR
THE
2013 COTATI GENERAL
PLAN
UPDATE
SCH# 2013082037
NOVEMBER
2014
Prepared
for:
City
of
Cotati
Community
Development
Department
201
West
Sierra
Avenue
Cotati,
CA
94931
Prepared
by:
De
Novo
Planning
Group
1020
Suncast
Lane,
Suite
106
El
Dorado
Hills,
CA
95762
www.denovoplanning.com
De
Novo
Planning
Group
A
Land
Use
Planning,
Design,
and
Environmental
Firm
FINAL
ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT
REPORT
FOR
THE
2013 COTATI
GENERAL
PLAN
UPDATE
SCH# 2013082037
NOVEMBER
2014
Prepared
for:
City
of
Cotati
Community
Development
Department
201
West
Sierra
Avenue
Cotati,
CA
94931
Prepared
by:
De
Novo
Planning
Group
1020
Suncast
Lane,
Suite
106
El
Dorado
Hills,
CA
95762
www.denovoplanning.com
TABLE
OF
CONTENTS TOC
Final
Environmental
Impact
Report
– 2013
Cotati
General
Plan TOC-‐1
FINAL
EIR
Chapter Page
Number
Executive
Summary .................................................................................................................... ES-‐1
1.0 Introduction ........................................................................................................................1.0-‐1
1.1 Purpose
and
Intended
Uses
of
the
EIR ...................................................................1.0-‐1
1.2 Environmental
Review
Process ..............................................................................1.0-‐2
1.3 Organization
of
the
Final
EIR ..................................................................................1.0-‐4
2.0 Comments
on
Draft
EIR
and
Responses..............................................................................2.0-‐1
2.1 Introduction............................................................................................................2.0-‐1
2.2 List
of
Commenters ................................................................................................2.0-‐1
2.3 Comments
and
Responses .....................................................................................2.0-‐2
3.0 Errata...................................................................................................................................3.0-‐1
3.1 Revisions
to
the
Draft
EIR.......................................................................................3.0-‐1 Table Page
Number
Table
2-‐1:
List
of
Commenters
on
Draft
EIR ..............................................................................2.0-‐1
TOC TABLE
OF
CONTENTS
TOC-‐2 Final
Environmental
Impact
Report
– 2013
Cotati
General
Plan
This
page
left
intentionally
blank.
EXECUTIVE
SUMMARY ES
Final
Environmental
Impact
Report
– 2013
Cotati
General
Plan ES-‐1
INTRODUCTION
The
City
of
Cotati
(City)
has
determined
that
a
program-‐level
environmental
impact
report
(EIR)
is
required
for
the
proposed
2013
General
Plan
(Project)
pursuant
to
the
requirements
of
the
California
Environmental
Quality
Act
(CEQA).
CEQA
requires
the
preparation
of
an
EIR
prior
to
approving
any
project,
which
may
have
a
significant
impact
on
the
environment.
For
the
purposes
of
CEQA,
the
term
"Project"
refers
to
the
whole
of
an
action,
which
has
the
potential
for
resulting
in
a
direct
physical
change
or
a
reasonably
foreseeable
indirect
physical
change
in
the
environment
(CEQA
Guidelines
Section
15378[a]).
A
Program
EIR
is
an
EIR
which
examines
the
environmental
impacts
of
an
agency
plan,
policy,
or
regulatory
program,
such
as
a
general
plan
update.
Program
EIRs
analyze
broad
environmental
impacts
of
the
program,
with
the
acknowledgement
that
site-‐specific
environmental
review
may
be
required
for
particular
aspects
of
the
program,
or
particular
development
projects
that
may
occur
in
the
future.
Cotati
circulated
a
Notice
of
Preparation
(NOP)
of
an
EIR
for
the
proposed
project
on
August
12,
2013
to
trustee
and
responsible
agencies,
the
State
Clearinghouse,
and
the
public.
A
scoping
meeting
was
held
on
August
19,
2013
with
the
Cotati
Planning
Commission.
Subsequently,
Cotati
published
a
public
Notice
of
Availability
(NOA)
for
the
Draft
EIR
on
September
9,
2014,
inviting
comment
from
the
general
public,
agencies,
organizations,
and
other
interested
parties.
The
NOA
was
filed
with
the
State
Clearinghouse
(SCH#
2013082037)
and
was
published
in
the
Press
Democrat
pursuant
to
the
public
noticing
requirements
of
CEQA.
The
Draft
EIR
was
available
for
public
review
from
September
9,
2014
through
October
24,
2014.
The
Public
Draft
2013
General
Plan
was
also
available
for
public
review
and
comment
during
this
time
period.
This
Final
EIR
was
prepared
to
address
comments
received
in
response
to
the
Draft
EIR.
The
City
has
prepared
a
written
response
to
the
Draft
EIR
comments
and
made
textual
changes
to
the
Draft
EIR
where
warranted.
The
responses
to
the
comments
are
provided
in
this
Final
EIR
in
Section
2.0,
and
all
changes
to
the
text
of
the
Draft
EIR
are
summarized
in
Section
3.0. Responses
to
comments
received
during
the
comment
period
do
not
involve
any
new
significant
impacts
or
“significant
new
information”
that
would
require
recirculation
of
the
Draft
EIR
pursuant
to
CEQA
Guidelines
Section
15088.5.
PROJECT
DESCRIPTION
The
2013
Cotati
General
Plan
is
the
overarching
policy
document
that
guides
land
use,
housing,
transportation,
infrastructure,
community
services,
and
other
policy
decisions
throughout
Cotati.
The
General
Plan
includes
the
seven
elements
mandated
by
State
law,
to
the
extent
that
they
are
relevant
locally,
including:
Circulation,
Conservation,
Housing,
Land
Use,
Noise,
Open
Space,
and
Safety.
The
City
may
also
address
other
topics
of
interest;
this
General
Plan
includes
Community
Health
and
Wellness,
Community
Services
and
Facilities,
and
Economic
Vitality
Elements.
The
General
Plan
sets
out
the
goals,
policies,
and
programs
in
each
of
these
areas
and
serves
as
a
policy
guide
for
how
the
City
will
make
key
planning
decisions
in
the
future,
and
how
the
City
will
ES EXECUTIVE
SUMMARY
ES-‐2 Final
Environmental
Impact
Report
– 2013
Cotati
General
Plan
interact
with
the
Sonoma
County,
surrounding
cities,
and
other
local,
regional,
State,
and
Federal
agencies.
The
General
Plan
contains
the
goals
and
policies
that
will
guide
future
decisions
within
the
city.
It
also
identifies
actions
that
will
ensure
the
goals
and
policies
in
the
General
Plan
are
carried
out.
Refer
to
Section
2.0 (Project
Description)
of
the
Draft
EIR
for
a
more
comprehensive
description
of
the
details
of
the
proposed
project.
ALTERNATIVES
TO
THE
PROPOSED
PROJECT
Section
15126.6
of
the
CEQA
Guidelines
requires
an
EIR
to
describe
a
reasonable
range
of
alternatives
to
the
project
or
to
the
location
of
the
project
which
would
reduce
or
avoid
significant
impacts,
and
which
could
feasibly
accomplish
the
basic
objectives
of
the
proposed
project.
The
alternatives
analyzed
in
this
EIR
are
briefly
described
as
follows:
• Alternative
1:
No
Project
Alternative.
Under
Alternative
1,
the
City
would
not
adopt
the
General
Plan
Update.
The
1998
General
Plan
would
continue
to
be
implemented
and
no
changes
to
the
General
Plan,
including
the
Land
Use
Map
(see
Figure
3.9-‐3),
Circulation
Diagram,
goals,
policies,
or
actions
would
occur.
Subsequent
projects,
such
as
amending
the
Municipal
Code,
including
the
Land
Use
Code
and
zoning
map,
and
the
Design
Review
Criteria
would
not
occur.
• Alternative
2:
Open
Space
and
Parks/Reduced
Development
Alternative.
As
shown
on
Figure
5.0-‐1,
Alternative
2 would
revise
the
General
Plan
Update
to
increase
the
amount
of
open
space
and
parks
uses
and
reduce
development
associated
with
commercial,
industrial,
and
residential
uses.
General
Commercial,
Commercial
Industrial,
and
Low
Medium
Density
Residential
uses
would
be
decreased
in
the
City
and
SOI
and
would
be
replaced
with
less
intense
uses,
primarily
Open
Space/Parks.
This
alternative
was
developed
to
reduce
impacts
associated
with
scenic
resources,
traffic
noise,
traffic
impacts
to
US
101
and
SR
116,
and
to
reduce
cumulative
impacts
associated
with
development.
• Alternative
3:
Reduced
Land
Use
Intensity
Alternative.
Under
Alternative
3,
urban
and
industrial
development
under
the
General
Plan
Update
Land
Use
Map
would
be
focused
more
tightly
around
the
City
as
shown
on
Figure
5.0-‐2.
General
Commercial,
Commercial
Industrial,
and
Low
Medium
Density
Residential
uses
would
be
decreased
in
the
City
and
SOI
and
would
be
replaced
with
less
intense
uses,
such
as
agricultural
and
rural
residential.
This
alternative
was
developed
to
reduce
impacts
associated
with
scenic
resources,
traffic
noise,
traffic
impacts
to
US
101
and
SR
116,
and
to
reduce
cumulative
impacts
associated
with
development.
Alternatives
are
described
in
detail
in
Section
5.0 of
the
Draft
EIR.
As
summarized
in
Table
5-‐7
of
the
Draft
EIR,
Alternative
2 (Open
Space
and
Parks/Reduced
Development)
is
the
environmentally
superior
alternative
because
it
provides
the
greatest
reduction
of
potential
impacts
in
comparison
to
the
other
alternatives.
EXECUTIVE
SUMMARY ES
ES-‐3 Final
Environmental
Impact
Report
– 2013
Cotati
General
Plan
COMMENTS
RECEIVED
The
Draft
EIR
addresses
environmental
impacts
associated
with
the
proposed
project
that
were
known
to
the
City,
raised
during
the
Notice
of
Preparation
(NOP)
process,
or
raised
during
preparation
of
the
Draft
EIR.
The
Draft
EIR
discusses
potentially
significant
impacts
associated
with
aesthetics/visual
resources,
air
quality,
biological/natural
resources,
cultural
resources,
geology/soils/minerals,
greenhouse
gases/climate
change,
hazards,
hydrology/water
quality,
land
use/agricultural
resources/population,
noise,
public
services/recreation,
transportation/circulation,
utilities,
and
cumulative
impacts.
NOP
Comments
During
the
NOP
process,
the
City
received
one
comment
letter
from
the
California
Public
Utilities
Commission.
Draft
EIR
Comments
During
the
Draft
EIR
review
process,
the
City
received
comments
from
the
following
public
agencies,
organizations,
or
individuals:
• Erik
Alm,
Caltrans
• Beth
Dadko,
Sonoma
County
• Jenny
Blaker,
Resident
• Bryant
R.
Moynihan,
Nexus
Realty
Group
• Robin
Miller,
Cotati
Vintners
Collective
• Robin
Miller,
Highway
116
Associated
Investors
• Robin
Miller,
Townsend
Capital
Partners
• Linell
Hardy,
Resident
Acting
as
lead
agency,
the
City
of
Cotati
has
prepared
a
response
to
the
Draft
EIR
comments.
The
responses
to
the
comments
are
provided
in
this
Final
EIR
in
Section
2.0 (Comments
on
Draft
EIR
and
Responses)
and
all
changes
to
the
text
of
the
Draft
EIR
are
summarized
in
Section
3.0 (Errata).
Responses
to
comments
received
during
the
comment
period
do
not
involve
any
new
significant
impacts
or
“significant
new
information”
that
would
require
recirculation
of
the
Draft
EIR
pursuant
to
CEQA
Guidelines
Section
15088.5.
ES EXECUTIVE
SUMMARY
ES-‐4 Final
Environmental
Impact
Report
– 2013
Cotati
General
Plan
This
page
left
intentionally
blank.
INTRODUCTION 1.0
Final
Environmental
Impact
Report
– 2013
Cotati
General
Plan 1.0-‐1
This
Final
Environmental
Impact
Report
(FEIR)
was
prepared
in
accordance
with
the
California
Environmental
Quality
Act
(CEQA)
and
the
State
CEQA
Guidelines
(Section
15132).
The
City
of
Cotati
is
the
lead
agency
for
the
environmental
review
of
the
2013
Cotati
General
Plan
(General
Plan,
General
Plan
Update,
or
Project)
and
has
the
principal
responsibility
for
approving
the
project.
This
FEIR
assesses
the
expected
environmental
impacts
resulting
from
approval
and
adoption
of
the
2013
Cotati
General
Plan
and
responds
to
comments
received
on
the
Draft
EIR.
The
2013
Cotati
General
Plan
is
the
overarching
policy
document
that
guides
land
use,
housing,
transportation,
infrastructure,
community
services,
and
other
policy
decisions
throughout
Cotati.
The
General
Plan
includes
the
seven
elements
mandated
by
State
law,
to
the
extent
that
they
are
relevant
locally,
including:
Circulation,
Conservation,
Housing,
Land
Use,
Noise,
Open
Space,
and
Safety.
The
City
may
also
address
other
topics
of
interest;
this
General
Plan
includes
Community
Health
and
Wellness,
Community
Services
and
Facilities,
and
Economic
Vitality
Elements.
The
General
Plan
sets
out
the
goals,
policies,
and
programs
in
each
of
these
areas
and
serves
as
a
policy
guide
for
how
the
City
will
make
key
planning
decisions
in
the
future,
and
how
the
City
will
interact
with
the
Sonoma
County,
surrounding
cities,
and
other
local,
regional,
State,
and
Federal
agencies.
1.1 PURPOSE
AND
INTENDED
USES
OF
THE
EIR
CEQA REQUIREMENTS
FOR
A
FINAL
EIR
This
FEIR
for
the
2013
Cotati
General
Plan
has
been
prepared
in
accordance
with
the
California
Environmental
Quality
Act
(CEQA)
and
State
CEQA
Guidelines.
State
CEQA
Guidelines
Section
15132
requires
that
an
FEIR
consist
of
the
following:
• the
Draft
Environmental
Impact
Report
(Draft
EIR)
or
a
revision
of
the
draft;
• comments
and
recommendations
received
on
the
Draft
EIR,
either
verbatim
or
in
summary;
• a
list
of
persons,
organizations,
and
public
agencies
commenting
on
the
Draft
EIR;
• the
responses
of
the
lead
agency
to
significant
environmental
concerns
raised
in
the
review
and
consultation
process;
and
• any
other
information
added
by
the
lead
agency.
In
accordance
with
State
CEQA
Guidelines
Section
15132(a),
the
Draft
EIR
is
incorporated
by
reference
into
this
Final
EIR.
An
EIR
must
disclose
the
expected
environmental
impacts,
including
impacts
that
cannot
be
avoided,
growth-‐inducing
effects,
impacts
found
not
to
be
significant,
and
significant
cumulative
impacts,
as
well
as
identify
mitigation
measures
and
alternatives
to
the
proposed
project
that
could
reduce
or
avoid
its
adverse
environmental
impacts.
CEQA
requires
government
agencies
to
consider
and,
where
feasible,
minimize
environmental
impacts
of
proposed
projects,
and
obligates
them
to
balance
a
variety
of
public
objectives,
including
economic,
environmental,
and
social
factors.
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.0-‐2 Final
Environmental
Impact
Report
– 2013
Cotati
General
Plan
PURPOSE
AND
USE
The
City
of
Cotati,
as
the
lead
agency,
has
prepared
this
Final
EIR
to
provide
the
public
and
responsible
and
trustee
agencies
with
an
objective
analysis
of
the
potential
environmental
impacts
resulting
from
approval
and
implementation
of
the
2013
General
Plan.
Responsible
and
trustee
agencies
that
may
use
the
EIR
are
identified
in
Chapter
1.0 of
the
Draft
EIR.
The
environmental
review
process
enables
interested
parties
to
evaluate
the
proposed
project
in
terms
of
its
environmental
consequences,
to
examine
and
recommend
methods
to
eliminate
or
reduce
potential
adverse
impacts,
and
to
consider
a
reasonable
range
of
alternatives
to
the
project.
While
CEQA
requires
that
consideration
be
given
to
avoiding
adverse
environmental
effects,
the
lead
agency
must
balance
adverse
environmental
effects
against
other
public
objectives,
including
the
economic
and
social
benefits
of
a
project,
in
determining
whether
a
project
should
be
approved.
This
EIR
will
be
used
as
the
primary
environmental
document
to
evaluate
all
subsequent
planning
and
permitting
actions
associated
with
the
proposed
project.
Subsequent
actions
that
may
be
associated
with
the
proposed
project
are
identified
in
Chapter
2.0 (Project
Description)
of
the
Draft
EIR.
This
EIR
may
also
be
used
by
other
agencies
within
Sonoma
County,
including
the
Sonoma
Local
Agency
Formation
Commission
(LAFCO),
which
may
use
this
EIR
during
the
preparation
of
environmental
documents
related
to
annexations,
Municipal
Service
Reviews,
and
Sphere
of
Influence
decisions
in
the
Cotati
Planning
Area.
1.2 ENVIRONMENTAL
REVIEW
PROCESS
The
review
and
certification
process
for
the
EIR
has
involved,
or
will
involve,
the
following
general
procedural
steps:
NOTICE
OF
PREPARATION
The
City
of
Cotati
circulated
a
Notice
of
Preparation
(NOP)
of
an
EIR
for
the
proposed
project
on
August
12,
2013
to
trustee
and
responsible
agencies,
the
State
Clearinghouse,
and
the
public.
A
scoping
meeting
was
held
on
August
19,
2013
with
the
Cotati
Planning
Commission.
No
public
or
agency
comments
on
the
NOP
related
to
the
EIR
analysis
were
presented
or
submitted
during
the
scoping
meeting.
However,
during
the
30-‐day
public
review
period
for
the
NOP,
which
ended
on
September
12,
2013,
a
written
comment
letter
from
the
California
Public
Utilities
Commission
(CPUC)
was
received.
A
summary
of
the
CPUC
comment
is
provided
later
in
this
chapter.
The
NOP
and
all
comments
received
on
it
are
presented
in
Appendix
A
of
the
Draft
EIR.
NOTICE
OF
AVAILABILITY
AND
DRAFT
EIR
The
City
of
Cotati
published
a
public
Notice
of
Availability
(NOA)
for
the
Draft
EIR
on
September
9,
2014,
inviting
comment
from
the
general
public,
agencies,
organizations,
and
other
interested
parties.
The
NOA
was
filed
with
the
State
Clearinghouse
(SCH#
2013082037)
and
was
published
in
the
Press
Democrat
pursuant
to
the
public
noticing
requirements
of
CEQA.
The
Draft
EIR
was
INTRODUCTION 1.0
Final
Environmental
Impact
Report
– 2013
Cotati
General
Plan 1.0-‐3
available
for
public
review
from
September
9,
2014
through
October
24,
2014.
The
Public
Draft
2013
General
Plan
was
also
available
for
public
review
and
comment
during
this
time
period.
The
Draft
EIR
contains
a
description
of
the
project,
description
of
the
environmental
setting,
identification
of
project
impacts,
and
mitigation
measures
for
impacts
found
to
be
significant,
as
well
as
an
analysis
of
project
alternatives,
identification
of
significant
irreversible
environmental
changes,
growth-‐inducing
impacts,
and
cumulative
impacts.
The
Draft
EIR
identifies
issues
determined
to
have
no
impact
or
a
less
than
significant
impact,
and
provides
detailed
analysis
of
potentially
significant
and
significant
impacts.
Comments
received
in
response
to
the
NOP
were
considered
in
preparing
the
analysis
in
the
Draft
EIR.
RESPONSE
TO
COMMENTS/FINAL
EIR
The
City
of
Cotati
received
eight
comment
letters
regarding
the
Draft
General
Plan
and
Draft
EIR
from
public
agencies,
organizations,
and
members
of
the
public
during
the
45-‐day
review
period.
In
accordance
with
CEQA
Guidelines
Section
15088,
this
Final
EIR
responds
to
the
written
comments
received
on
the
Draft
EIR.
The
Final
EIR
also
contains
minor
edits
to
the
Draft
EIR,
which
are
included
in
Chapter
3.0 (Errata).
This
document
and
the
Draft
EIR,
as
amended
herein,
constitute
the
Final
EIR.
CERTIFICATION
OF
THE
EIR/PROJECT
CONSIDERATION
The
Cotati
City
Council
will
review
and
consider
the
Final
EIR.
If
the
City
Council
finds
that
the
Final
EIR
is
"adequate
and
complete,"
then
it
may
certify
it
in
accordance
with
CEQA.
The
rule
of
adequacy
generally
holds
that
an
EIR
can
be
certified
if:
1) The
EIR
shows
a
good
faith
effort
at
full
disclosure
of
environmental
information;
and
2) The
EIR
provides
sufficient
analysis
to
allow
decisions
to
be
made
regarding
the
proposed
project
in
contemplation
of
environmental
considerations.
Upon
review
and
consideration
of
the
Final
EIR,
the
Cotati
City
Council
may
take
action
to
approve,
revise,
or
reject
the
project.
A
decision
to
approve
the
2013
Cotati
General
Plan,
for
which
this
EIR
identifies
significant
environmental
effects,
must
be
accompanied
by
written
findings
in
accordance
with
State
CEQA
Guidelines
Sections
15091
and
15093.
Policies
and
actions
to
mitigate
potential
environmental
impacts
have
been
incorporated
into
the
project,
to
the
extent
feasible.
No
additional
mitigation
is
feasible
or
available,
as
described
in
Chapters
3.1 through
4.0 of
the
Draft
EIR.
The
annual
report
on
general
plan
status
required
pursuant
to
the
Government
Code
will
serve
as
the
monitoring
and
reporting
program
for
the
project.
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.0-‐4 Final
Environmental
Impact
Report
– 2013
Cotati
General
Plan
1.3 ORGANIZATION
OF
THE
FINAL
EIR
This
Final
EIR
has
been
prepared
consistent
with
Section
15132
of
the
State
CEQA
Guidelines,
which
identifies
the
content
requirements
for
Final
EIRs.
This
Final
EIR
is
organized
in
the
following
manner:
CHAPTER
1.0 – INTRODUCTION
Chapter
1.0 briefly
describes
the
purpose
of
the
environmental
evaluation,
identifies
the
lead
agency,
summarizes
the
process
associated
with
preparation
and
certification
of
an
EIR,
and
identifies
the
content
requirements
and
organization
of
the
Final
EIR.
CHAPTER
2.0 – COMMENTS
ON
DRAFT
EIR
AND
RESPONSES
Chapter
2.0 provides
a
list
of
commenters,
copies
of
written
comments
made
on
the
Draft
EIR
(coded
for
reference),
and
responses
to
those
written
comments.
CHAPTER
3.0 -‐ ERRATA
Chapter
3.0 consists
of
minor
revisions
to
the
Draft
EIR
in
response
to
comments
on
the
Draft
EIR.
The
revisions
to
the
Draft
EIR
do
not
change
the
intent
or
content
of
the
analysis
or
mitigation.
COMMENTS
ON
DRAFT
EIR
AND
RESPONSES 2.0
Final
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
2013 Cotati
General
Plan 2.0-‐1
2.1 INTRODUCTION
No
new
significant
environmental
impacts
or
issues,
beyond
those
already
covered
in
the
Draft
Environmental
Impact
Report
(Draft
EIR)
for
the
2013
Cotati
General
Plan
Update,
were
raised
during
the
comment
period.
Responses
to
comments
received
during
the
comment
period
do
not
involve
any
new
significant
impacts
or
“significant
new
information”
that
would
require
recirculation
of
the
Draft
EIR
pursuant
to
CEQA
Guidelines
Section
15088.5.
CEQA
Guidelines
Section
15088.5
states
that:
New
information
added
to
an
EIR
is
not
“significant”
unless
the
EIR
is
changed
in
a
way
that
deprives
the
public
of
a
meaningful
opportunity
to
comment
upon
a
substantial
adverse
environmental
effect
of
the
project
or
a
feasible
way
to
mitigate
or
avoid
such
an
effect
(including
a
feasible
project
alternative)
that
the
project’s
proponents
have
declined
to
implement.
Chapters
2.0 and
3.0 of
this
Final
EIR
include
information
that
has
been
added
to
the
EIR
since
the
close
of
the
public
review
period
in
the
form
of
responses
to
comments
and
errata.
2.2 LIST
OF
COMMENTERS
Table
2-‐1
lists
the
comments
on
the
Draft
EIR
that
were
submitted
to
the
City
during
the
45-‐day
public
review
period.
The
assigned
comment
letter
number,
letter
date,
letter
author,
and
affiliation,
if
presented
in
the
comment
letter
or
if
representing
a
public
agency,
are
also
listed.
TABLE
2-1:
LIST
OF
COMMENTERS
RESPONSE
LETTER
INDIVIDUAL
OR
SIGNATORY
AFFILIATION DATE
A Erik
Alm,
AICP Caltrans 10/24/14
B Beth
Dadko Sonoma
County 10/24/14
C Jenny
Blaker Resident 10/24/14
D Bryant
R.
Moynihan Nexus
Realty
Group 9/9/14
E Robin
Miller Cotati
Vintners
Collective 10/23/14
F Robin
Miller Highway
116
Associated
Investors 10/23/14
G Robin
Miller Townsend
Capital
Partners 10/23/14
H Linell
Hardy Resident 10/24/14
2.0 COMMENTS
ON
DRAFT
EIR
AND
RESPONSES
2.0-‐2 Final
Environmental
Impact
Report
– 2013
Cotati
General
Plan
2.3 COMMENTS
AND
RESPONSES
REQUIREMENTS
FOR
RESPONDING
TO
COMMENTS
ON
A
DRAFT
EIR
CEQA
Guidelines
Section
15088
requires
that
lead
agencies
evaluate
and
respond
to
all
comments
on
the
Draft
EIR
that
regard
an
environmental
issue.
The
written
response
must
address
the
significant
environmental
issue
raised
and
be
detailed,
especially
when
specific
comments
or
suggestions
(e.g.,
additional
mitigation
measures)
are
not
accepted.
In
addition,
the
written
response
must
be
a
good
faith
and
reasoned
analysis.
However,
lead
agencies
only
need
to
respond
to
significant
environmental
issues
associated
with
the
project
and
do
not
need
to
provide
all
of
the
information
requested
by
the
commenter,
as
long
as
a
good
faith
effort
at
full
disclosure
is
made
in
the
EIR
(CEQA
Guidelines
Section
15204(a)).
CEQA
Guidelines
Section
15204
recommends
that
commenters
provide
detailed
comments
that
focus
on
the
sufficiency
of
the
Draft
EIR
in
identifying
and
analyzing
the
possible
environmental
impacts
of
the
project
and
ways
to
avoid
or
mitigate
the
significant
effects
of
the
project,
and
that
commenters
provide
evidence
supporting
their
comments.
Pursuant
to
CEQA
Guidelines
Section
15064,
an
effect
shall
not
be
considered
significant
in
the
absence
of
substantial
evidence.
CEQA
Guidelines
Section
15088
also
recommends
that
revisions
to
the
Draft
EIR
be
noted
as
a
revision
in
the
Draft
EIR
or
as
a
separate
section
of
the
Final
EIR.
Chapter
3.0 of
this
Final
EIR
identifies
all
revisions
to
the
2013
Cotati
General
Plan
Update
Draft
EIR.
RESPONSES
TO
COMMENT
LETTERS
Written
comments
on
the
Draft
EIR
are
reproduced
on
the
following
pages,
along
with
responses
to
those
comments.
To
assist
in
referencing
comments
and
responses,
the
following
coding
system
is
used:
• Each
comment
letter
is
lettered
(i.e.,
Letter
A),
each
comment
within
each
letter
is
numbered
(i.e.,
Comment
A-‐1,
Comment
A-‐2,
etc.),
and
each
response
is
numbered
correspondingly
(i.e.,
Response
A-‐1,
Response
A-‐2,
etc.).
Where
changes
to
the
Draft
EIR
text
result
from
the
response
to
comments,
those
changes
are
included
in
the
response
and
identified
with
revisions
marks
(underline for
new
text, strike
out
for
deleted
text).
COMMENTS
ON
DRAFT
EIR
AND
RESPONSES 2.0
Final
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
2013 Cotati
General
Plan
2.0-‐3
2.0 COMMENTS
ON
DRAFT
EIR
AND
RESPONSES
2.0-‐4 Final
Environmental
Impact
Report
– 2013
Cotati
General
Plan
COMMENTS
ON
DRAFT
EIR
AND
RESPONSES 2.0
Final
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
2013 Cotati
General
Plan
2.0-‐5
Response
to
Letter
A
Erik
Alm,
AICP,
Caltrans
Response
A-‐1: The
commenter
correctly
notes
that
traffic
volumes
at
intersections
4 and
5 are
higher
under
the
General
Plan
Buildout
to
SOI/UGB
alternative
than
they
are
for
the
General
Plan
Buildout
to
City
Limits
alternative,
and
asks
why
the
intersection
levels
of
service
are
not
correspondingly
worse.
The
reason
is
that
the
General
Plan
includes
additional
roadway
improvements
under
the
Buildout
to
SOI/UGB
alternative
beyond
those
assumed
in
the
City
Limits
alternative.
These
additional
improvements
are
identified
on
pages
3.12-‐21
through
3.12-‐23
of
the
DEIR
and
include
a
second
right-‐turn
pocket
on
the
southbound
off-‐ramp,
as
well
as
improvements
at
upstream
and
downstream
intersections
that
allow
the
Gravenstein
Highway
corridor
and
interchange-‐area
intersections
to
operate
more
efficiently
(and
at
better
LOS).
Response
A-‐2: The
commenter
notes
a
typo
regarding
traffic
volumes
on
Intersection
12 on
Figure
3.12-‐9.
The
commenter
is
correct.
The
figure
incorrectly
showed
216
southbound
AM
approach
trips,
rather
than
correctly
showing
21 trips.
This
typo
has
been
corrected.
The
revised
and
corrected
figure
is
included
in
Section
3.0 of
this
Final
EIR.
The
analysis
in
the
Draft
EIR
used
the
correct
trip
numbers.
The
error
was
simply
a
typo
on
the
figure.
As
such,
the
analysis
and
conclusions
in
the
Draft
EIR
were
not
affected
by
this
minor
figure
error.
Response
A-‐3: The
commenter
states
that
proposed
roadway
and
signal
improvements
on
State
Route
116
should
meet
necessary
warrants
and
should
be
coordinated
with
Caltrans.
This
comment
is
noted.
The
City
will
coordinate
with
Caltrans,
as
applicable
and
appropriate,
on
future
roadway
improvements
on
State
facilities.
Response
A-‐4: The
commenter
states
that
traffic
controls
within
the
State
Right
of
Way
must
meet
required
warrants
and
provides
a
web
link
to
guidance
documents
on
Caltrans
standards.
This
comment
is
noted.
The
City
will
coordinate
with
Caltrans,
as
applicable
and
appropriate,
on
future
roadway
improvements
within
the
State
Right
of
Way.
2.0 COMMENTS
ON
DRAFT
EIR
AND
RESPONSES
2.0-‐6 Final
Environmental
Impact
Report
– 2013
Cotati
General
Plan
COMMENTS
ON
DRAFT
EIR
AND
RESPONSES 2.0
Final
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
2013 Cotati
General
Plan
2.0-‐7
Response
to
Letter
B
Beth
Dadko,
Sonoma
County
Response
B-‐1: The
commenter
provides
a
range
of
suggested
language
related
to
community
health
and
wellness
policies
in
the
Draft
General
Plan.
The
City
appreciates
this
input,
and
these
comments
and
suggestions
have
been
forwarded
to
the
City
Council
for
their
review
and
consideration.
Given
that
these
comments
do
not
address
the
adequacy
of
the
Draft
EIR
and
would
have
no
bearing
on
the
environmental
analysis,
no
changes
to
the
EIR
are
warranted.
2.0 COMMENTS
ON
DRAFT
EIR
AND
RESPONSES
2.0-‐8 Final
Environmental
Impact
Report
– 2013
Cotati
General
Plan
COMMENTS
ON
DRAFT
EIR
AND
RESPONSES 2.0
Final
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
2013 Cotati
General
Plan
2.0-‐9
2.0 COMMENTS
ON
DRAFT
EIR
AND
RESPONSES
2.0-‐10 Final
Environmental
Impact
Report
– 2013
Cotati
General
Plan
Response
to
Letter
C
Jenny
Blaker
Response
C-‐1: The
commenter
notes
that
the
California
tiger
salamander
(CTS)
population
in
Sonoma
County
is
actually
listed
as
Federally
Endangered,
not
Threatened.
The
commenter
also
indicates
that
she
believes
that
this
is
significant
because
of
the
different
level
of
protection
afforded
to
species
listed
as endangered
as
opposed
to
threatened.
The
commenter
is
correct;
the
Sonoma
County
population
of
CTS
is
federal
Endangered.
This
comment
warrants
revisions
on
Page
3.3-‐10
as
follows:
TABLE
3.3-‐3: SPECIAL
STATUS
ANIMALS
PRESENT
OR
POTENTIALLY
PRESENT
IN
COTATI
SPECIES STATUS
HABITAT
AMPHIBIANS
Ambystoma
californiense
California
tiger
salamander
FE
(Sonoma
County
DPS)/CT
FT/CT
Need
underground
refuges,
especially
ground
squirrel
burrows
and
vernal
pools
or
other
seasonal
water
sources
for
breeding.
The
error
originated
because
the
CNDDB
database
(May
2011
and
November
2014
queries)
provide
a
“Federal
Status”
of
Threatened
when
a
query
is
run
for
special
status
species
in
Sonoma
County.
The
CNDDB
notes
under
“General
Habitat”
indicate
that
the
Sonoma
County
Distinct
Population
Segment
(DPS)
is
federally
listed
as
endangered,
even
though
this
is
not
noted
under
“Federal
Status.”
Regardless,
the
correct
federal
status
is
“Endangered”
for
all
CTS
in
Sonoma
County’s
DPS,
including
those
in
and
around
the
City
of
Cotati.
The
California
status
is
“Threatened.”
The
commenter
is
correct
that
an
Endangered
listing
receives
a
different
level
of
protection
under
the
federal
Endangered
Species
Act;
however,
it
should
be
noted
that
under
CEQA
they
are
treated
equally
as
special
status
species. All
of
the
protections
of
the
federal
Endangered
Species
Act
are
provided
to
Endangered
species.
Many,
but
not
all,
of
the
protections
of
the
federal
Endangered
Species
Act
are
available
to
Threatened
species.
Under
CEQA,
however,
both
Endangered
and
Threatened
listings
warrant
a
species
to
fall
under
the
category
of
“Special
Status
Species,”
which
is
defined
on
page
3.3-‐1
and
3.3-‐2
of
the
Draft
EIR.
More
specifically,
the
term
“Special
Status
Species”
encompasses
those
species
that
are
“Federally
listed
or
proposed
for
listing
under
the
Federal
Endangered
Species
Act
(50
CFR
17.11-‐17.12).”
This
broad
definition
provides
an
equal
treatment
for
federally
Endangered,
Threatened,
and
even
those
species
that
are
a
Candidate
for
listing
when
they
are
not
currently
listed.
As
such,
the
City
of
Cotati
has
developed
policies
that
broadly
discuss
“Special
Status
Species”
regardless
of
whether
their
protective
status
is
federally
“Endangered”
or
“Threatened.”
COMMENTS
ON
DRAFT
EIR
AND
RESPONSES 2.0
Final
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
2013 Cotati
General
Plan
2.0-‐11
The
commenter
has
also
noted
that
in
the
last
couple
of
years
information
about
a
newly
discovered
CTS
breeding
site
was
submitted
by
local
experts
to
the
California
Department
of
Fish
and
Wildlife
and
listed
in
the
CNDDB.
The
commenter
noted
that
the
most
recent
updates
to
the
CNDDB
added
this
information
and
that
the
information
should
be
taken
into
account.
This
comment
warranted
a
new
CNDDB
database
query
(November
2014).
The
new
CNDDB
query
shows
an
additional
CTS
occurrence
record
located
at
the
corner
of
McGinnis
Circle
and
Ross
Street.
The
occurrence
record
indicates
that
the
occurrence
is
from
a
constructed
mitigation
vernal
pool
on
an
approximately
two-‐acre
neighborhood
lot.
There
are
roads
on
two
sides
and
foot
paths
through
the
lot.
The
site
is
a
narrow
habitat
corridor
that
links
to
the
upper
Laguna
Channel.
The
upland
habitat
is
dense
non-‐native
grasses.
The
pool
habitat
had
emergent
vegetation
and
is
up
to
ten
inches
deep.
The
updated
CNDDB
query
does
not
warrant
text
changes
to
the
Draft
EIR;
however,
Figure
3.3-‐2
and
3.3-‐3
on
Pages
3.3-‐47
and
3.3-‐49
were
updated
to
reflect
a
November
2014
query.
These
revised
figures
are
included
in
Chapter
3.0 of
this
Final
EIR.
Response
C-‐2: The
commenter
provides
a
range
of
suggested
language
related
to
conservation
policies
in
the
Draft
General
Plan.
The
City
appreciates
this
input,
and
these
comments
and
suggestions
have
been
forwarded
to
the
City
Council
for
their
review
and
consideration.
Given
that
these
comments
do
not
address
the
adequacy
of
the
Draft
EIR
and
would
have
no
bearing
on
the
environmental
analysis,
no
changes
to
the
EIR
are
warranted.
Response
C-‐3: The
commenter
provides
a
range
of
suggested
language
related
to
community
health
and
wellness
policies
in
the
Draft
General
Plan.
The
City
appreciates
this
input,
and
these
comments
and
suggestions
have
been
forwarded
to
the
City
Council
for
their
review
and
consideration.
Given
that
these
comments
do
not
address
the
adequacy
of
the
Draft
EIR
and
would
have
no
bearing
on
the
environmental
analysis,
no
changes
to
the
EIR
are
warranted.
Response
C-‐4: The
commenter
provides
a
range
of
suggested
language
related
to
community
services
and
facilities
policies
in
the
Draft
General
Plan.
The
City
appreciates
this
input,
and
these
comments
and
suggestions
have
been
forwarded
to
the
City
Council
for
their
review
and
consideration.
Given
that
these
comments
do
not
address
the
adequacy
of
the
Draft
EIR
and
would
have
no
bearing
on
the
environmental
analysis,
no
changes
to
the
EIR
are
warranted.
Response
C-‐5: The
commenter
provides
a
range
of
suggested
language
related
to
noise
policies
in
the
Draft
General
Plan.
The
City
appreciates
this
input,
and
these
comments
and
2.0 COMMENTS
ON
DRAFT
EIR
AND
RESPONSES
2.0-‐12 Final
Environmental
Impact
Report
– 2013
Cotati
General
Plan
suggestions
have
been
forwarded
to
the
City
Council
for
their
review
and
consideration.
Given
that
these
comments
do
not
address
the
adequacy
of
the
Draft
EIR
and
would
have
no
bearing
on
the
environmental
analysis,
no
changes
to
the
EIR
are
warranted.
Response
C-‐6: The
commenter
states
that
Thomas
Page
School
is
no
longer
an
elementary
school,
but
an
academy
for
grades
K-‐8.
The
commenter
is
correct.
Revisions
to
the
General
Plan
have
been
made
in
order
to
reflect
the
minor
name
change
of
this
school
and
the
inclusion
of
grades
7 and
8 to
this
school.
This
minor
correction
has
no
bearing
on
the
analysis
or
conclusions
contained
in
the
Draft
EIR.
Response
C-‐7: The
commenter
states
that
many
of
the
maps
in
the
General
Plan
are
too
small,
but
notes
that
they
are
provided
in
full
size
in
the
EIR.
The
commenter
is
also
directed
to
the
General
Plan
Existing
Conditions
Report,
which
serves
as
a
companion
document
to
the
General
Plan
Policy
Document.
The
small
figures
contained
in
the
Policy
Document
are
provided
as
full
sized
figures
in
both
the
Draft
EIR
and
the
Existing
Conditions
Report.
Response
C-‐8: The
commenter notes
discrepancies
in
labeling
for
Open
Space
and
Parks.
The
General
Plan
has
been
updated
to
resolve
these
discrepancies.
COMMENTS
ON
DRAFT
EIR
AND
RESPONSES 2.0
Final
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
2013 Cotati
General
Plan
2.0-‐13
2.0 COMMENTS
ON
DRAFT
EIR
AND
RESPONSES
2.0-‐14 Final
Environmental
Impact
Report
– 2013
Cotati
General
Plan
Response
to
Letter
D
Bryant
R.
Moynihan,
Nexus
Realty
Group
Response
D-‐1: The
commenter
provides
a
list
of
questions
related
to
public
outreach
and
engagement
during
the
General
Plan
Update,
and
inquires
about
elimination
of
Specific
Plan
areas
and
zoning
of
properties
along
the
Old
Redwood
Highway.
The
commenter
is
referred
to
the
General
Plan
Update
website
(cotati.generalplan.org)
which
contains
extensive
information
about
past
meetings,
public
hearings,
community
outreach,
and
other
relevant
data
regarding
the
General
Plan
Update.
The
General
Plan
Update
process
is
also
summarized
on
pages
2.0-‐1
through
2.0-‐3
of
the
Draft
EIR.
With
respect
to
Specific
Plan
areas
and
zoning,
the
commenter
is
directed
to
the
Land
Use
Map
and
the
General
Plan
Land
Use
Element.
As
shown
in
the
General
Plan,
the
existing
Specific
Plans
in
Cotati
have
not
been
eliminated.
The
General
Plan
does
not
change
the
zoning
of
any
specific
parcels
within
the
Planning
Area.
Changes
to
General
Plan
land
use
designations
are
shown
on
the
General
Plan
Land
Use
Map.
No
changes
to
the
Draft
EIR
are
warranted.
COMMENTS
ON
DRAFT
EIR
AND
RESPONSES 2.0
Final
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
2013 Cotati
General
Plan
2.0-‐15
2.0 COMMENTS
ON
DRAFT
EIR
AND
RESPONSES
2.0-‐16 Final
Environmental
Impact
Report
– 2013
Cotati
General
Plan
Response
to
Letter
E
Robin
Miller,
Cotati
Vintners
Collective
Response
E-‐1: The
commenter
states
that
the
Cotati
Vintner’s
Collective
is
working
to
annex
property
into
the
City
of
Cotati.
This
comment
is
noted.
Response
E-‐2: The
commenter
provides
a
brief
summary
of
past
communications
with
the
City
regarding
the
subject
property
and
indicates
an
intention
to
submit
an
application
for
annexation
in
the
near
future.
This
comment
is
noted.
Response
E-‐3: The
commenter
expresses
a
desire
to
be
involved
in
future
amendments
to
the
Land
Use
Code
that
may
affect
uses
on
the
subject
property.
This
comment
is
noted.
No
changes
to
the
Draft
EIR
are
warranted.
COMMENTS
ON
DRAFT
EIR
AND
RESPONSES 2.0
Final
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
2013 Cotati
General
Plan
2.0-‐17
2.0 COMMENTS
ON
DRAFT
EIR
AND
RESPONSES
2.0-‐18 Final
Environmental
Impact
Report
– 2013
Cotati
General
Plan
COMMENTS
ON
DRAFT
EIR
AND
RESPONSES 2.0
Final
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
2013 Cotati
General
Plan
2.0-‐19
Response
to
Letter
F
Robin
Miller,
Highway
116
Associated
Investors
Response
F-‐1: The
commenter
states
that
Highway
116
Associated
Investors,
LLC
is
working
to
develop
a
205-‐unit
residential
multifamily
development
near
the
corner
of
Highway
116
and
Alder
Avenue.
This
comment
is
noted.
Response
F-‐2: The
commenter
provides
a
brief
summary
of
past
communications
with
the
City
regarding
the
subject
property
and
indicates
an
intention
to
submit
an
application
for
development
in
the
near
future.
This
comment
is
noted.
Response
F-‐3: The
commenter
provides
suggested
changes
to
the
General
Plan
to
help
accommodate
the
project
contemplated
by
the
commenter.
This
input
has
been
forwarded
to
the
City
Council
for
their
consideration.
The
commenter
has
not
addressed
the
adequacy
of
the
Draft
EIR,
and
no
changes
to
the
EIR
are
warranted.
Response
F-‐4: The
commenter
expresses
a
willingness
to
work
with
the
City
to
accommodate
planned
circulation
improvements
in
the
vicinity
of
the
subject
property.
This
comment
is
noted,
and
no
changes
to
the
Draft
EIR
are
warranted.
Response
F-‐5: The
commenter
states
that
if
the
City
chooses
to
accommodate
the
commenter’s
request
for
modifications
to
the
General
Plan
to
accommodate
the
subject
project,
the
Draft
EIR
would
need
to
be
revised
accordingly.
This
comment
is
noted.
If
and/or
when
the
commenter
or
other
party
submits
a
formal
application
for
development
or
re-‐designation
of
the
subject
property,
the
City
will
conduct
a
review
of
the
application
consistent
with
the
requirements
of
CEQA
and
City
planning
procedures.
At
this
time,
the
City
is
proceeding
with
approval
of
the
General
Plan
as
written,
and
as
such,
no
changes
to
the
Draft
EIR
are
warranted.
The
potential
environmental
effects
of
a
future
application
would
be
addressed
under
CEQA
at
the
project-‐level,
if
and
when
an
application
is
received
and
processed
by
the
City.
2.0 COMMENTS
ON
DRAFT
EIR
AND
RESPONSES
2.0-‐20 Final
Environmental
Impact
Report
– 2013
Cotati
General
Plan
COMMENTS
ON
DRAFT
EIR
AND
RESPONSES 2.0
Final
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
2013 Cotati
General
Plan
2.0-‐21
2.0 COMMENTS
ON
DRAFT
EIR
AND
RESPONSES
2.0-‐22 Final
Environmental
Impact
Report
– 2013
Cotati
General
Plan
Response
to
Letter
G
Robin
Miller,
Townsend
Capital
Partners
Response
G-‐1: The
commenter
states
that
Townsend
Capital
Partners,
LLC
is
working
to
develop
a
110-‐unit
assisted
living
and
memory
care
facility
near
the
corner
of
Highway
116
and
Alder
Avenue.
This
comment
is
noted.
Response
G-‐2: The
commenter
provides
a
brief
summary
of
past
communications
with
the
City
regarding
the
subject
property
and
indicates
an
intention
to
submit
an
application
for
development
in
the
near
future.
This
comment
is
noted.
Response
G-‐3: The
commenter
provides
suggested
changes
to
the
General
Plan
to
help
accommodate
the
project
contemplated
by
the
commenter.
This
input
has
been
forwarded
to
the
City
Council
for
their
consideration.
The
commenter
has
not
addressed
the
adequacy
of
the
Draft
EIR,
and
no
changes
to
the
EIR
are
warranted.
Response
G-‐4: The
commenter
expresses
a
willingness
to
work
with
the
City
to
accommodate
planned
circulation
improvements
in
the
vicinity
of
the
subject
property.
This
comment
is
noted,
and
no
changes
to
the
Draft
EIR
are
warranted.
Response
G-‐5: The
commenter
states
that
if
the
City
chooses
to
accommodate
the
commenter’s
request
for
modifications
to
the
General
Plan
to
accommodate
the
subject
project,
the
Draft
EIR
would
need
to
be
revised
accordingly.
This
comment
is
noted.
If
and/or
when
the
commenter
or
other
party
submits
a
formal
application
for
development
or
re-‐designation
of
the
subject
property,
the
City
will
conduct
a
review
of
the
application
consistent
with
the
requirements
of
CEQA
and
City
planning
procedures.
At
this
time,
the
City
is
proceeding
with
approval
of
the
General
Plan
as
written,
and
as
such,
no
changes
to
the
Draft
EIR
are
warranted.
The
potential
environmental
effects
of
a
future
application
would
be
addressed
under
CEQA
at
the
project-‐level,
if
and
when
an
application
is
received
and
processed
by
the
City.
COMMENTS
ON
DRAFT
EIR
AND
RESPONSES 2.0
Final
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
2013 Cotati
General
Plan
2.0-‐23
2.0 COMMENTS
ON
DRAFT
EIR
AND
RESPONSES
2.0-‐24 Final
Environmental
Impact
Report
– 2013
Cotati
General
Plan
COMMENTS
ON
DRAFT
EIR
AND
RESPONSES 2.0
Final
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
2013 Cotati
General
Plan
2.0-‐25
Response
to
Letter
H
Linell
Hardy
Response
H-‐1: The
commenter
provides
a
range
of
suggested
language
related
to
land
use
policies
in
the
Draft
General
Plan.
The
City
appreciates
this
input,
and
these
comments
and
suggestions
have
been
forwarded
to
the
City
Council
for
their
review
and
consideration.
Given
that
these
comments
do
not
address
the
adequacy
of
the
Draft
EIR
and
would
have
no
bearing
on
the
environmental
analysis,
no
changes
to
the
EIR
are
warranted.
Response
H-‐2: The
commenter
questions
how
drought
conditions
may
impact
future
water
supplies
and
inquires
about
the
use
recycled
water
systems
to
reduce
demand.
The
commenter
is
referred
to
pages
3.13-‐1
through
3.13-‐5
of
the
Draft
EIR,
which
include
a
detailed
description
of
existing
and
future
groundwater
supplies
and
surface
water
supplies.
The
discussion
includes
a
description
of
recycled
water
supplies,
and
is
based
on
information
contained
in
the
2010
Cotati
Urban
Water
Management
Plan
(UWMP).
In
compliance
with
State
law,
the
UWMP
includes
an
analysis
of
future
water
supplies
following
single,
and
multiple
dry
years
(drought
conditions).
The
analysis
under
Impact
3.13-‐1
in
the
Draft
EIR
demonstrates
that
adequate
water
supplies
existing
to
meet
demand
associated
with
General
Plan
buildout.
The
policies
and
actions
included
in
the
General
Plan
related
to
water
supplies
outline
and
detail
the
City’s
comprehensive
approach
to
ensure
that
adequate
water
supplies
are
available
to
meet
existing
and
projected
demand.
The
City
appreciates
the
comments
provided,
and
no
changes
to
the
Draft
EIR
are
warranted.
Response
H-‐3: The
commenter
notes
that
some
of
the
General
Plan
policies
and
actions
listed
in
the
Draft
EIR
include
references
to
figures
that
are
not
contained
in
the
Draft
EIR.
This
comment
is
noted.
The
Draft
EIR
includes
numerous
policies
and
actions
from
the
General
Plan
that
are
included
in
the
EIR
verbatim.
Some
of
these
policies
and
actions
reference
figures
contained
in
the
General
Plan.
This
comment
is
noted,
and
no
changes
to
the
Draft
EIR
are
warranted.
2.0 COMMENTS
ON
DRAFT
EIR
AND
RESPONSES
2.0-‐26 Final
Environmental
Impact
Report
– 2013
Cotati
General
Plan
This
page
left
intentionally
blank.
ERRATA 3.0
Final
Environmental
Impact
Report
– 2013
Cotati
General
Plan 3.0-‐1
This
chapter
includes
minor
edits
to
the
EIR.
These
modifications
resulted
from
responses
to
comments
received
during
the
Draft
EIR
public
review
period.
Revisions
herein
do
not
result
in
new
significant
environmental
impacts,
do
not
constitute
significant
new
information,
and
do
not
alter
the
conclusions
of
the
environmental
analysis
that
would
warrant
recirculation
of
the
Draft
EIR
pursuant
to
State
CEQA
Guidelines
Section
15088.5.
Changes
are
provided
in
revision
marks
with
underline
for
new
text
and
strike
out
for
deleted
text.
3.1 REVISIONS
TO
THE
DRAFT
EIR
EXECUTIVE
SUMMARY
No
changes
were
made
to
the
Executive
Summary
of
the
Draft
EIR
(DEIR).
1.0 INTRODUCTION
No
changes
were
made
to
Chapter
1.0 of
the
DEIR.
2.0 PROJECT
DESCRIPTION
No
changes
were
made
to
Chapter
2.0 of
the
DEIR
3.1 AESTHETICS
AND
VISUAL
RESOURCES
No
changes
were
made
to
Section
3.1 of
the
DEIR.
3.2 AIR
QUALITY
No
changes
were
made
to
Section
3.2 of
the
DEIR.
3.3 BIOLOGICAL
AND
NATURAL
RESOURCES
This
section
was
revised
to
include
new
and
revised
information
to
the
EIR
based
on
comments
noted
by Jenny
Blaker,
a
citizen
in
Cotati.
The
revisions
include
corrections
and
updates
of
the
existing
information
which
is
incorporated
into
the
EIR.
The
changes
to
the
text
in
the
EIR
occur
in
Section
3.3 Biological
Resources
in
Table
3.3-‐3
(Special
Status
Animals
Present
or
Potentially
Present
in
Cotati)
on
Page
3.3-‐10.
There
were
two
figures
that
were
updated
based
on
new
CNDDB
queries.
The
updated
figures
include
Figure
3.3-‐2
(page
3.3-‐47)
and
Figure
3.3-‐3
(3.3-‐49).
TABLE
3.3-‐3: SPECIAL
STATUS
ANIMALS
PRESENT
OR
POTENTIALLY
PRESENT
IN
COTATI
SPECIES STATUS
HABITAT
AMPHIBIANS
Ambystoma
californiense
California
tiger
salamander
FE
(Sonoma
County
DPS)/CT
FT/CT
Need
underground
refuges,
especially
ground
squirrel
burrows
and
vernal
pools
or
other
seasonal
water
sources
for
breeding.
3.0 ERRATA
3.0-‐2 Final
Environmental
Impact
Report
– 2013
Cotati
General
Plan
ERRATA 3.0
Final
Environmental
Impact
Report
– 2013
Cotati
General
Plan 3.0-‐3
3.0 ERRATA
3.0-‐4 Final
Environmental
Impact
Report
– 2013
Cotati
General
Plan
3.4 CULTURAL
RESOURCES
No
changes
were
made
to
Section
3.4 of
the
DEIR.
3.5 GEOLOGY
AND
SOILS
No
changes
were
made
to
Section
3.5 of
the
DEIR.
3.6 GREENHOUSE
GASES
AND
CLIMATE
CHANGE
No
changes
were
made
to
Section
3.6 of
the
DEIR.
3.7 HAZARDS
No
changes
were
made
to
Section
3.7 of
the
DEIR.
3.8 HYDROLOGY
AND
WATER
QUALITY
No
changes
were
made
to
Section
3.8 of
the
DEIR.
3.9 LAND
USE, AGRICULTURE, AND
POPULATION
No
changes
were
made
to
Section
3.9 of
the
DEIR.
3.10 NOISE
No
changes
were
made
to
Section
3.10 of
the
DEIR.
3.11 PUBLIC
SERVICES
AND
RECREATION
No
changes
were
made
to
Section
3.11 of
the
DEIR.
3.12 TRANSPORTATION
AND
CIRCULATION
This
section
was
revised
to
include
a
correction
to
Figure
3.12-‐9
on
page
3.12-‐77
of
the
Draft
EIR.
A
comment
letter
received
from
Caltrans
noted
a
typo
regarding
traffic
volumes
on
Intersection
12 on
Figure
3.12-‐9.
The
original
figure
incorrectly
showed
216
southbound
AM
approach
trips,
rather
than
correctly
showing
21 trips.
This
typo
has
been
corrected.
The
revised
and
corrected
figure
is
provided
below.
ERRATA 3.0
Final
Environmental
Impact
Report
– 2013
Cotati
General
Plan 3.0-‐5
3.0 ERRATA
3.0-‐6 Final
Environmental
Impact
Report
– 2013
Cotati
General
Plan
3.13 UTILITIES
No
changes
were
made
to
Section
3.13 of
the
DEIR.
4.0 OTHER
CEQA-‐REQUIRED TOPICS
No
changes
were
made
to
Chapter 4.0
of
the
DEIR.
5.0 ALTERNATIVES
No
changes
were
made
to
Chapter
5.0 of
the
DEIR.
6.0 REPORT
PREPARERS
No
changes
were
made
to
Chapter
6.0 of
the
DEIR.