Santa Rosa City Council
May 12, 2026

Resolution No. PC – RES – 2026-010

RESOLUTION NO. PC – RES – 2026-010

RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SANTA ROSA

RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL CERTIFY THE FINAL

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT, ADOPT THE RELATED CEQA FINDINGS

OF FACT, AND MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM FOR THE SPRING LAKE VILLAGE EAST GROVE PROJECT, LOCATED AT 5803, 5815 MELITA ROAD AND 225 LOS ALAMOS ROAD, ASSESSOR’S PARCEL NUMBERS, 031-101-026, 031-101-035 and 031-101-034 – FILE NUMBER MJP14-012

WHEREAS, on December 29, 2014, the Spring Lake Village East Grove project was submitted to Planning and Economic Development requesting Rezoning, Conditional Use Permit, Hillside Development Permit, and Design Review Permit for the parcels located at 225 Los Alamos Road, 5803 Melita Road, and 5815 Melita Road, also identified as Sonoma County Assessor’s Parcel Numbers 031-101-026, 031-101-034, and 031-101-035; and

WHEREAS, the City of Santa Rosa determined that an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) should be prepared for the Spring Lake Village East Grove project pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), Public Resources Code sections 21000 et seq; and

WHEREAS, on February 23, 2016, the City adopted City Council Resolution No. 28764, approving a Professional Services Agreement with GHD to prepare the EIR for the proposed project; and

WHEREAS, on April 7, 2016, a formal notification to initiate Tribal Consultation under AB 52 was sent to the Tribe, which included a brief description of the Project and its location, the lead agency contact information, and a notification that the Tribe had 30 days to request consultation; and

WHEREAS, on May 11, 2016, the City issued a Notice of Preparation (NOP) for the EIR, which was circulated for comment by responsible and trustee agencies and the public for a 30-day comment period ending on June 9, 2016; and

WHEREAS, on May 23, 2016, the City conducted a scoping session to elicit additional comments on the scope of the Draft EIR, and received ten verbal comments, summaries of which are identified as key issues in Table 1-1 of the Draft EIR; and

WHEREAS, nine written comments were received on the NOP, summaries of which are identified as key issues in Table 1-1 of the Draft EIR; and

WHEREAS, the Project applicant made changes to the proposed Project, the City of Santa Rosa issued a second NOP for the EIR on August 30, 2017, which was circulated for comment by responsible and trustee agencies and the public for a 30-day comment period ending on September 28, 2017; and
Attachment 13
Resolution No. PC – RES – 2026-010

WHEREAS, one written comment was received on the additional NOP, a summary of which is identified as a key issue in Table 1-1 of the Draft EIR; and

WHEREAS, the Draft EIR for the Spring Lake Village East Grove project (SCH # 2016052024) was distributed to the public and various public agencies for a 45-day circulation period beginning on June 1, 2021, and ending on July 15, 2021; and

WHEREAS, a Notice of Availability (NOA) and notice of public hearing for the Draft EIR were provided to the Office of Planning and Research, the Sonoma County Clerk, Responsible and Trustee Agencies, Native American tribes, and through direct mailing to owners and occupants of property within 600 feet of the Project site; and

WHEREAS, the NOA was also posted at the Project site and was published in the Press Democrat on June 6, 2021; and

WHEREAS, the Draft EIR was submitted to the State Clearinghouse for distribution to State agencies, posted on the City website, and hardcopies of the Draft EIR were made available at the Planning and Economic Development Department office at Santa Rosa City Hall and at the Rincon Valley Regional Library; and

WHEREAS, on June 24, 2021, the Santa Rosa Planning Commission conducted a public hearing to review and comment on the Draft DEIR, during which three members of the public and five Planning Commissioners provided comments; and

WHEREAS, during the 45-day public comment period, the City received two agency comment letters and 26 emails; and

WHEREAS, on January 9, 2024, the Project Applicant elected to pursue Alternative 2 (Maximum Avoidance Alternative) and resubmitted plans reflecting Alternative 2 (Maximum Avoidance Alternative); and

WHEREAS, on October 16, 2024, the DEIR and project plans were mailed to Federated Indians of Graton Rancheria (FIGR) and Lytton Rancheria for review; and

WHEREAS, on November 14, 2024, Lytton Rancheria opted not to engage in consultations regarding the project; and

WHEREAS, on February 10, 2025, a consultation meeting was held with FIGR to discuss the Alternative 2 (Maximum Avoidance Alternative);

WHEREAS, on July 24, 2025, the applicant submitted a modified version of Alternative 2 (Maximum Avoidance Alternative) following consultations with the Tribe (Federated Indians of Graton Rancheria) regarding the project and the tribal cultural resources; and Resolution No. PC – RES – 2026-010

WHEREAS, the project under consideration for approval is a modified version of Alternative 2, the Maximum Avoidance Alternative. This resolution addresses this modification, referring to it as the “Project,” and

WHEREAS, a Final Environmental Impact Report (Final EIR) was prepared, which included responses to comments received during the public review period, revisions to the Draft EIR, and additional information necessary to complete the environmental analysis; and WHEREAS, the Final EIR was made available to the public on March 11, 2026; and WHEREAS, on March 23, 2026, the City concluded tribal consultation with the Federated Indians Graton Rancheria (FIGR), and mutually agreed to include mitigation measures in the Draft EIR and MMRP requiring development and implementation of an Archaeological Resource and Tribal Cultural Resource Treatment Plan, archaeological monitoring in consultation with representatives of the FIGR and Lytton Rancheria, further avoidance measures, and measures to be taken in the event of inadvertent discovery of resources during construction.

WHEREAS, on March 26, 2026, the Final EIR was presented to the Planning Commission in accordance with the requirements of CEQA and the Santa Rosa City Code; and

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Planning Commission of the City of Santa Rosa finds that the EIR for the Project, comprised of the Draft EIR, the Final EIR, the comments received and the response to comments, and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, adequately identifies and analyzes the environmental effects of the Spring Lake Village East Grove project, and further finds that the EIR reflects the City’s independent judgment and analysis and was completed in compliance with the requirements of CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that an adequate opportunity for public participation, including review and comment on the Draft EIR and Final EIR, has been provided in accordance with the requirements of CEQA.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the responses to comments contained in the Final EIR represent a reasoned, good faith evaluation of each comment and respond to all significant environmental issues raised in the comments, and the responses to comments do not identify any significant new information, which would require re-circulation of the Draft EIR.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Final EIR, and this Resolution, including the attached findings, represent the independent judgment and analysis of the Commission.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of the City of Santa Rosa, based on the above findings, recommends that the City Council certify the EIR for the Spring Lake Village East Grove project.

Resolution No. PC – RES – 2026-010

REGULARLY PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Planning Commission of the City of Santa Rosa on this 26th day of March, 2026, by the following vote:

AYES: (6) Chair Weeks, Vice Chair Duggan, Commissioner Carter, Cisco, Pardo, Sanders

NOES: (0)

ABSENT: (0)

ABSTAIN: (0)

RECUSE: (1) Commissioner Horton

APPROVED: Karen Weeks (Mar 30, 2026 16:30:48 PDT)

KAREN WEEKS, CHAIR

ATTEST:

JESSICA JONES, EXECUTIVE SECRETARY

Exhibit A – Findings of Fact for the Spring Lake Village East Grove Project Exhibit B – Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the Spring Lake Village East Grove Project

Spring Lake Village East Grove Project
Maximum Avoidance Alternative

EXHIBIT A TO CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION

FINDINGS OF FACT FOR THE

SPRING LAKE VILLAGE EAST GROVE PROJECT

MODIFIED MAXIMUM AVOIDANCE ALTERNATIVE

I. Introduction
The Environmental Impact Report (EIR) prepared for the Spring Lake Village East Grove Project (Project) addresses a proposal to construct and operate an off-site expansion of the existing Spring Lake Village Continuing Care Retirement Community (CCRC) located in the City of Santa Rosa, California. The Project would include 32 independent senior living units supporting up to 64 residents at full occupancy, as well as a community building, outdoor common areas, and parking. Other ancillary improvements would include paved walking paths, landscaping, drainage features, lighting, fencing, retaining walls, and off-site pedestrian, bicycle, storm water and utility improvements. The EIR evaluated a Project site comprised of three parcels located at 225 Los Alamos Road and 5803 and 5815 Melita Road in the City of Santa Rosa, Sonoma County, as well as off-site improvement areas adjacent to the Project site. After the Draft EIR was circulated, the Project Applicant elected to pursue Alternative 2 (Maximum Avoidance Alternative) and resubmitted a planning application to reflect a modified version of Alternative 2 (Maximum Avoidance Alternative) as the version of the project now under consideration for approval. Accordingly, these findings address the modified version of the Maximum Avoidance Alternative (for simplicity, referred to herein as the “Maximum Avoidance Alternative” or as “Alternative 2 (Maximum Avoidance Alternative)”). Under the Maximum Avoidance Alternative, the two parcels containing single-family residences at 5803 and 5815 Melita Road would remain outside the Planned Development (PD 0308) zone, limiting future use absent a discretionary zone change. Easements would be recorded on portions of these parcels to allow stormwater detention, parking, and private access.

A Draft and Final EIR were prepared for the Project. These findings have been prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Pub. Resources Code, § 21000 et seq.) and the CEQA Guidelines (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, § 15000 et seq.). The City of Santa Rosa is the lead agency for the environmental review of the Project and has the principal responsibility for its approval.

II. Environmental Review Process
A Development of the Project
Front Porch Communities and Services (previously Covia Communities) owns and operates the existing Spring Lake Village CCRC located at 5555 Montgomery Drive, referred to as Spring Lake Village. Spring Lake Village began operations in 1987 and was expanded in 2011. Spring Lake Village currently includes 437 residential units composed of independent living, assisted living, and skilled nursing units.

Spring Lake Village East Grove Project
Maximum Avoidance Alternative

Front Porch now proposes to expand Spring Lake Village by adding independent senior living units and a central dining and community building at a separate parcel to the east of the existing Spring Lake Village. The EIR established the following objectives for the Project:
• Create and operate at least 32 new senior community care facility units for independent living, ranging in size from approximately 1,500 square feet to 1,800 square feet; • Harmonize with the aesthetic of the existing campus and with the existing neighborhood and scenic corridors near the Project site;
• Expand the existing Spring Lake Village campus facilities with new on-site state of the art amenities, including recreation and dining spaces, in a safe and secure environment for senior residents, within walking distance of the main campus; • Utilize more fully the existing infrastructure, facilities, and services of the existing campus;
• Incorporate sustainable design, and enhanced energy and water efficiency measures; • Serve the growing senior population by providing housing with convenient access to medical care facilities, transportation, retail, cultural, and recreational amenities; • Continue to attract and retain seniors as part of the greater Santa Rosa community through provision of a progression of care and services on the expanded Spring Lake Village campus, allowing residents to age in place; and • Continue to provide quality senior care licensed by the State of California.

B Preparation of the EIR
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires that discretionary decisions by public agencies be subject to environmental review. The City of Santa Rosa prepared an EIR for the Project to meet CEQA's requirements.

On May 11, 2016, the City issued a Notice of Preparation (NOP) of an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) to Responsible Agencies, Trustee Agencies, the Office of Planning and Research, Native American tribes, and neighboring property owners. A public scoping meeting was held on May 23, 2016, at Whited Elementary School, 4995 Sonoma Highway, Santa Rosa, California.

Fifteen people signed in at the meeting, with 10 of them speaking on the project. Additionally, nine written comments were received during the 30-day scoping period.

After the May 11, 2016 NOP, the applicant made changes to the proposed Project. Following the State CEQA Guidelines, the City of Santa Rosa issued a second NOP on August 30, 2017, to update agencies and interested parties about the modified Project and the City’s plan to prepare an EIR. During the 30-day scoping period for the second NOP, the City received one comment letter.

Formal notification of the Project pursuant to Assembly Bill (AB) 52 and Public Resources Code Section 21080.3.1 was initiated between the City of Santa Rosa, Federated Indians of Graton Rancheria (FIGR), and the Lytton Rancheria of California in May 2016. On June 3, 2016, the Lytton Rancheria acknowledged receipt of the referral for AB 52 purposes and requested to initiate consultation under AB 52. Although FIGR did not formally request consultation during the

Spring Lake Village East Grove Project
Maximum Avoidance Alternative

initial notification period, they have been included in further consultation efforts between the City of Santa Rosa and Lytton Rancheria.

The City of Santa Rosa required a Phase I archaeological survey, followed by consultations with Lytton Rancheria and FIGR. Meetings and updates from 2017 to 2021 focused on protecting tribal cultural resources. The City provided updated EIR drafts, and FIGR responded before the Draft EIR release.

The Draft EIR was released for public review on June 1, 2021, with a 45-day circulation period beginning on June 1, 2021, and ending on July 15, 2021. A Notice of Availability (NOA) and notice of public hearing for the Draft EIR was provided to the Office of Planning and Research, the Sonoma County Clerk, to Responsible and Trustee Agencies, to Native American tribes, to organizations and individuals who have previously requested such notice in writing, and through direct mailing to owners and occupants of property within 600 feet of the Project site. The NOA was also posted at the Project site and was published in the Press Democrat on June 6, 2021.

The Draft EIR was submitted to the State Clearinghouse for distribution to State agencies, and the City posted the Draft EIR and NOA on its website. Hardcopies of the Draft EIR were made available at the Planning and Economic Development Department office at Santa Rosa City Hall and at the Rincon Valley Regional Library. The Draft EIR is also available on the City’s website at https://srcity.org/425/Plans-Studies-EIRs.

The 45-day review period and the Planning Commission public hearing meeting on June 24, 2021, aimed to gather feedback on the document's adequacy in identifying and analyzing potential environmental impacts and ways to avoid and minimize the project's significant effects in accordance with the CEQA Guidelines Section 15204. Per City Code section 17-04.180, the Planning Commission must conduct a public hearing to review and comment on the Draft EIR.

On June 24, 2021, the Planning Commission reviewed the Draft EIR and provided comments.

Three members of the public and five Planning Commissioners provided comments during the public hearing.

During the 45-day public comment period, the City also received two agency comment letters and 26 emails. The comments received on the Draft EIR primarily focused on concerns about wildfire risks, traffic congestion, water supply, and the adequacy of infrastructure to support the Project during emergencies. Commenters expressed concern about potential emergency evacuation challenges, and the impact on local traffic and safety. There were also concerns about the Project's water usage and its compatibility with existing community resources.

Comments, responses, and revisions to the Draft EIR are provided in a Final EIR volume. All comments and responses have been published within a Final EIR document.

The Draft EIR and Final EIR identifies Alternative 2 (Maximum Avoidance Alternative) as the Environmentally Superior Alternative. This alternative would cause less direct disturbance at the Project site and have a smaller overall footprint compared to the original proposal. Specifically, Alternative 2 (Maximum Avoidance Alternative) would avoid removing the two existing single- family homes at 5803 and 5815 Melita Road, and also minimize improvements on a portion of the property, thereby reducing the extent of excavation and ground disturbance, which in turn would minimize impacts to cultural and tribal resources.

After the Draft EIR was circulated, the Project Applicant elected to pursue Alternative 2 (Maximum Avoidance Alternative) and resubmitted a planning application to reflect a modified

Spring Lake Village East Grove Project
Maximum Avoidance Alternative

version of Alternative 2 (Maximum Avoidance Alternative) as the version of the project now under consideration for approval. Accordingly, these findings address the modified version of the Maximum Avoidance Alternative, and further references in these findings to the “Project” shall refer to the modified version of the Maximum Avoidance Alternative that is proposed for approval, except where these findings expressly reference the “proposed Project” analyzed in the Draft EIR.

C Absence of Significant New Information
CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5 requires a lead agency to recirculate an EIR for further review and comment when significant new information is added to the EIR after public notice is given of the availability of the Draft EIR but before certification of the Final EIR. 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 that the project proponent declines to implement. The Guidelines provide examples of significant new information under this standard.

The Council recognizes that the Final EIR incorporates information obtained since the Draft EIR was completed, and contains additions, clarifications, modifications, and other changes. With respect to this information, the Council finds as follows:

Changes to the Maximum Avoidance Alternative. As noted above in Section B, after the Draft EIR was circulated, the Project Applicant elected to pursue a modified version of Alternative 2 (Maximum Avoidance Alternative), identified as the Environmentally Superior Alternative in Section 5.5 of the Draft EIR. As a result, the Applicant resubmitted a planning application to reflect a modified version of Alternative 2 (Maximum Avoidance Alternative) as the version of the project now under consideration for approval.

The modifications to Alternative 2 are designed to further reduce impacts to cultural and tribal cultural resources. Under the Maximum Avoidance Alternative, the two parcels containing single-family residences at 5803 and 5815 Melita Road would remain outside the Planned Development (PD 0308) zone, limiting future use absent a discretionary zone change.

Easements would be recorded on portions of these parcels to allow stormwater detention, parking, and private access. In addition, the City of Santa Rosa Planning Department has determined a secondary emergency access is not needed; accordingly, under Alternative 2, the secondary access route passing through the southern portion of the site to Melita Road has been reduced in width and would take the form of a pedestrian pathway. Further, under Alternative 2, the pedestrian pathway and associated utility corridor has been relocated slightly to the east. The footprint of Cottage 7 also has been adjusted to further avoid potential sensitive resources. Finally, the onsite rain garden/ retention basin has been relocated to the north of the prior location. None of these changes to the Maximum Avoidance Alternative would result in a new or substantially more severe significant impact compared to the impacts disclosed in the Draft EIR and the modifications have not deprived 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; therefore, recirculation of the EIR is not required due to the changes to the Maximum Avoidance Alternative.

Spring Lake Village East Grove Project
Maximum Avoidance Alternative

Changes to Mitigation Measures. None of the mitigation measures proposed in the Draft EIR have been modified in response to comments received. Therefore, in accordance with CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines, no recirculation of the EIR is necessary based on changes to the mitigation measures in the Final EIR.

Other Changes. The City’s conditions of approval for the Spring Lake Village East Grove Project, include the following transit-related improvements along Highway 12:

Relocation of Sonoma County Transit Stop on Westbound Highway 12: A condition of Project approval requires the Applicant to relocate an existing westbound Sonoma County Transit stop, currently situated on the northwest side of the Highway 12 / Los Alamos Road intersection, to a new location next to the sidewalk on the northeast side of the intersection. This relocation aims to provide ADA accessibility, which the current stop lacks. Sonoma County Transit has agreed to this relocation. The relocation of the bus stop on westbound Highway 12 would require minimal ground disturbance to install the new signpost within an existing sidewalk.

Extension of Sidewalk to Transit Stop on Eastbound Highway 12: A condition of Project requires the Applicant to extend the existing sidewalk to an existing Sonoma County transit stop on eastbound Highway 12, just east of the intersection with Los Alamos Road. The sidewalk extension would be approximately 80 to 100 linear feet and provide ADA accessibility to the transit stop. When installing the new sidewalk, ground excavation would need to extend to a depth of about 5 to 7 inches below the established finish grade and would be within the compacted shoulder of the existing roadway.

The minor modifications resulting from the conditions of approval have been evaluated using the same impact criteria and significance thresholds applied to the Project and Maximum Avoidance Alternative in the Draft EIR. The minor modifications resulting from the conditions of approval would not result in a new or substantially more severe significant impact compared to the impacts disclosed in the Draft EIR and the modifications have not deprived 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; therefore, no recirculation of the EIR is necessary based on these minor modifications.

Various additional minor changes and edits have been made to the Draft EIR, as described in the Final EIR. These changes include a refinement of analysis related to emergency evacuation planning, wildfires, as well as changes that are generally of an administrative nature to improve clarity. The Council finds these changes are of a minor, non-substantive nature and do not require recirculation of the EIR.

Based on the foregoing, and having reviewed the information contained in the Final EIR and in the record of Council’s proceedings, including the comments on the Draft EIR and the responses thereto, and the above-described information, the Council hereby finds that no significant new information has been added to the Final EIR since public notice was given of the availability of the Draft EIR that would require recirculation of the EIR.

D Differences of Opinion Regarding the Impacts of the Project In making its determination to certify the Final EIR and to approve the Project, the Council recognizes that the Project involves a number of controversial environmental issues and that a

Spring Lake Village East Grove Project
Maximum Avoidance Alternative

range of opinion exists with respect to those issues. The Council has acquired an understanding of the range of this technical and scientific opinion by its review of the Draft EIR and the comments received on the Draft EIR and the responses to those comments in the Final EIR.

The Council has reviewed and considered, as a whole, the evidence and analysis presented in the Draft EIR, the evidence and analysis presented in the comments on the Draft EIR, the evidence and analysis presented in the Final EIR, and the reports prepared by the experts who prepared the EIR, and by City staff, addressing those comments. The Council has gained a comprehensive and well-rounded understanding of the environmental issues presented by the Project. In turn, this understanding has enabled the Council to make its decisions after weighing and considering the various viewpoints on these important issues. The Council accordingly certifies that its findings are based on full appraisal of all of the evidence contained in the Final EIR, as well as the evidence and other information in the record addressing the Final EIR.

III. CEQA Requirements
Public Resources Code Section 21002 states that “…public agencies should not approve projects as proposed if there are feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation measures available which would substantially lessen the significant environmental effects of such projects[.]” This same statute states that the procedures required by CEQA “…are intended to assist public agencies in systematically identifying both the significant effects of proposed projects and the feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation measures which will avoid or substantially lessen such significant effects.” Section 21002 goes on to state that “in the event [that] specific economic, social, or other conditions make infeasible such project alternatives or such mitigation measures, individual projects may be approved in spite of one or more significant effects thereof.”
The mandate and principles announced in Public Resources Code Section 21002 are implemented, in part, through the requirement that agencies must adopt findings before approving projects for which EIRs are required (see Public Resources Code, § 21081, subd.(a); CEQA Guidelines, §15091, subd. (a)). For each significant environmental effect identified in an EIR for a proposed project, the approving agency must issue a written finding reaching one or more of three permissible conclusions. The first such finding is that “[c]hanges or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the final EIR” (CEQA Guidelines, § 15091, subd. (a)(1)). The second permissible finding is that “[s]uch changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and not the agency making the finding.

Such changes have been adopted by such other agency or can and should be adopted by such other agency” (CEQA Guidelines, § 15091, subd. (a)(2)). The third potential conclusion is that “[s]pecific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the final EIR” (CEQA Guidelines, §15091, subd. (a)(3)). Public Resources Code Section 21061.1 defines “feasible” to mean “capable of being accomplished in a successful manner within a reasonable period of time, taking into account economic, environmental, social and technological factors.”
CEQA requires that the lead agency adopt mitigation measures or alternatives, where feasible, to substantially lessen or avoid significant environmental impacts that would otherwise occur.

Spring Lake Village East Grove Project
Maximum Avoidance Alternative

Project modification or alternatives are not required, however, where such changes are infeasible or where the responsibility for modifying the Project lies with some other agency (CEQA Guidelines, § 15091, subd. (a), (b)).

These findings constitute the Council’s best efforts to set forth the evidentiary and policy basis for its decision to approve the Project in a manner consistent with the requirements of CEQA.

To the extent that these findings conclude that various proposed mitigation measures outlined in the Final EIR are feasible and have not been modified, superseded or withdrawn, the City hereby binds itself to implement these measures. These findings, in other words, are not merely informational, but rather constitute a binding set of obligations that will come into effect when the Council adopts a resolution approving the Project.

IV. Impacts and Mitigation Measures
These findings provide the written analysis and conclusions of the Council regarding the environmental impacts of the Project and the mitigation measures identified in the Final EIR and adopted by the Council as conditions of approval for the Project. In making these findings, the Council has considered the opinions of other agencies and members of the public.

Attachment A to these findings and incorporated herein by reference summarizes the environmental determinations of the Final EIR about the Maximum Avoidance Alternative’s impacts before and after mitigation. Attachment A does not attempt to describe the full analysis of each environmental impact contained in the Final EIR. Instead, Attachment A provides a summary description of each impact, describes the applicable mitigation measures identified in the Final EIR and adopted by the Council, and states the Council’s findings on the significance of each impact after imposition of the adopted mitigation measures. A full explanation of these environmental findings and conclusions can be found in the Draft EIR and Final EIR and these findings hereby incorporate by reference the discussion and analysis in the Draft and Final EIR supporting the determinations regarding the impacts and mitigation measures designed to address those impacts. In making these findings, the Council ratifies, adopts, and incorporates the analysis and explanation in the Final EIR, and ratifies, adopts, and incorporates in these findings the determinations and conclusions of the Final EIR relating to environmental impacts and mitigation measures.

V. Basis for City Council’s Decision to Approve
The EIR identified and compared the significant environmental impacts of the project alternatives listed below.
• Maximum Avoidance Alternative – This alternative was identified in the Draft EIR as Alternative 2. This alternative responds to the significant cultural resources and tribal cultural resource impacts of the previously proposed project. The Maximum Avoidance Alternative would be located in the same location as the originally proposed project. The total residential units would remain the same at 32 units, and the mix would change from 12 Villa units and 20 cottage units to 18 Villa units and 14 cottage units. The alternative also would include the same vehicle access and off-site pedestrian, bicycle, storm water and utility improvements as the previously proposed project. The EIR concludes that the significant impacts of the Maximum Avoidance Alternative have been substantially lessened to a less-than-significant level by the adoption of feasible mitigation measures.

The Maximum Avoidance Alternative would result in less direct disturbance at the

Spring Lake Village East Grove Project
Maximum Avoidance Alternative

Project site and a smaller overall Project footprint. The reduction of development and avoidance of deeper ground-disturbance elements under the Maximum Avoidance Alternative would substantially reduce direct disturbance, and with implementation of mitigation measures identified in Section 3.4 and Section 3.13 relative to cultural resources and tribal cultural resources, the impacts would be reduced to a less-than- significant level.
• Proposed Project – This alternative was identified as the proposed Project in the Draft EIR. However, following the circulation of the Draft EIR, the Project Applicant elected to pursue Alternative 2 (Maximum Avoidance Alternative), which was identified as the Environmentally Superior Alternative in the Draft EIR.
• No Project Alternative – This alternative assumes no changes to the existing use of the Project site. The existing residences at 5803 and 5815 Melita Road would continue to operate, with no anticipated changes. The property at 225 Los Alamos Road would remain as a RR-40 zoned property that may be developed in the future.

The EIR also considered a number of different alternatives, some of which were determined to be either infeasible or did not meet most of the project objectives, and therefore were not analyzed further.

A. The Council’s Findings Relating to Alternatives
In making these findings, the Council certifies that it has independently reviewed and considered the information on alternatives provided in the Final EIR, including the information provided in comments on the Draft EIR and the responses to those comments in the Final EIR.

The EIR’s discussion and analysis of these alternatives is not repeated in these findings, but the discussion and analysis of the alternatives in the EIR is incorporated in these findings by reference.

The EIR describes and evaluates two action alternatives. As set forth in Section IV above, the Council has adopted mitigation measures that mitigate the significant environmental effects of the Maximum Avoidance Alternative to a less-than-significant level. The Council finds that the EIR evaluated a reasonable range of alternatives.

Because the significant environmental effects of the Maximum Avoidance Alternative will be reduced to a less-than-significant level through the adoption of mitigation measures, CEQA does not require the Council to make findings that other alternatives are infeasible.

B Selection of the Maximum Avoidance Alternative
The Maximum Avoidance Alternative would meet the project objectives and would result in fewer significant environmental impacts than other feasible alternatives.

The Maximum Avoidance Alternative is the Environmentally Superior Alternative, in that with implementation of mitigation measures, the impacts to cultural resources (Impact CR-2 and CR- 3) and tribal cultural resources (Impact TCR-1) would be reduced to a less-than-significant level.

Spring Lake Village East Grove Project
Maximum Avoidance Alternative

For all of the foregoing reasons, the Council has determined to approve the Maximum Avoidance Alternative instead of one of the other alternatives for the Project.

VI. Record of Proceedings
Various documents and other materials constitute the record upon which the Council bases these findings and the approvals contained herein. The location and custodian of these documents and materials is Monet Sheikhali, Supervising Planner, City of Santa Rosa Community Development Department, 100 Santa Rosa Avenue, Room 3, Santa Rosa, CA 95404, (707) 543-4698.

VII. Mitigation Monitoring Program
In accordance with CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines, the City must adopt a mitigation monitoring program to ensure that the mitigation measures adopted herein are implemented.

The Council hereby adopts the Mitigation Monitoring Program for the Project in Exhibit B.

VIII. Summary

1. Based on the foregoing findings and the information contained in the administrative record, the Council has made one or more of the following findings with respect to each of the significant environmental effects of the Project identified in the Final EIR:
a. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects on the environment.
b. Those changes or alterations that are wholly or partially within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency have been, or can and should be, adopted by that other public agency.

2. Based on the foregoing findings and information contained in the record, it is hereby determined that:
a. All significant effects on the environment due to approval of the Project have been eliminated or substantially lessened where feasible. 1 Spring Lake Village East Grove

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Spring Lake Village East Grove Environmental Impact Report SCH No. 2016052024

Mitigation Measures (MM) and Environmental Protection Actions (EPA)

Implementation
Procedure

Monitoring
Responsibility
Monitoring/
Reporting Action &
Schedule
Monitoring
Compliance
Record
(Name/Date)
Environmental Protection Actions
EPA 1 – Implement Geotechnical Design Recommendations
As part of the Project design process, the applicant has engaged a California- registered Geotechnical Engineer to conduct a design-level geotechnical study for the proposed Project. Project design and construction must comply with the site-specific recommendations made in geotechnical reports for the Project. This will include design in accordance with the seismic and foundation design criteria, as well as site preparation and grading recommendations included in the report.

The geotechnical recommendations will be incorporated into the final plans and specifications for the Project and will be implemented during construction Incorporate
recommendations
into plans and
specifications
City of Santa Rosa Verify geotechnical
design
recommendations are
incorporated into final
plans and
specifications prior to
issuance of grading
permit
Verify implemented
during construction

EPA 2 – Implement Air Quality Control Measures during Construction To limit dust, criteria pollutants, and precursor emissions associated with the construction activity, the Project shall implement the following Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) recommended Basic Construction Measures during construction:
• All exposed surfaces (e.g., parking areas, staging areas, soil piles, graded areas and unpaved access roads) shall be watered or a non-toxic soil binder applied two times per day;
• All haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose material off-site shall be covered;
• All visible mud or dirt tracked-out onto adjacent public roads shall be removed using wet power vacuum street sweepers at least once per day.

The use of dry power sweeping shall be prohibited;
• All vehicle speeds on unpaved areas shall be limited to 15 miles per hour; • All paving shall be completed as soon as possible after work is finished; • Idling times shall be minimized either by shutting equipment off when not in use or reducing the maximum idling time to five minutes (as required by the California airborne toxics control measure Title 13, Section 2485 of CCR).

Clear signage shall be provided for construction workers at all access points;
• All construction equipment shall be maintained and properly tuned in accordance with manufacturer’s specifications. All equipment shall be Incorporate best
management
practices into plans
and specifications
City of Santa Rosa Verify best
management practices
are incorporated into
final plans and
specifications prior to
issuance of grading
permit
Verify implemented
during construction

2 Spring Lake Village East Grove

Mitigation Measures (MM) and Environmental Protection Actions (EPA)

Implementation
Procedure

Monitoring
Responsibility
Monitoring/
Reporting Action &
Schedule
Monitoring
Compliance
Record
(Name/Date)
checked by a certified mechanic and determined to be running in proper condition prior to operation; and
• Post a publicly visible sign with the telephone number and person to contact at the Lead Agency regarding dust complaints. This person shall respond and take corrective action within 48 hours. The Air District’s phone number shall also be visible to ensure compliance with applicable regulations.

EPA 3 – Implement Greenhouse Gas Control Measures during Construction
Contractors are required to implement actions 9.2.1 through 9.2.3 of the City’s Climate Action Plan during construction, as follows:
• Action 9.2.1 - Minimize idling times either by shutting equipment off when not in use or reducing the maximum idling time to 5 minutes or less (as required by the California airborne toxics control measure Title 13, Section 2485 of CCR). Provide clear signage at all access points to remind employees of idling restrictions.
• Action 9.2.2 - Construction equipment shall be maintained in accordance with manufacturer’s specifications.
• Action 9.2.3 - Limit GHG emissions from construction equipment by selecting one of the following measures, as feasible and appropriate to the construction Project:
- Substitute electrified equipment for diesel- and gasoline-powered equipment where practical.
- Use alternative fuels for construction equipment on-site, where feasible, such as compressed natural gas (CNG), liquefied natural gas (LNG), propane, or biodiesel.
- Avoid the use of on-site generators by connecting to grid electricity or utilizing solar-powered equipment.

Incorporate
greenhouse gas
control measures
into plans and
specifications
City of Santa Rosa Verify greenhouse gas
control measures are
incorporated into final
plans and
specifications prior to
issuance of grading
permit
Verify implemented
during construction

EPA 4 – Implement Storm Water Control Measures during Construction The Project applicant and/or its contractor will obtain coverage under State Water Resources Control Board Order No. 2009-0009-DWQ, Waste Discharge Requirements for Discharges of Storm Water Runoff Associated with Construction and Land Disturbance Activities, as amended by Order No. 2012- 0006. This will include submittal of permit registration documents (notice of intent, risk assessment, site maps, Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP), annual fee, and certifications) to the State Water Resources Control Board. The Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan will address pollutant sources, non-storm water discharges resulting from construction dewatering, best management practices, and other requirements specified in the above- mentioned Order. The Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan will also include Incorporate
requirement into
plans and
specifications
Obtain coverage
under Order No.
2009-0009-DWQ
City of Santa Rosa Verify requirements
are incorporated into
final plans and
specifications prior to
issuance of grading
permit

Verify permit coverage
prior to start of
construction

3 Spring Lake Village East Grove

Mitigation Measures (MM) and Environmental Protection Actions (EPA)

Implementation
Procedure

Monitoring
Responsibility
Monitoring/
Reporting Action &
Schedule
Monitoring
Compliance
Record
(Name/Date)
dust control practices to prevent wind erosion, sediment tracking, and dust generation by construction equipment. A Qualified Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan Practitioner will oversee implementation of the Plan, including visual inspections, sampling and analysis, and ensuring overall compliance.

Project contractors will implement an erosion and sediment control plan, which includes storm water best management practices (BMPs) required by the City’s storm water permit and other applicable regulations. This erosion and sediment control may be substituted by a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan prepared in accordance with Order No. 2009-0009, as long as the Plan includes measures equivalent to those listed below:
• Erosion Control: Schedule the Project to sequence construction activities with the installation of erosion and sediment control measures and preserving existing vegetation. Utilize a combination of BMPs to minimize soil erosion, including hydraulic mulch, hydroseeding, soil binders, straw mulch, geotextiles and mats, and wood mulching (CASQA Handbook BMP EC-1 to EC-8 or Caltrans Handbook BMP SS-1 to SS-8).
• Sediment Controls: Install a combination of BMPs to detain sediment-laden runoff, including fiber rolls, gravel bag berms, street sweeping and/or vacuuming, storm drain inlet protection, sediment basins; check dams, silt fencing, and sand bag barriers (CASQA Handbook BMP SE-1, SE-2, SE-4, SE-5, SE-6, SE-7, SE-8, SE-10) or Caltrans Handbook BMP SC-1, SC-2, SC-4, SC-5, SC-6, SC-7, SC-8, SC-10).
• Tracking Controls: Install a stabilized construction entrance/exit and entrance/exit tire wash at the site to minimize the tracking of sediment onto public roads (CASQA Handbook BMP TR-1 and TC-3 or Caltrans Handbook BMP TC-1 and TC-3).
• Additional Controls: Implement wind erosion controls and stabilized construction roadways as needed (CASQA Handbook BMP WE-1 and TC-2 or Caltrans Handbook BMP WE-1 and TC-2).
• Non-Storm Water Management: Implement a combination of BMBs to prevent the potential for non-storm water discharges, including water conservation practices, dewatering operations, and vehicle and equipment washing/fueling/maintenance (CASQA or Caltrans Handbook BMP NS-1, NS-2, NS-8, NS-9, NS-10).
• Waste Management: Implement general site and materials management BMPs, including material delivery and storage, stockpile management, spill prevention and control, solid waste management, concrete waste management, and sanitary/septic waste management (CASQA and Caltrans Handbook WM-1, WM-3, WM-4, WM-5, WM-8, and WM-9).

Verify implemented by
a Qualified Storm
Water Pollution
Prevention Plan
Practitioner during
construction

4 Spring Lake Village East Grove

Mitigation Measures (MM) and Environmental Protection Actions (EPA)

Implementation
Procedure

Monitoring
Responsibility
Monitoring/
Reporting Action &
Schedule
Monitoring
Compliance
Record
(Name/Date)
EPA 5 – Implement MEDF Program and Lift Team Training
The Project applicant will obtain coverage in the Sonoma County Medical Facility Scene Call Program (MEDF Program). The MEDF Program includes a protocol for designated medical facilities meeting certain criteria to receive an ambulance- only response to a 911 call. The Santa Rosa Fire Department has deemed the Project’s inclusion into the MEDF Program as being necessary for the proposed use of the site. Inclusion into the MEDF Program allows approved Skilled Nursing Facilities, Clinics, and other facilities with medical staff to defer a fire department first response if warranted by patient condition. Certain patient conditions or specific facility requests will continue to receive a standard fire/emergency services response. In order to participate in the program, the Project applicant will submit a MEDF Program application form, which would be reviewed by local fire and emergency responder agencies, Coastal Valleys Emergency Medical Services Agency and Redwood Empire Dispatch Communications Authority, before being approved. In addition, the Project applicant will require that lift team training be provided to all employees working on-site as part of their first-week employment orientation.

Complete MEDF
Program application
form

Obtain coverage in
MEDF Program

Require lift team
training be provided
to all employees
working on-site as
part of first-week
employment
orientation
City of Santa Rosa Verify MEDF Program
coverage is obtained

Verify incorporation of
lift team training into
employee training
program

Mitigation Measures
Biological Resources
MM BIO-1a: Avoid Impacts to Foothill Yellow-legged Frog and Other Special Status Amphibians and Reptiles
City of Santa Rosa shall ensure the construction contractor adheres to the following measures to reduce impacts to special-status amphibians and reptiles during construction of the new storm drain culvert to be located on the southwest side of Melita Road:
• Prior to construction, all workers on the crew shall be trained by a qualified biologist as to the sensitivity of the special-status species potentially occurring within the construction area southwest of Melita Road. The training shall include a brief review of special-status species with the potential to occur onsite, including foothill yellow-legged frog, California red- legged frog, California giant salamander, red-bellied newt, and Pacific pond turtle. The training shall provide an overview of their habitat requirements, legal status, and protection requirements. The training shall also provide a brief overview of biological resource mitigation measures, environmental permits and proposed project plans (i.e., the SWPPP, BMPs, and any other required plans). Personnel shall sign an attendance form that will remain on file with the City of Santa Rosa for verification of training.

Incorporate
protection and
avoidance measures
into final plans or
specifications

Conduct
environmental
awareness training

Conduct
preconstruction
survey prior to
construction
activities for storm
drain culvert
improvements
southwest of Melita
Road
City of Santa Rosa Verify protection and
avoidance measures
are in final plans or
specifications prior to
issuance of grading
permit

Verify completion of
training prior to start of
construction

Verify preconstruction
survey conducted with
48 hours prior to
applicable construction
activities

5 Spring Lake Village East Grove

Mitigation Measures (MM) and Environmental Protection Actions (EPA)

Implementation
Procedure

Monitoring
Responsibility
Monitoring/
Reporting Action &
Schedule
Monitoring
Compliance
Record
(Name/Date)
• Pre-construction surveys shall be performed within 48 hours prior to initiation of construction activities (including initial ground disturbing activities) related to the storm drain culvert improvements southwest of Melita Road.
• Prior to construction, a wildlife exclusion fence shall be installed along the southwest side of Melita Road along the upper limits of the Santa Rosa Creek corridor to prevent special-status amphibians and reptiles from accessing the site during construction. This fence shall be maintained during construction activities. The exclusion fence shall be installed such that the fabric is an appropriate height above ground per biologist recommendation and the fabric should be buried 4-6 inches below ground. The exclusion fence posts shall be located on the work side of the fence with the fabric on the outside relative to the stakes.
• All vegetation clearing for the storm drain culvert shall be done by hand under the supervision of a qualified biologist.
• No construction activities within the storm drain culvert area shall occur during rain events, defined as ¼ inch of rain falling within a 24-hour period.

Construction activities may resume 24 hours after the end of the rain event.

Work shall not be conducted within the storm drain culvert area southwest of Melita Road any time 30 minutes before sunrise or sunset.

Install wildlife
exclusion fence
southwest of Melita
Road prior to
construction
Verify exclusion fence
installed correctly

Check jobsite
compliance as
necessary

MM BIO-1b: Avoid Impacts to Nesting Birds
The City of Santa Rosa shall ensure the following measures to avoid impacts to nesting birds are followed:
• To the extent possible, grading or removal of any vegetation shall be conducted outside the nesting season, which occurs between approximately February 1 and August 31. No preconstruction nesting bird survey is required for work conducted outside this period.
• If limiting grading or vegetation removal between August 31 and February 1 is infeasible and work must occur within the nesting season, a pre- construction nesting bird (both passerine and raptor) survey of the landscaped areas and trees shall be performed by a qualified biologist within 7 days of ground breaking. If no nesting birds are observed, no further action is required and work shall occur within one week of the survey to prevent impacts to individual birds that could begin nesting after the survey. • If bird nests (either passerine and/or raptor) are observed during the pre- construction survey, a disturbance-free buffer zone shall be established around the nest tree(s) until the young have fledged, as determined by a qualified biologist. The radius of the required buffer zone can vary depending on the species, (i.e., 75 to 100 feet for passerines and 200 to Incorporate
protection and
avoidance measures
into final plans or
specifications

Qualified biologist to
conduct
preconstruction
nesting survey
before
groundbreaking if
grading or
vegetation removal
occurs during
nesting season

If needed,
implement
City of Santa Rosa Verify protection and
avoidance measures
are in final plans or
specifications prior to
issuance of grading
permit

Verify bird nesting
surveys are conducted
within 7 days prior to
grading or ground
disturbing activities
during nesting season

If needed, verify
disturbance buffers are
implemented during
construction

6 Spring Lake Village East Grove

Mitigation Measures (MM) and Environmental Protection Actions (EPA)

Implementation
Procedure

Monitoring
Responsibility
Monitoring/
Reporting Action &
Schedule
Monitoring
Compliance
Record
(Name/Date)
300 feet for raptors), with the dimensions of any required buffer zones to be determined by a qualified biologist based upon the distance necessary to prevent disturbance to the relevant species.
• To delineate the buffer zone around a bird nest, orange construction fencing shall be placed at the specified radius from the nest within which no machinery or workers shall intrude. After the fencing is in place there will be no restrictions on grading or construction activities outside the prescribed buffer zones.

If initial ground disturbance is delayed or there is a break in project activities of greater than 14 days within the bird-nesting season, then a follow-up nesting bird survey should be performed to ensure no nests have been established in the interim.
avoidance measures
for any active bird
nests identified until
birds have fledged
as determined by a
qualified biologist

If needed, conduct
follow-up nesting
surveys
If needed, verify follow-
up nesting surveys are
conducted

MM BIO-1c: Avoid Impacts to Sensitive or Listed Bats
The City of Santa Rosa shall ensure the following measures to avoid impacts to roosting bats are followed.

If initial ground disturbance occurs during the bat maternity roosting season (May 1 through August 31), a qualified biologist shall conduct a bat habitat assessment of trees within 100 feet of the Project site. The assessment shall evaluate the trees for suitable entry points and roost features, and shall provide focused daytime surveys for day-roosting bats. If the biologist determines there is potential for maternity roosting bats to be present within 100 feet of construction areas, nighttime emergence surveys may be performed to determine if maternity roosting bats are present.

If bat maternity roosts are present, the biologist shall establish an appropriate exclusion zone around the maternity roost. Removal of trees that potentially support a bat maternity roost should only occur between September 1 and October 15, after the young have learned to be self-sufficient but before hibernation. Trees supporting bats should not be removed while bats are hibernating between October 15 and March 15 or otherwise while bats are present.

If a special-status bat species is found, or if suspected day roosts for special- status bats are identified, then the qualified biologist shall identify suitable measures for avoiding impacts to roosts to achieve the performance standard of ensuring bat species have relocated prior to demolition or removal of the roosting structure. Measures shall include, at a minimum, phased removal of trees where selected limbs and branches not containing cavities are removed using chainsaws on the first day, with the remainder of the tree removed using chainsaws or other equipment on the second day after all bats have left the roost.

Incorporate
protection and
avoidance measures
into final plans or
specifications

Qualified biologist to
conduct bat habitat
assessment before
groundbreaking if
grading or
vegetation removal
occurs during
maternity roosting
season

Implement
avoidance and
performance
measures as
described in bat
habitat assessment
and based on
consultations with
CDFW for any bat
maternity roosts as
determined by a
qualified biologist
City of Santa Rosa Verify protection and
avoidance measures
are in final plans or
specifications prior to
issuance of grading
permit

Verify bat habitat
assessment is
conducted prior to
grading or ground
disturbing activities
during maternity
roosting season

Verify disturbance
buffers and
performance measures
are implemented
during construction, if
required

7 Spring Lake Village East Grove

Mitigation Measures (MM) and Environmental Protection Actions (EPA)

Implementation
Procedure

Monitoring
Responsibility
Monitoring/
Reporting Action &
Schedule
Monitoring
Compliance
Record
(Name/Date)
The City shall also consult with the California Department of Fish and Wildlife to determine whether there is a need for any additional or equally effective alternative measures for protecting bats with young if present, and for implementing measures to exclude non-breeding bat colonies during the construction process.

MM BIO-1d: Avoid Impacts to Steelhead
The City of Santa Rosa shall ensure the construction contractor adheres to the following measures in order to prevent potential erosion into the off-site riparian zone associated with Santa Rosa Creek:
• Construction associated with storm drain improvements southwest of Melita Road shall occur during the dry season.
• Standard BMPs shall be implemented, including the installation of silt fences immediately downslope of the work limits for the storm drain improvements. • All disturbed areas shall be restored post-construction and hydro seeded with a native seed mix.

Measures outlined by permitting agencies, such as CDFW or RWQCB, to prevent diminished water quality and erosion shall also be implemented during construction.

Incorporate
requirements into
plans and
specifications

Obtain required
permits

Implement required
measures during
construction
City of Santa Rosa Verify requirements
are in final plans or
specifications prior to
issuance of grading
permit

Verify permits are
obtained

Check jobsite
compliance as
necessary

MM BIO-3 Compensate for Loss of Wetlands and Waters
The City of Santa Rosa shall ensure the Applicant compensates for the loss of the seasonal wetland through the purchase of wetland credits in an approved mitigation bank within the Santa Rosa Plain so that there is no net loss in wetlands. The Applicant shall compensate for impacts to other waters, by enhancing approximately 120 square feet of drainage area with the planting of native willow within the rock rip-rap at the reconstructed culvert outlet southwest of Melita Road and an additional 120 square feet downslope of this area. Any other temporarily disturbed wetlands and waters shall be restored post- construction and hydro seeded with a native seed mix to original state.

Santa Rosa Creek shall be completely avoided during construction activities. Silt fences shall be installed along the edge of the culvert where storm drain improvements are planned to reduce siltation and contaminated runoff from the improvement area into the creek during construction. Required permits from the regulatory agencies shall be received prior to the start of any on-site construction activity. The City and Applicant shall ensure any additional measures outlined in the permits are implemented
Incorporate
requirements into
plans and
specifications

Obtain required
permit and obtain
required credits

Implement
enhancements to
drainage area
southwest of Melita
Road and restore
disturbed areas

Implement permit
requirements
City of Santa Rosa Verify requirements
are in final plans or
specifications prior to
issuance of grading
permit

Verify permits and
credits are obtained

Verify drainage
enhancements and
restoration efforts are
implemented during
construction

Check jobsite
compliance as
necessary

8 Spring Lake Village East Grove

Mitigation Measures (MM) and Environmental Protection Actions (EPA)

Implementation
Procedure

Monitoring
Responsibility
Monitoring/
Reporting Action &
Schedule
Monitoring
Compliance
Record
(Name/Date)
MM BIO-5 Compensate for Loss of Protected Trees
The City shall ensure the Applicant complies with Santa Rosa City Code Chapter 17-24 for planting and regenerating trees. The Applicant shall apply for and obtain permit for alteration, removal or relocation, of heritage, protected, or street trees and shall comply with the mitigation ratio requirements for tree removal mandated by the City Code. Approval by the Director of the City’s Recreation and Parks Department shall be obtained, as required. Replacement trees shall be planted within the Project site; however, if the Project area is inadequate in size to accommodate the replacement trees, the trees may be planted on public property with the approval of the Director of the City’s Planning and Economic Development Department, or through payment of in-lieu fees.

The tree protection measures identified in the 2017 Tree Preservation and Mitigation Report shall be implemented. These include, but are not limited to, the following measures:
• Tree Protection Zones shall be illustrated on the Improvements Plans to show the area around each tree to be preserved that must be protected at all times with tree protection fencing. The protected area beneath the canopy of each tree shall be designated by the Project arborist to ensure long term tree viability and health.
• Tree protection fencing shall be minimum 4-feet in height at all locations, and shall form a continuous barrier around trees to be preserved.

Trenching should be routed around the Tree Protection Zone whenever possible.

Incorporate tree
replacement
requirements into
plans and
specifications

Obtain required tree
permit

Implement planting
of replacement trees

Implement required
tree protection
measures
City of Santa Rosa Verify tree
replacement
requirements are in
final plans or
specifications prior to
issuance of grading
permit

Verify tree permit
obtained

Verify tree planting
occurs

Verify protection
measures are
implemented during
construction

Cultural Resources
MM CR-2a: Protection and Treatment of Cultural Resources and Tribal Cultural Resources
The City shall ensure implementation of the following actions related to cultural and tribal cultural resources:

Protection of Archaeological and Tribal Cultural Resources, Pre-Construction Data Recovery, and/or Construction Monitoring
The City shall ensure that an Archaeological and Tribal Cultural Resources Treatment Plan is developed and implemented for the area outlined in the Cultural Resources Summary prepared for the Project by Tom Origer & Associates (Origer & Associates 2020), and any other archaeological resources identified by subsurface testing. The Treatment Plan shall be reviewed by the City, FIGR, and Lytton, and approved by the City prior to the start of Project construction. The Treatment Plan shall detail recommended steps for protecting, preserving, or data recovery for archaeological and tribal cultural resources. The Treatment Plan shall include one or more of the following strategies to ensure

Develop
Archaeological and
Tribal Cultural
Resources
Treatment Plan for
review and approval

Implement program
of pre-construction
data recovery and
investigation, as well
as construction
archaeological
monitoring, as
City of Santa Rosa Verify completion,
review, and approval
of Treatment Plan

Verify pre-construction
data recovery,
investigation,
construction
monitoring, protection,
and avoidance
measures are in final
plans or specifications
prior to issuance of
grading permit

9 Spring Lake Village East Grove

Mitigation Measures (MM) and Environmental Protection Actions (EPA)

Implementation
Procedure

Monitoring
Responsibility
Monitoring/
Reporting Action &
Schedule
Monitoring
Compliance
Record
(Name/Date)
that appropriate actions to protect cultural and tribal cultural resources are taken, as described in more detail below.

1. Protection and Preservation;

2. Pre-construction data recovery; and

3. Construction Monitoring
Protection and Preservation
The preferred treatment of an archaeological resource is protection and preservation. Protection can be achieved by either avoidance (not developing within the boundaries of an archaeological resource), by covering an archaeological resource with geo-fabric and sufficient fill to protect it during and after construction, or by reducing/restricting development within the boundaries of a resource.

Pre-Construction Data Recovery
For significant resources that are not protected and preserved in place, data recovery within the sensitive area to be affected by the Project is necessary.

Data recovery must be performed by qualified archaeologists using standard archaeological techniques. Data recovery must include processing and analysis of recovered cultural materials using appropriate archaeological methods, and preparation of the recovered materials for permanent disposition (e.g., re-burial in a location that will be identified in collaboration with FIGR and Lytton and that would be protected in perpetuity) per the requirements of the Archaeological and Tribal Cultural Resources Treatment Plan. Prior to any ground disturbing activities, for all areas of the project site that have not undergone previous subsurface investigations, one of the following Extended Phase I investigation methods shall be conducted: (1) shovel test pits/shovel probe, (2) backhoe trenching, or (3) hand augering. The archaeologist shall determine the appropriate method and provide the scope of work to FIGR and Lytton for a 14- day comment period. Any resources identified during subsurface testing shall be treated in accordance with the Archaeological and Tribal Cultural Resources Treatment Plan.

Construction Monitoring
A program of archaeological monitoring shall be instituted for ground-disturbing activities associated with the area outlined in the Cultural Resources Summary prepared for the Project by Tom Origer & Associates (Origer & Associates 2020).

Monitoring shall be performed by a qualified archaeologist and may also include a Native American monitor and will consist of directly watching the excavation, grading, trenching, and other earth-moving processes. Monitoring shall continue on a daily basis until the depth of excavation has been reached at which resources could not be present. This will be determined by the monitoring archaeologist based on observed soil conditions.
outlined in the
Treatment Plan

If archaeological
remains or potential
tribal cultural
resources are
encountered, halt
construction and
retain a qualified
professional
archaeologist and
tribal monitor to
evaluate the
resources and follow
procedures in the
Treatment Plan, as
appropriate
Verify pre-construction
data recovery for areas
of the project that have
not undergone
previous subsurface
investigation occurs
prior to ground
disturbance

Verify archaeological
monitoring occurs
during construction

If needed, ensure
protection and
avoidance procedures
are followed during
construction

10 Spring Lake Village East Grove

Mitigation Measures (MM) and Environmental Protection Actions (EPA)

Implementation
Procedure

Monitoring
Responsibility
Monitoring/
Reporting Action &
Schedule
Monitoring
Compliance
Record
(Name/Date)
In the event that archaeological deposits are encountered, the piece of equipment that encounters the suspected materials must be stopped, and the find inspected by the monitoring archaeologist. If the deposit contains Historic Resources, Unique Archaeological Resources, or Tribal Cultural Resources as defined by CEQA, all work must be stopped in the immediate vicinity and the archaeologist shall undertake data recovery of the deposit. Data recovery efforts must follow standard archaeological methods. Work may proceed after a find has been appropriately addressed and no further damage would result.

MM CR-2b and CR-2c: Additional Avoidance Measures
The City shall ensure implementation of further avoidance measures as identified in Mitigation Measures CR-2b and CR-2c in the confidential Appendix H.

Implement
avoidance measures
as described in
confidential
Appendix H.

City of Santa Rosa Verify avoidance
measures are reflected
in final plans prior to
issuance of grading
permit

Check jobsite
compliance as
necessary

MM CR-2d: Protect Unanticipated Archaeological and Tribal Cultural Resources
The City shall ensure that if potential unanticipated archaeological or tribal cultural resources are uncovered during construction, the Applicant and its contractor shall halt work, and workers shall avoid altering the materials and their context. Project personnel shall not collect cultural materials, examples of which are provided in the following description. Prehistoric archaeological site indicators include: obsidian and chert flakes and chipped stone tools; grinding and mashing implements (e.g., slabs and handstones, and mortars and pestles); bedrock outcrops and boulders with mortar cups; and locally darkened midden soils. Midden soils may contain a combination of any of the previously listed items with the possible addition of bone and shell remains, and fire affected stones. Historic period site indicators generally include: fragments of glass, ceramic, and metal objects; milled and split lumber; and structure and feature remains such as building foundations and discrete trash deposits (e.g., wells, privy pits, dumps).

A qualified archaeologist and representatives of FIGR and/or Lytton shall be retained by the Applicant to investigate the find and make recommendations as to treatment and handling of those resources. If the find potentially qualifies as a historic resource, unique archaeological resource, or tribal cultural resource under CEQA, all work must remain stopped in the immediate vicinity to allow the archaeologist and tribal representatives to evaluate any materials and recommend appropriate treatment. Avoidance of impacts to the resource are Incorporate
requirements into
final plans or
specifications

Stop work and notify
qualified
archaeologist to
conduct evaluation if
suspected
archaeological
resources are
encountered

Implement treatment
procedure as
described in
evaluation
Verify monitoring,
protection, and
avoidance measures
are in final plans or
specifications prior to
issuance of grading
permit

Verify monitoring
occurs during initial
groundbreaking

If needed, ensure
protection and
avoidance procedures
are followed during
construction

11 Spring Lake Village East Grove

Mitigation Measures (MM) and Environmental Protection Actions (EPA)

Implementation
Procedure

Monitoring
Responsibility
Monitoring/
Reporting Action &
Schedule
Monitoring
Compliance
Record
(Name/Date)
preferable. In considering any recommended measures proposed by the archaeologist, FIGR, or Lytton, the City shall determine whether avoidance is feasible in light of factors such as the nature of the find, Project design, costs, and other considerations. If avoidance is infeasible, other appropriate measures as determined by the City upon consideration of recommendations by the archaeologist, FIGR, or Lytton (e.g., data recovery or protection in place) shall be instituted. A buffer area around the resource would be established by a qualified archaeologist and tribal representative to ensure that no further damage to a resource would result. Work may then proceed on other parts of the Project while mitigation for these resources is being carried out.

MM CR-3: Treatment of Human Remains, Associated Grave Goods, or Items of Cultural Patrimony
Should human remains, associated grave goods, or items of cultural patrimony be encountered during Project construction, the following procedures shall be followed as required by Public Resources Code Section 5097.9 and Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5.

If human remains are encountered, no further excavation or disturbance of the site or any nearby area shall occur until the Sonoma County Coroner has made the necessary findings as to origin, in accordance with Health and Safety Code 7050.5. In accordance with Public Resources Code 5097.98 if the coroner believes the human remains to be those of a Native American, he or she shall contact, by telephone, within 24 hours, the Native American Heritage Commission. The Native American Heritage Commission shall immediately notify the Most Likely Descendent (MLD) or Descendants. The Descendent shall inspect the site of the discovery and may recommend the means for treating or disposing, with appropriate dignity, the human remains and any associated grave goods. The Descendants shall complete their inspection and make their recommendation within 48 hours of their notification by the Native American Heritage Commission. The remains shall not be damaged or disturbed by further development until the landowner has discussed and conferred with the MLD regarding their recommendations.

Incorporate
notification
requirements into
final plans or
specifications

Notify County
Coroner if human
remains, associated
grave goods or
items of cultural
patrimony are
encountered

Notify qualified
archaeologist and
tribal monitor to
develop agreement
if human remains or
graves are
encountered, if
applicable

Notify Native
American Heritage
Commission within
24-hours of
identification
pursuant to PRC
5097.98
City of Santa Rosa Verify notification
procedures are in final
plans or specifications
prior to issuance of
grading permit

If needed, ensure
notification procedures
are followed during
construction

12 Spring Lake Village East Grove

Mitigation Measures (MM) and Environmental Protection Actions (EPA)

Implementation
Procedure

Monitoring
Responsibility
Monitoring/
Reporting Action &
Schedule
Monitoring
Compliance
Record
(Name/Date)
Geology and Soils
MM GEO-8: Protect Paleontological Resources if Encountered during Construction
A qualified paleontologist shall be contracted to periodically inspect any ground disturbances that are part of construction activities including but not limited to excavations. The construction contractor shall stop all ground disturbing activities should any vertebrate fossils be encountered during construction. All ground disturbing activities within 50 feet of the find shall be temporarily halted, and a qualified paleontologist shall be notified to document the discovery as needed, to evaluate the potential resource, and to assess the nature and significance of the find. Based on the scientific value or uniqueness of the find, the paleontologist may record the find and allow work to continue, or recommend salvage and recovery of the material, if it is determined that the find cannot be avoided. The paleontologist shall make recommendations for any necessary treatment that is consistent with currently accepted scientific practices. Any fossils collected from the area shall then be deposited in an accredited and permanent scientific institution where they will be properly curated and preserved Incorporate
requirements into
plans and
specifications

A paleontologist
shall be on-site to
periodically inspect
ground disturbance
activities that extend
to depths where
paleontological
resources may
potentially be
encountered

If needed,
implement treatment
procedures as
described in
evaluation
City of Santa Rosa Verify requirements
are in final plans or
specifications

Verify periodic
inspection is
performed

If needed, verify
assessment is
completed, and
protection and
treatment is
implemented

Hazardous Materials
MM HAZ-6: Reduce Wildland Fire Hazards during Construction Prior to construction, the applicant and its contractor(s) shall remove and/or clear away dry, combustible vegetation from the construction site. Grass and other vegetation less than 18 inches in height above the ground shall be maintained where necessary to stabilize the soil and prevent erosion. Vehicles shall not be parked in areas where exhaust systems contact combustible materials. Fire extinguishers shall be available on the construction site to assist in quickly extinguishing any small fires, and the contractors shall have on site the phone number for the local fire department.

Incorporate fire
reduction
requirements into
final plans or
specifications

Clear site of dry,
combustible
vegetation.

Implement additional
recommended
protection measures
City of Santa Rosa Verify firereduction
requirements are in
final plans or
specifications

Verify removal of dry,
combustible vegetation
prior to start of
construction

Check jobsite
compliance as
necessary

13 Spring Lake Village East Grove

Mitigation Measures (MM) and Environmental Protection Actions (EPA)

Implementation
Procedure

Monitoring
Responsibility
Monitoring/
Reporting Action &
Schedule
Monitoring
Compliance
Record
(Name/Date)
Hydrology and Water Quality
MM HWQ-1: Manage Construction Dewatering
If construction dewatering is required, the City shall require the Applicant and its contractor to evaluate reasonable options for dewatering management that would avoid discharging to a local surface water or storm drain. The following management options shall be considered:
• Reuse the water on-site for dust control, compaction, or irrigation. • Retain the water on-site in a grassy or porous area to allow infiltration/evaporation.
• Discharge (by permit) to a sanitary sewer.

If discharging to the sanitary sewer, the Applicant shall comply with a one-time discharge permit or other type of approval requiring, as necessary, measures for characterizing the discharge and ensuring filtering methods and monitoring to verify that the discharge is compliant with the City’s local wastewater discharge requirements.

If discharging to a local surface water or storm drain, the Applicant shall obtain coverage under NCRWQCB Order No. R1-2009-0045, Waste Discharge Requirements for Low Threat Discharges to Surface Waters in the North Coast Region. The Applicant shall submit permit registration documents to the NCRWQCB, including development of a Best Management Practices/Pollution Prevention Plan to characterize the discharge and to identify specific measures to control the discharge, such as sediment controls to ensure that excessive sediment is not discharged, and flow controls to prevent erosion and flooding downstream of the discharge. The City shall ensure that the Applicant oversees implementation of the Best Management Practices/Pollution Prevention Plan during construction dewatering activities, including visual inspections and ensuring overall compliance.

Incorporate
dewatering
requirements into
plans and
specifications

If discharging to
sanitary sewer,
obtain required
permit

If discharging to
local surface water
or storm drain,
obtain required
permit

Implement
applicable measures
in permit
City of Santa Rosa Verify dewatering
requirements are
incorporated into final
plans and
specifications prior to
issuance of grading
permit

Verify permit has been
obtained prior to
dewatering activity

Verify compliance with
permit during
construction

Noise
MM NOI-1a: Reduce Construction Noise
The Applicant and its contractor shall implement construction noise control measures during construction, with input from adjacent noise-sensitive land uses. Noise control measures shall include, but would not be limited to the following:
• Install a temporary construction noise barrier with a height of 8 feet above grade on the Project property lines shared with the residential properties.

The noise barrier shall be installed before loud construction activities begin and shall remain in place until construction within 150 feet of the barrier location is complete. The noise barrier may be composed of mass loaded Incorporate
construction noise
control measures
into plans and
specifications

Implement noise
control measures
during construction
City of Santa Rosa Verify construction
noise control
measures are
incorporated into final
plans and
specifications prior to
issuance of grading
permit

14 Spring Lake Village East Grove

Mitigation Measures (MM) and Environmental Protection Actions (EPA)

Implementation
Procedure

Monitoring
Responsibility
Monitoring/
Reporting Action &
Schedule
Monitoring
Compliance
Record
(Name/Date)
construction blankets on temporary fencing or solid plywood construction barriers and should have a minimum surface weight of 1.0 lb. /ft2 and an equivalent sound transmission class rating of 25 or more. • Muffle and maintain all equipment used on site. All internal combustion engine-driven equipment shall be fitted with mufflers, which are in good condition. Good mufflers shall result in non-impact tools generating a maximum noise level of 80 dBA when measured at a distance of 50 feet. • Utilize “quiet” models of air compressors and other stationary noise sources where technology exists.
• Locate stationary noise-generating equipment as far as possible from sensitive receptors when sensitive receptors adjoin or are near a construction project area.
• Prohibit unnecessary idling of internal combustion engines. • Prohibit construction workers’ radios which are audible on adjoining properties.
• Restrict noise-generating activities at the construction site or in areas adjacent to the construction site to the hours between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday.
• Do not allow machinery to be cleaned or serviced past 6:00 p.m. or prior to 8:00 a.m. Monday through Friday.
• The allowable hours for delivery of materials or equipment to the site and truck traffic coming to and from the site for any purpose to shall be limited to Monday through Friday between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m.
• Construction or construction related activities at the Project site shall not occur on weekends or holidays.
• Allowable construction hours shall be posted clearly on a sign at the construction site.
• The construction contractor shall designate a “noise disturbance coordinator” who will be responsible for responding to any local complaints about construction noise. A telephone number for the disturbance coordinator shall be posted at the construction site. The Disturbance Coordinator shall:
- Notify area residents of construction activities, schedules, and potential impacts.
- Receive and act on complaints about construction disturbances. - Determine the cause and implement remedial measures as necessary to alleviate problems.

Verify implemention
during construction

15 Spring Lake Village East Grove

Mitigation Measures (MM) and Environmental Protection Actions (EPA)

Implementation
Procedure

Monitoring
Responsibility
Monitoring/
Reporting Action &
Schedule
Monitoring
Compliance
Record
(Name/Date)
- Clearly post his/her name and phone number(s) on a sign at the construction site.

MM NOI-1b: Revise Site Plan to Reduce Operational Noise The Applicant shall incorporate the following measures into the design and construction of the Project:
• The condensing units of the residential Cottages adjacent to residential property lines shall be located on the front sides of the buildings (out of line- of-sight to the neighboring residential property line). • A noise barrier fence/wall with a minimum top of wall elevation of 6 feet above the finished grade shall be constructed along the property line adjacent to and the nearest residential property line.
• The noise barrier fence/wall shall be built without cracks or gaps in the face or large or continuous gaps at the base. The wall shall also have a minimum surface weight of 3.0 lbs. per sq. ft. Acceptable materials for such walls include a 2x4 wood framed wall with wood or stucco finishes, masonry, and pre-cast concrete panels. A wood fence type wall may also be used, but shall be double faced with butted vertical fence boards on each side with a continuous layer of 1/2” plywood.

Incorporate noise
reduction measures
into plans and
specifications

Confirm noise
measures are
implemented during
construction
City of Santa Rosa Verify noise reduction
measures are
incorporated into final
plans and
specifications prior to
issuance of building
permit

Verify design
implemented during
construction

MM NOI-1c: Emergency Generator Enclosure
The Applicant shall incorporate the following measures into the design, construction, and operation of the on-site emergency generator:
• The on-site emergency generator shall be fitted with an acoustical enclosure which results in noise emissions of no more than 55 dBA at any adjacent property line, which shall be confirmed by a noise consultant. • Emergency generator testing shall only be conducted between the hours of 7 a.m. and 7 p.m.

Incorporate
requirement into
plans and
specifications

Confirm noise
emissions from
generator are less
than 55 dBA at
adjacent property
lines

Ensure testing is
limited to prescribed
hours
City of Santa Rosa,
Construction
Coordinator, and
Applicant
Verify requirements
are incorporated into
final plans and
specifications prior to
issuance of building
permit

Verify requirements
are implemented
during construction

MM NOI-2: Reduce Groundborne Vibration during Construction The Applicant and its contractors shall conduct construction activities within 45 feet of a residential property line in a manner that minimizes vibration, including:

Incorporate vibration
reduction
requirement into
plans and
specifications
City of Santa Rosa Verify vibration
reduction requirement
incorporated into final
plans and
specifications prior to

16 Spring Lake Village East Grove

Mitigation Measures (MM) and Environmental Protection Actions (EPA)

Implementation
Procedure

Monitoring
Responsibility
Monitoring/
Reporting Action &
Schedule
Monitoring
Compliance
Record
(Name/Date)
• Heavy vibratory rollers (weight rating of more than 2 tons) shall not be used on any portion of the Project site that is located within 45 feet of a residential property line.
prior to issuance of
grading permit

Check jobsite
compliance as
necessary

Transportation
TR-3: Los Alamos Road Bike Lane Signage
The City shall ensure the Applicant amends the Los Alamos Road Frontage improvement plans to include signage to notify both riders and drivers of a mid- block bicycle lane change between Los Alamos Road and Melita Road. Signage shall be designed and implemented to the satisfaction of the City and shall not substantially reduce line-of-sight from the proposed Project driveway.

Incorporate required
signage into
included in plans
and specifications

Ensure signage
preserves adequate
line-of-sight
Verify signage is
included in plans and
specifications prior to
issuance of building
permit

Verify signage is
implemented per
requirements during
construction

Resolution PC – RES – 2026-010
Final Audit Report 2026-03-30

"Resolution PC – RES – 2026-010" History
Document created by Madeline Brown ([email protected])
2026-03-30 - 1:19:21 PM PDT

Document emailed to Karen Weeks ([email protected]) for signature 2026-03-30 - 1:28:11 PM PDT

Email viewed by Karen Weeks ([email protected])
2026-03-30 - 1:28:18 PM PDT

Document e-signed by Karen Weeks ([email protected])
Signature Date: 2026-03-30 - 4:30:48 PM PDT - Time Source: server

Document emailed to Jessica Jones ([email protected]) for signature 2026-03-30 - 4:30:49 PM PDT

Email viewed by Jessica Jones ([email protected])
2026-03-30 - 4:33:59 PM PDT

Document e-signed by Jessica Jones ([email protected])
Signature Date: 2026-03-30 - 4:34:14 PM PDT - Time Source: server

Agreement completed.
2026-03-30 - 4:34:14 PM PDT

Created:
2026-03-30 (Pacific Daylight Time)
By:

Status:

Transaction ID:

Madeline Brown ([email protected])
Signed
CBJCHBCAABAASoxKCECUNNwPQB8mTddlbm9NeNOiIwaW