Sebastopol City Council
March 1, 2022

EXHIBIT A
Biological Resources Assessment; Prunuske Chatham, Inc. (PCI); August 2021
Attachment 7 Part 2 to Agenda Item Number 8
Attachment 7 Part 2 to Agenda Item Number 8
City Council Meeting Packet of March 1, 2022

Biological Resources Assessment
Huntley Square Townhome Development
7950 Bodega Avenue, Sebastopol
August 2021
Prepared for:

Kari Svanstrom, Planning Director
City of Sebastopol
7120 Bodega Avenue
Sebastopol, CA 95472
Prepared by:

Prunuske Chatham, Inc.
400 Morris Street, Suite G
Sebastopol, CA 95472
Attachment 7 Part 2 to Agenda Item Number 8
Attachment 7 Part 2 to Agenda Item Number 8
City Council Meeting Packet of March 1, 2022

Table of Contents
Page
Introduction .................................................................................................................. 1 Setting ........................................................................................................................... 1 Methods........................................................................................................................ 3 Soils............................................................................................................................... 4 Existing Conditions........................................................................................................ 4 Sensitive Natural Communities..................................................................................... 5 Special-status Species................................................................................................... 8 Definition of Special-status Species ......................................................................... 8 Special-status Species Evaluation Criteria................................................................ 8 Special-status Plants............................................................................................... 11 Special-status Animals............................................................................................ 12 Conclusions................................................................................................................. 15 References .................................................................................................................. 17 Project Photographs ................................................................................................... 19 Figures
Figure 1. Project Location ................................................................................................... 2 Figure 2. Site Map ............................................................................................................... 7 Figure 3. Reported Occurrences of Special-status Species............................................... 10 Tables
Table 1. Special-status Plants Evaluated for the Huntley Square Project ........................ 11 Table 2. Special-status Animals Evaluated for the Huntley Square Project ..................... 13 Attachment 7 Part 2 to Agenda Item Number 8
Attachment 7 Part 2 to Agenda Item Number 8
City Council Meeting Packet of March 1, 2022

Introduction
Huntley Square, LLC, is proposing to develop a townhome development at 7950 Bodega Avenue, Sebastopol, Sonoma County (APN 004-350-024-000; Figure 1). The property is a

0.39-acre parcel currently zoned R7 (multifamily residential or small lot subdivision); it is an urban infill lot with no existing developments.

The project design includes 10 townhome units that are each under 600 square feet. The residential structures will occupy the central and southern portions of the parcel and will be separated by a pedestrian access path that connects a city sidewalk on Bodega Avenue to a parking area in the northern portion of the parcel. Vehicle access to the townhomes will occur through an easement at 120-132 Gold Ridge Avenue.

Prunuske Chatham, Inc. (PCI) was retained by the City of Sebastopol (City) to prepare a biological resources assessment of the project site. The following assessment has been completed to determine 1) the impacts of the proposed project on sensitive biological resources and 2) whether there are any biological constraints associated with the proposed project. This report describes biological resources observed on the site, reviews potential for special-status species occurrence, and provides general recommendations to protect biological resources during project implementation.

Setting
The project site (i.e., the parcel) is located within the southwestern portion of the city of Sebastopol, off of Golden Ridge Avenue, approximately 100 feet northwest of the intersection of Golden Ridge Avenue and Bodega Avenue. The site is mapped on the Sebastopol 7.5’ USGS quadrangle (38.235447°N, 122.501698°W) and the elevation ranges from approximately 240 to 250 feet. The site drains toward Atascadero Creek, a tributary to the Russian River. Beyond the parcel, the site is bordered by housing developments to the north, west, and east and Bodega Highway to the south.

Attachment 7 Part 2 to Agenda Item Number 8
Attachment 7 Part 2 to Agenda Item Number 8
City Council Meeting Packet of March 1, 2022

[ Figure 1. Project Location
Huntley Square Biological Assessment
7950 Bodega Highway, Sebastopol
0 500 1,000 2,000
Feet
August 2021
Topography: ESRI/Natl Geographic Society
Project site
Attachment 7 Part 2 to Agenda Item Number 8
Attachment 7 Part 2 to Agenda Item Number 8
City Council Meeting Packet of March 1, 2022

Methods
Plan Review. PCI reviewed the proposed site plan prepared by Healthy Buildings Architects (2020), the City of Sebastopol Design Review Board Staff Report (2021), and the Tree Preservation and Mitigation Report prepared by Horticultural Associates (2020).

The tree report provides an inventory of trees within the project area and identifies which trees are proposed for removal and preservation.

Background Research. A background literature and database search was conducted to determine the potential for special-status species and sensitive habitats to occur within or adjacent to the project site. The search focused on reported occurrences for the Sebastopol 7 ½’ USGS quadrangle and a several mile buffer around the project site.

General references were also consulted to evaluate the potential for unique biological communities and special-status species to occur. References consulted include:
 California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB)1(CDFW 2021a)  California Sensitive Natural Communities (CDFW 2020)
 A Manual of California Vegetation Online (CNPS 2021a)  CNPS Inventory of Rare and Endangered Vascular Plants of California (CNPS 2021b)
 Calflora database (Calflora 2021)
 Information for Planning and Conservation (IPaC) Trust Resource List for the project area (USFWS 2021)
 Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey (NRCS 2021) Field Survey. A biological field survey of the project site was completed on July 7, 2021, by PCI’s Ecologist, who is familiar with the region’s flora and fauna. The field assessment was a general inventory of habitats within the project site and of species observed or potentially occurring within and in close proximity to the project site; it did not include focused surveys for special-status plants or animal species. Observations were limited in scope due to the seasonal phenology, distribution and/or rarity of some species. The potential for presence of special-status species and habitats was determined based on habitat conditions, presence or absence of unique habitat features, proximity of the project site to reported occurrences (CDFW 2021a), and geographic ranges of relevant species.
1 The California Natural Diversity Data Base (CNDDB) is a repository of information on sightings and collections of rare, threatened, or endangered plant and animal species within California. It is maintained by CDFW. CNDDB reports occurrences of special-status species that have been entered into the database and does not generally include inventories of more common animals or plants. The absence of a species from the database does not necessarily mean that they do not occur in the area, only that no sightings have been reported. In addition, sightings are subject to observer judgment and may not be entirely reliable as a result.

Attachment 7 Part 2 to Agenda Item Number 8
Attachment 7 Part 2 to Agenda Item Number 8
City Council Meeting Packet of March 1, 2022

PCI’s biological assessment followed the protocol described in Sonoma County’s guidelines for biological studies (Agricultural Commissioner 2014). During the survey, an inventory of all species observed was compiled and is incorporated into the Existing Conditionstext below. All plants observed were identified using the Jepson eFlora (Jepson Flora Project 2021) and Sonoma County Flora (Best et al. 1996) to the taxonomic level necessary to determine whether they were rare. Botanical nomenclature follows the Jepson eFlora. Representative photographs taken during the field survey are provided at the end of this report.

This biological assessment is specific to the project identified above; impacts beyond the project boundaries were not evaluated. It does not include an evaluation of the cumulative effects of the project within the context of potential future development at the site or within the region. This report represents PCI’s best professional effort to identify sensitive habitats, species, and resources of concern based on the proposed project and current site conditions.

Soils
Soils within the project site are mapped as Goldridge fine sandy loam (NRCS 2021).

Goldridge fine sandy loam is derived from residuum weathered from sandstone. The typical soil profile is fine sandy loam from 0 to 24 inches and sandy clay loam from 24 to 72 inches. It is moderately well drained and not subject to flooding or ponding.

Existing Conditions
Vegetation within the project site includes non-native grasses and forbs, native coast live oak trees, and planted conifer and apple trees. See Figure 2.

The central portion of the site supports non-native grasses and forbs, which had been recently mown (limiting the ability to identify plant species). Dominant species that were identifiable include grasses such as wild oat (Avena spp.), ripgut brome (Bromus diandrus), rattlesnake grass (Briza maxima), velvetgrass (Holcus lanatus), and farmer's foxtail (Hordeum murinum) and forbs such as spring vetch (Vicia sativa), English plantain (Plantago lanceolata), wild radish (Raphanus sativus), hairy cat’s ear (Hypochaeris radicata), sheep sorrel (Rumex acetosella), and sweet pea (Lathyrus sp.). Invasive plants observed were Himalayan blackberry (Rubus armeniacus), Italian thistle (Carduus pycnocephalus), milk thistle (Silybum marianum), English ivy (Hedera helix), and periwinkle (Vinca major). Several other landscaping ornamentals were growing through the surrounding fences onto the site and include Aaron's beard (Hypericum calycinum), bluecrown passionflower (Passiflora caerulea), and Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica).

Attachment 7 Part 2 to Agenda Item Number 8
Attachment 7 Part 2 to Agenda Item Number 8
City Council Meeting Packet of March 1, 2022

There are 15 mature trees on the parcel or near the parcel boundary: eight coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia), one redwood (Sequoia sempervirens), three Douglas fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii) one tulip poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera), and two apples (Malus domestica).

The coast live oaks are native to the immediate vicinity and are likely naturally-occurring; the redwood and Douglas fir are native to the region but appear to be planted; the tulip poplar is an ornamental planting and the apples are likely remnants of the extensive orchards which once occurred here and throughout much of Sebastopol. One coast live oak and two apple trees on the parcel are tagged for removal. The coast live oak (#772 in the arborist report) tagged for removal is a large (27” diameter at breast height [DBH]) tree that is providing wildlife resources and shade, as well as aesthetic value. A bird nest was found in the tree and the upper canopy was occupied by birds during the site visit.

The four planted conifers to be protected are located along the western parcel boundary.

These trees were also occupied by birds and providing the site with shade. Five coast live oak trees along Bodega Avenue (outside the parcel boundary) are also tagged for removal; these range in size from 6” + 8” DBH (multi-trunked) to a large, 42” DBH tree.

These trees, especially the largest three (#784-786), are providing valuable native cover and wildlife resources.

The parcel provides valuable habitat for a variety of birds, mammals, and reptiles despite its proximity to development. Birds represent the most common wildlife taxa in urban settings. Common species typical of urban parcels such as this one include American crow, American goldfinch, Anna’s hummingbird, California towhee, common bushtit, house finch, northern mockingbird, Pacific-slope flycatcher, red-shouldered hark, and western scrub-jay. Typical mammals include native Botta’s pocket gopher, broad-footed mole, striped skunk, and northern raccoon. Reptiles include gopher and garter snakes and fence lizards. The parcel is across Bodega Highway from a large cemetery, which increases the potential for wildlife occurrences.

Sensitive Natural Communities
Sensitive Natural Communities are defined by CDFW as “communities that are of limited distribution statewide or within a county or region and are often vulnerable to environmental effects of projects.” CDFW maintains a list of vegetation alliances present within the state, and ranks each in terms of their rarity and vulnerability on both the global (G) and state (S) level (CDFW 2020). Ranks range from 1 (very rare and threatened) to 5 (demonstrably secure). Natural communities with ranks of S1 to S3 are considered sensitive and must be considered during CEQA evaluation of projects. In addition, other communities may be considered sensitive based on local policies.

The disturbed grassy areas and coast live oak woodland (G5S4) fragment present on this site are not considered sensitive. However, native trees provide multiple ecological and human benefits, especially in an urban setting, and are protected by City of Sebastopol ordinance. Removal of native trees will reduce habitat quality, shade and cooling, carbon Attachment 7 Part 2 to Agenda Item Number 8
Attachment 7 Part 2 to Agenda Item Number 8
City Council Meeting Packet of March 1, 2022

sequestration, soil and watershed protection, and visual appeal, privacy screening, and noise buffering. Some but not all of these values may be provided eventually by the trees called for in the landscape plan, which are primarily small ornamental trees but include three coast live oaks along Bodega Avenue.

Attachment 7 Part 2 to Agenda Item Number 8
Attachment 7 Part 2 to Agenda Item Number 8
City Council Meeting Packet of March 1, 2022

[
Figure 2. Site Map
Huntley Square Biological Assessment
7950 Bodega Highway, Sebastopol
0 12.5 25 50
Feet
August 2021
Aerial: Sonoma County 2018
Property boundary

BODEGA HIGHWAY
Attachment 7 Part 2 to Agenda Item Number 8
Attachment 7 Part 2 to Agenda Item Number 8
City Council Meeting Packet of March 1, 2022

Special-status Species
Definition of Special-status Species
In California, special-status plants and animals include those species that are afforded legal protection under the federal and California Endangered Species Acts (ESA and CESA, respectively) and other regulations. These species must be considered during project evaluation to comply with CEQA, during consultation with State and federal resources agencies, and in development of specific mitigation and avoidance measures for resource protection. Special-status species are defined as the following:
 Species listed or proposed for listing as threatened or endangered under the federal ESA;
 Species listed or proposed for listing as threatened or endangered under CESA;  Species that are recognized as candidates for future listing by agencies with resource management responsibilities, such as U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), NOAA’s National Marine Fisheries Service (NOAA Fisheries), and California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW);
 Species defined by CDFW as California Species of Special Concern;  Species classified as Fully Protected by CDFW;
 Plant species, subspecies, and varieties defined as rare or threatened by the California Native Plant Protection Act (California Fish and Game Code Section 1900, et seq.);
 Plant species listed by the California Native Plant Society (CNPS) as California Rare Plant Rank 1, 2 and 3 under CEQA (CEQA Guidelines Section 15380); and some list 4 plants based on CNPS guidelines;
 Species that otherwise meet the definition of rare, threatened, or endangered pursuant to Section 15380 of the CEQA Guidelines; and
 Mountain lions protected under the California Wildlife Protection Act of 1990 (Proposition 117) and designated as a “specially protected mammal in California.”
Special-status Species Evaluation Criteria
Special-status species were evaluated for their potential to occur within the project site.

Potential for occurrence was classified as not present, low, moderate, high, or present based on the following criteria:

Not Present – Suitable habitat is not present within the project site and/or project site is outside the range of the species.

Low – One or more key habitat components is absent from the project site; no known occurrences in vicinity, or habitat present but species not observed during field surveys that would be expected to discover species, if present, based on season and level of effort. Species is unlikely to occur within the project site.

Attachment 7 Part 2 to Agenda Item Number 8
Attachment 7 Part 2 to Agenda Item Number 8
City Council Meeting Packet of March 1, 2022

Moderate – Some of the habitat components required by this species are present within the project site and/or marginally suitable habitat is present within surrounding areas. Species may occur within the project site.

High – All of the habitat components required by this species are present within the project site and/or it is known to occur in surrounding areas. Species is likely to occur within the project site.

Present – Species has reported occurrences within the project site and/or was observed within the project site during field surveys.

Attachment 7 Part 2 to Agenda Item Number 8
Attachment 7 Part 2 to Agenda Item Number 8
City Council Meeting Packet of March 1, 2022

Pitkin Marsh lily Pitkin Marsh lily
Baker's goldfields fragrant fritillary
thin-lobed horkelia
tricolored blackbird
Sonoma spineflower
oval-leaved viburnum
golden larkspur
California red-legged frog Pitkin Marsh lily
Peruvian dodder
swamp harebell
Coastal and Valley Freshwater Marsh
brownish beaked-rush
California beaked-rush
round-headed beaked-rush
Baker's navarretia
congested-headed hayfield tarplant
California freshwater shrimp
Sebastopol meadowfoam
Sonoma sunshine
Sonoma sunshine
Sebastopol meadowfoam
California tiger salamander - Sonoma County DPS
Burke's goldfields
Burke's goldfields
western pond turtle
Burke's goldfields
Vine Hill ceanothus
Sebastopol meadowfoam
Sebastopol meadowfoam
Burke's goldfields
Sebastopol meadowfoam
Sebastopol meadowfoam
Sebastopol meadowfoam
Burke's goldfields
California tiger salamander - Sonoma County DPS
California tiger salamander - Sonoma County DPS
Sebastopol meadowfoam
Sebastopol meadowfoam
Sebastopol meadowfoam
Sebastopol meadowfoam
Burke's goldfields
Sebastopol meadowfoam
[ Figure 3. Reported Occurrences of Special-status Species Huntley Square Biological Assessment
7950 Bodega Highway, Sebastopol
0 0.125 0.25 0.5
Miles
August 2021
Basemap: ESRI
Occurrences: CNDDB (CDFW 2021)
Map not for public review. The occurrences shown on this map represent the known locations of the species listed here as of the date of this version. There may be additional occurrences or additional species within this area which have not yet been surveyed and/or mapped. Lack of information in the CNDDB about a species or an area can never be used as proof that no special-status species occur in an area.

Attachment 7 Part 2 to Agenda Item Number 8
Attachment 7 Part 2 to Agenda Item Number 8
City Council Meeting Packet of March 1, 2022

Special-status Plants
Based on the background literature review, a number of special-status species were identified as having the potential to occur within the project vicinity. Figure 3 shows reported occurrences of special-status species in the project vicinity, based on CNDDB data (CDFW 2021a). Species with reported observations in the project region, in habitat types of relevance, were evaluated; see Table 1. Species that are known from the region, but that require habitat types not present here (e.g., marsh, vernal pools) are not shown.

Based on a field assessment of the suitability of habitat within the project site, in combination with the proximity of recorded sightings, no special-status plant species were found to have potential to occur, and none were observed. The site’s highly disturbed nature and urban setting strongly limit plant diversity.

Table 1. Special-status Plants Evaluated for the Huntley Square Project Scientific
Name
Common
Name
Listing Status

USFWS/ CDFW/
CRPR
Life Form, Blooming
Period, and General
Habitat
Potential for Species
Occurrence
Ceanothus
foliosus var.
vineatus
Vine Hill
ceanothus --/SE/ 1B.1
Perennial evergreen
shrub. Blooms MarchMay. Chaparral. 45 - 305
meters.

Not present. Known primarily
from Vine Hill area. No
ceanothus plants present,
and no chaparral present
within the project site.

Chorizanthe
valida
Sonoma
spineflower FE/SE/1B.1
Annual herb. Blooms
June-August. Sandy
coastal prairie. 10-305 m.

Not present. Historic record
in Sebastopol vicinity,
believed extirpated. No
suitable habitat present.

Clarkia
imbricata
Vine Hill
clarkia FE/SE/ 1B.1
Annual herb. Blooms
June-August. Chaparral,
grassland (acidic sandy
loam - Goldridge sandy
loam, "Sonoma Barrens"
subtype). 50-75 m.

Not present. Known only
from the Vine Hill area.

Suitable soil subtype not
likely to be present. Only
grassy areas present are
highly disturbed.

Delphinium
luteum
golden
larkspur FE/SR/ 1B.1
Perennial herb. Blooms
March-May. Rocky
locations in chaparral,
coastal prairie, coastal
scrub. 0-100 m.

Not present. Historic
recorded occurrence shown
in vicinity thought to be
extirpated. No suitable
habitat present.

Fritillaria
liliacea
fragrant
fritillary --/--/ 1B.2
Perennial bulbiferous
herb. Blooms FebruaryApril. Woodland, coastal
prairie, coastal scrub,
grassland (often
serpentinite). 3-410 m.

Not present. Only nearby
occurrence reported is a
historic record in general
vicinity of Sebastopol. Most
often occurs in open
grassland with limited
disturbance, not present on
site.

Attachment 7 Part 2 to Agenda Item Number 8
Attachment 7 Part 2 to Agenda Item Number 8
City Council Meeting Packet of March 1, 2022

Scientific
Name
Common
Name
Listing Status

USFWS/ CDFW/
CRPR
Life Form, Blooming
Period, and General
Habitat
Potential for Species
Occurrence
Hemizonia
congesta ssp.
congesta
white seaside
tarplant
(congestedheaded
hayfield
tarplant)
--/--/ 1B.2
Annual herb. Blooms
April-November.

Grassland, sometimes
roadsides. 20-560 m.

Not present. Only
occurrences reported in the
Sebastopol area are historic.

No suitable habitat present;
grassy areas present are
highly disturbed.

Microseris
paludosa
marsh
microseris --/--/ 1B.2
Perennial herb. Blooms
April-June (rarely July).

Closed-cone coniferous
forest, woodland, coastal
scrub, grassland. 5-300 m.

Not present. One historic
CNDDB occurrence east of
Sebastopol. No suitable
habitat present.

Trifolium
amoenum
two fork
clover FE/--/ 1B.1
Annual herb. Blooms
April-June. Coastal bluff
scrub, grassland
(sometimes serpentinite).

Open, sunny sites, swales.
5-415 m.

Not present. Only historic
records in Sebastopol region.

No suitable habitat present;
grassy areas highly disturbed.

Special-status Animals
Based on the background literature review, a number of special-status animal species were identified as having the potential to occur within the project vicinity (CDFW 2021a, USFWS 2021; Figure 3). Based on a field assessment of the suitability of habitat within the project site and surrounding lands and proximity of recorded sightings, these species were evaluated for potential occurrence. Species known from the region but with limited or no potential for occurrence within the project site due to the lack of suitable habitat or those species not formally listed are not described further.

The background review identified two special-status bat species, one amphibian, and one mammal. Additional special-status aquatic species, California freshwater shrimp, California red-legged frog, coho salmon, green turtle, western pond turtle, are reported in the vicinity of the project; however, suitable aquatic habitat is not present within the project site. Additional bird species of concern are reported for the project site (CDFW 2021a; USFWS 2021). Some of these species may occur within the project site on a regular basis (i.e., Allen’s hummingbird, Nuttall’s woodpecker, oak titmouse, wrentit) and others are highly unlikely. These species are not described further in this report, but should be protected in accordance with measures as outlined below. Additional information on protected nesting birds is provided in Protected Nesting Birds.

Attachment 7 Part 2 to Agenda Item Number 8
Attachment 7 Part 2 to Agenda Item Number 8
City Council Meeting Packet of March 1, 2022

Table 2. Special-status Animals Evaluated for the Huntley Square Project Common Name
(Scientific Name)
Listing Status2
(Federal/
State)
Description
Local Observations and
Potential for Occurrence
within the Project Site
Amphibians
California tiger
salamander
(Ambystoma
californiense)
FE*/SSC Occupies grassland and foothill regions of
California. Breeds during the rainy season
in ephemeral ponds and pools. Adult
emerge from underground burrows
during winter and migrate to breeding
ponds. Males remain at the breeding
ponds 6 to 8 weeks, females 1 to 2. Eggs
hatch after 10 to 14 days. Larvae reach
maturity in 60 to 94 days and leave pond
in late spring or early summer.
* Sonoma and Santa Barbara County
populations are listed as endangered.

Not present. California tiger
salamanders have been
documented 2 miles from the
project site on the east side
of the Laguna de Santa Rosa.

There are no reports of
California tiger salamander
west of the Laguna de Santa
Rosa. Suitable habitat is not
present within the project
site. Impacts to this species
are unlikely.

Mammals
American badger
Taxidea taxus
--/SSC Occur in a variety of habitat types (e.g.,
herbaceous, shrub, or forest habitats)
with dry, friable soils. Badgers are
carnivorous. Consume primarily fossorial
rodents but will also eat reptiles, insects,
eggs, birds, and carrion. They are active
year-round, although less active in
winter. Badgers are territorial throughout
the year with size of the territory
dependent on the availability of food.

Typical territory size is approximately
three or four square miles. Territories
may be shared. Badgers dig their own
burrows which are often quite extensive.

Mating occurs in summer and early fall
with young (average 2 to 3) born in early
spring.

Not present. There are no
nearby reported occurrences
of American badgers. The
nearest sightings are south of
Sebastopol from the 2000s
and near Freestone from
early 1900s. No suitable
habitat is present within the
project site. The site is highly
disturbed and separated from
less-developed lands by
heavily trafficked roads.

Impacts to this species are
unlikely.
pallid bat
Antrozous pallidus
--/SSC Grassland, shrubland, forest, and
woodland habitats at low elevations up
through mixed coniferous forests. A social
species forming small colonies. Roosting
sites include caves, mines, crevices,
buildings, and hollow trees during day,
more open sites used at night. Pallid bats
feed on large flightless arthropods. A
yearlong resident throughout most of its
range. During non-breeding season, both
sexes may be found roosting in groups of
Low. Pallid bats have been
documented within several
miles of the project site.

There are sightings reported
near Occidental (1996) and
Forestville (1950s and 2000s).

Bats are typically
underrepresented in the
CNDDB. Bats may forage over
the site. Bats could
potentially roost within the
2 Listing Status (CDFW 2021b): FE-federally listed as endangered, FT-federally listed as threatened, BCC-Bird of Conservation Concern, SE-state listed as endangered, ST-state listed as threatened, Candidate SE-state candidate to be listed as endangered under CESA, Candidate ST-state candidate to be listed as threatened under CESA, FP-State of California fully-protected species, SSC-California Species of Special Concern, and WL-Watch List.

Attachment 7 Part 2 to Agenda Item Number 8
Attachment 7 Part 2 to Agenda Item Number 8
City Council Meeting Packet of March 1, 2022

Common Name
(Scientific Name)
Listing Status2
(Federal/
State)
Description
Local Observations and
Potential for Occurrence
within the Project Site
20 or more individuals. One to three
(typically twins) pups born from April to
July.
trees proposed for removal.

Projection measures should
be in place to avoid impacts.
hoary bat
Lasiurus cinereus
--/--
Occur in open habitat or habitat mosaics.

Requires medium to large trees for cover
and habitat edges and/or open areas for
foraging habitat. Tend to be solitary
roosting in trees and foliage, and they are
widespread in California except patchy in
desert regions. Mating occurs during fall
migration and young are born the
following June. Favored food is moths.

Low. Hoary bats have been
documented within several
miles of the project site. There
are sightings reported near
Forestville (1940s). Bats are
typically underrepresented in
the CNDDB. Bats may forage
over the site. Bats could
potentially roost within the
trees proposed for removal.

Projection measures should
be in place to avoid impacts.

Protected Bird Species
Nesting native bird species are protected under both federal and state regulations.

According to US Fish and Wildlife Service, under the federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 (MBTA; 50 CFR 10.13), “it is unlawful to pursue, hunt, take, capture, kill, possess, sell, purchase, barter, import, export, or transport any migratory bird, or any part, nest, or egg or any such bird, unless authorized under a permit issued by the Secretary of the Interior. Some regulatory exceptions apply. Take is defined as: ‘pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or attempt to pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect.” Bald and golden eagles are also protected under the federal Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (16 U.S.C. 668-668c) of 1940.

Birds and their nests are also protected under the California Fish and Wildlife Code (§3503 and §3513). Under §3503, “it is unlawful to take, possess, or needlessly destroy the nest or eggs of any bird, except as otherwise provided by this code or any regulation made pursuant thereto.” Under §3513, “it is unlawful to take or possess any migratory nongame bird as designated in the Migratory Bird Treaty Act or any part of such migratory nongame bird except as provided by rules and regulations adopted by the Secretary of the Interior under provisions of the Migratory Treaty Act.” The federal Endangered Species Act and California Endangered Species Act also protect nesting threatened and endangered bird species.

Vegetation removal and/or construction activities in areas with suitable nesting habitat during the breeding period, typically mid-February to mid-August in this area, could result in nest abandonment or loss of native nesting birds unless appropriate actions are taken (e.g., preconstruction surveys, avoidance, monitoring, etc.; RHJV 2004).

Attachment 7 Part 2 to Agenda Item Number 8
Attachment 7 Part 2 to Agenda Item Number 8
City Council Meeting Packet of March 1, 2022

Conclusions
The proposed project includes the construction of 10 townhome units and associated development, on a vacant lot in an urban infill setting. Based on the background literature, data search, and field survey, the following biological resource concerns were identified:
 The project site supports mature trees including native coast live oaks. These trees are regulated under the City’s Tree Ordinance. Six of the eight coast live oaks present are planned for removal, including several large trees of DBH ranging from 21” to 42”.

Two apple trees will also be removed. Other trees may be damaged by grading and construction.
 No special-status plants were observed and none are likely to occur.  The project site is likely to support a number of common native wildlife species (e.g., birds, reptiles, small mammals, invertebrates).
 The project site supports potential breeding/wintering/foraging habitat for a number of native bird species. Nesting birds are protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, California Fish and Game Code, and federal and state ESAs.  The project site and the surrounding habitat may support special-status and common bat species. The mature trees may be used as roosting habitat for a small number of individual bats. Bats may forage over the project site.

To avoid significant impacts to biological resources, the following measures should be incorporated into the project.

Native Trees
The City of Sebastopol Tree Ordinance calls for the protection of certain types of trees.

For properties like this one, (i.e., those that do not house a single family residence), protections cover trees of species on a Protected Native Tree list with DBH of 10” or greater, or any tree with a DBH of 20” or greater (except those identified as “escaped exotics”). Most of the trees proposed for removal meet these criteria for protection, so proposed removals will require a permit from the City with review by the Tree Board, and replacement trees or fees as determined by the Tree Board or City Arborist. Where compatible with safety requirements, consider pruning instead of removal for mature oaks. To offset the impacts from removal of protected trees, replacement trees should be planted, following the Tree Ordinance, Tree Board, and/or City Arborist ratios and species.

PCI recommends the replacement of native oaks with native oaks, to provide similar benefits to the site and community. If on-site planting of an adequate number of native trees is not possible, off-site planting of native oaks in a suitable nearby location (e.g., a City park) could be considered.

Protective measures defined in the Tree Preservation and Mitigation Report should be followed to minimize impacts to trees that will be retained.

Attachment 7 Part 2 to Agenda Item Number 8
Attachment 7 Part 2 to Agenda Item Number 8
City Council Meeting Packet of March 1, 2022

PCI recommends incorporation of additional locally native shrubs and perennials into the landscaping palette to support habitat value for birds and other wildlife. Potentially suitable species include coffeeberry (Frangula californica), manzanita (Arctostaphylos manzanita), flowering currant (Ribes sanguineum), and California fuchsia (Epilobium canum).

Nesting Birds
To avoid potential losses of nesting native birds, if work occurs from February through August, preconstruction breeding bird surveys should be completed for special-status, migratory birds, and raptors. The preconstruction surveys should be conducted within two weeks prior to initiation of vegetation clearing, tree removal and trimming, or other construction related activities within vegetated areas. The survey should be completed within the construction area and an appropriate buffer around it. - If the biologist finds no active nesting or breeding activity, then work can proceed without restrictions.
- If active raptor or owl nests are identified within 100 feet of the construction area or active nests of other birds are identified within 50 feet of the construction area, a qualified biologist should determine whether or not construction activities may impact the active nest or disrupt reproductive behavior. If it is determined that construction would not affect an active nest or disrupt breeding behavior, construction can proceed without restrictions. The determination of disruption should be based on the species’ sensitivity to disturbance (which can vary among species); the level of noise or construction disturbance and the line of sight between the nest and the disturbance.
- If a qualified biologist determines that construction activities would likely disrupt breeding or nesting activities, then a no-disturbance buffer should be placed around the nesting location. The no-disturbance buffer should include the active nest or breeding areas plus a 50-foot buffer for small songbirds and a 100-foot buffer for larger birds (e.g., raptors, owls); buffer distances are applicable for urban settings with existing levels of human disturbance. Construction activities in the no disturbance buffers should be avoided until the nests have been vacated. - If the site is left unattended for more than one week following the initial surveys, additional surveys should be completed. If state and/or federally listed birds are found breeding within the area, activities should be halted, and consultation with the CDFW and USFWS should occur to identify how to proceed.

To the extent feasible, vegetation and tree removal should occur during the non-breeding season (late August to early March) to limit the potential for birds to nest within the project site.

Attachment 7 Part 2 to Agenda Item Number 8
Attachment 7 Part 2 to Agenda Item Number 8
City Council Meeting Packet of March 1, 2022

Special-status and Common Bats
To avoid impacts on special-status and common bat species within the project site, the following protection measures should be implemented.

Prior to tree removal or trimming (for all trees greater than 6 inches DBH), a qualified biologist should survey for bat roosts. If active bat roosts area identified, disturbance should not be allowed until the roost is abandoned or unoccupied. If the qualified biologist determines special-status bat species area present, CDFW consultation may be required.

If occupied roosting habitat is identified by the qualified biologist, disturbance of roost trees should not be allowed until the roost is abandoned or unoccupied and/or CDFW is consulted. If bats are present, a number of deterrent methods can be used to encourage bats to relocate (for non-CDFW listed species). This could include changes to lighting, air flow patterns, and noise disturbance. Exclusion methods should be developed based on the species present and location of occupied roosts. Bat exclusion should not be performed during the maternity season (June through August) or during winter hibernation (November through February). Bat exclusion should be overseen by a qualified biologist. This could only occur in March, April, May, September, and October.

If tree trimming or removal is postponed or interrupted for more than two weeks from the date of the initial bat survey, the biologist should repeat the pre-construction survey.

Construction should be limited to daylight hours to avoid interference with the foraging abilities of bats and other nocturnal wildlife.

References
Best, C., J. T. Howell, W. Knight, I. Knight, and M. Wells. 1996. A Flora of Sonoma County.

California Native Plant Society. Sacramento, CA.

Calflora. 2021. Calflora database – Information on Wild California Plants for Conservation, Education, and Appreciation. Accessed at: http://www.calflora.org/.

California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). 2021a. California Natural Diversity Database, RareFind Version, Spotted Owl Viewer, and BIOS. California Department of Fish and Game. Sacramento, CA. http://www.dfg.ca.gov/biogeodata/cnddb California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). 2021b. Special Animals List – July 2021. Periodic publication.

Attachment 7 Part 2 to Agenda Item Number 8
Attachment 7 Part 2 to Agenda Item Number 8
City Council Meeting Packet of March 1, 2022

California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). 2020. Sensitive Natural Communities.

California Department of Fish and Wildlife. Sacramento, CA. https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=153609&inline and California Native Plant Society (CNPS). 2021a. A Manual of California Vegetation Online.

California Native Plant Society. Sacramento, CA. http://vegetation.cnps.org/ California Native Plant Society (CNPS). 2021b. Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants (online edition). California Native Plant Society. Sacramento, CA.

Healthy Buildings Architects. 2020. Huntley Square Mini Home Village [Proposed Site Plan]. September 10, 2020. Provided by City of Sebastopol.

Horticultural Associates. Tree Preservation and Mitigation Report. August 6, 2020.

Provided by City of Sebastopol.

Jepson Flora Project (eds.) 2021. Jepson eFlora. http://ucjeps.berkeley.edu/eflora/ Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). 2021. Web Soil Survey. http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/HomePage.htm.

Riparian Habitat Joint Venture (RHJV). 2004. Version 2.0. The Riparian Bird Conservation Plan: A Strategy for Reversing the Decline of Riparian Associated Birds in California.

California Partners in Flight.

Sebastopol, City of. 2021. Design Review Board Staff Report Regarding Conceptual Review of Planned Community District, 7950 Bodega Ave. April 21, 2021.

Sebastopol, City of. Summary of the City of Sebastopol Tree Ordinance and Tree Protection Guidelines.
https://ci.sebastopol.ca.us/SebastopolSite/media/Documents/Misc_Planning_Guides/tr ee_ordinance_handout_ii_08-25-09-1.pdf?ext=.pdf
Sonoma County Department of Agriculture/Weights & Measures (Agricultural Commissioner). 2014. Guidelines for Preparing Biological Resource Studies or Assessment. March 19, 2014. Office of the Agricultural Commissioner.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2021. Information for Planning and Conservation (IPaC) Trust Resource Report. https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/.

Attachment 7 Part 2 to Agenda Item Number 8
Attachment 7 Part 2 to Agenda Item Number 8
City Council Meeting Packet of March 1, 2022

Project Photographs
Southeast corner of parcel
Southwest corner of parcel
Attachment 7 Part 2 to Agenda Item Number 8
Attachment 7 Part 2 to Agenda Item Number 8
City Council Meeting Packet of March 1, 2022

Northwest corner of parcel
Northeast corner of parcel
Attachment 7 Part 2 to Agenda Item Number 8
Attachment 7 Part 2 to Agenda Item Number 8
City Council Meeting Packet of March 1, 2022

Native conifer trees (# 773-776) to be protected along western parcel boundary Access gate along eastern edge of the parcel- future driveway Attachment 7 Part 2 to Agenda Item Number 8
Attachment 7 Part 2 to Agenda Item Number 8
City Council Meeting Packet of March 1, 2022

Cemented area with young coast live oak and Himalayan blackberry Large coast live oak (#772), tagged for removal
Attachment 7 Part 2 to Agenda Item Number 8
Attachment 7 Part 2 to Agenda Item Number 8
City Council Meeting Packet of March 1, 2022

Coast live oak (#772); trunk is 27” DBH
Bird nest in large coast live oak (#772)
Attachment 7 Part 2 to Agenda Item Number 8
Attachment 7 Part 2 to Agenda Item Number 8
City Council Meeting Packet of March 1, 2022

Apple tree (#778) tagged for removal
Apple tree (#781) tagged for removal
Attachment 7 Part 2 to Agenda Item Number 8
Attachment 7 Part 2 to Agenda Item Number 8
City Council Meeting Packet of March 1, 2022

Large coast live oak (#780) to be protected; located between the parcel and the existing housing development in the southeast corner.

Attachment 7 Part 2 to Agenda Item Number 8
Attachment 7 Part 2 to Agenda Item Number 8
City Council Meeting Packet of March 1, 2022

Coast live oak (#779) to be protected
Redwood (#773) to be protected
Attachment 7 Part 2 to Agenda Item Number 8
Attachment 7 Part 2 to Agenda Item Number 8
City Council Meeting Packet of March 1, 2022

Douglas fir (#774) to be protected
Douglas firs (# 775 right and # 776 left) to be protected Attachment 7 Part 2 to Agenda Item Number 8
Attachment 7 Part 2 to Agenda Item Number 8
City Council Meeting Packet of March 1, 2022

Path along Bodega Avenue
Coast live oaks along road that are tagged for removal (#782-786) Attachment 7 Part 2 to Agenda Item Number 8
Attachment 7 Part 2 to Agenda Item Number 8
City Council Meeting Packet of March 1, 2022

Trees to be removed along Bodega Avenue
Attachment 7 Part 2 to Agenda Item Number 8
Attachment 7 Part 2 to Agenda Item Number 8
City Council Meeting Packet of March 1, 2022

EXHIBIT B
Tree Preservation and Mitigation Report; John C. Meserve; August 2020
Attachment 7 Part 2 to Agenda Item Number 8
Attachment 7 Part 2 to Agenda Item Number 8
City Council Meeting Packet of March 1, 2022

Attachment 7 Part 2 to Agenda Item Number 8
Attachment 7 Part 2 to Agenda Item Number 8
City Council Meeting Packet of March 1, 2022

Attachment 7 Part 2 to Agenda Item Number 8
Attachment 7 Part 2 to Agenda Item Number 8
City Council Meeting Packet of March 1, 2022

Attachment 7 Part 2 to Agenda Item Number 8
Attachment 7 Part 2 to Agenda Item Number 8
City Council Meeting Packet of March 1, 2022

Attachment 7 Part 2 to Agenda Item Number 8
Attachment 7 Part 2 to Agenda Item Number 8
City Council Meeting Packet of March 1, 2022

Attachment 7 Part 2 to Agenda Item Number 8
Attachment 7 Part 2 to Agenda Item Number 8
City Council Meeting Packet of March 1, 2022

Attachment 7 Part 2 to Agenda Item Number 8
Attachment 7 Part 2 to Agenda Item Number 8
City Council Meeting Packet of March 1, 2022

Attachment 7 Part 2 to Agenda Item Number 8
Attachment 7 Part 2 to Agenda Item Number 8
City Council Meeting Packet of March 1, 2022

Attachment 7 Part 2 to Agenda Item Number 8
Attachment 7 Part 2 to Agenda Item Number 8
City Council Meeting Packet of March 1, 2022

Attachment 7 Part 2 to Agenda Item Number 8
Attachment 7 Part 2 to Agenda Item Number 8
City Council Meeting Packet of March 1, 2022

Attachment 7 Part 2 to Agenda Item Number 8
Attachment 7 Part 2 to Agenda Item Number 8
City Council Meeting Packet of March 1, 2022

Attachment 7 Part 2 to Agenda Item Number 8
Attachment 7 Part 2 to Agenda Item Number 8
City Council Meeting Packet of March 1, 2022

Attachment 7 Part 2 to Agenda Item Number 8
Attachment 7 Part 2 to Agenda Item Number 8
City Council Meeting Packet of March 1, 2022

Attachment 7 Part 2 to Agenda Item Number 8
Attachment 7 Part 2 to Agenda Item Number 8
City Council Meeting Packet of March 1, 2022

Attachment 7 Part 2 to Agenda Item Number 8
Attachment 7 Part 2 to Agenda Item Number 8
City Council Meeting Packet of March 1, 2022

Attachment 7 Part 2 to Agenda Item Number 8
Attachment 7 Part 2 to Agenda Item Number 8
City Council Meeting Packet of March 1, 2022

Attachment 7 Part 2 to Agenda Item Number 8
Attachment 7 Part 2 to Agenda Item Number 8
City Council Meeting Packet of March 1, 2022

Attachment 7 Part 2 to Agenda Item Number 8
Attachment 7 Part 2 to Agenda Item Number 8
City Council Meeting Packet of March 1, 2022

Attachment 7 Part 2 to Agenda Item Number 8
Attachment 7 Part 2 to Agenda Item Number 8
City Council Meeting Packet of March 1, 2022

Attachment 7 Part 2 to Agenda Item Number 8
Attachment 7 Part 2 to Agenda Item Number 8
City Council Meeting Packet of March 1, 2022

Attachment 7 Part 2 to Agenda Item Number 8
Attachment 7 Part 2 to Agenda Item Number 8
City Council Meeting Packet of March 1, 2022

Attachment 7 Part 2 to Agenda Item Number 8
Attachment 7 Part 2 to Agenda Item Number 8
City Council Meeting Packet of March 1, 2022

Attachment 7 Part 2 to Agenda Item Number 8
Attachment 7 Part 2 to Agenda Item Number 8
City Council Meeting Packet of March 1, 2022

Attachment 7 Part 2 to Agenda Item Number 8
Attachment 7 Part 2 to Agenda Item Number 8
City Council Meeting Packet of March 1, 2022

Attachment 7 Part 2 to Agenda Item Number 8
Attachment 7 Part 2 to Agenda Item Number 8
City Council Meeting Packet of March 1, 2022

Attachment 7 Part 2 to Agenda Item Number 8
Attachment 7 Part 2 to Agenda Item Number 8
City Council Meeting Packet of March 1, 2022

Attachment 7 Part 2 to Agenda Item Number 8
Attachment 7 Part 2 to Agenda Item Number 8
City Council Meeting Packet of March 1, 2022

Attachment 7 Part 2 to Agenda Item Number 8
Attachment 7 Part 2 to Agenda Item Number 8
City Council Meeting Packet of March 1, 2022

EXHIBIT C
Peer Review of the Tree Preservation and Mitigation Report; Ben Anderson; September 2021
Attachment 7 Part 2 to Agenda Item Number 8
Attachment 7 Part 2 to Agenda Item Number 8
City Council Meeting Packet of March 1, 2022

Assignment
Kelly Hickler, contract planner for the City of Sebastopol, asked me to review the plans for the Huntley Square development dated August 31, 2021, and the accompanying arborist report from Horticultural Associates (John Meserve) dated August 28, 2021 and to produce a report documenting my conclusions.

Observations
I reviewed a previous version of the plans in June 2021 and provided initial thoughts via email.

In his “Construction Impact Summary” Jon states:

Trees 773 (coast redwood, 32”) and 774 (Douglas fir, 20”) are proposed for preservation and an aerated paving material has been specified over the root system to maintain soil aeration, per our recommendations. Trash trucks will not be accessing the site and clearance pruning will not be necessary.

Sheet T1 “Tree Preservation Plan” shows the location of required tree protection fencing in an area that will need to be excavated for the installation of permeable pavers. Sheet 6 of 6 “Site Sections” shows the top of the pavers will be below the existing grade by at least a few inches up to within approximately one foot of the base of 773.

Drainpipe is proposed to run along the property line, within a few feet of 775 and 776 on the neighboring property. It is noted that these will be excavated under direct supervision of the project arborist to preserve roots. Mr. Meserve notes these trees will have moderate impact.

All other trees to be preserved are noted to have only minor impact if protection measures are followed.

Tree 780 is a large coast live oak on a neighboring property that will need to be pruned for new building clearance.

Conclusions
I could not find specifications on what type of permeable paver will be used, or how it will be installed. Based on my experience with these products, they are typically several inches thick, require several inches of base material, and require compaction of the native soil below. As the proposed top of the pavers is already below existing grade, it appears to me this will require more than a foot of excavation over approximately one half of the root zone of Tree 773, up to approximately one foot from its base. Excavation is proposed over approximately 30 percent of the root zone of 774, also within a few feet of the base. This is unacceptable both in terms of tree health and likely tree stability. These trees should be considered removals unless the plans are modified to remove ALL excavation within an area equal to a minimum of three times the trunk diameter away from the base of each tree (eight and five feet from 773 and 774, respectively) to preserve structural roots.

Alternatively, this zone could be air excavated to the full extent of required excavation prior to approval to show no structural roots will be damaged.

The required pruning for Tree 780 should be established and, if agreeable to the tree owner, performed prior to any site work. The proposed retaining walls look to be nine feet or greater from the base of the tree and will Client: City of Sebastopol, Planning Department
Project Location: 7950 Bodega Ave, Sebastopol, CA
Inspection Date: May 28, 2021
Arborist: Ben Anderson
Attachment 7 Part 2 to Agenda Item Number 8
Attachment 7 Part 2 to Agenda Item Number 8
City Council Meeting Packet of March 1, 2022

impact a small enough portion of the root system that I do not expect it to have a significant effect on the health or stability of the tree. This excavation should still require arborist oversite within 15 feet of the tree base.

Moderate impact to trees off the subject property my be unacceptable to the tree owners (Trees 775 and 776).

I recommend the excavation for the drainage be performed under direct supervision by the project arborist prior to approval to ensure it can be completed without moderate damage to the trees.

Trees 772 & 784-786 are large, native oak trees proposed for removal. The ordinance requires a minimum of two 15-gallon replacement trees per removal tree, but the final number shall be related to the significance of the trees proposed for removal. Each of these four trees should require no less than four replacement trees.

The ordinance describes a performance bond to assure protection of trees on site that can be equal to the amount of the appraised value of the trees (SMC Ch. 8.12.050 D.). I recommend the trees be appraised and the performance bond collected.

SCOPE OF WORK AND LIMITATIONS
Urban Forestry Associates has no personal or monetary interest in the outcome of this investigation. All observations regarding trees in this report were made by UFA, independently, based on our education and experience. All determinations of health condition, structural condition, or hazard potential of a tree or trees at issue are based on our best professional judgment. The health and hazard assessments in this report are limited by the visual nature of the assessment. Arborists cannot detect every condition that could possibly lead to the structural failure of a tree. Since trees are living organisms, conditions are often hidden within the tree and below ground. Arborists cannot guarantee that a tree will be healthy or safe under all circumstances, or for a specific period of time. Likewise, remedial treatments cannot be guaranteed. Trees can be managed but they cannot be controlled. To live near trees is to accept some degree of risk and the only way to eliminate all risk associated with trees is to eliminate all trees.

Benjamin Anderson, Urban Forester
ISA Board Certified Master Arborist & TRAQ
RCA #686, WE #10160B
(415) 454-4212 ex. 1
Attachment 7 Part 2 to Agenda Item Number 8
Attachment 7 Part 2 to Agenda Item Number 8
City Council Meeting Packet of March 1, 2022

EXHIBIT D
Cultural Resources Study; Evans & De Shazo, Inc.; July 2021 Attachment 7 Part 2 to Agenda Item Number 8
Attachment 7 Part 2 to Agenda Item Number 8
City Council Meeting Packet of March 1, 2022

Evans & De Shazo, Inc.
1141 Gravenstein Highway South
Sebastopol, CA 95472
707-823-7400
www.evans-deshazo.com

RESULTS OF A CULTURAL RESOURCES STUDY
OF THE PROPERTY AT 7950 BODEGA AVENUE,

SEBASTOPOL, SONOMA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
(APN 004-350-024)
PREPARED FOR:

Kari Svanstrom, AICP
Planning Director
City of Sebastopol Planning Department
[email protected]
PREPARED BY:

Sally Evans, M.A., RPA
Principal Archaeologist | Cultural Resource Specialist
[email protected]
July 20, 2021
Attachment 7 Part 2 to Agenda Item Number 8
Attachment 7 Part 2 to Agenda Item Number 8
City Council Meeting Packet of March 1, 2022

STATEMENT OF CONFIDENTIALITY
This report identifies the locations of archaeological resources within Sonoma County, which is confidential information, as the cultural, scientific, and artistic values associated with these archaeological sites can be damaged or destroyed through uncontrolled public disclosure of information about their locations.

Disclosure of this information to the public may violate both federal and state laws. Information regarding the location, character or ownership of a historic resource is exempt from the Freedom of Information Act. Applicable United States laws include, but may not be limited to, Section 304 of the National Historic Preservation Act (16 USC 470w-3) and the Archaeological Resources Protection Act (16 USC 470hh).

California state laws that apply include, but may not be limited to, Government Code Sections 6250 et seq. and 6254 et seq.

If any information in this document is to be released for public review, all locational information associated with archaeological resources must be redacted before public distribution.

Attachment 7 Part 2 to Agenda Item Number 8
Attachment 7 Part 2 to Agenda Item Number 8
City Council Meeting Packet of March 1, 2022

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Statement of Confidentiality.......................................................................................................................... i Introduction ..................................................................................................................................................1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ....................................................................................................................................................1 PROJECT LOCATION ........................................................................................................................................................1 Regulatory Setting.........................................................................................................................................4 THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) .....................................................................................................4 PUBLIC RESOURCES CODE (PRC), SECTION 5097.9 ET SEQ. (1982)........................................................................................6 PUBLIC RESOURCES CODE 5097.98 ..................................................................................................................................6 HEALTH AND SAFETY CODE 7050 – 7052 ..........................................................................................................................6 LOCAL GOALS, POLICIES, AND ACTIONS................................................................................................................................7 Study Methods..............................................................................................................................................8 RECORD SEARCH AND LITERATURE REVIEW .........................................................................................................................8 PEDESTRIAN FIELD SURVEY.............................................................................................................................................11 Cultural Setting ...........................................................................................................................................12 PREHISTORIC AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL OVERVIEW ................................................................................................................12 ETHNOHISTORIC OVERVIEW ...........................................................................................................................................14 HISTORIC PERIOD OVERVIEW..........................................................................................................................................18 Results of Record Search and Literature Review........................................................................................30 NWIC RECORD SEARCH RESULTS....................................................................................................................................30 RESULTS OF REVIEW OF GEOLOGY, SOILS, AND GEOARCHAEOLOGICAL INFORMATION................................................................34 RESULTS OF REVIEW OF HISTORICAL MAPS, AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHS AND OTHER DOCUMENTS ....................................................35 Results of Sacred Lands Inventory and Tribal Outreach.............................................................................43 Results of Pedestrian Field Survey..............................................................................................................44 CULTURAL RESOURCES OBSERVED...................................................................................................................................46 HISTORICAL SIGNIFICANCE OF CULTURAL RESOURCES ..........................................................................................................47 Summary of Findings...................................................................................................................................48 Recommendations......................................................................................................................................49 POST-REVIEW DISCOVERY..............................................................................................................................................49 References Cited.........................................................................................................................................51 ATTACHMENT:

APPENDIX A: Sacred Lands Inventory and Tribal Correspondance Attachment 7 Part 2 to Agenda Item Number 8
Attachment 7 Part 2 to Agenda Item Number 8
City Council Meeting Packet of March 1, 2022

INTRODUCTION
Evans & De Shazo, Inc. (EDS) was retained by the City of Sebastopol Planning Department to complete a Cultural Resources Study (CRS) for the proposed multi-family residential project (Project) within a 0.35- acre vacant property located at 7950 Bodega Avenue, Sebastopol, Sonoma County, California, within Assessor Parcel Number (APN) 004-350-024 (Project Area). A CRS is needed to identify potential impacts to significant cultural resources in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) regulations and guidelines.

The CRS was completed by EDS Principal Archaeologist Sally Evans, M.A., RPA (#29300590), who exceeds the Secretary of Interior’s professional qualification standards in Archaeology and has over 21 years of professional experience in archaeology and cultural resources management.

The methods used and the results of the CRS are presented herein.

PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The proposed Project includes the construction of 10 mini townhome units and associated infrastructure and landscaping within a 0.35-acre vacant property.

PROJECT LOCATION
The Project Area is located at 7950 Bodega Avenue, Sebastopol, Sonoma County, California (APN 004-350- 024) (Figure 1). The Project Area is situated approximately 0.75 miles east of downtown Sebastopol and approximately 0.5 miles west of Atascadero Creek. The Project Area is 0.35 acres and is bordered by multifamily housing on the north and east, a single-family house on the west, and Bodega Avenue and the Sebastopol Memorial Lawn cemetery on the south. The Project Area is accessed from the east via a private driveway off Golden Ridge Avenue.

The Project Area is located on the United States (U.S.) Geological Survey (USGS) 7.5-minute Sebastopol, California (1980) quadrangle, within unsectioned Cañada de Jonive Land Grant in Township 6 North, Range 9 West, Mount Diablo Meridian (Figure 2). The Universal Transverse Mercator (UTM) grid coordinates at the approximate center of the Project Area are: 4250040 meters North and 514142 meters East, Zone 10 (NAD83).

Attachment 7 Part 2 to Agenda Item Number 8
Attachment 7 Part 2 to Agenda Item Number 8
City Council Meeting Packet of March 1, 2022

Figure 1: Project Area shown on a 2018 aerial photograph.

Attachment 7 Part 2 to Agenda Item Number 8
Attachment 7 Part 2 to Agenda Item Number 8
City Council Meeting Packet of March 1, 2022

Figure 2: Project Area shown on the USGS 7.5' Sebastopol, Calif. (1980) quadrangle.

Attachment 7 Part 2 to Agenda Item Number 8
Attachment 7 Part 2 to Agenda Item Number 8
City Council Meeting Packet of March 1, 2022

REGULATORY SETTING
The proposed Project is subject to CEQA and the Guidelines for Implementing CEQA (State CEQA Guidelines, 14 CCR § 15064.5), as well as local regulations. These regulations, as they pertain to cultural resources, are outlined below.

THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA)
CEQA regulations are encoded in Sections (§) 21000 et seq of the Public Resources Code (PRC) with Guidelines for implementation codified in the California Code of Regulations (CCR), Title 14, Chapter 3, § 15000 et seq. CEQA requires state and local public agencies to identify the environmental impacts of proposed discretionary activities or projects, determine if the impacts will be significant, and identify alternatives and mitigation measures that will substantially reduce or eliminate significant impacts to the environment. According to CEQA, historical resources, unique archaeological resources, and tribal cultural resources (i.e., significant cultural resources) are aspects of the environment that require identification and consideration regarding potential impacts.

Historical Resources
According to CCR § 15064.5, historical resources include buildings, structures, objects, sites, or districts that meet one or more of the following criteria:

1. Listed in, or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historic Resources (CRHR) (PRC § 5024.1, Title 14 CCR § 4850 et. seq.).

2. A resource included in a local register of historical resources, as defined in PRC § 5020.1(k) or identified as significant in an historical resource survey meeting the requirements PRC § 5024.1(g), shall be presumed to be historically or culturally significant. Public agencies must treat any such resource as significant unless the preponderance of evidence demonstrates that it is not historically or culturally significant.

3. Any object, building, structure, site, area, place, record, or manuscript which a lead agency determines to be historically significant or significant in the architectural, engineering, scientific, economic, agricultural, educational, social, political, military, or cultural annals of California may be considered to be an historical resource, provided the lead agency's determination is supported by substantial evidence in light of the whole record. Generally, a resource shall be considered by the lead agency to be “historically significant” if the resource meets the criteria for listing on the CRHR (PRC § 5024.1, Title 14 CCR § 4852) including the following:
a. Is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of California's history and cultural heritage;
b. Is associated with the lives of persons important in our past; Attachment 7 Part 2 to Agenda Item Number 8
Attachment 7 Part 2 to Agenda Item Number 8
City Council Meeting Packet of March 1, 2022

c. Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction, or represents the work of an important creative individual, or possesses high artistic values; or
d. Has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history.

4. The fact that a resource is not listed in or determined to be eligible for listing in the CRHR, not included in a local register of historical resources (pursuant to PRC § 5020.1(k)) or identified in an historical resources survey (meeting the criteria in PRC § 5024.1(g)) does not preclude a lead agency from determining that the resource may be an historical resource as defined in PRC § 5020.1(j) or § 5024.1.

Unique Archaeological Resources
PRC §21083.2 distinguishes between two classes of archaeological resources: archaeological sites that meet the definition of a historical resource described above and “unique archaeological resources.” A unique archaeological resource is defined as an archaeological artifact, object, or site about which it can be clearly demonstrated that, without merely adding to the current body of knowledge, there is a high probability that it meets any of the following criteria:

1. Contains information needed to answer important scientific research questions and that there is a demonstrable public interest in that information,

2. Has a special and particular quality such as being the oldest of its type or the best available example of its type, or

3. Is directly associated with a scientifically recognized important prehistoric or historic event or person.
“Nonunique archaeological resource” means an archaeological artifact, object, or site which does not meet the criteria listed above. A non-unique archaeological resource need be given no further consideration, other than the simple recording of its existence by the lead agency if it so elects.

Tribal Cultural Resources
According to PRC § 21074(a)(1) and (2):
(a) “Tribal cultural resources” are either of the following:
1) Sites, features, places, cultural landscapes, sacred places, and objects with cultural value to a California Native American tribe that are either of the following:

A. Included or determined to be eligible for inclusion in the CRHR.

B. Included in a local register of historical resources as defined in subdivision (k) of PRC § 5020.1.

Attachment 7 Part 2 to Agenda Item Number 8
Attachment 7 Part 2 to Agenda Item Number 8
City Council Meeting Packet of March 1, 2022

2) A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of PRC § 5024.1.

In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of PRC § 5024.1 for the purposes of this paragraph, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe.
(b) A cultural landscape that meets the criteria of subdivision (a) is a tribal cultural resource to the extent that the landscape is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape.
(c) A historical resource described in PRC § 21084.1, a unique archaeological resource as defined in subdivision (g) of PRC § 21083.2, or a “nonunique archaeological resource” as defined in subdivision (h) of PRC § 21083.2 may also be a tribal cultural resource if it conforms with the criteria of subdivision (a).

PUBLIC RESOURCES CODE (PRC), SECTION 5097.9 ET SEQ. (1982) The PRC establishes that both public agencies and private entities using, occupying, or operating on state property under a public permit shall not interfere with the free expression or exercise of Native American religion and shall not cause severe or irreparable damage to Native American sacred sites. This section also creates the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC), charged with identifying and cataloging places of special religious or social significance to Native Americans, identifying and cataloging known graves and cemeteries on private lands, and performing other duties regarding the preservation and accessibility of sacred sites and burials.

PUBLIC RESOURCES CODE 5097.98
This section discusses the procedures that need to be followed upon the discovery of Native American human remains. The NAHC, upon notification of the discovery of human remains, is required to contact the County Coroner pursuant to subdivision (c) of Section 7050.5 of the Health and Safety Code and shall immediately notify those persons it believes to be most likely descended from the deceased Native American.

HEALTH AND SAFETY CODE 7050 – 7052
Section 7052 of the Health and Safety Code states that the disturbance of Native American cemeteries is a felony. Section 7050.5 of the California Health and Safety Code requires that construction or excavation must be stopped in the vicinity of the discovery of human remains until the County Coroner can determine whether the remains are those of a Native American. If the remains are determined to be Native American, the coroner must contact the NAHC.

Attachment 7 Part 2 to Agenda Item Number 8
Attachment 7 Part 2 to Agenda Item Number 8
City Council Meeting Packet of March 1, 2022

LOCAL GOALS, POLICIES, AND ACTIONS
The City of Sebastopol 2016 General Plan offers goals, policies, and actions related to cultural resources within the Conservation and Open Space (COS) chapter and Community Design chapter of the 2016 General Plan. The goals, policies, and actions, as they pertain to new proposed housing developments, are as follows.

CONSERVATION AND OPEN SPACE (COS)
Goal COS 10: Protect and Preserve Sebastopol’s Historic and Cultural Resources • Policy COS 10-1: Review proposed developments and work in conjunction with the California Historical Resources Information System, Northwest Information Center at Sonoma State University, to determine whether project areas contain known archaeological resources, either prehistoric and/or historic-era, or have the potential for such resources. • Policy COS 10-2: If found during construction, ensure that human remains are treated with sensitivity and dignity, and ensure compliance with the provisions of California Health and Safety Code and California Public Resources Code.
• Policy COS 10-3: Work with Native American representatives to identify and appropriately address, through avoidance or mitigation, impacts to Native American cultural resources and sacred sites during the development review process.
• Policy COS 10-4: Consistent with State local and tribal intergovernmental consultation requirements, the City shall consult with Native American tribes that may be interested in proposed new development and land use policy changes.
• Policy COS 10-5: Protect important historic resources and use these resources to promote a sense of place and history in Sebastopol.

Actions in Support of Goal COS 10
Action COS 10b: Require a cultural and archaeological survey prior to approval of any development project where a potential or known historical, archaeological, or other cultural resource is located, or which would require excavation in an area that is sensitive for cultural or archaeological resources. If significant cultural or archaeological resources, including historic and prehistoric resources, are identified, the project shall be required to implement appropriate measures, such as avoidance, capping of the resource site, or documentation and conservation, to reduce adverse impacts to the resource to a less than significant level.

Action COS 10c: Require all development, infrastructure, and other ground-disturbing projects to comply with the following conditions in the event of an inadvertent discovery of cultural resources or human remains:

Attachment 7 Part 2 to Agenda Item Number 8
Attachment 7 Part 2 to Agenda Item Number 8
City Council Meeting Packet of March 1, 2022

• If construction or grading activities result in the discovery of significant historic or prehistoric archaeological artifacts or unique paleontological resources, all work within 100 feet of the discovery shall cease, the Planning Department shall be notified, the resources shall be examined by a qualified archaeologist, paleontologist, or historian for appropriate protection and preservation measures; and work may only resume when appropriate protections are in place and have been approved by the Planning Department.
• If human remains are discovered during any ground disturbing activity, work shall stop until the Planning Department and the County Coroner have been contacted; if the human remains are determined to be of Native American origin, the NAHC and the most likely descendants have been consulted; and work may only resume when appropriate measures have been taken and approved by the Planning Department.

Action COS 10d: Continue to invite the Federated Indians of the Graton Rancheria, as well as other recognized tribes that express interest, to comment on City projects as part of the environmental review process.

COMMUNITY DESIGN (CD)
Goal CD 3: Recognize the Value and Ensure the Preservation of Sebastopol’s Historical and Cultural Resources
• Policy CD 3-3: Identify and document historical, cultural, and archeological resources including significant sites and structures.
• Policy CD 3-4: Require new development to avoid the disruption of cultural, archeological, and historical resources to the greatest extent feasible.

Actions in Support of Goal CD 3
Action CD 3b: Inventory historical and cultural resources and prepare a comprehensive survey of sites and structures including those of architectural significance.

Action CD 3g: Develop and maintain standard conditions of approval and require, as necessary, CEQA review of development projects to ensure the preservation of historical and cultural resources.

STUDY METHODS
The following methods were used to complete the CRS of the Project Area: a record search and literature review, a Native American Sacred Lands inventory and tribal outreach, and a field survey of the Project Area. The methods used to complete each of these tasks are described below.

RECORD SEARCH AND LITERATURE REVIEW
EDS completed a record search and literature review to develop a cultural setting of the Project Area and vicinity and to obtain and review information pertaining to previous cultural resource studies and Attachment 7 Part 2 to Agenda Item Number 8
Attachment 7 Part 2 to Agenda Item Number 8
City Council Meeting Packet of March 1, 2022

previously recorded cultural resources in the vicinity of the Project Area, and to assess the potential/sensitivity for buried archaeological resources in the Project Area.

NWIC Record Search
EDS completed a record search at the Northwest Information Center (NWIC) of the California Historical Resources Information Systems (CHRIS) on July 1, 2021 (NWIC File No. 20-2451). This included a review of previous cultural resource studies and Primary resource records pertaining to properties located within

0.5-miles of the Project Area, as well as additional documentation pertaining to listed or eligible cultural resources located in the vicinity, including the following list of documents:
• Office of Historic Preservation (OHP) Built Environment Resource Directory (BERD) for Sonoma County, California (OHP 2020)1
• OHP Archaeological Resources Directory for Sonoma County, California (dated 4/5/2012)2 • National Register of Historic Places (OHP 2020)
• California Register of Historical Resources (OHP 2020) • California Inventory of Historic Resources (OHP 1976) • California Historical Landmarks (OHP 2021)
• California Points of Historical Interest (OHP 1992)
• Five Views: Ethnic Sites Survey for California (California Department of Parks and Recreation 1988)
Review of Geology, Soils, and Geoarchaeological Information EDS also reviewed geological and soil/sediment studies in the region and one regional geoarchaeological study (Meyer and Rosenthal 2007) that focuses on landform evolution and the potential/sensitivity for encountering archaeological resources, in order to assess the Project Area’s potential/sensitivity for buried prehistoric archaeological resources.

An understanding of soils and their development is fundamental in archaeology because soils can provide evidence of past human activity (Goldberg and Macphail 2006:42). Five soil-forming factors include:
climate, organisms (including humans), topography, parent rock, and time (Jenny 1941). The formation of soils creates a vertical and horizontal distinction that creates a profile displaying the sequences, termed soil horizons, which lie horizontal to one another and parallel with the surface (Waters 1992:45). These 1 The BERD contains updated information previously found within the Historic Properties Directory (HPD). The BERD contains information regarding built environment cultural resources that are included in the OHP Tracking and Inventory System (OTIS). The resources were submitted to the OHP through one of its programs (Registration, Review and Compliance, Local Government Surveys, Architectural Review, etc.).The BERD also includes builtenvironment historic resources listed on the CRHR and the NRHP, as well as California Registered Historical Landmarks, and the California Points of Historical Interest. 2 Previously known as the Archaeological Determination of Eligibility (ADOE).

Attachment 7 Part 2 to Agenda Item Number 8
Attachment 7 Part 2 to Agenda Item Number 8
City Council Meeting Packet of March 1, 2022

horizons “reflect changes in mineralogy, texture, and chemistry usually caused by weathering” (Stein 2001:18), which together form a soil profile (Jones 2007:11). Identification of soil types is important in geoarchaeology as the soils can inform the researcher how to reconstruct past environmental and climatic conditions (Rapp and Hill 2006:41). Many older land surfaces often contain buried soils (paleosols) that formed in the past but are not undergoing soil formation in the present. The paleosols soils represented in the soil stratigraphy are: 1) indicative of prolonged periods of land stability or past environmental conditions; 2) are useful stratigraphic markers for locating buried archeological deposits and are and are well represented in archaeological contexts; and 3) and aid in the correlation of depositional sequences of different areas (Meyer 2003; Rapp and Hill 2006). Additionally, landforms that exhibit clear evidence of soil formation are expected to have a higher potential for containing archaeological resources than deposits that lack evidence of soil formation because people are generally attracted to stable surfaces, which in turn retains the evidence of occupation (Scher 2012:9). Deposits composed of sorted sand and gravel are expected to have little potential for containing intact archaeological resources but may contain re-deposited material and may represent former stream channels that could be associated with prehistoric use (Meyer 2000:10).

The results of the review of geology, soils and geoarchaeological information are presented within the Results of the Record Search and Literature Review section of this report.

Review of Historical Maps, Aerial Photographs, and Other Documents EDS reviewed various historical maps and aerial photographs dating from 1867 to 1980, as well as other documents, including those available at Ancestry.com, Newspapers.com, and Calisphere.com, to determine past land use activities within the Project Area that could indicate the likelihood of encountering historic-period archaeological resources, as well as researching for any historical persons associated with the Project Area. The results of this review are presented within the Record Search and Literature Review section of this report. Below is a list of the historical maps, aerial photographs, literature, and other sources that were reviewed.

Maps
• 1867 Map of Sonoma County, California (A.B. Bowers)
• 1877 Historical Atlas Map of Sonoma County, CA (Thos. Thompson) • 1898 Illustrated Atlas of Sonoma County, CA (Reynolds and Proctor) • 1900 Official Map of Sonoma County, California (Ricksecker and Walkup) • 1908 Official Map of Sonoma County, California (McIntire and Lewis) • 1935 USGS 1:48000 scale Sebastopol Quadrangle (USGS)
• 1942 USGS 15-minute Sebastopol, Calif. quadrangle map (USGS) • 1954 USGS 7.5-minute Sebastopol, Calif. quadrangle map (USGS) • 1980 edition of the 1954 USGS 7.5-minute Sebastopol, Calif. quadrangle map (USGS) Attachment 7 Part 2 to Agenda Item Number 8
Attachment 7 Part 2 to Agenda Item Number 8
City Council Meeting Packet of March 1, 2022

Aerial Photographs
• 1942 aerial photograph (U.S. War Department)
• 1952 aerial photograph, Flight DRH-1952, Frame 3K-179, Scale 1:20,000 (U.C. Santa Barbara Library)
• 1965 aerial photograph, Flight CAS-65-130, Frame 43-90, Scale 1:12,000 (U.C. Santa Barbara Library)
Other Resources
• 1877 Historical and descriptive sketch of Sonoma County, California (Thompson) • 1879 History of Sonoma County: Including its Geology, Topography, Mountains, Valleys and Streams (Munro-Fraser)
• 1889 An Illustrated History of Sonoma County, California (Lewis Publishing Company) • 1911 History of Sonoma County, California with Biographical sketches of the leading men and women of the County, who have been identified with its growth and development from the early days to the present (Gregory)
• 1926 History of Sonoma County, Volume 1 (Toumey)
• Ancestry.com
• Newspapers.com
• Find a Grave.com
• Calisphere.com
Sacred Lands Inventory and Tribal Outreach
A Sacred Lands inventory request was sent by electronic mail (email) to the NAHC on June 21, 2021, to inquire about listed Sacred Sites located within or near to the Project Area and to obtain a list of local Native American tribes who may have additional information about Sacred Sites, Traditional Cultural Resources, or other properties of traditional religious and cultural importance located within or near to the Project Area. The NAHC works to identify, catalogue, and protect places of special religious or social significance, graves, and cemeteries of Native Americans per the authority given in PRC § 5097.9.

EDS also conducted outreach with each tribal organization and individual on the Native American contact list provided by the NAHC to request further consultation regarding traditional, cultural, and religious heritage values associated with the Project. The Sacred Sites inventory is separate from the governmentto-government consultation required to be conducted by the lead agency to determine the presence or absence, or potential impacts to Tribal Cultural Resources, as defined in PRC § 21074 (also known as AB 52).

PEDESTRIAN FIELD SURVEY
A Secretary of Interior-qualified archaeologist conducted a pedestrian field survey to physically inspect the Project Area for potentially significant cultural resources. The surveyor examined the ground surface for evidence of cultural materials and changes in soil color, texture, or composition. This included examining the ground surface for any prehistoric artifacts (e.g., chipped stone such as obsidian, chert and Attachment 7 Part 2 to Agenda Item Number 8
Attachment 7 Part 2 to Agenda Item Number 8
City Council Meeting Packet of March 1, 2022

basalt flakes and tools; projectile points, knives, scrapers; shellfish remains; ground stone; and fireaffected rock); and sediment discolorations that could indicate the presence of prehistoric-era cultural features (e.g., midden, hearths, cairns and other indicators of prehistoric archaeological resources).

Additionally, the field surveyor inspected the Project Area for evidence of historic-era artifacts (e.g., surface scatters of mining or domestic type artifacts of glass, ceramic, metal, etc.); features such as alignments of stone or brick, foundation elements from previous structures, minor earthworks, and historic-era plantings (e.g., old fruit, nut or other types of trees, and ornamental plants).

CULTURAL SETTING
This section provides a prehistoric, ethnohistoric, and historic period setting for the Project Area and vicinity. Each cultural setting serves as the basis for understanding past land use activities within the Property that could have resulted in the presence of significant cultural within the Project Area.

PREHISTORIC AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL OVERVIEW
Archaeologist, David A. Fredrickson (1974) provides a chronology that forms the framework many archaeologists use to interpret and define Sonoma County prehistory. Fredrickson’s taxonomy consists of broad time periods defined by shifts in adaptive patterns that reflect changes in the environment and the movement and influences of native groups within a region. He defined three periods for the North Coast Ranges, including the Paleo-Indian Period (ca. 10,000 - 6000 BC); Archaic Period (6000 BC - AD 500) that is divided into the Lower Archaic (6000 - 3000 BC), Middle Archaic (3000 - 1000 BC) and Upper Archaic (1000 BC - AD 500) periods; and the Emergent Period (AD 500 - 1500). These time periods are further defined by spatial and cultural units called Patterns, Phases, and Aspects. Patterns are units of culture having similar economic and technical manifestations, mortuary patterns, concepts of wealth, and trade practices. Phases are cultural manifestations within a Pattern bounded by time and place. Aspects are cultural units bounded regionally, but not temporally (Fredrickson 1973, 1974).

Paleo-Indian Period (ca. 10,000 - 6000 BC)
Sonoma County was inhabited during the Paleo-Indian Period, as indicated by the presence of fluted projectile points and chipped stone crescents that have been found in a few archaeological sites located in Sonoma County near the Laguna de Santa Rosa, Bodega Bay, and Warm Springs Creek dam, as well as in the neighboring Mendocino and Lake counties. Based on limited archaeological evidence from this period, it appears populations in, and surrounding Sonoma County consisted of small, highly mobile groups that practiced broad-spectrum hunting and gathering techniques.

Lower Archaic Period (6000 - 3000 BC)
Archaeological evidence suggests that during the Lower Archaic Period, people living in Sonoma County practiced a mobile hunting and gathering economy, residing in camps situated along marshes and on grasslands, and traveling to the surrounding uplands to acquire resources available in those areas on a seasonal basis. The types of artifacts that are found in archaeological sites dating to this period include large, wide-stemmed projectile points, cobble tools, handstones, and milling slabs. These artifacts are Attachment 7 Part 2 to Agenda Item Number 8
Attachment 7 Part 2 to Agenda Item Number 8
City Council Meeting Packet of March 1, 2022

characteristic of the Borax Lake Pattern, a distinctive cultural pattern recognized throughout much of the North Coast Ranges during this time. In Sonoma County, the Borax Lake Pattern is recognized by the Spring Lake Aspect, specifically at sites located in Santa Rosa, and Duncan's Landing on the Sonoma Coast. A precontact archaeological site located in the Rincon Valley area of Santa Rosa, known as CA-Son-20, is the "type site" for the Spring Lake Aspect. This site dates to 6300 BC and contains artifacts such as widestemmed points, milling slabs, and handstones (Wickstrom and Fredrickson 1982). The climate during this period was also characterized by warmer-than-present conditions and lower precipitation (Schwitalla 2013).

Middle Archaic Period (3000 - 1000 BC)
As in the Lower Archaic period, mobile foragers on the Santa Rosa Plain during the Middle Archaic Period resided in camps situated along marshes and on grasslands and utilized the surrounding uplands to hunt and gather a wide array of plant and animal resources available in those areas on a seasonal basis. During this period, the Borax Lake Pattern was replaced by the Mendocino Pattern, characterized by groups practicing a more localized foraging strategy. Mendocino Pattern sites are well-represented on the Santa Rosa Plain. According to Fredrickson (1989), there was overlapping use of the Laguna de Santa Rosa area by both mobile foragers (Black Hills Phase of the Mendocino Pattern) and collectors (Laguna Phase of the Berkeley Pattern) between 1500 BC and AD 1. By 1000 BC, it is thought that Berkeley Pattern groups, who were more sedentary and practiced a collecting economic strategy, began to spread into the Santa Rosa Plain while mobile Mendocino Pattern foragers focused on the surrounding uplands.

The Middle Archaic Period was also marked by new ground stone technology, as well as an increase in trade, which is evident by cut marine shell (Olivella sp.) beads, often found in association with burials.

Formalized exchange relationships appear to have been established in the flake stone industry as well, which is indicated by a greater amount of obsidian originating from sources in Napa Valley rather than the locally available obsidian source at Annadel in Santa Rosa. Furthermore, mortars and pestles first appear in sites dating to this period, and this is thought to signal an increased dietary reliance on acorns rather than hard seeds, and a concomitant increase in sedentism.

Significant climatic changes also occurred during the Middle Archaic Period, during which warmer and drier conditions led to the reduction of lake basins in southern California, and across California, there is a general decrease in the number of sites. This is thought to be the result of a reduced population during this time; however, it is suggested that the paucity of sites may not be due to a decrease in population, but rather may related to a period of increased alluvial deposition that buried many former living surfaces that date to this period (Meyer and Rosenthal 2007; Milliken et al. 2007).

Upper Archaic Period (1000 BC - AD 500)
The Upper Archaic Period was characterized by cooler conditions accompanied by increased precipitation in northern and central California, which likely resulted in more favorable conditions for human occupation. Sites dating to this period demonstrate marked differences in their constituents relative to Borax Lake Pattern sites of the Middle Archaic Period. These new occupations are ascribed to the Berkeley Attachment 7 Part 2 to Agenda Item Number 8
Attachment 7 Part 2 to Agenda Item Number 8
City Council Meeting Packet of March 1, 2022

Pattern, which appears to have originated in the Clear Lake area during the Lower Archaic Period.

Although firm dating for the end of the Borax Lake Pattern is lacking, it is believed to have been replaced by the Berkeley Pattern (possibly representing Miwokan influence) about 500 BC (Moratto 1984:517).

Berkeley Pattern sites are characterized by a higher degree of sedentism, a highly developed bone tool industry, numerous mortars and pestles that further imply a greater reliance on acorns, and tightly flexed burials with few to no associated artifacts or preference toward orientation. When present, associated burial artifacts typically include Olivella saddle and saucer beads and Haliotis pendants (Milliken et al. 2007). The Berkeley Pattern is represented at archaeological sites in Sonoma County and the neighboring Napa and Lake counties.

Emergent Period (AD 500 - 1500)
Although AD 500 is marked as the beginning of the Lower Emergent Period, more recent work suggests the beginning of the Lower Emergent Period may have occurred around AD 1000. The Emergent Period is thought to be associated with a new level of sedentism, status ascription, ceremonial integration, and regional trade, as indicated by the presence of finished artifacts and food remains that could not be obtained locally; and this is referred to as the Augustine Pattern. There appears to have been a diversity of socioeconomic strategies associated with Augustine Pattern sites in the North Bay, with some sites revealing a continuance of sedentary systems initiated by the Berkeley Pattern and others apparently resulting from mobile foraging adaptations.

The North Bay became the “seat of innovation” during the Upper Emergent Period, as new ornament forms and technologies emerged, such as the bow and arrow, toggle harpoon, hopper mortar, clamshell disk beads, and steatite and magnesite beads and tubes (Milliken et al. 2007). This period was marked by wide-ranging changes in Olivella bead forms and their distribution. The Olivella saucer bead trade network appears to have collapsed suddenly between AD 430 and 1050, and Olivella saucer bead industry was replaced by more regionally integrated shell bead forms, such as Olivella wall beads and clamshell disk beads. This change possibly indicates an increased importance of communicating identity, status, and cultural affiliation within an increasingly populated region. The manufacture of clamshell disk beads seems to have centered primarily on the Santa Rosa Plain and within the Napa Valley. These type beads were used as exchange currency with a standardized value. The burial practice of cremation was also introduced in the North Bay during this time (Milliken et al., 2007). These shifts in technology, artifact types and mortuary practices, which for the most part spread throughout the San Francisco Bay Area from north to south, appear to indicate that another upward cycle of regional integration took place during this period; however, this cycle ended when the Russians and Spanish began to settle the region.

ETHNOHISTORIC OVERVIEW
As indicated on ethnographic maps of the area (Barrett 1908; Kroeber 1925; McLendon and Oswalt 1978; Stewart 1943), the Project Area is within the ethnographic territory of the Konhomtara tribelet of the Southern Pomo linguistic affiliation but was in close proximity to lands occupied by Coast Miwok-speaking people. According to Stewart (1943:53), the area of the Konhomtara covered about 150 square miles and Attachment 7 Part 2 to Agenda Item Number 8
Attachment 7 Part 2 to Agenda Item Number 8
City Council Meeting Packet of March 1, 2022

was bounded by the Laguna de Santa Rosa on the east, the first coastal ridge on the west, the Russian River on the north, and lands occupied by the Coast Miwok on the south.

Figure 3: Project Area shown on Milliken’s map of the “Probably locations and boundaries of Coast Miwok and Pomo communities in Marin and Southern Sonoma County” (Milliken 2009:2).

Southern Pomo groups maintained a relatively dense population with complex social structures. The settlement pattern of the Konhomtara consisted of a few large villages occupied for most of the year, as well as numerous summer villages. Sites were scattered along the western side of the Laguna de Santa Rosa and where seasonally available food resources and fresh water could be obtained (Kunkel 1962).

Southern Pomo groups built structures using wooden poles tied together at the top and covered with brush and grass, or tule. Large semi-subterranean sweathouses and dance houses structures were also constructed within main village sites. The subsistence economy was based on hunting, fishing, and collecting a variety of vegetable resources. Southern Pomo groups relied heavily on acorns, which could be gathered and stored. Other plants, including buckeye nuts, berries, grasses seeds, roots, bulbs, and edible greens, were also gathered. Food obtained from the coast included dried seaweed and kelp, as well as fish, especially salmon and steelhead, which could also be caught in the Russian River, and sea mammals. Large game animals, such as deer, elk, and antelope were important dietary constituents, as well as small game, such as rabbits and squirrels, and many varieties of birds. Trade with neighboring groups was an important way in which they acquired resources that were not locally available, such as Attachment 7 Part 2 to Agenda Item Number 8
Attachment 7 Part 2 to Agenda Item Number 8
City Council Meeting Packet of March 1, 2022

obsidian. Pomo people were also specialists in gaming, and the production of clamshell disk beads and magnesite cylinders (McLendon and Oswalt 1978).

Native Americans throughout the Bay Area were significantly affected beginning in the 1770s by the establishment of missions, including Mission San Francisco de Asís (1776) in present-day San Francisco, Mission Santa Clara de Asís (1777) in present-day Santa Clara, Mission San Jose de Guadalupe (1797) in present-day Fremont, Mission San Rafael Arcángel (1817; gained full mission status in 1822) in presentday San Rafael, and Mission San Francisco Solano (1823; the last of the 21 missions established in California) in present-day Sonoma. As a result, Native Americans throughout the Bay Area were forcibly relocated, converted to Catholicism, and forced to abandon their Native traditions, languages and ceremonies. European-introduced diseases (e.g., measles and smallpox), for which Native Americans had no immunity, sickened populations, and lowered birth rates, which led to an overall decline in the Native population. By 1821, Native Americans living on the Santa Rosa Plain began to be baptized and relocated to the newly established missions in San Rafael (1817) and Sonoma (1823), which accelerated the conversion of many Southern Pomo and Coast Miwok that resided in the area at the time (Milliken 2009).

Beginning in 1833, the Franciscan missions were secularized by the Republic of Mexico gaining impendence from Spain in 1821. The law secularizing the missions required that the church relinquish secular control over the converted Native Americans, change the missions into pueblos, and divide the mission lands, livestock and equipment amongst the resident Native Americans; and the remaining mission property was to be administered by civil administrators who would oversee the missions until secularization was complete. However, during secularization, most of the land and property was turned over to prominent Californio families (California-born people of Mexican heritage), and Native Americans living at the missions were forced to leave. Many returned to their traditional homeland, and some found work on newly established ranchos as laborers; others lived in refugee villages. However, during the American period when a flood of new settlers swallowed up available land for farming and ranching purposes, the Southern Pomo were further displaced, and many were forced onto reservations.

The early American period brought devastation to Native American communities, as the newly arriving settlers found Native people an impediment to acquiring land, livestock and gold, and laws were quickly passed in California with the purpose of exterminating Native populations and their cultures. When California entered the Union in 1850, one of the first acts of the new California legislature was the passing of the Act for the Government and Projection of Indians, which was an act that facilitated the forced removal of California Native Americans from their traditional lands and provided for the forced indenturing of loitering or orphaned Native American children and adults. In a speech given in 1851, the first Governor of California, Peter Hardeman Burnett, stated that "a war of extermination will continue to be waged between the races until the Indian race becomes extinct must be expected” (California State Library 2019). Burnett went on to authorize the killing of thousands of Native Californians by setting aside state money to arm local militias against Native Americans, and with the help of the U.S. Army, started assembling a massive arsenal that was given to local militias who were tasked with killing native people.

Several other laws were passed that were widely abused and ultimately led to the enslavement and murder of tens of thousands of Native Americans in California. During this time, a number of treaties were Attachment 7 Part 2 to Agenda Item Number 8
Attachment 7 Part 2 to Agenda Item Number 8
City Council Meeting Packet of March 1, 2022

negotiated but left unratified; reservations were established, dissolved, and reinstated; and native peoples were left in a continuous period of unrest (California Department of Parks and Recreation 1988).

It is reported that in 1870 there were only 19 Native Americans left living within the Analy Township, where the Project Area is located (Thompson 1877:95).

The 1880s saw an increase in public awareness of the problems California Native Americans faced, and the government sought to formally educate native people as a means of assimilation. In California, three types of educational programs were established for native peoples. The first was the Federal Government reservation day school; the second was the boarding school, fashioned after the U.S. Indian Industrial School in Carlise, Pennsylvania, which was considered the flagship Indian boarding school in the U.S. from 1879 through 1918; and the third was the nearby public school that allowed Indians to attend (Heizer 1978:115). However, Native Americans soon recognized that the schools threatened their way of life because children were no longer allowed to speak their native language, wear traditional clothing, wear their hair in traditional fashions, or practice traditional activities, and were often removed from their parent’s care, and so considerable resistance to the schools developed.

Another major tool the government used to try to assimilate Native Americans during this time was the General Allotment Act of 1887, also known as the Dawes Act, that provided each Native American living on one of eight California reservations a 160-acre allotment of land per family unit and an allotment of public lands not yet appropriated by the government for those not residing on a reservation. The land was to be held in trust by the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) until a time when the occupant could show that they were using the land for agricultural purposes and had become self-sufficient. Other Native Americans chose to purchase and reside on land which was once theirs. By 1905, Native Americans and their supporters began a drive to acquire land, better education, citizenship rights, and settlement of the unfulfilled treaty conditions (Dutschke 2014).

Between 1903 and 1906, an anthropologist and linguist from U.C. Berkeley, Samuel A. Barrett, traveled throughout the territory of the Pomo and interviewed Native Americans living throughout the area to derive information about the native territorial boundaries of the Pomo and their neighbors, the number of languages and dialects spoken and their relationship to one another, and the locations of the former and modern village and camps sites. During this time, Barrett noted the presence of two old village sites in the vicinity of Sebastopol, including Masikawani, located along the west side of Laguna de Santa Rosa to the north of Sebastopol, and Akapolopolowani, located along the west side of Laguna de Santa Rosa to the south of Sebastopol. Additionally, there was an inhabited modern village site known as Batikletcawi located within present-day Sebastopol (Barrett 1908; Stewart 1943) (Figure 4). Barrett reports that Batikletcawi was once a populous village; however, at the time of Barrett’s visit, there was a single house occupied by seven Native Americans, with ten other Native Americans living at a site about one mile east of town (1908:214,223). Alfred Kroeber mentions that Batikletcawi "was an important town, and therefore presumably the headquarters of a division" (1925:233).

Today, there are many Coast Miwok and Southern Pomo living within their ancestral territory, and in 2000 members of these tribes merged to form the Federated Indians of Graton Rancheria (FIGR), which is a Attachment 7 Part 2 to Agenda Item Number 8
Attachment 7 Part 2 to Agenda Item Number 8
City Council Meeting Packet of March 1, 2022

Federally recognized tribe. Other Federally-recognized tribes in the area include the Lytton Band of Pomo Indians and the Dry Creek Rancheria Band of Pomo Indians.

Figure 4: Barrett’s ethnographic map showing the locations of Native American village sites in the vicinity of the Project Area (Barrett 1908).

HISTORIC PERIOD OVERVIEW
This section outlines the history of Sonoma County and the surrounding area regarding events and themes related to the history of the area from the Spanish period to the American period.

Spanish Colonization (1769-1821)
The Spanish were the first Europeans to colonize Alta (upper) California3 beginning in 1769, when the first Franciscan mission was established in San Diego. Spanish activity in the San Francisco Bay Area increased greatly after this time, with several Spanish expeditions traveling through the Bay Area between 1769 and 1776 to search for suitable places to establish missions. One of the first Euro-American expeditions to explore the areas of present-day Sonoma County was a Spanish expedition led by Lieutenant Juan 3 Alta California was a polity of New Spain founded in 1769 and became a territory of Mexico after the end of the Mexican War of Independence on 1821.

Attachment 7 Part 2 to Agenda Item Number 8
Attachment 7 Part 2 to Agenda Item Number 8
City Council Meeting Packet of March 1, 2022

Francisco de la Bodega y Quadra in 1775, when his ship the Sonora touched the Bodega Bay (Hoover et al. 2002:503). The first trip inland into Sonoma was likely in 1776 by Captain Quiros, who ventured from San Francisco into Petaluma Creek (Munro-Fraser 1879:39). Also during this time, a presidio (military fort) and several missions were established throughout the greater Bay Area, including the Presidio of San Francisco and Mission San Francisco de Asís (1776) in present-day San Francisco, Mission Santa Clara de Asís (1777) in present-day Santa Clara, Mission San Jose de Guadalupe (1797) in present-day Fremont, and Mission San Rafael Arcángel (1817; gained full mission status in 1822) in present-day San Rafael.

Russian Settlement of the Sonoma Coast (1812 – 1842)
Russia began their expansion into North America with a massive scientific expedition to Alaska in 1741.

The expedition motivated Russian investment in the Alaskan fur trade, and by the nineteenth century, the Russian-American Company was actively competing with British and American fur-trading interests as far south as California. As a result, permanent settlements were established along the shores of northern California by the Russians to supply food and a base for exploiting sea otter populations up and down the coast. In 1812, after exploring the Sonoma Coast, the Russian-American Company selected a place located 18 miles north of Bodega Bay, called Metini by the native Kashaya Pomo, where they established an administrative center called Fort Ross (Hoover et al. 2002:504-505; Lightfoot et al. 1991:12; Lightfoot 2005:5). Later, a number of smaller Russian settlements were established further south, including a port at Bodega Bay called Port Rumianstev, a sealing station on the Farallon Islands, and by 1830 three small farming communities were established south of Fort Ross that included Kostromitinov located on the Russian River near Willow Creek, Khlebnikov located one mile north of Bodega Bay in the Salmon Creek valley, and Chernykh located near present-day town of Graton (Schneider 2007). The Kostromitinov Ranch was an important waystation between Fort Ross and the Russian colony at Bodega Bay, and the river essentially acted as a “Russian highway” to the unexplored interior (Bancroft 1886). In 1842, the RussianAmerican Company sold Fort Ross, as well as the outposts and holdings to Captain John Sutter of Sacramento, and left Alta California (Watrous 1998).

Mexican Period (1821 - 1848)
In 1810, a civil war erupted in Spanish-ruled Mexico, and Alta California found itself cut off from Mexico, which was the main source of supplies and the primary market for surplus crops produced in Alta California at the time. As a result, illegal trading began to take place with foreign ships, which allowed locals to exchange their surplus agricultural products and hides and tallow for imported products such as tea, coffee, spices, clothing, leather goods, and other items. In 1821, Mexico won its independence from Spain with the signing of the Treaty of Córdoba and took possession of California, marking the end of the Spanish period and the beginning of the Mexican (or “rancho”) period in Alta California. The new Mexican government enforced major changes that resulted in the decline of the Spanish mission system, and the removal of the church as the center of authority, as well as legalizing trade with foreign ships, which stimulated commerce and resulted in the establishment of new settlements and some of the first American and Anglo-Europeans to the area and the issuing of land grants in an effort to stimulate further colonization.

Attachment 7 Part 2 to Agenda Item Number 8
Attachment 7 Part 2 to Agenda Item Number 8
City Council Meeting Packet of March 1, 2022

After winning independence, the new Mexican government in Alta California also wanted to reinforce their claim to the northern frontier, and in 1823, an expedition led by Francisco Castro and accompanied by José Sanchez and Father José Altamira traveled to Sonoma County to scout out a site for a new northern mission; and later that year, Mission San Francisco Solano (Sonoma Mission) was founded by Father José Altimira in the present-day Town of Sonoma (Hoover et al. 2002). The Sonoma Mission was the last and northernmost of the 21 missions to be established in Alta California. In 1835, to further secure their claim, Mariano Guadalupe Vallejo, a prominent military commander, politician, and farmer, began construction of the Presidio of Sonoma, which was built to house Mexican soldiers transferred from the Presidio of San Francisco to counter the Russian presence at Fort Ross and their settlements further south. Vallejo also sent three men, including Edward McIntosh, James Black and James Dawson, westward to settle the Sebastopol / Valley Ford / Freestone areas to prevent further encroachment by the Russians. Each received a land grant for their services. However, in 1842, the Russian-American Company sold Fort Ross, its outposts and holdings to Captain John Sutter of Sacramento, and left California (Watrous 1998).

As with many citizens that served the Mexican government in Alta California at the time, particularly if they were politically prominent or military leaders, McIntosh, Black and Dawson each applied for and received huge land holdings, called ranchos. The Project Area is located in the former Rancho Cañada de Jonive that was granted to James Black in 1845. Rancho Cañada de Jonive was 10,787-acres and extended from present-day Sebastopol on the east to present-day Freestone on the west, and included the presentday towns of Freestone, Occidental, Camp Meeker, Graton, and Sebastopol. In 1848, James Black sold Rancho Cañada de Jonive to Jasper O’Farrell, who in turn purchased O’Farrell’s Rancho Nicasio.

Early American Period (1848 - 1900)
The American Period in California is marked by the end of the Mexican American War (1846-1848), when the U.S. took possession of the territories of California, New Mexico, Utah, Nevada, parts of Arizona, Colorado, Oklahoma, Kansas, and Wyoming in the signing of the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo (1848). The treaty provided the resident Mexicans their American citizenship and guaranteed title to land granted during the Mexican period. However, on January 24, 1848, two weeks before the treaty signing, James W.

Marshall discovered gold at Sutter’s Mill along the American River, which marked the beginning of Gold Rush-era (1848 to 1855) in California. Soon the excitement of the Gold Rush and the promise of fertile and abundant land brought between 150,000 and 200,000 new settlers to California from all over the U.S., as well as Scotland, Ireland, England, Germany, France, China, and other countries.

The massive influx of new settlers who came to California during the Gold Rush soon gave rise to land disputes, as settlers began to move into rancho lands that they perceived as unoccupied and available for settlement. To investigate and confirm the titles of land claims of former (now American) Mexican citizens in California, officials acquired the provincial records of the Spanish and Mexican governments in Monterey and transferred them to the U.S. Surveyor General's Office in San Francisco, including land deeds, sketch maps (diseños), and various other documents, that were used to help settle land title disputes. In 1851, the U.S. passed the California Land Act that established the Public Land Commission to review these records and determine the validity of the Spanish and Mexican era land grants and charged Attachment 7 Part 2 to Agenda Item Number 8
Attachment 7 Part 2 to Agenda Item Number 8
City Council Meeting Packet of March 1, 2022

the Surveyor General with surveying confirmed land grants. Of the 813 grants ultimately claimed, the land commission approved only 553 of them; however, some of the confirmed grants were reduced in size and the cost of litigation forced many to sell off some or all of their land and cattle to newly arriving settlers, or the lawyers they hired to define their land claims in court (Clay 1999; Olmsted 1986). In accordance with the Land Act of 1851, a claim for Rancho Cañada de Jonive was filed with the Public Land Commission in 1852, and the grant was patented to Jasper O’Farrell in 1858 (Munro-Fraser 1879) (Figure 5).

Figure 5: Diseño of the Rancho Cañada de Jonive, 1858.

In the early 1850s, the area within and near the town of Sebastopol saw the arrival of European-American settlers including Otis Allen, James Delaney, M. Gillian, James M. Miller, John Walker, Orlando Sowers, James Greyson, John Marshall, Henry Marshall, Issac Sullivan, and Mitchell Hilham, who established residency in the area. Several of the settlers, including Henry and John Marshall, who were brothers, and James Greyson, originally came to California to fight in the Mexican-American War before taking part in gold mining during the California Gold Rush (Petaluma Weekly Argus 1879). During this time, logging along the coast hills, cattle ranching, wheat, and potato farming, and the early development of the wine and fruit industry supported the economy of Sonoma County.

By 1853, approximately twelve to fourteen thousand acres of fruit trees were planted within and around the town of Sebastopol (Peterson 1978). During this time, Joseph Miller and John Walker settled near the developing town of Sebastopol, where they established “Miller & Walker’s” general merchandise store (aka a Bodega), which was the first general merchandise store established in the area set-up to supply Attachment 7 Part 2 to Agenda Item Number 8
Attachment 7 Part 2 to Agenda Item Number 8
City Council Meeting Packet of March 1, 2022

locals with goods. In 1855, J. H. P. Morris took up a claim for 120-acres of land within present-day Sebastopol, which he called Pine Grove. Morris came to Sonoma in 1853 and was in business for a while with Miller and Walker before acquiring his own land and moving a building from Miller and Walker's property to his land in Sebastopol where he opened a grocery store and saloon (Munro-Fraser 1879:175).

Morris offered free lots to anyone who was willing to open a business, including John Dougherty, who was given a plot of land under the condition he open a store (McClure 1995:9; Thompson 1877:23). George H.

Jacobs then opened a blacksmith and wagon-making shop, and Captain Auser erected a hotel. Other businesses soon followed, and Sebastopol quickly grew due to the fertile and well-irrigated soil that prompted settlement and steady growth (Munro-Fraser 1879:176). The name Pine Grove that was first given to the new town was changed to Sebastopol in 1859 when an official post office was established and it was revealed that a town called Pine Grove, California, already existed (Gudde 1998:354).

During the 1860s and early 1870s, grain crops began to fail, and as a result, grain prices dropped drop, and agriculture crops in California and Sonoma County began to shift to orchard farming. By the 1870s, the agricultural land in and around Sebastopol consisted of planted fruit orchards, hops and vineyards, as well as dairies, though some land was planted in grain and also utilized as grazing land. During this time, farmers often relied on Chinese immigrant labor; however, in 1875, California’s senators pressured their fellow lawmakers in Washington D.C. to pass the Page Act, which was an act that “prohibited convicted felons, prostitutes, and Asian contract laborers” from entering the U.S. (McKeown 2008:133-134). This resulted in a series of anti-immigrant laws and practices, of which the most sweeping “anti-Chinese” law was the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882 that banned all Chinese laborers from entering the U.S., with the exception of students, merchants, teachers, travelers, and diplomate4(McKeown 2008).

By the 1880s, fruit orchards and some hop fields, populated the landscape around the town of Sebastopol.

In 1883, Nathaniel Griffith purchased 85 acres in the Gold Ridge District and planted the first commercial orchard of Gravenstein apple trees with the help of Luther Burbank, a well-known American botanist, horticulturist, and pioneer in agricultural science. In 1885, Burbank purchased 18-acres in Sebastopol for an experimental nursery, which he named Gold Ridge Farm, where he planted 1,800 trees and grew a variety of new fruits, flowers, grains, grasses, and vegetables (West Sonoma County Historical Society [SCHS] 2003). In 1888, Joseph Hunt, who had been engaged in fruit raising on his small farm northwest of the town of Sebastopol since 1869, started canning fruit on his property, packing approximately 1,500 cases of fruit in the first season (Irvine 1905). In 1889, Joseph, along with this brother J.H. Hunt, built a fruit dehydrator and the following year Joseph and J.H. moved their canning operation, known as “Hunt Brothers Fruit Packing Company”, to the City of Santa Rosa where they were able to expand production.

During this time, the agricultural community around Sebastopol was thriving; however, the growth of the town of Sebastopol was relatively slow (Figure 6). This changed in 1890 with the arrival of the town’s first 4 Anti-immigrant laws that Congress passed in the late 19th and early twentieth century also included a range of laws barring Chinese from securing business licenses (1872), owning real estate (1872, 1913, 1920), wearing queues (1873), and walking on sidewalks while carrying loads with pole and baskets (1870), as well as prohibition of interracial marriages in California (1922).

Attachment 7 Part 2 to Agenda Item Number 8
Attachment 7 Part 2 to Agenda Item Number 8
City Council Meeting Packet of March 1, 2022

passenger train, which was operated by the San Francisco and North Pacific Railroad (SF&NP). The new rail connection between Sebastopol and Santa Rosa not only allowed for the further development of the fruit industry, specifically the apple, berry, prune, and hops production, as well as the dairy industry, but it also spurred the growth of the town of Sebastopol.

Figure 6: ca. 1880 photo of the Sebastopol (courtesy of the Sonoma County Library).

Late American Period (post-1900)
By the early 1900s, the town of Sebastopol was booming, with a thriving agricultural industry centered around apples (Figure 7). In 1902, Sebastopol was incorporated with a population of about 1,500 residents, including 77 Chinese and 52 Japanese immigrants, and the town consisted of schools, churches, wineries, canneries, hotels, an opera house, and a Chinatown5(City of Sebastopol 2021; WSCHS 2003:119).

In 1903, with one million dollars in capital stock, the Petaluma & Sebastopol Railway (P&SR) was contracted to build 32 miles of electric tracks that linked Petaluma, Santa Rosa, Sebastopol, Graton, and Forestville, and a powerhouse (extant) was constructed adjacent to the original Sebastopol rail depot (Figure 8 and Figure 9) (McGraw 1909). The powerhouse served as the main freight depot, and also housed 5 The first Chinese settlement in Sebastopol was located on the east side of Main Street and was occupied until 1892 but was moved to the “outskirts” of town in 1893 along what is now Main Street, which was then known as North China Avenue. The second Chinese settlement grew southward forming a third Chinatown along what was then known as South China Avenue (later Barns Avenue south of present-day Highway 12). The two Chinese settlements were occupied from 1893 until ca. 1940.

Attachment 7 Part 2 to Agenda Item Number 8
Attachment 7 Part 2 to Agenda Item Number 8
City Council Meeting Packet of March 1, 2022

the transformers for the Sebastopol substation for the P&SR electric railway. In 1904, the Northwestern Pacific Railroad (NWPRR) also extended a line to Sebastopol, which connected farms with distant and local markets. The two lines ran almost parallel to each other between Sebastopol and Santa Rosa, and while both lines offered freight service, the P&SR also offered passenger service. Sebastopol’s fruit industry was boasted significantly by the arrival of the railroads because it was the first mode of transportation that offered over-night freight service from Sebastopol to San Francisco and beyond (Peterson and Peterson 1981; Toumey 1926).

In 1906, the town of Sebastopol was devasted by the San Francisco earthquake, and many of its buildings in Sebastopol along Main Street and Bodega Avenue were destroyed (Figure 10). However, the town quickly recovered, in part because of the successful agricultural industry that dominated the economy at the time (Figure 11 and Figure 12). By the early 1920s, Sonoma County ranked 8th in the nation in agricultural production, with more than 11,000 acres in apple production, and in 1924, two thousand train carloads of fresh and dried fruit were shipped to market (LeBaron and Mitchell 1993; Toumey 1926). Apple orchards and dehydrators popped up all over as families like R.E. Oehlmann, founder of Manzana Products, Hallberg, Frei Brothers, Will Hotle, O’Connell, Barlow and Silveira became well known in the region, all of them growers as well as processors. Owners of smaller orchards sold to the Sebastopol Apple Growers Union (Meagher 2010). At the peak of production, there were approximately fifteen apple processors (individuals and cooperatives) operating in the area and 80 dehydrators, many of which were owned and operated by members of the local Chinese and Japanese communities (WSCHS 2003:21).

The berry industry also flourished during this time, particularly after local berry growers formed the Sebastopol Berry Growers Association in 1909 to help growers obtain the best prices for their products. It became common for farmers, such as the Barlow’s, to plant berries between the rows of young orchards, and by 1920 some 360 farmers also grew berries around Sebastopol with a production of about 3,200 tons that were canned or shipped each year (Figure 13). Blackberries and Logan berries were the principal types grown (WSCHS 2003:30). During this time, the Chinese owned “Wing Yuen Tai Co. General Merchandise and Chinese Employment Office”, located in downtown Sebastopol, was the main employment office where local Chinese and Japanese residents were often hired for agricultural or domestic work (Figure 14).

By the mid-1930s, the nation was emerging from the Great Depression (1929 – 1933), which created a surge of bank closures, resulting in a decrease of available capitol that impacted agriculture and led to reduced market prices and high unemployment (Speulda and Lewis 2003). In 1933, five days after taking the oath of office, President Franklin Delano Roosevelt called a conference with the secretaries of Agriculture, Interior, and War, along with several others to discuss his ideas for recruiting 500,000 men to work in the nation’s forests and eroded farmlands. Roosevelt’s vision was to provide work opportunities, primarily for young men to repair the land from decades of poor management and over-use, which became known as the “New Deal”. As part of the New Deal, the Emergency Conservation Work (ECW) Act was established, which created the Civilian Conservation Corp (CCC) and the Works Progress Administration (WPA) to create work opportunities for unemployed Americans. The work was specifically directed toward conservation of natural resources and included everything from road construction to Attachment 7 Part 2 to Agenda Item Number 8
Attachment 7 Part 2 to Agenda Item Number 8
City Council Meeting Packet of March 1, 2022

public art commissions.

In Sebastopol, the WPA built 300 feet of new sewer lines and 960 feet of new water main, as well as a fire station, the Sebastopol City Hall, and the Sebastopol Post Office (Sonoma West Times and News 1938; LeBaron 2016). In 1935, the CCC established a station known as “Camp Sebastopol” on Bodega Highway, which was supervised by the Soil Conservation Service6 and housed approximately 1,119 young men between the ages of 18 and 25. The CCC enrollees made a significant impact on the agricultural areas surrounding the City of Sebastopol by securing the success of an agricultural area known as the “Gold Ridge Soil Conservation District”. From 1935 to 1942, the CCC provided assistance to local farmers, particularly local fruit orchards farmers, by laying miles of concrete drainage pipe, drilling wells, building check dams, contouring hillsides for apple trees, and planting shrubs to prevent erosion; and in 1936, the area of Sebastopol saw its peak apple production year (Lebaron 2016; WSCHS 2003:20). Although President Roosevelt urged the continuance of the CCC as a means to accomplish critical defense work, Congress ended the program on June 30, 1942 when it voted to eliminate the funding of the CCC and allocated eight million dollars to close all CCC programs (Pfaff 2001). However, as a result of the CCC and the WPA programs, when the U.S. entered World War II (WWII) (1939-1945), the government had a pool of trained men ready for the armed services.

The U.S. entered WWII on December 9, 1942, and on February 19, 1942, President Roosevelt signed Executive Order #9066 authorizing the Secretary of War or any designated military commander to establish military areas within the U.S., and in March 1942, the War Relocation Authority (WRA) was created by Executive Order #9102 that resulted in the removal and relocation of approximately 110,000 Japanese-American persons from designated locations through the U.S., including Sonoma County. In Sebastopol, as many as 750 Japanese and Japanese-Americans were taken to Merced Assembly Center where they were loaded onto trains and taken to the Amache Internment Camp in Colorado (California Japantowns.org 2021).

After WWII ended in 1945, the area surrounding the city of Sebastopol continued to thrive as an important fruit and agricultural region, with nearly 15,000 acres of apple trees planted within the county. However, by the end of WWII, the wine industry in the area began to grow, and the apple industry slowly began to decline; and by 1958, there were only 5,449 acres of land planted in Gravenstein apples and only 40 apple processors in the county. During the latter part of the twentieth century, the agricultural lands surrounding Sebastopol saw fruit orchards replaced by vineyards, which soon became a major crop for Sonoma County. By 2010, there was only one producer in Sebastopol and less than 1,000 acres of Gravenstein apples in production, and the city of Sebastopol shifted from a full-service town with a diverse range of produce to more limited goods and services (Meagher 2010; City of Sebastopol 2021). 6 The Soil Conservation Service was one of several federal agencies that made use of CCC labor under the New Deal to address soil conservation on cultivated farmlands. Today the former Soil Conservation Service agency is known as the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS).

Attachment 7 Part 2 to Agenda Item Number 8
Attachment 7 Part 2 to Agenda Item Number 8
City Council Meeting Packet of March 1, 2022

Figure 7: ca. 1900 postcard “Picking Apples” in Sebastopol (courtesy of the City of Sebastopol).

Figure 8: ca. 1905 photo showing the Petaluma & Sebastopol Railway Powerhouse (extant) in the background and the original wooden Sebastopol rail depot (no longer extant) in the foreground (courtesy of the WSCHS).

Attachment 7 Part 2 to Agenda Item Number 8
Attachment 7 Part 2 to Agenda Item Number 8
City Council Meeting Packet of March 1, 2022

Figure 9: ca. 1905 photo showing the electric rail cars in Sebastopol (courtesy of Sonoma County Library).

Figure 10: Photograph of the damage to the Bank of Sebastopol (no longer extant) on Main Street near Bodega Avenue caused by the 1906 earthquake (Courtesy of the Sonoma County Library).

Attachment 7 Part 2 to Agenda Item Number 8
Attachment 7 Part 2 to Agenda Item Number 8
City Council Meeting Packet of March 1, 2022

Figure 11: 1918 photograph of the Petaluma Chamber of Commerce members at the Sebastopol Apple Growers Union Packing House No. 3 (courtesy of Sonoma County Library – Heritage Collection).

Figure 12: ca. 1920 photo of Main Street in Sebastopol, California (courtesy of Sonoma County Library).

Attachment 7 Part 2 to Agenda Item Number 8
Attachment 7 Part 2 to Agenda Item Number 8
City Council Meeting Packet of March 1, 2022

Figure 13: Ca. 1920 photograph of berry pickers at the Barlow Berry Ranch in Sebastopol (Calisphere.com).

Figure 14: ca. 1920 photograph showing the “Wing Yuen Tai Co. General Merchandise and Chinese Employment Office” (red arrow) (courtesy of Sonoma County Library).

Attachment 7 Part 2 to Agenda Item Number 8
Attachment 7 Part 2 to Agenda Item Number 8
City Council Meeting Packet of March 1, 2022

RESULTS OF RECORD SEARCH AND LITERATURE REVIEW

NWIC RECORD SEARCH RESULTS
EDS completed a record search at the NWIC on July 1, 2021 (NWIC File No. 21-0006) that was supplemented by cultural resource information available at the EDS office and within the digital files of EDS. The purpose of the record search was to review documentation pertaining to previous cultural resource studies and previously documented archaeological resources within the Project Area and within

0.5-miles of the Project Area. Below are the results of the NWIC record search.

Previous Cultural Resource Studies within 0.5-Miles of the Project Area According to information on file at the NWIC and EDS, the Project Area has not been previously surveyed for cultural resource study; however, there have been 15 previous cultural resource studies completed within 0.5-miles of the Project Area, which are listed below in Table 1.

Table 1: Previous Cultural Resource Studies within 0.5-Miles of the Project Area.

NWIC # Year Title Author(s)/Affiliation Results
924 1978
An Archaeological Survey of the
Three-acre Proposed Lot Split (MS
6465) in Western Sebastopol,
California.

Janis Offermann / The
Anthropological
Laboratory, Sonoma
State College
Negative
986 1978
A Cultural Resource Study of Ragle
Ranch Park, Sonoma County,
California.

Lynn Eisenman / The
Anthropological
Laboratory, Sonoma
State College
Positive (P-49-
001029, P-49-
001030)
1653 1979
Archaeological Auger Investigation at
CA-SON-1195, 7801 Covert Lane,
Sebastopol, California.

David A. Frederickson,
James P. Quinn, Roland
Mireles, and Alan
Jaroslovshy /
Anthropological Studies
Center, Sonoma State
University
Positive (P-49-
001121)
2028 1976
An archaeological impact evaluation
relative to the North Gravenstein Sewer
Extension project, Sebastopol, Ca.

Thomas L. Jackson /
ACRS Negative
2054 1980
Cultural Resources Review of the
Sebastopol General Plan Study Area,
Sonoma County, California.

David Chavez, Consulting
Archaeologist
Positive (multiple
resources)
2521 1974
Archaeological Impact Evaluation:

Watertrough Road Between Burnside
and Pleasant Hill Roads, Near
Sebastopol, Sonoma County, California.

Thomas F. King
Positive (P-49-
001003, CA-SON1137, unrecorded
historic structures
and a cemetery)
2615 1973 An Archaeological Impact Evaluation of
Two Housing Development Projects in Thomas F. King Negative Attachment 7 Part 2 to Agenda Item Number 8
Attachment 7 Part 2 to Agenda Item Number 8
City Council Meeting Packet of March 1, 2022

NWIC # Year Title Author(s)/Affiliation Results
the City of Sebastopol, Sonoma County,
California.
2615 1973
An Archaeological Impact Evaluation of
Two Housing Development Projects in
the City of Sebastopol, Sonoma county,
California.

Thomas F. King Negative
6973 1984
An Archaeological Survey for the Bodega
Highway Bridge Replacement Project at
Atascadero Creek, Sebastopol, Sonoma
County, California.

Allan G. Bramlette and
Susan H. Alvarez /
Anthropological Studies
Center, Sonoma State
University
Negative
9456 1987
An Archaeological Study of the
Proposed Townhouse Project on the
Russell Schreiber Property at 7775
Healdsburg Avenue, Sebastopol,
Sonoma County, California.

Leigh Jordan /
Anthropological Studies
Center, Sonoma State
University
Negative
12640 1991
Cultural Resource Survey, Bodega
Avenue Townhouse Project, Sebastopol,
California.

Adrian Praetzellis and
Mary Praetzellis /
Historical Archaeology
and Local Research
Positive (three
unrecorded
historic buildings)
14646 1992
A Cultural Resources Evaluation of the
Tentative Map for Sanford M. Dickey III,
7870 Brookside Avenue, Sebastopol, CA.

Katherine Flynn /
Archaeological Resource
Service
Negative
31631 2006
A Cultural Resources Evaluation and
Historic Structures Evaluation of the
Property at 7991 Covert Lane,
Sebastopol, Sonoma County, California.

Cassandra Chattan /
Archaeological Resource
Service
Positive (P-49-
003338)
38337 2001
A Cultural Resources Survey of the
Parcel at 500 Robinson Road,
Sebastopol, Sonoma County, California.

Vicki Beard / Tom Origer
& Associates Negative
51529 1994
A Cultural Resources Survey of Two
Parcels Along Bodega Highway,
Sebastopol, Sonoma County, California.

Thomas M. Origer / Tom
Origer & Associates
Several buildings
over 45 years of
age that were not
recorded.

Previously Documented Cultural Resources within 0.5-Miles of the Project Area According to information on file at the NWIC and EDS, there are no previously documented cultural resource within the Project Area; however, there are four cultural resources within 0.5-miles of the Project Area that have been assigned a primary number, as well as additional resources listed on the BERD and on the NRHP.

The four primary resources located within 0.5-miles of the Project Area include one contemporary obsidian workshop (P-49-000663), one prehistoric archaeological resource (P-49-001121), and two historic built-environment resources (P-49-002541 and P-49-003338). These four primary resources are described below.

Attachment 7 Part 2 to Agenda Item Number 8
Attachment 7 Part 2 to Agenda Item Number 8
City Council Meeting Packet of March 1, 2022

P-49-000663 (CA-SON-721): This site is a contemporary obsidian workshop created in the 1970s by N.J.

Del Cioppo, who completed and submitted an archaeological site survey form to document the location so that it would not later be misinterpreted as a prehistoric archaeological resource (Del Cioppo 1973).

The resource is located 0.34-miles south of the Project Area.

P-49-001121 (CA-SON-1195): Thisresource consists of a prehistoric archaeological site consisting of a shell midden deposit containing marine shell, faunal bone, shell, chert and obsidian flakes, and fire-cracked rock (Quinn 1979). The site is situated adjacent to a small drainage proximately 0.36 miles north of the Project Area. The resource is not listed on the Archaeological Resource Directory (OHP 2012).

P-49-002541: The resource consists of three buildings, including a ca. 1902 Queen Anne style house known as the Albert and Margaret Hall House, a converted tank house, a shed, and the remaining portion of an apple orchard. The resource was originally identified during the West Sonoma County Historic Resource Inventory completed by Dan Peterson and Geraldine Peterson 1981, during which time, an Historic Resource Inventory (HRI) form was completed for the property (5472-0095-0000). In 1991, the resource was evaluated for historical significance and updated HRI forms were prepared (Praetzellis and Praetzellis 1991). During the evaluation, the property was found to be associated with farm complexes related to the apple industry in Sebastopol, as Queen Anne architecture, which was a style emphasized during the era of fruit orchard farming in Sebastopol. While the resource was found to lack the necessary level of integrity to individually convey significance with the event of fruit orchard farming in Sebastopol, it was determined that the property would likely be eligible as a contributor to a National Register-eligible district that includes other farm complexes related to the apple industry in Sebastopol, particularly those located on the south side of Bodega Avenue, with the Luther Burbank Experiment Farm serving as the potential district’s anchor property (Praetzellis and Praetzellis 1991). P-49-002541 is located 0.17-miles west of the Project Area was subsequently demolished and is no longer extant.

P-49-003338: Thisresource includes a 1922 house and a barn and water tower of unknown age (no longer extant) located 0.45 miles north of the Project Area. The resource was determined ineligible for listing on the CRHR and the NRHP; however, the barn was determined to be eligible for a local listing (Chattan 2006).

EDS also reviewed the BERD to identify additional built-environment resources near the Project Area. The BERD includes the built-environment resources originally identified and recorded by Peterson and Peterson during the 1981 HRI of western Sonoma County, which are presumed to be historically or culturally significant unless determined otherwise. The BERD lists 19 resources along Bodega Avenue.

These resources are listed below, including P-49-002541 (HRI 5472-0095-0000), which is also described above.

Attachment 7 Part 2 to Agenda Item Number 8
Attachment 7 Part 2 to Agenda Item Number 8
City Council Meeting Packet of March 1, 2022

Table 2: Built Environment Resources on Bodega Avenue that are Listed on the BERD (OHP 2020).

OTIS ID Other ID Address Name / Other Year Built
National
Register Status
406849 5472-0092-9999 Bodega Ave. Potential District (potential contributors listed below) 1920 7N7
406777 5472-0030-0000 7202 Bodega Ave. 1910 7N
406778 5472-0031-0000 7203 Bodega Ave. 1935 7N
406839 5472-0092-0001 7215 Bodega Ave. Potential District Contributor 1920 7N
406779 5472-0032-0000 7220 Bodega Ave. 1910 7N
406840 5472-0092-0002 7224 Bodega Ave. Potential District Contributor 1920 7N
406841 5472-0092-0003 7238 Bodega Ave. Potential District Contributor 1920 7N
406842 5742-0092-0004 7246 Bodega Ave. Potential District Contributor 1920 7N
406843 5742-0092-0005 7249 Bodega Ave. Potential District Contributor 1920 7N
406844 5742-0092-0006 7308 Bodega Ave. Potential District Contributor 1920 7N
406845 5742-0092-0007 7311 Bodega Ave. Potential District Contributor 1920 7N
406846 5742-0092-0008 7320 Bodega Ave. Potential District Contributor 1920 7N
406847 5742-0092-0009 7330 Bodega Ave. Potential District Contributor 1920 7N
406848 5742-0092-0010 7340 Bodega Ave. Potential District Contributor 1920 7N
406780 5472-0033-0000 7402 Bodega Ave. 1890 7N
406781 5472-0034-0000 7410 Bodega Ave. Joseph Frates House 1906 7N 406782 5472-0035-0000 7450 Bodega Ave. Parkside Elementary School 1930 3S8 406855 5472-0094-0000 7691 Bodega Ave. 1900 7N
406856 P-49-002541 /
5472-0095-0000 8124 Bodega Ave. 1905 7N
There are four properties in Sebastopol that are listed on the NRHP, including the Luther Burbank’s Experimental Farm and Cottage (NPS #78000803) located at 777 Bodega Avenue, approximately 975 feet southeast of the Project Area; the Petaluma and Santa Rosa Railway Powerhouse (NPS #91000918) at 238- 258 Petaluma Avenue, approximately 0.84 miles east of the Project Area; the Sebastopol Depot of the Petaluma and Santa Rosa Railway (NPS #96000109) at 261 S. Main Street, approximately 0.8 miles east of 7 7N = Needs to be reevaluated.
8 3S = Appears eligible for NR as an individual property through survey evaluation.

Attachment 7 Part 2 to Agenda Item Number 8
Attachment 7 Part 2 to Agenda Item Number 8
City Council Meeting Packet of March 1, 2022

the Project Area; and the George A. Strout House (NPS #80000870) at 253 Florence Avenue, approximately 0.56 miles northeast of the Project Area.

The California Inventory of Historic Resources (OHP 1976), California Points of Historical Interest (OHP 1992), the list of California State Landmarks (OHP 2021), and the Five Views: Ethnic Sites Survey for California (California Department of Parks and Recreation 1988) do not list any additional cultural resources near the Project Area.

RESULTS OF REVIEW OF GEOLOGY, SOILS, AND GEOARCHAEOLOGICAL INFORMATION At least six regional geologic maps exist that cover the Project Area (Blake et al. 1971; Blake et al. 2002; Delattre and Koehler 2008; Graymer et al. 2006; Koenig 1963; Wagner and Bortugno 1982). Generally, these maps indicate the Project Area has geology largely comprised of upper Pliocene age (5.333 million to 2.58 million years ago) and Miocene age (23.03 to 5.333 million years ago) marine sandstone (geologic units: Tm, Twg, Tpms, Pwg, PU) associated with Wilson Grove Formation subunit. The Wilson Grove Formation subunit is a deposit of predominantly light gray to light yellow-brown marine sandstone comprised of fine to medium-grained, well-sorted, and massive to poorly bedded sandstone with thin lenses of pebble conglomerate (Bedrossian 1981:19; Travis 1952).

Current soil maps can be found in Google Earth and the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) Web Soil Survey website (Soil Survey Staff 2021). According to the current soil maps, the soil within the Project Area consists of Goldridge fine sandy loam, occurring on two to nine percent slopes and 15 to 30 percent slopes. The following is a description of the Goldridge series:

Goldridge Series: The Goldridge series consists of very deep, moderately well-drained soils that formed in material (i.e. residuum9) weathered from weakly consolidated sandstone at depths from 40 to more than 60 inches. Goldridge soils occur on rolling uplands with elevations ranging from 200 to 2,000 feet above mean sea level (amsl) and slopes of 2 to 50 percent. The Goldridge series are associated with the Blucher, Cotati, Sebastopol, and Steinbeck soils. On average, this series extends 80 inches below the surface and contains the following horizons: Ap, A1, A2, Btl, Bt2, Bt3, Bt4, and C1.

Subordinate horizons include ‘p’ (indicating plowing/disturbance) in the A horizon and ‘t’ (indicating illuvial accumulation of clay minerals) in the B horizon. Importantly, no buried A horizons (paleosols; horizon Ab) are noted within this series (Soil Survey Staff 2021).

The 2007 geoarchaeological study prepared by the Far Western Anthropological Research Group, Inc. (Meyer and Rosenthal 2007) places the Project Area on a landform that is too old (i.e., latest Pleistocene or older) to contain buried archaeological remains because it formed prior to the generally-accepted date that humans are through to have arrived in North America (Meyer and Rosenthal 2007:15,17). 9 Residuum is soil and subsoil that forms in place as the result of weathering over a long period of time.

Attachment 7 Part 2 to Agenda Item Number 8
Attachment 7 Part 2 to Agenda Item Number 8
City Council Meeting Packet of March 1, 2022

Based on the review of geological and soil/sediment studies in the region and the geoarchaeological study completed by Meyer and Rosenthal (2007), it appears that the Project Area has a low potential/sensitivity for buried prehistoric archaeological resources. Therefore, any evidence of a prehistoric archaeological resources would likely be visible on the surface.

RESULTS OF REVIEW OF HISTORICAL MAPS, AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHS AND OTHER DOCUMENTS Several historical maps and aerial photographs dating from 1867 to 1980, as well as other documents were reviewed to determine past land-use activities that could indicate the likelihood of encountering historic-period archaeological resources within the Project Area, as well as researching for any historical persons associated with the Project Area.

During the Mexican Period (1821-1848), the Project Area was located within the 10,787-acre land grant known as Rancho Cañada de Jonive that was granted to James Black in 1845. The rancho extended from present-day Sebastopol on the east to present-day Freestone on the west, and included the present-day towns of Freestone, Occidental, Camp Meeker, Graton, and Sebastopol. In 1848, Black sold the rancho to Jasper O’Farrell. O’Farrell was born in Wexford County, Ireland in 1817, and was educated in Dublin as a civil engineer. At the age of 24, he left Ireland to join a surveying expedition in South America, and by 1843, he had made his way to Alta California, where he was hired by the Mexican government as a land surveyor. As surveyor, O’Farrell laid out the original grid pattern for the City of San Francisco and designed the grand promenade that later would become Market Street. He also surveyed much of the land in present-day Sonoma and Marin counties for General Mariano Vallejo, who was in charge with securing the northern frontier for the Mexican government during this time. In return for his services, O’Farrell was paid by the Mexican government in land, first receiving Rancho Nicasio in Marin County, which he exchanged with James Black for Rancho Cañada de Jonive. He also purchased the Rancho Estero Americano, located between present-day Freestone and Valley Ford, where he built a home, named Analy after a valley in Ireland where his family was from (Weber 2019). By 1850, O’Farrell was considered to be the wealthiest citizen in Sonoma County, and later became a prominent politician and farmer. He is considered one of the first settlers of Sebastopol.
“O’Farrell was an influential member of the local Irish community. He was a patron of St.

Teresa’s Church in Bodega and served Sonoma and Mendocino counties as a state senator.

In 1862, he became the Democratic candidate for lieutenant governor (though unsuccessful) and was appointed state harbor commissioner for San Francisco. He died in 1875, leaving eight sons and daughters” (Weber 2019).

Like many rancho owners at the time, by the 1860s, O’Farrell had sold off much of his land within Rancho Cañada de Jonive to newly arriving settlers. According to the 1867 map, during this time, the Project Area was part of land owned by J.H.P. Morris, who purchased 120-acres of land in present-day Sebastopol from O’Farrell, which he called Pine Grove, and opened a grocery store and saloon (Munro-Fraser 1879). Morris is also considered one of the original settlers of Sebastopol. The 1867 map does not show any buildings within the Project Area during this time; however, present-day Bodega Avenue located adjacent and south of the Project Area is depicted (Figure 15).

Attachment 7 Part 2 to Agenda Item Number 8
Attachment 7 Part 2 to Agenda Item Number 8
City Council Meeting Packet of March 1, 2022

According to the 1877 map, by this time, the Project Area was part of a 76-acre property owned by A.

Crawford. The map does not show any buildings within the Project Area during this time, although it appears the eastern portion of Crawford’s property consisted of an orchard (Figure 16). No specific information about A. Crawford could be found.

By 1898, the Project Area was part of a 65.67-acre property owned by George Washington Huntley (spelled Huntly in some documents) (Figure 17 and Figure 18). Huntley was born in Jefferson, New York in 1838. George came overseas to California from New York in 1858, and soon after his arrival in San Francisco, he traveled to Yuba County where he engaged in mining until 1863. In 1863, he moved to Valley Ford in Sonoma County and took up work as an engineer in a steam-powered flour mill, where he worked until 1870 when he purchased half interest in the mill and took over operations. In 1870, he married Lucille Bell [Dutton], who was born in Ohio in 1852 and moved to Valley Ford with her family as a child. According to the 1880 U.S. Federal Census, by this time, George and Lucille were living in Bodega, and George was working as an engineer and Lucille was “keeping house”. George and Lucille had seven children, including George S. (born 1873), Mary M. (born 1875), Frank (born 1878), Mabel E. (born 1879), Albert (born 1881), and twins, Gertrude and Garfield (born 1882). In 1882, George sold his interest in the flour mill and purchased land in Sebastopol that included the Project Area. The 1889 An Illustrated History of Sonoma County, California provides a description of the agricultural use of the land he had purchased:
“He [George Huntley] has a magnificent orchard of seventy acres in extent, containing some of the finest varieties of fruit grown in the county, among which are plums, apples, peaches, pears, apricots, cherries and French prunes. He also devotes considerable attention to berry cultivation, and has six and a-half acres containing blackberries, raspberries and currants. These berries grow and give a large yield, although they are never irrigated. Mr. Huntly early saw that a profit was to be gained in drying his own fruit.

He therefore, in 1883, built a dryer of the most approved order. It has a capacity of six tons per day of green fruit, and thus he is enabled to care for and dry such fruit as the orchards in his vicinity have to dispose of, in addition to the products of his own orchard” (Lewis Publishing Company 1889:482).

By 1900, George and Lucille were divorced, and in 1901, George died and was buried at the Sebastopol Memorial Lawn cemetery. His obituary states that he was considered an “old and respected resident of Sebastopol” (Petaluma Daily Morning Courier 1902). Lucille remarried to Frederick Eugene Bullis and moved to Santa Rosa. Lucille died in 1939 and is buried at the Santa Rosa Odd Fellows cemetery (Ancestry.com). Although George died in 1901, the 1908 map still shows him owning the land that included the Project Area as well as additional land to the east (Figure 19). It is likely that the Project Area was used for agricultural purposes during the time it was owned by George Huntley.

The 1935 USGS Sebastopol quadrangle does not show any buildings within the Project Area during this time (Figure 20); however, the 1942 aerial photograph shows the Project Area was part of a large fruit orchard (Figure 21). By 1952, the Project Area contained one building, as shown on the 1952 aerial photograph (Figure 22), which was likely a house, as indicated on the 1954 map (Figure 23). The house Attachment 7 Part 2 to Agenda Item Number 8
Attachment 7 Part 2 to Agenda Item Number 8
City Council Meeting Packet of March 1, 2022

was still present in 1965 (Figure 24) and in 1980 (Figure 25), and, according to aerial photographs available in Google Earth, was demolished by 1993.

In summary, based on the review of various historical maps and aerial photographs, as well as other documents, the Project Area appears to have been used for agricultural purposes for most of the historic period and did not contain any buildings until ca. 1950; therefore, the Project Area appears to have a low potential/sensitivity for buried historic-period archaeological resources .

Figure 15: Project Area shown on the 1867 map by A. B. Bowers.

Attachment 7 Part 2 to Agenda Item Number 8
Attachment 7 Part 2 to Agenda Item Number 8
City Council Meeting Packet of March 1, 2022

Figure 16: Project Area shown on the 1877 map by T. Thompson.

Figure 17: Project Area shown on the 1898 Map by Reynolds and Proctor.

Attachment 7 Part 2 to Agenda Item Number 8
Attachment 7 Part 2 to Agenda Item Number 8
City Council Meeting Packet of March 1, 2022

Figure 18: Project Area shown on the 1900 map by Ricksecker and Walkup.

Figure 19: Project Area shown on the 1908 map by McIntire and Lewis.

Attachment 7 Part 2 to Agenda Item Number 8
Attachment 7 Part 2 to Agenda Item Number 8
City Council Meeting Packet of March 1, 2022

Figure 20: Project Area shown on the 1935 USGS Sebastopol quadrangle map.

Figure 21: Project Area shown on the 1942 aerial photograph.

Attachment 7 Part 2 to Agenda Item Number 8
Attachment 7 Part 2 to Agenda Item Number 8
City Council Meeting Packet of March 1, 2022

Figure 22: Project Area shown on the 1952 aerial photograph.

Figure 23: Project Area shown on the 1954 USGS 7.5’ Sebastopol quadrangle map.

Attachment 7 Part 2 to Agenda Item Number 8
Attachment 7 Part 2 to Agenda Item Number 8
City Council Meeting Packet of March 1, 2022

Figure 24: Project Area shown on the 1965 aerial photograph.

Figure 25: Project Area shown on the 1980 USGS 7.5' Sebastopol quadrangle.

Attachment 7 Part 2 to Agenda Item Number 8
Attachment 7 Part 2 to Agenda Item Number 8
City Council Meeting Packet of March 1, 2022

RESULTS OF SACRED LANDS INVENTORY AND TRIBAL OUTREACH
The NAHC responded to EDS by email on July 13, 2021 with information that the record search of the Sacred Lands File was negative for the presence of any Sacred Sites for the Project Area (Appendix A, Fonseca 2021). In addition, the NAHC provided a list of 14 Native American tribal contacts. As recommended by the NAHC, a letter was sent via email or U.S. Postal Service (USPS) to the 14 individuals and organizations on the Native American contact list to request further information about Sacred Sites, Traditional Cultural Resources, or other properties of traditional religious and cultural importance located within or near to the Project Area, and to inquire about Native American issues related to the overall Project. The following individuals were contacted:

Table 3: Native American individuals and organizations contacted.

Tribal Organization Contact Correspondence/Response
Cloverdale Rancheria of Pomo
Indians Patricia Hermosillo, Chairperson Letter sent via USPS on 7/16/2021. No response received to date.

Dry Creek Rancheria of Pomo
Indians Chris Wright, Chairperson Letter sent via email on 7/16/2021. No response received to date.

Federal Indians of Graton
Rancheria
• Greg Sarris, Chairperson
• Gene Buvelot
• CC: Tribal Heritage Preservation
Officer (THPO)
Letter sent via email on 7/16/2021.

No response received to date.

Guidiville Indian Rancheria Donald Duncan, Chairperson Letter sent via email on 7/16/2021.

No response received to date.

Lytton Rancheria
• Marjorie Mejia, Chairperson
• CC: Brenda Tomaras, Tomaras &
Ogas, LP
Letter sent via email on 7/16/2021.

Response received (see below).

Kashia Band of Pomo Indians of
the Stewarts Point Rancheria
• Dino Franklin, Chairperson
• Loren Smith, THPO
Letter sent via email to Mr. Franklin
and to Mr. Smith via USPS on
7/16/2021. No response received
to date.

Middletown Rancheria of Pomo
Indians
• Jose Simon, Chairperson
• Sally Peterson, THPO
Letter sent via email on 7/16/2021.

No response received to date.

Mishewal-Wappo Tribe of
Alexander Valley Scott Gabaldon, Chairperson Letter sent via email on 7/16/2021. No response received to date.

Pinoleville Pomo Nation
• Erica Carson, THPO
• Leona Williams, Chairperson
Letters sent via USPS on 7/16/2021.

No response received to date.

Robinson Rancheria of Pomo
Indians • Beniakem Cromwell, Chairperson Letter sent via email on 7/16/2021. No response received to date.

As of the date of this report, one response has been received (see below). All correspondences are included in Appendix A.

Attachment 7 Part 2 to Agenda Item Number 8
Attachment 7 Part 2 to Agenda Item Number 8
City Council Meeting Packet of March 1, 2022

Lytton Rancheria
On July 16, 2021, EDS received an email response from Brenda Tomaras of Tomaras & Ogas, LLP, the law firm representing Lytton Rancheria. The email states that the Tribe has no specific information which it could provide to include in this report, but the subject Property is within traditional Pomo territory and the Tribe believes there is the potential for finding tribal cultural resources within the Project Area. As such, the Tribe will evaluate whether further consultation on the Project with the lead agency is necessary and intends to request a copy of this CRS report at that time. Ms. Tomaras also requested that all cultural resources found within the Project Area, including isolated prehistoric artifacts, be documented within this report even if the resource does not reach the level of significance under CEQA (Appendix A, Tomaras 2021).

RESULTS OF PEDESTRIAN FIELD SURVEY
A field survey of the Project Area was completed by EDS Principal Archaeologist, Sally Evans, M.A., RPA on July 13, 2021. The Project Area consists of 0.35-acres and is bordered on north and east by multi-family residential buildings, on the west by a single-family house, and on the south by Bodega Avenue and the Sebastopol Memorial Lawn cemetery. The Project Area is surrounded by perimeter fencing that includes wood fencing and chain link fencing. Vegetation with the Project Area includes low lying grasses, a berry bramble, and several trees, including one large oak tree in the northwest corner, a row of four large pine trees along a portion of the western boundary, several small scrub oak trees along the southern boundary, a small scrub oak tree along the eastern boundary, and two mature apple trees in the southeastern portion of the Project Area. Photographs of the Project Area are provided in Figure 26 and Figure 27.

The methods used to complete the field survey of the Project Area included walking a series of east/west oriented transects spaced approximately three meters apart, from the north end to the south end of the Project Area. The soil visibility within the Project Area was good (approximately 40%). In areas where ground-visibility was hindered by grasses, the surveyor used an archaeological hand mattock to conduct surface scrapings to expose the underlying surface soils. The soil observed within the Project Area included pale brown (Munsell 10YR 6/3) silty loam containing less than five percent sub-rounded and subangular gravels.

Attachment 7 Part 2 to Agenda Item Number 8
Attachment 7 Part 2 to Agenda Item Number 8
City Council Meeting Packet of March 1, 2022

Figure 26: Overview of the Project Area, facing northwest.

Figure 27: Overview of the southern part of the Project Area, facing southeast.

Attachment 7 Part 2 to Agenda Item Number 8
Attachment 7 Part 2 to Agenda Item Number 8
City Council Meeting Packet of March 1, 2022

CULTURAL RESOURCES OBSERVED
No prehistoric artifacts, features, or other indications of a prehistoric archaeological site were observed within the Project Area.

Historic-period cultural resources observed included one fragment of a saw-cut rib bone (possibly domestic sheep or pig) in the southeast corner of the Project Area, a concrete perimeter foundation and various construction materials in the northern portion of the Project Area, and two mature apple trees in the southeastern portion of the Project Area (Figure 28 and Figure 29).

The concrete perimeter foundation measures 24 feet north/south by 24 feet east/west and is 11.5 inches wide and 6 inches high with a concrete pad within the interior, as well as various construction materials including approximately 12 pieces of 2x4-inch and 1x2-inch wood boards, 2 segments of steel pipe, 2 pieces of rebar, 1 large chunk of concrete, and approximately 8 chunks of concrete from foundation piers; and on the east side of the foundation is a concrete pad that measures 5 feet north/south by 3 feet east/west.

Figure 28: Overview of the foundation and construction materials observed in the northern portion of the Project Area, facing north/northwest.

Attachment 7 Part 2 to Agenda Item Number 8
Attachment 7 Part 2 to Agenda Item Number 8
City Council Meeting Packet of March 1, 2022

Figure 29: Overview of the two apple trees observed in the Project Area, facing east/southeast.

HISTORICAL SIGNIFICANCE OF CULTURAL RESOURCES
Based on historical maps, aerial photographs and other information, the two apple trees within the Project Area are remnants of a former fruit orchard that previously encompassed about 10 acres, extending from Bodega Avenue on the south to Washington Avenue on the north, Golden Ridge Avenue on the east, almost reaching Pleasant Hill Road on the west. Orchard farming within the Project Area and the surrounding area appears to have taken place from as early as 1877 to ca. 1950, after which many of the fruit orchards, especially those located closer to downtown Sebastopol, were replaced with residential and commercial buildings. Fruit orchard farming in Sebastopol, particularly apples, is a significant event in Sebastopol’s history from the 1870s through the 1850s. Therefore, the two apple trees in the Project Area are associated with an event that made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of California's history and cultural heritage (CRHR Criterion 1); however, the two apple trees are associated with an orchard that is no longer present, and so they do not retain enough historic character or appearance to be recognizable as a historical resource and to convey the reasons for their significance. Furthermore, the trees do not appear to be associated with the lives of persons important in our past (CRHR Criterion 2); do not embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction, or represents the work of an important creative individual, or possesses high artistic values (CRHR Criterion 3); nor have they yielded, or are likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history (CRHR Criterion 4). As such, the two apple trees are not eligible for listing on the CRHR.

Attachment 7 Part 2 to Agenda Item Number 8
Attachment 7 Part 2 to Agenda Item Number 8
City Council Meeting Packet of March 1, 2022

The concrete perimeter foundation and various construction materials in the northern portion of the Project Area is associated with a previous house that appears to have been constructed within the Project Area by 1952 and demolished by 1993. The resource does not appear to be associated with events that made a significant construction to the broad patterns of California's history and cultural heritage (CRHR Criterion 1); does not appear to be associated with the lives of persons important in our past (CRHR Criterion 2); does not embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction, or represents the work of an important creative individual, or possesses high artistic values (CRHR Criterion 3); and has not yielded, or is likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history (CRHR Criterion 4). Therefore, the resource is not eligible for listing on the CRHR.

SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
In accordance with CEQA regulations and guidelines and local goals, policies, and actions, EDS completed a CRS to identify any listed or eligible historical resources or unique archaeological resources that may be impacted by the proposed Project. The study includes the results of a NWIC/CHRIS records search; a review of historical maps, aerial photographs, and other documents; a review of geologic, soils and geoarchaeological information to determine buried site potential/sensitivity; a Sacred Lands Inventory and Tribal outreach; and a pedestrian survey of the Project Area. The CRS was completed by EDS Principal Archaeologist, Sally Evans, M.A., RPA (#29300590), who exceeds the Secretary of Interior qualification standards in archaeology (36 CFR Part 61) and has over 21 years of local experience in archaeology and cultural resource management.

The following is a summary of findings for this study:
▪ NWIC/CHRIS Records Search: The CHRIS record search indicates that the Project Area has not been subject to a previous cultural resource survey, and there are no previously recorded cultural resources within the Project Area.
▪ Review of Historical Maps, Aerial Photographs, and Other Documents: The review of historical maps, aerials, and other information indicates that the Project Area was part of Rancho Cañada de Jonive that was owned by James Black from 1845 until 1848, then Jasper O’Farrell from 1848 to ca. 1860. By 1867, the Project Area was part of a 120-acre parcel owned by J.H.P. Morris, one of the first settlers of Sebastopol. By 1877, the Project Area was part of a 76-acre property owned by A. Crawford, until 1882, when the land was purchased by George Washington Huntley. Huntley used the land to grow a variety of fruit trees and berries. George died in 1901, and it is not known who owned the land after his death. By 1952, one building had been constructed within the Project Area, which appears to have been a house. By 1993, the building was no longer present.

Based on the agricultural use of the Project Area during most of the historic-period and the lack of buildings within the Project Area until ca. 1950, it was determined that the Project Area has a low potential/sensitivity to contain buried historic-period archaeological resources. ▪ Review of Geology, Soils, and Geoarchaeological Information: The review of geological maps, soil maps, and one regional geoarchaeological study indicates that the Project Area has a low potential/sensitivity for containing buried prehistoric archaeological resources based on the Attachment 7 Part 2 to Agenda Item Number 8
Attachment 7 Part 2 to Agenda Item Number 8
City Council Meeting Packet of March 1, 2022

Pliocene (5.333 million to 2.58 million years ago) and Miocene age (23.03 to 5.333 million years ago) of the landform on which the Project Area is situated, and the presence of residuum soils that lack buried A horizons (paleosols).
▪ Sacred Lands Inventory and Tribal Outreach: The NAHC’s Sacred Lands File record search was negative for Sacred Sites for this Project (Appendix A, Fonseca 2021). The NAHC provided a list of 14 Native American tribal contacts; and EDS contacted all 14 listed individuals. As of the date of this report, one response has been received. The response from Brenda Tomaras, a representative for Lytton Rancheria, informed EDS that Lytton Rancheria intends to consult further with the appropriate lead agency and will request a copy of this report at that time. As of the date of this report, no additional comments or responses have been received. Correspondences with the NAHC and all Native American individuals and tribes listed by the NAHC are summarized in Table 2 and included in Appendix A.
▪ Pedestrian Survey: A Secretary of Interior-qualified archaeologist from EDS surveyed the entire Project Area. The pedestrian survey did not result in the identification of any prehistoric artifacts or changes in soil color, texture, or composition that that could indicate the presence of prehistoric-era cultural features; however, one fragment of a saw-cut rib bone (possibly domestic sheep or pig), a concrete perimeter foundation and various construction materials, and two apple trees were identified within the Project Area. These historic-period resources were determined ineligible for listing on the CRHR (see Historical Significance of Cultural Resources section above) and are not considered historically significant in accordance with CCR § 15064.5.

In conclusion, the CRS did not result in the identification of any significant cultural resources that have the potential to be impacted by the proposed Project.

RECOMMENDATIONS
No project-specific recommendations are warranted at this time; however, general recommendations are provided in the (low potential) event that buried archaeological resources are encountered during earthmoving activities.

POST-REVIEW DISCOVERY
It is recommended that if a prehistoric or historic-era resource(s) is encountered by equipment operators during Project-related ground-disturbing activities, that work be halted within 50-feet of the discovery area until a Secretary of Interior-qualified Archaeologist is retained to inspect the material and provide further recommendations for appropriate treatment of the resource.

Prehistoric-era resources or artifacts that could be found include obsidian (shiny, black, glass-like stone) and chert flaked-stone tools (e.g., projectile points, knives, choppers), midden (culturally darkened soil containing heat-affected rock, charcoal, ash, artifacts, animal bone, or shellfish remains), stone milling equipment, such as mortars and pestles, and certain sites features, places, cultural landscapes, sacred places and objects with cultural value to a California Native American tribe. Prehistoric domestic features include hearths, fire pits, house floor depressions, and mortuary features consisting of human skeletal Attachment 7 Part 2 to Agenda Item Number 8
Attachment 7 Part 2 to Agenda Item Number 8
City Council Meeting Packet of March 1, 2022

remains. Historic-era resources include backfilled privies, wells, and refuse pits; concrete, stone, or wood structural elements or foundations; and concentrations of metal glass, and ceramic refuse.

Human Remains
If human remains are encountered within the Project Area, all work must stop within 100-feet of the discovery area, the area shall be secured to prevent further disturbance, and the Sonoma County Coroner must be notified immediately. It is very important that the suspected human remains, and the area around them, are undisturbed and the proper authorities are called to the scene as soon as possible, as it could be a crime scene. The Coroner will determine if the remains are pre-contact period Native American remains or of modern origin and if there are any further investigation by the Coroner or Sonoma County Sheriff is warranted. If the remains are suspected to be those of a pre-contact period Native American, the Coroner shall contact the NAHC by telephone within 24-hours. The NAHC will immediately notify the person it believes to be the most likely descendant (MLD) of the remains. The MLD has 48-hours to make recommendations to the landowner for treatment or disposition of the human remains. If the MLD does not make recommendations within 48-hours, the landowner shall reinter the remains in an area of the property secure from further disturbance. If the landowner does not accept the descendant’s recommendations, the owner or the descendant may request mediation by NAHC. According to the California Health and Safety Code, six (6) or more human burials at one (1) location constitute a cemetery (Section 8100), and willful disturbance of human remains is a felony (Section 7052). An archaeologist should also be retained to evaluate the historical significance of the discovery, the potential for additional remains, and to provide further recommendations for treatment of the site in coordination with the MLD.

Attachment 7 Part 2 to Agenda Item Number 8
Attachment 7 Part 2 to Agenda Item Number 8
City Council Meeting Packet of March 1, 2022

REFERENCES CITED
Ancestry.com
2009 1870 United States Federal Census [database on-line]. Provo, UT, USA: Ancestry.com Operations, Inc..
2005 U.S., World War I Draft Registration Cards, 1917-1918 [database on-line]. Provo, UT, USA:

Ancestry.com Operations Inc.
2011 Web: Western States Marriage Index, 1809-2016 [database on-line]. Provo, UT, USA:

Ancestry.com Operations, Inc.
2012 U.S., Find a Grave Index, 1600s-Current [database on-line]. Provo, UT, USA: Ancestry.com Operations, Inc.

Bancroft, H. H.
1886 The History of California. The History Company, San Francisco.

Barrett, S. A.
1908 The Ethno-geography of the Pomo and Neighboring Indians. University of California Publications in American Archaeology and Ethnology 6 (1): 1-332, Berkeley.

Bedrossian, Trinda L.
1981 Geology and Slope Stability of the West Sebastopol Study Area, Sonoma County, California.

California Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology in Cooperation with the Sonoma County Planning Department.

Blake, M.C. Jr., Judith Terry Smith, Carl M. Wentworth, and Robert H. Wright 1971 Preliminary Geologic Map of Western Sonoma County and Northernmost Marin County, California. United States Geological Survey. Electronic document, https://pubs.er.usgs.gov/publication/ofr7144. Accessed July 2021.

Blake, M.C. Jr., R.W. Graymer, and R.E. Stamski
2002 Geologic Map and Map Database of Western Sonoma, Northernmost Marin, and Southernmost Mendocino Counties, California. Department of Interior, United States Geological Survey.

Bower, A.B.
1867 Map of Sonoma County, California. Made and published by A.B. Bowers in accordance with an Act of the Legislature, approved 28 March 1863 with additions and corrections to September First, 1867.

California Department of Parks and Recreation
1988 Five Views: An Ethnic Sites Survey for California. First edition.

California Japantowns.org
2021 California Japantowns. Electronic document, http://californiajapantowns.org/. Accessed July 2021.

California State Library
2019 Peter Burnett, 1st Governor, Independent Democrat, 1849-1851, State of the State Address.

Electronic document, https://governors.library.ca.gov/addresses/s_01-Burnett2.html.

Accessed June 2021.

Attachment 7 Part 2 to Agenda Item Number 8
Attachment 7 Part 2 to Agenda Item Number 8
City Council Meeting Packet of March 1, 2022

Chattan, Cassandra
2006 Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR) 523 Forms for P-49-003338. Record on file at the Northwest Information Center, Rohnert Park, California.

City of Sebastopol
2021 History. Electronic document, https://ci.sebastopol.ca.us/Our-Community/History. Accessed July 2021.

Clay, Karen
1999 Property Rights and Institutions: Congress and the California Land Act 1851. The Journal of Economic History, Cambridge University Press, 59(01):122-142.

Del Cioppo, H.J.
1973 Archaeological Site Survey Record for CA-SON-721 (P-49-000663). Confidential record on file at the Northwest Information Center, Rohnert Park, California.

Delattre, Marc P., and Richard D. Koehler
2008 Geologic Map of the Sebastopol 7.5’ Quadrangle, Sonoma County, California. California Geological Survey. Electronic document,
http://www.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/rghm/rgm/preliminary_geologic_maps.htm. Accessed July 2021.

Dutschke, Dwight
2014 A History of American Indians in California. Reprinted from Five Views: An Ethnic Historic Site Survey for California, NSP online books. Electronic document, http://www.cr.nps.gov/ history/online_books/5viewsli.htm.

Federated Indians of Graton Rancheria (FIGR)
2021 Our History, Historical Background & Timeline. Electronic document, https://gratonrancheria.com/culture/history/. Accessed June 2021.

Fredrickson, D. A.
1973 Early cultures of the North Coat Ranges, California. Ph.D. Dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of California, Davis.
1974 Cultural diversity in early central California: A view from the North Coast Ranges. The Journal of California Archaeology 1(1): 41-54.
1989 Prehistory of the Laguna: An Overview. Unpublished report on file at the Northwest Information Center, Rohnert Park, California.

Goldberg, Paul, and Richard I. Macphail
2006 Practical and Theoretical Geoarchaeology. Blackwell Publishing Science Ltd. Oxford, United Kingdom; MA, USA; and Victoria, Australia.

Graymer, R.W., B.C. Moring, G.J. Saucedo, C.M. Wentworth, E.E. Brabb, and K.L. Knudsen 2006 Geologic Map of the San Francisco Bay Region. U.S. Geological Survey, California Geological Survey. Electronic document, https://www.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/publications/mapsdata/rgm. Accessed July 2021.

Attachment 7 Part 2 to Agenda Item Number 8
Attachment 7 Part 2 to Agenda Item Number 8
City Council Meeting Packet of March 1, 2022

Gregory, Thomas Jefferson
1911 History of Sonoma County California with Biographical Sketches of the leading men and women of the County, who have been identified with its growth and development from the early days to the present time. Historic Record Company, Los Angeles, California.

Gudde, Erwin
1998 California Place Names: the Origin and Etymology of Current Geographical Names. University of California Press, Berkeley, CA.

Harden, Deborah R.
1998 California Geology. Prentice Hall, Inc. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey.

Heizer, Robert
1978 Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 8: California, edited by Robert F. Heizer, William C.

Sturtevant, general editor. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.

Hoover, Mildred Brooke, Hero Eugene Rensch, Ethel Rensch, and William N. Abeloe 2002 Historic Spots in California. Fifth edition revised by Douglas E. Kyle. Stanford University Press:

Stanford, California.

Irvine, Leigh H. (editor)
1905 Biography of Joseph H. Hunt. In, A History of The New California Its Resources and People, Volumes I & II. New York & Chicago: The Lewis Publishing Company.

Jenny, Hans
1941 Factors of soil formation: a new system of quantitative pedology. Mcgraw Hill, New York, NY.

Koenig, James B.
1963 Geologic Map of California, Santa Rosa Sheet. Prepared by the Army Map Service, Corps of Engineers, U.S. Army, Washington, D.C.

Kroeber, Alfred
1925 Handbook of the Indians of California. Bureau of American Ethnology, Bulletin 78, Smithsonian Institution, Washington D.C.

Kunkel, Peter
1962 Yokut and Pomo Political Institutions: A Comparative Analysis. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of California, Los Angeles.

LeBaron, Gaye
2016 The New Deal’s lasting legacy in Sonoma County. The Press Democrat, October 29, 2016.

LeBaron, Gaye, and Joann Mitchell
1993 Santa Rosa, A Twentieth Century Town. Historia Ltd. Santa Rosa.

Lightfoot Kent, G.
2005 Indians, Missionaries and Merchants the Legacy of Colonial Encounters on the California Frontiers. University of California Press, Berkeley, California.

Attachment 7 Part 2 to Agenda Item Number 8
Attachment 7 Part 2 to Agenda Item Number 8
City Council Meeting Packet of March 1, 2022

Lightfoot, Kent G., Thomas A. Wake and Ann M. Schiff
1991 The Archaeology and Ethnohistory of Fort Ross, California vol. 1. In Contributions of the University of California Archaeological Research Facility 49. Archaeological Research Facility, University of California at Berkeley, California.

Mawn, Geoffrey P.
2001 Jasper O’Farrell: Surveyor, Farmer, Politician. The Book Club of California, San Francisco.

McClure, Evelyn S.
1995 Sebastopol, California History, Homes & People, 1855-1920. Belle View Press, Sebastopol, CA.

McGraw Publishing Company
1909 McGraw Electric Railway Manual, Volume 16.

McIntire and Lewis
1908 Official Map of the County of Sonoma, California Compiled and Drawn from the Official Records by McIntire and Lewis. California Map Collection, Sacramento, CA.

McKeown, Adam M.
2008 Melancholy Order: Asian Migration and the Globalization of Borders. New York: Columbia University Press.

McLendon, Sally and Robert L. Oswalt
1978 Pomo: Introduction. In Handbook of North American Indians, William Sturtevant (editor), Volume 8, California, Robert F. Heizer (volume editor), pp. 274-288. Smithsonian Institution, Washington.

McIntire and Lewis
1908 Official Map of the County of Sonoma, California Compiled and Drawn from the Official Records by McIntire and Lewis. California Map Collection, Sacramento, CA.

Meagher, Bill
2010 Save the Gravensteins. Northbay Biz. January 2010 issue.

Meyer, Jack
2000 A Geoarchaeological Study of the Guadalupe Parkway Corridor, State Route 87, San Jose, Santa Clara County, California. Anthropological Studies Center, Sonoma State University, Rohnert Park, CA. Prepared for the Department of Transportation, District 4. Document on file at the Northwest Information Center, Sonoma State, CA.
2003 An Overview of Geoarchaeological Research Issues for the Point Reyes National Seas Shore – Golden Gate National Recreation Area. Anthropological Studies Center, Sonoma State University. Rohnert Park, CA.

Meyer, Jack and Jeffrey Rosenthal
2007 Geoarchaeological Overview of the Nine Bay Area Counties in Caltrans District 4. Report on file at the Northwest Information Center, Rohnert Park, California.

Milliken, Randall
2009 Ethnohistory and Ethnogeography of the Coast Miwok and their Neighbors, 1783-1840.

Technical Paper presented to: National Park Service, Golden Gate NRA Cultural Resources and Attachment 7 Part 2 to Agenda Item Number 8
Attachment 7 Part 2 to Agenda Item Number 8
City Council Meeting Packet of March 1, 2022

Museum Management Division Building 101, Fort Mason San Francisco, California. Prepared by:

Archaeological/Historical Consultants 609 Aileen Street Oakland, California 94609.

Milliken, Randall and Richard T. Fitzgerald, Mark G. Hylkema, Randy Groza, Tom Origer, David G. Bieling, Alan Leventhal, Randy S. Wiberg, Andrew Gottsfield, Donna Gillette, Viviana Bellifemine, Eric Strother, Robert Cartier and David A. Fredrickson
2007 Punctuated Cultural Change in the San Francisco Bay Area. In California Prehistory, edited by Terry L. Jones and Kathryn A. Klar, pp. 99-123. AltaMira Press, a Division of Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc, New York.

Moratto, Michael
1984 California Archaeology. Academic Press, Inc., Orlando, Florida.

Munro-Fraser, J.P.
1879 History of Sonoma County, California: Including its Geology, Topography, Mountains, Valleys and Streams. Alley, Bowen & Co., Publishers, San Francisco, California.

Office of Historic Preservation
1976 California Inventory of Historical Resources. California Department of Parks and Recreation, Sacramento, California.
1992 California Points of Historical Interest. California Department of Parks and Recreation, Sacramento, California.
2012 Archaeological Resource Directory for Sonoma County, dated 04-05-12. Confidential list on file at the Northwest Information Center, Rohnert Park, California. 2020 Built Environment Resource Directory (BERD) for Sonoma County. Database on file at the Northwest Information Center, Rohnert Park, California. 2021 California Historical Landmarks by County. https://ohp.parks.ca.gov/?page_id=21387.

Olmsted, Nancy
1986 Vanished Waters: A History of San Francisco's Mission Bay. Mission Creek Conservancy, San Francisco.

Pfaff, Christine
2001 “Happy Days” of the Depression: The Civilian Conservation Corps in Colorado. In Colorado Heritage, Spring 2001:31-39, 2001.

Petaluma Daily Morning Courier
1902 Another Pioneer Passes Beyond (obituary of George Washington Huntley). Petaluma Daily Morning Courier, 21 Nov. 1902, Fri. Accessed on Newspapers.com.

Petaluma Weekly Argus
1879 No Title. Petaluma Weekly Argus, October 31, 1879. Electronic document accessed on Newspapers.com.

Peterson, Dan
1978 Sebastopol Downtown Portfolio, An Appropriate Architecture. Electronic document, https://ci.sebastopol.ca.us/SebastopolSite/media/Documents/Misc_Planning_Guides/sebasto pol_downtown_portfolio_april_16_1978.pdf?ext=.pdf. Accessed July 2021.

Attachment 7 Part 2 to Agenda Item Number 8
Attachment 7 Part 2 to Agenda Item Number 8
City Council Meeting Packet of March 1, 2022

1981 Historic Resource Inventory form for P-48-002541 (HRI 5472-0095-0000). Record on file at the Northwest Information Center, Rohnert Park, California.

Peterson, Dan, and Geraldine Peterson
1981 Final Report Western Sonoma County Historic Resource Inventory. Report on file at the Western Sonoma County Historical Society, Sebastopol, California and at the Northwest Information Center, Rohnert Park, California.

Praetzellis, Adrian and Mary Praetzellis
1977 An Archaeo-Environmental Synthesis: the Konhomtara Pomo. Unpublished report on file at the Northwest Information Center, Rohnert Park, California. 1991 Historic Resource Inventory form for P-49-002541. Record on file at the Northwest Information Center, Rohnert Park, California.

Prendergast, Thomas F.
2001 Forgotten Pioneers: Irish Leaders in early California. University Press of the Pacific.

Quinn, Jim
1979 Archaeological Site Record for CA-SON-1195 (P-49-001121). Confidential record on file at the Northwest Information Center, Rohnert Park, California.

Rapp, George (Rip), and Christopher L. Hill
2006 Geoarchaeology: The Earth Science Approach to Archaeological Interpretation (Third edition).

Yale University Press, New Haven, Connecticut and London.

Reynolds and Proctor
1898 Illustrated Atlas of Sonoma County California. Reynolds & Proctor, Santa Rosa. Republished by Windmill Publications, Inc. Mt. Vernon, IN, 1998.

Ricksecker, L.E. and W.B. Walkup
1900 Official Map of Sonoma County, California. Compiled from the official maps in the County Assessor’s Office, with Additions and Corrections to June 1st 1900. By L.E. Ricksecker, City Engineer of Santa Rosa and Ex-County Surveyor, and W.B. Walkup, Publisher. Approved and declared to be the official map of Sonoma County by resolution of the Board of Supervisors, September 7, 1900. Copywrite Sept. 1900 by W.B. Walkup. Scale: one mile to one inch.

Scher, Naomi
2012 Extended Phase One Geoarchaeological Study for the State Route 85 Proposed Freeway Performance Initiative Project, Santa Clara County, CA. Anthropological Studies Center, Sonoma State University, Rohnert Park, California.

Schneider, Tsim D.
2007 The Illusive Kostromitinov Ranch: A Russian-American Company Ranch in Sonoma County, California. Journal of California and Great Basin Anthropology 27:195-171.

Schwitalla, Al W.
2013 Global Warming in California: A Lesson from the Medieval Climatic Anomaly (A.D. 800-1350).

The Center for Archaeological Research at Davis, Publication No. 17, Davis, California.

Attachment 7 Part 2 to Agenda Item Number 8
Attachment 7 Part 2 to Agenda Item Number 8
City Council Meeting Packet of March 1, 2022

Soil Survey Staff
2021 Web Soil Survey. Natural Resources Conservation Service, United States Department of Agriculture. Website, https://websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/App/HomePage.htm. Accessed July 2021.

Sonoma West Times and News
1938 Plans Drafted For 250,000 in WPA projects, Sonoma West Times and News, August 5, 1938.

Available at Newspapers.com
Speulda, Lou Ann, and Rohoda Owen Lewis
2003 Region 6: Historical and Architectural Assessment of the Depression Era Work Projects.

Stein, Julie K.
2001 Archaeological Sediments in Cultural Environments. In, Sediments in Archaeological Context.

Edited by Julie K Stein and William R Farrand. The University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City, Utah.

Stewart, Omar
1943 Notes on Pomo Ethnogeography. University of California Publications in American Archaeology and Ethnology 40 (2): 29-62. University of California Press, Berkeley and Los Angeles.

The Lewis Publishing Company
1889 An Illustrated History of Sonoma County, California.

Thompson, Thomas H.
1877 Atlas of Sonoma County California with Illustrations. Thos. H. Thompson & Co, Oakland.

Toumey, Honoria
1926 History of Sonoma County, Volume 1. The S.J. Clarke Publishing Co., San Francisco.

Travis, Russell B.
1952 Geology of the Sebastopol quadrangle, California. San Francisco, State of California, Department of Natural Resources, Division of Mines.

United States Geological Survey (USGS)
1935 1:48000 scale Sebastopol Quadrangle. U.S. Geological Survey, Washington D.C. 1942 Sebastopol, Calif. 15-minute quadrangle. U.S. Geological Survey, Washington D.C. 1954 Sebastopol, Calif. 7.5-minute quadrangle. U.S. Geological Survey, Washington D.C. 1980 Sebastopol, Calif. 7.5-minute quadrangle, 1954 edition. U.S. Geological Survey, Washington D.C.

University of California, Santa Barbara Library
1952 Aerial Imagery: Flight DRH-1952, Frame 3K-179, Scale 1:20,000. Available online:
http://mil.library.ucsb.edu/ap_indexes/FrameFinder/. Accessed July 2021. 1965 Aerial Imagery: Flight CAS-65-130, Frame 43-90, Scale 1:12,000. Available online:
http://mil.library.ucsb.edu/ap_indexes/FrameFinder/. Accessed July 2021.

Wagner, D.L., and E.J. Bortugno
1982 Geologic Map of the Santa Rosa Quadrangle, California, 1:250,000. Electronic document, https://www.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/maps-data/rgm. Accessed July 2021.

Attachment 7 Part 2 to Agenda Item Number 8
Attachment 7 Part 2 to Agenda Item Number 8
City Council Meeting Packet of March 1, 2022

APPENDIX A:

Sacred Lands Inventory and Tribal Correspondance
Attachment 7 Part 2 to Agenda Item Number 8
Attachment 7 Part 2 to Agenda Item Number 8
City Council Meeting Packet of March 1, 2022

7/14/2021 Evans & De Shazo, Inc. Mail - Sacred Lands Inventory Request_7950 Bodega Avenue, Sebastopol https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0?ik=0608d44c8b&view=pt&search=all&permthid=thread-a%3Ar-2010713103615136592&simpl=msg-a%3Ar53330412… 1/1 Sally Evans <[email protected]>
Sacred Lands Inventory Request_7950 Bodega Avenue, Sebastopol 1 message
Sally Evans <[email protected]> Mon, Jun 21, 2021 at 3:35 PM To: NAHC NAHC <[email protected]>
Dear NAHC,
Please find the attached request for a search of the Sacred Lands File for the proposed 10-Unit Mini Townhouse project at 7950 Bodega Avenue, Sebastopol, Sonoma County, California.

Please let me know if you have any questions.

Sincerely,
Sally
--
Sally Evans, M.A., RPA | Principal Archaeologist / Cultural Resource Specialist Evans & De Shazo, Inc. - Archaeology ▪ Historic Preservation Main Office: 1141 Gravenstein Hwy S | Sebastopol | CA | 95472 | New Office Phone Number: 707-823-7400 | Cell: 707-484-9628 Oregon: 5305 River Road N., Keizer, OR 97303
http://www.evans-deshazo.com/
Sacred Lands Inventory Request_7950 Bodega Ave.pdf
3086K
Attachment 7 Part 2 to Agenda Item Number 8
Attachment 7 Part 2 to Agenda Item Number 8
City Council Meeting Packet of March 1, 2022

Sacred Lands File & Native American Contacts List Request Native American Heritage Commission
1550 Harbor Blvd, Suite 100
West Sacramento, CA 95691
916-373-3710
916-373-5471 – Fax
[email protected]
Information Below is Required for a Sacred Lands File Search Project: ______________________________________________________________________ County:______________________________________________________________________ USGS Quadrangle Name:_______________________________________________________ Township:__________ Range:__________ Section(s):__________ Company/Firm/Agency:_________________________________________________________ Street Address:________________________________________________________________ City:______________________________________________ Zip:______________________ Phone:_____________________________________________
Fax:_______________________________________________
Email:_____________________________________________
Project Description:

June 21, 2021
Attachment 7 Part 2 to Agenda Item Number 8
Attachment 7 Part 2 to Agenda Item Number 8
City Council Meeting Packet of March 1, 2022

Attachment 7 Part 2 to Agenda Item Number 8
Attachment 7 Part 2 to Agenda Item Number 8
City Council Meeting Packet of March 1, 2022

7/14/2021 Evans & De Shazo, Inc. Mail - 10-Unit Mini Townhouse Subdivision at 7950 Bodega Ave, Sebastopol Project https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0?ik=0608d44c8b&view=pt&search=all&permthid=thread-f%3A1705223975827790706&simpl=msg-f%3A17052239758… 1/2 Sally Evans <[email protected]>
10-Unit Mini Townhouse Subdivision at 7950 Bodega Ave, Sebastopol Project 2 messages
Fonseca, Sarah@NAHC <[email protected]> Tue, Jul 13, 2021 at 7:04 PM To: Sally Evans <[email protected]>
Good Evening,
Attached is the response to the project referenced above.  If you have any additional questions, please feel free to contact our office email at [email protected].

Stay Safe,
Sarah Fonseca
Cultural Resources Analyst
Native American Heritage Commission
1550 Harbor Blvd., Suite 100
West Sacramento, CA  95691
(916) 373-3714
[email protected]
2 attachments
SLF No 7950 Bodega Ave Evans Sonoma 2021.07.13.pdf
222K
7950 Bodega Ave Evans Sonoma 2021.07.13.pdf
43K
Sally Evans <[email protected]> Wed, Jul 14, 2021 at 9:41 AM To: "Fonseca, Sarah@NAHC" <[email protected]>
Hi Sarah,
Thank you so much. Happy Wednesday!!
Attachment 7 Part 2 to Agenda Item Number 8
Attachment 7 Part 2 to Agenda Item Number 8
City Council Meeting Packet of March 1, 2022

7/14/2021 Evans & De Shazo, Inc. Mail - 10-Unit Mini Townhouse Subdivision at 7950 Bodega Ave, Sebastopol Project https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0?ik=0608d44c8b&view=pt&search=all&permthid=thread-f%3A1705223975827790706&simpl=msg-f%3A17052239758… 2/2 ~Sally
[Quoted text hidden]
--
Sally Evans, M.A., RPA | Principal Archaeologist / Cultural Resource Specialist Evans & De Shazo, Inc. - Archaeology ▪ Historic Preservation Main Office: 1141 Gravenstein Hwy S | Sebastopol | CA | 95472 | New Office Phone Number: 707-823-7400 | Cell: 707-484-9628 Oregon: 5305 River Road N., Keizer, OR 97303
http://www.evans-deshazo.com/
Attachment 7 Part 2 to Agenda Item Number 8
Attachment 7 Part 2 to Agenda Item Number 8
City Council Meeting Packet of March 1, 2022

July 13, 2021
Sally Evans, MA, RPA, Principal Archaeologist, Cultural Resource Specialist Evans & De Shazo, Inc.

Via Email to: [email protected]

Re: 10-Unit Mini Townhouse Subdivision at 7950 Bodega Ave, Sebastopol Project, Sonoma County
Dear Ms. Evans:

A record search of the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) Sacred Lands File (SLF) was completed for the information you have submitted for the above referenced project. The results were negative. However, the absence of specific site information in the SLF does not indicate the absence of cultural resources in any project area. Other sources of cultural resources should also be contacted for information regarding known and recorded sites.

Attached is a list of Native American tribes who may also have knowledge of cultural resources in the project area. This list should provide a starting place in locating areas of potential adverse impact within the proposed project area. I suggest you contact all of those indicated; if they cannot supply information, they might recommend others with specific knowledge. By contacting all those listed, your organization will be better able to respond to claims of failure to consult with the appropriate tribe. If a response has not been received within two weeks of notification, the Commission requests that you follow-up with a telephone call or email to ensure that the project information has been received.

If you receive notification of change of addresses and phone numbers from tribes, please notify me. With your assistance, we can assure that our lists contain current information.

If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact me at my email address: [email protected].

Sincerely,
Sarah Fonseca
Cultural Resources Analyst
Attachment

CHAIRPERSON
Laura Miranda
Luiseño

VICE CHAIRPERSON
Reginald Pagaling
Chumash

SECRETARY
Merri Lopez-Keifer
Luiseño

PARLIAMENTARIAN
Russell Attebery
Karuk

COMMISSIONER
William Mungary
Paiute/White Mountain
Apache

COMMISSIONER
Julie TumamaitStenslie
Chumash

COMMISSIONER
[Vacant]

COMMISSIONER
[Vacant]

COMMISSIONER
[Vacant]

EXECUTIVE SECRETARY
Christina Snider
Pomo

NAHC HEADQUARTERS
1550 Harbor Boulevard
Suite 100
West Sacramento,
California 95691
(916) 373-3710
[email protected]
NAHC.ca.gov
Attachment 7 Part 2 to Agenda Item Number 8
Attachment 7 Part 2 to Agenda Item Number 8
City Council Meeting Packet of March 1, 2022

Cloverdale Rancheria of Pomo
Indians
Patricia Hermosillo, Chairperson
555 S. Cloverdale Blvd., Suite A
Cloverdale, CA, 95425
Phone: (707) 894 - 5775
Fax: (707) 894-5727
[email protected]
Pomo
Dry Creek Rancheria of Pomo
Indians
Chris Wright, Chairperson
P.O. Box 607
Geyserville, CA, 95441
Phone: (707) 814 - 4150
[email protected]
Pomo
Federated Indians of Graton
Rancheria
Greg Sarris, Chairperson
6400 Redwood Drive, Ste 300
Rohnert Park, CA, 94928
Phone: (707) 566 - 2288
Fax: (707) 566-2291
[email protected]
Coast Miwok
Pomo
Federated Indians of Graton
Rancheria
Gene Buvelot,
6400 Redwood Drive, Suite 300
Rohnert Park, CA, 94928
Phone: (707) 566 - 2288
Fax: (415) 279-4844
[email protected]
Coast Miwok
Pomo
Guidiville Indian Rancheria
Donald Duncan, Chairperson
P.O. Box 339
Talmage, CA, 95481
Phone: (707) 462 - 3682
Fax: (707) 462-9183
[email protected]
Pomo
Kashia Band of Pomo Indians
of the Stewarts Point Rancheria
Dino Franklin, Chairperson
1420 Guerneville Road, Ste 1
Santa Rosa, CA, 95403
Phone: (707) 591 - 0580
Fax: (707) 591-0583
[email protected]
Pomo
Kashia Band of Pomo Indians
of the Stewarts Point Rancheria
Loren Smith, Tribal Historic
Preservation Officer
1420 Guerneville Road, Ste 1
Santa Rosa, CA, 95403
Phone: (707) 591 - 0580
Fax: (707) 591-0583
Pomo
Lytton Rancheria
Marjorie Mejia, Chairperson
437 Aviation Boulevard
Santa Rosa, CA, 95403
Phone: (707) 575 - 5917
Fax: (707) 575-6974
[email protected]
Pomo
Middletown Rancheria
Sally Peterson, THPO
P.O. Box 1658
Middletown, CA, 95461
Phone: (707) 987 - 3670
[email protected]
Lake Miwok
Pomo
Middletown Rancheria of Pomo
Indians
Jose Simon, Chairperson
P.O. Box 1035
Middletown, CA, 95461
Phone: (707) 987 - 3670
Fax: (707) 987-9091
[email protected]
m
Lake Miwok
Pomo
Mishewal-Wappo Tribe of
Alexander Valley
Scott Gabaldon, Chairperson
2275 Silk Road
Windsor, CA, 95492
Phone: (707) 494 - 9159
[email protected]
Wappo
Pinoleville Pomo Nation
Erica Carson, Tribal Historic
Preservation Officer
500 B Pinoleville Drive
Ukiah, CA, 95482
Phone: (707) 463 - 1454
Fax: (707) 463-6601
Pomo
1 of 2
This list is current only as of the date of this document. Distribution of this list does not relieve any person of statutory responsibility as defined in Section 7050.5 of the Health and Safety Code, Section 5097.94 of the Public Resource Section 5097.98 of the Public Resources Code.

This list is only applicable for contacting local Native Americans with regard to cultural resources assessment for the proposed 10-Unit Mini Townhouse Subdivision at 7950 Bodega Ave, Sebastopol Project, Sonoma County.

PROJ-2021-
003845
07/13/2021 06:50 PM
Native American Heritage Commission
Native American Contact List
Sonoma County
7/13/2021
Attachment 7 Part 2 to Agenda Item Number 8
Attachment 7 Part 2 to Agenda Item Number 8
City Council Meeting Packet of March 1, 2022

Pinoleville Pomo Nation
Leona Willams, Chairperson
500 B Pinoleville Drive
Ukiah, CA, 95482
Phone: (707) 463 - 1454
Fax: (707) 463-6601
Pomo
Robinson Rancheria of Pomo
Indians
Beniakem Cromwell, Chairperson
P.O. Box 4015
Nice, CA, 95464
Phone: (707) 275 - 0527
Fax: (707) 275-0235
[email protected]
Pomo
2 of 2
This list is current only as of the date of this document. Distribution of this list does not relieve any person of statutory responsibility as defined in Section 7050.5 of the Health and Safety Code, Section 5097.94 of the Public Resource Section 5097.98 of the Public Resources Code.

This list is only applicable for contacting local Native Americans with regard to cultural resources assessment for the proposed 10-Unit Mini Townhouse Subdivision at 7950 Bodega Ave, Sebastopol Project, Sonoma County.

PROJ-2021-
003845
07/13/2021 06:50 PM
Native American Heritage Commission
Native American Contact List
Sonoma County
7/13/2021
Attachment 7 Part 2 to Agenda Item Number 8
Attachment 7 Part 2 to Agenda Item Number 8
City Council Meeting Packet of March 1, 2022

July 16, 2021
Leona Williams, Chairperson
Pinoleville Pomo Nation
500 B Pinoleville Drive
Ukiah, CA 95482
Subject: Cultural Resources Survey for of the Property at 7950 Bodega Avenue, Sebastopol, Sonoma County, California.

Dear Chairperson Williams,
Evans & De Shazo, Inc. (EDS) is completing a Cultural Resources Study (CRS) for the proposed subdivision project (Project) within a 0.35-acre vacant property at 7950 Bodega Avenue, Sebastopol, Sonoma County, California (APN 004-350-024) (Project Area) (location maps are attached). The proposed Project includes the construction of 10 mini townhome units, and associated infrastructure and landscaping (Project). A CRS was required by the City of Sebastopol Planning Department to determine potential impacts to cultural resources, including those that may be considered to be tribal cultural resources, in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) regulations and guidelines.

The methods currently being used to complete the CRS include a record search at the Northwest Information Center (NWIC), a Native American Sacred Sites inventory conducted by the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC), and a field survey of Project Area by a Secretary of Interior-qualified archaeologist. Neither the NWIC record search nor the field survey resulted in the identification of any prehistoric archaeological resources within the Project Area. Furthermore, the Native American Sacred Lands inventory conducted by the NAHC on July 13, 2021, was negative for Sacred Sites near the Project Area; however, the NAHC recommended we contact you for further information about Native American Sacred Sites within or near the Project Area that should be considered during the review.

If you have any additional information that would assist us in identifying Native American Sacred Sites or other tribal resources, or you have any initial concerns with impacts of the project on Sacred Sites or tribal cultural resources and would like to discuss this Project further, please contact me at your earliest convenience at (707)484-9628, or [email protected].

Thank you in advance for taking the time to review this request for information and consultation. I look forward to hearing from you at your earliest convenience.

Respectfully,
Sally Evans, M.A., RPA
Principal Archaeologist
(707) 484-9628 mobile
[email protected]
Attachment 7 Part 2 to Agenda Item Number 8
Attachment 7 Part 2 to Agenda Item Number 8
City Council Meeting Packet of March 1, 2022

July 16, 2021
Loren Smith, Tribal Historic Preservation Officer
Kashia Band of Pomo Indians of the Stewarts Point Rancheria 1420 Guerneville Road, Suite 1
Santa Rosa, CA 95403
Subject: Cultural Resources Survey for of the Property at 7950 Bodega Avenue, Sebastopol, Sonoma County, California.

Dear Mr. Smith,
Evans & De Shazo, Inc. (EDS) is completing a Cultural Resources Study (CRS) for the proposed subdivision project (Project) within a 0.35-acre vacant property at 7950 Bodega Avenue, Sebastopol, Sonoma County, California (APN 004-350-024) (Project Area) (location maps are attached). The proposed Project includes the construction of 10 mini townhome units, and associated infrastructure and landscaping (Project). A CRS was required by the City of Sebastopol Planning Department to determine potential impacts to cultural resources, including those that may be considered to be tribal cultural resources, in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) regulations and guidelines.

The methods currently being used to complete the CRS include a record search at the Northwest Information Center (NWIC), a Native American Sacred Sites inventory conducted by the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC), and a field survey of Project Area by a Secretary of Interior-qualified archaeologist. Neither the NWIC record search nor the field survey resulted in the identification of any prehistoric archaeological resources within the Project Area. Furthermore, the Native American Sacred Lands inventory conducted by the NAHC on July 13, 2021, was negative for Sacred Sites near the Project Area; however, the NAHC recommended we contact you for further information about Native American Sacred Sites within or near the Project Area that should be considered during the review.

If you have any additional information that would assist us in identifying Native American Sacred Sites or other tribal resources, or you have any initial concerns with impacts of the project on Sacred Sites or tribal cultural resources and would like to discuss this Project further, please contact me at your earliest convenience at (707)484-9628, or [email protected].

Thank you in advance for taking the time to review this request for information and consultation. I look forward to hearing from you at your earliest convenience.

Respectfully,
Sally Evans, M.A., RPA
Principal Archaeologist
(707) 484-9628 mobile
[email protected]
Attachment 7 Part 2 to Agenda Item Number 8
Attachment 7 Part 2 to Agenda Item Number 8
City Council Meeting Packet of March 1, 2022

July 16, 2021
Patricia Hermosillo, Chairperson
Cloverdale Rancheria of Pomo Indians
555 S. Cloverdale Boulevard, Suite A
Cloverdale, CA 95425
Subject: Cultural Resources Survey for of the Property at 7950 Bodega Avenue, Sebastopol, Sonoma County, California.

Dear Ms. Hermosillo,
Evans & De Shazo, Inc. (EDS) is completing a Cultural Resources Study (CRS) for the proposed subdivision project (Project) within a 0.35-acre vacant property at 7950 Bodega Avenue, Sebastopol, Sonoma County, California (APN 004-350-024) (Project Area) (location maps are attached). The proposed Project includes the construction of 10 mini townhome units, and associated infrastructure and landscaping (Project). A CRS was required by the City of Sebastopol Planning Department to determine potential impacts to cultural resources, including those that may be considered to be tribal cultural resources, in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) regulations and guidelines.

The methods currently being used to complete the CRS include a record search at the Northwest Information Center (NWIC), a Native American Sacred Sites inventory conducted by the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC), and a field survey of Project Area by a Secretary of Interior-qualified archaeologist. Neither the NWIC record search nor the field survey resulted in the identification of any prehistoric archaeological resources within the Project Area. Furthermore, the Native American Sacred Lands inventory conducted by the NAHC on July 13, 2021, was negative for Sacred Sites near the Project Area; however, the NAHC recommended we contact you for further information about Native American Sacred Sites within or near the Project Area that should be considered during the review.

If you have any additional information that would assist us in identifying Native American Sacred Sites or other tribal resources, or you have any initial concerns with impacts of the project on Sacred Sites or tribal cultural resources and would like to discuss this Project further, please contact me at your earliest convenience at (707)484-9628, or [email protected].

Thank you in advance for taking the time to review this request for information and consultation. I look forward to hearing from you at your earliest convenience.

Respectfully,
Sally Evans, M.A., RPA
Principal Archaeologist
(707) 484-9628 mobile
[email protected]
Attachment 7 Part 2 to Agenda Item Number 8
Attachment 7 Part 2 to Agenda Item Number 8
City Council Meeting Packet of March 1, 2022

July 16, 2021
Erica Carson, Tribal Historic Preservation Officer
Pinoleville Pomo Nation
500 B Pinoleville Drive
Ukiah, CA 95482
Subject: Cultural Resources Survey for of the Property at 7950 Bodega Avenue, Sebastopol, Sonoma County, California.

Dear Ms. Carson,
Evans & De Shazo, Inc. (EDS) is completing a Cultural Resources Study (CRS) for the proposed subdivision project (Project) within a 0.35-acre vacant property at 7950 Bodega Avenue, Sebastopol, Sonoma County, California (APN 004-350-024) (Project Area) (location maps are attached). The proposed Project includes the construction of 10 mini townhome units, and associated infrastructure and landscaping (Project). A CRS was required by the City of Sebastopol Planning Department to determine potential impacts to cultural resources, including those that may be considered to be tribal cultural resources, in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) regulations and guidelines.

The methods currently being used to complete the CRS include a record search at the Northwest Information Center (NWIC), a Native American Sacred Sites inventory conducted by the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC), and a field survey of Project Area by a Secretary of Interior-qualified archaeologist. Neither the NWIC record search nor the field survey resulted in the identification of any prehistoric archaeological resources within the Project Area. Furthermore, the Native American Sacred Lands inventory conducted by the NAHC on July 13, 2021, was negative for Sacred Sites near the Project Area; however, the NAHC recommended we contact you for further information about Native American Sacred Sites within or near the Project Area that should be considered during the review.

If you have any additional information that would assist us in identifying Native American Sacred Sites or other tribal resources, or you have any initial concerns with impacts of the project on Sacred Sites or tribal cultural resources and would like to discuss this Project further, please contact me at your earliest convenience at (707)484-9628, or [email protected].

Thank you in advance for taking the time to review this request for information and consultation. I look forward to hearing from you at your earliest convenience.

Respectfully,
Sally Evans, M.A., RPA
Principal Archaeologist
(707) 484-9628 mobile
[email protected]
Attachment 7 Part 2 to Agenda Item Number 8
Attachment 7 Part 2 to Agenda Item Number 8
City Council Meeting Packet of March 1, 2022

7/16/2021 Evans & De Shazo, Inc. Mail - Information/Consultation Request - Cultural Resources Study of 7950 Bodega Avenue, Sebastopol, CA https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0?ik=0608d44c8b&view=pt&search=all&permthid=thread-a%3Ar-4581687117535231683&simpl=msg-a%3Ar-77092292… 1/2 Sally Evans <[email protected]>
Information/Consultation Request - Cultural Resources Study of 7950 Bodega Avenue, Sebastopol, CA
1 message
Sally Evans <[email protected]> Fri, Jul 16, 2021 at 12:21 PM To: [email protected]
Dear Mr. Wright,
Evans & De Shazo, Inc. (EDS) is completing a Cultural Resources Study (CRS) for the proposed subdivision project (Project) within a 0.35-acre vacant property at 7950 Bodega Avenue, Sebastopol, Sonoma County, California (APN 004-350-024) (Project Area) (location maps are attached). The proposed Project includes the construction of 10 mini townhome units, and associated infrastructure and landscaping (Project). A CRS was required by the City of Sebastopol Planning Department to determine potential impacts to cultural resources, including those that may be considered to be tribal cultural resources, in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) regulations and guidelines.

The methods currently being used to complete the CRS include a record search at the Northwest Information Center (NWIC), a Native American Sacred Sites inventory conducted by the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC), and a field survey of Project Area by a Secretary of Interior-qualified archaeologist. Neither the NWIC record search nor the field survey resulted in the identification of any prehistoric archaeological resources within the Project Area.

Furthermore, the Native American Sacred Lands inventory conducted by the NAHC on July 13, 2021, was negative for Sacred Sites near the Project Area; however, the NAHC recommended we contact you for further information about Native American Sacred Sites within or near the Project Area that should be considered during the review.

If you have any additional information that would assist us in identifying Native American Sacred Sites or other tribal resources, or you have any initial concerns with impacts of the project on Sacred Sites or tribal cultural resources and would like to discuss this Project further, please contact me at your earliest convenience at (707)484-9628, or [email protected].

Thank you in advance for taking the time to review this request for information and consultation. I look forward to hearing from you at your earliest convenience.

Best Regards,
Sally Evans
--
Sally Evans, M.A., RPA | Principal Archaeologist / Cultural Resource Specialist Evans & De Shazo, Inc. - Archaeology ▪ Historic Preservation Main Office: 1141 Gravenstein Hwy S | Sebastopol | CA | 95472 | New Office Phone Number: 707-823-7400 | Cell: 707-484-9628 Oregon: 5305 River Road N., Keizer, OR 97303
http://www.evans-deshazo.com/
Attachment 7 Part 2 to Agenda Item Number 8
Attachment 7 Part 2 to Agenda Item Number 8
City Council Meeting Packet of March 1, 2022

7/16/2021 Evans & De Shazo, Inc. Mail - Information/Consultation Request - Cultural Resources Study of 7950 Bodega Avenue, Sebastopol, CA https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0?ik=0608d44c8b&view=pt&search=all&permthid=thread-a%3Ar-8851055979082602762&simpl=msg-a%3Ar83410808… 1/2 Sally Evans <[email protected]>
Information/Consultation Request - Cultural Resources Study of 7950 Bodega Avenue, Sebastopol, CA
1 message
Sally Evans <[email protected]> Fri, Jul 16, 2021 at 12:30 PM To: Sierra Shope <[email protected]>
Dear Chairperson,
Evans & De Shazo, Inc. (EDS) is completing a Cultural Resources Study (CRS) for the proposed subdivision project (Project) within a 0.35-acre vacant property at 7950 Bodega Avenue, Sebastopol, Sonoma County, California (APN 004-350-024) (Project Area) (location maps are attached). The proposed Project includes the construction of 10 mini townhome units, and associated infrastructure and landscaping (Project). A CRS was required by the City of Sebastopol Planning Department to determine potential impacts to cultural resources, including those that may be considered to be tribal cultural resources, in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) regulations and guidelines.

The methods currently being used to complete the CRS include a record search at the Northwest Information Center (NWIC), a Native American Sacred Sites inventory conducted by the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC), and a field survey of Project Area by a Secretary of Interior-qualified archaeologist. Neither the NWIC record search nor the field survey resulted in the identification of any prehistoric archaeological resources within the Project Area.

Furthermore, the Native American Sacred Lands inventory conducted by the NAHC on July 13, 2021, was negative for Sacred Sites near the Project Area; however, the NAHC recommended we contact you for further information about Native American Sacred Sites within or near the Project Area that should be considered during the review.

If you have any additional information that would assist us in identifying Native American Sacred Sites or other tribal resources, or you have any initial concerns with impacts of the project on Sacred Sites or tribal cultural resources and would like to discuss this Project further, please contact me at your earliest convenience at (707)484-9628, or [email protected].

Thank you in advance for taking the time to review this request for information and consultation. I look forward to hearing from you at your earliest convenience.

Best Regards,
Sally Evans
--
Sally Evans, M.A., RPA | Principal Archaeologist / Cultural Resource Specialist Evans & De Shazo, Inc. - Archaeology ▪ Historic Preservation Main Office: 1141 Gravenstein Hwy S | Sebastopol | CA | 95472 | New Office Phone Number: 707-823-7400 | Cell: 707-484-9628 Oregon: 5305 River Road N., Keizer, OR 97303
http://www.evans-deshazo.com/
Attachment 7 Part 2 to Agenda Item Number 8
Attachment 7 Part 2 to Agenda Item Number 8
City Council Meeting Packet of March 1, 2022

7/16/2021 Evans & De Shazo, Inc. Mail - Information/Consultation Request - Cultural Resources Study of 7950 Bodega Avenue, Sebastopol, CA https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0?ik=0608d44c8b&view=pt&search=all&permthid=thread-a%3Ar-883546497835815294&simpl=msg-a%3Ar-53883089… 1/2 Sally Evans <[email protected]>
Information/Consultation Request - Cultural Resources Study of 7950 Bodega Avenue, Sebastopol, CA
1 message
Sally Evans <[email protected]> Fri, Jul 16, 2021 at 12:29 PM To: MTR THPO <[email protected]>
Dear Ms. Peterson,
Evans & De Shazo, Inc. (EDS) is completing a Cultural Resources Study (CRS) for the proposed subdivision project (Project) within a 0.35-acre vacant property at 7950 Bodega Avenue, Sebastopol, Sonoma County, California (APN 004-350-024) (Project Area) (location maps are attached). The proposed Project includes the construction of 10 mini townhome units, and associated infrastructure and landscaping (Project). A CRS was required by the City of Sebastopol Planning Department to determine potential impacts to cultural resources, including those that may be considered to be tribal cultural resources, in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) regulations and guidelines.

The methods currently being used to complete the CRS include a record search at the Northwest Information Center (NWIC), a Native American Sacred Sites inventory conducted by the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC), and a field survey of Project Area by a Secretary of Interior-qualified archaeologist. Neither the NWIC record search nor the field survey resulted in the identification of any prehistoric archaeological resources within the Project Area.

Furthermore, the Native American Sacred Lands inventory conducted by the NAHC on July 13, 2021, was negative for Sacred Sites near the Project Area; however, the NAHC recommended we contact you for further information about Native American Sacred Sites within or near the Project Area that should be considered during the review.

If you have any additional information that would assist us in identifying Native American Sacred Sites or other tribal resources, or you have any initial concerns with impacts of the project on Sacred Sites or tribal cultural resources and would like to discuss this Project further, please contact me at your earliest convenience at (707)484-9628, or [email protected].

Thank you in advance for taking the time to review this request for information and consultation. I look forward to hearing from you at your earliest convenience.

Best Regards,
Sally Evans
--
Sally Evans, M.A., RPA | Principal Archaeologist / Cultural Resource Specialist Evans & De Shazo, Inc. - Archaeology ▪ Historic Preservation Main Office: 1141 Gravenstein Hwy S | Sebastopol | CA | 95472 | New Office Phone Number: 707-823-7400 | Cell: 707-484-9628 Oregon: 5305 River Road N., Keizer, OR 97303
http://www.evans-deshazo.com/
Attachment 7 Part 2 to Agenda Item Number 8
Attachment 7 Part 2 to Agenda Item Number 8
City Council Meeting Packet of March 1, 2022

7/16/2021 Evans & De Shazo, Inc. Mail - Information/Consultation Request - Cultural Resources Study of 7950 Bodega Avenue, Sebastopol, CA https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0?ik=0608d44c8b&view=pt&search=all&permthid=thread-a%3Ar7880026069015085571&simpl=msg-a%3Ar795689434… 1/2 Sally Evans <[email protected]>
Information/Consultation Request - Cultural Resources Study of 7950 Bodega Avenue, Sebastopol, CA
1 message
Sally Evans <[email protected]> Fri, Jul 16, 2021 at 12:30 PM To: [email protected]
Dear Mr. Gabaldon,
Evans & De Shazo, Inc. (EDS) is completing a Cultural Resources Study (CRS) for the proposed subdivision project (Project) within a 0.35-acre vacant property at 7950 Bodega Avenue, Sebastopol, Sonoma County, California (APN 004-350-024) (Project Area) (location maps are attached). The proposed Project includes the construction of 10 mini townhome units, and associated infrastructure and landscaping (Project). A CRS was required by the City of Sebastopol Planning Department to determine potential impacts to cultural resources, including those that may be considered to be tribal cultural resources, in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) regulations and guidelines.

The methods currently being used to complete the CRS include a record search at the Northwest Information Center (NWIC), a Native American Sacred Sites inventory conducted by the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC), and a field survey of Project Area by a Secretary of Interior-qualified archaeologist. Neither the NWIC record search nor the field survey resulted in the identification of any prehistoric archaeological resources within the Project Area.

Furthermore, the Native American Sacred Lands inventory conducted by the NAHC on July 13, 2021, was negative for Sacred Sites near the Project Area; however, the NAHC recommended we contact you for further information about Native American Sacred Sites within or near the Project Area that should be considered during the review.

If you have any additional information that would assist us in identifying Native American Sacred Sites or other tribal resources, or you have any initial concerns with impacts of the project on Sacred Sites or tribal cultural resources and would like to discuss this Project further, please contact me at your earliest convenience at (707)484-9628, or [email protected].

Thank you in advance for taking the time to review this request for information and consultation. I look forward to hearing from you at your earliest convenience.

Best Regards,
Sally Evans
--
Sally Evans, M.A., RPA | Principal Archaeologist / Cultural Resource Specialist Evans & De Shazo, Inc. - Archaeology ▪ Historic Preservation Main Office: 1141 Gravenstein Hwy S | Sebastopol | CA | 95472 | New Office Phone Number: 707-823-7400 | Cell: 707-484-9628 Oregon: 5305 River Road N., Keizer, OR 97303
http://www.evans-deshazo.com/
Attachment 7 Part 2 to Agenda Item Number 8
Attachment 7 Part 2 to Agenda Item Number 8
City Council Meeting Packet of March 1, 2022

7/16/2021 Evans & De Shazo, Inc. Mail - Information/Consultation Request - Cultural Resources Study of 7950 Bodega Avenue, Sebastopol, CA https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0?ik=0608d44c8b&view=pt&search=all&permthid=thread-a%3Ar854542815084458521&simpl=msg-a%3Ar6888495193… 1/2 Sally Evans <[email protected]>
Information/Consultation Request - Cultural Resources Study of 7950 Bodega Avenue, Sebastopol, CA
1 message
Sally Evans <[email protected]> Fri, Jul 16, 2021 at 12:24 PM To: dino <[email protected]>
Dear Mr. Franklin,
Evans & De Shazo, Inc. (EDS) is completing a Cultural Resources Study (CRS) for the proposed subdivision project (Project) within a 0.35-acre vacant property at 7950 Bodega Avenue, Sebastopol, Sonoma County, California (APN 004-350-024) (Project Area) (location maps are attached). The proposed Project includes the construction of 10 mini townhome units, and associated infrastructure and landscaping (Project). A CRS was required by the City of Sebastopol Planning Department to determine potential impacts to cultural resources, including those that may be considered to be tribal cultural resources, in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) regulations and guidelines.

The methods currently being used to complete the CRS include a record search at the Northwest Information Center (NWIC), a Native American Sacred Sites inventory conducted by the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC), and a field survey of Project Area by a Secretary of Interior-qualified archaeologist. Neither the NWIC record search nor the field survey resulted in the identification of any prehistoric archaeological resources within the Project Area.

Furthermore, the Native American Sacred Lands inventory conducted by the NAHC on July 13, 2021, was negative for Sacred Sites near the Project Area; however, the NAHC recommended we contact you for further information about Native American Sacred Sites within or near the Project Area that should be considered during the review.

If you have any additional information that would assist us in identifying Native American Sacred Sites or other tribal resources, or you have any initial concerns with impacts of the project on Sacred Sites or tribal cultural resources and would like to discuss this Project further, please contact me at your earliest convenience at (707)484-9628, or [email protected].

Thank you in advance for taking the time to review this request for information and consultation. I look forward to hearing from you at your earliest convenience.

Best Regards,
Sally Evans
--
Sally Evans, M.A., RPA | Principal Archaeologist / Cultural Resource Specialist Evans & De Shazo, Inc. - Archaeology ▪ Historic Preservation Main Office: 1141 Gravenstein Hwy S | Sebastopol | CA | 95472 | New Office Phone Number: 707-823-7400 | Cell: 707-484-9628 Oregon: 5305 River Road N., Keizer, OR 97303
http://www.evans-deshazo.com/
Attachment 7 Part 2 to Agenda Item Number 8
Attachment 7 Part 2 to Agenda Item Number 8
City Council Meeting Packet of March 1, 2022

7/16/2021 Evans & De Shazo, Inc. Mail - Information/Consultation Request - Cultural Resources Study of 7950 Bodega Avenue, Sebastopol, CA https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0?ik=0608d44c8b&view=pt&search=all&permthid=thread-a%3Ar-4747979253408965188&simpl=msg-a%3Ar68695842… 1/2 Sally Evans <[email protected]>
Information/Consultation Request - Cultural Resources Study of 7950 Bodega Avenue, Sebastopol, CA
1 message
Sally Evans <[email protected]> Fri, Jul 16, 2021 at 12:23 PM To: [email protected]
Dear Mr. Duncan,
Evans & De Shazo, Inc. (EDS) is completing a Cultural Resources Study (CRS) for the proposed subdivision project (Project) within a 0.35-acre vacant property at 7950 Bodega Avenue, Sebastopol, Sonoma County, California (APN 004-350-024) (Project Area) (location maps are attached). The proposed Project includes the construction of 10 mini townhome units, and associated infrastructure and landscaping (Project). A CRS was required by the City of Sebastopol Planning Department to determine potential impacts to cultural resources, including those that may be considered to be tribal cultural resources, in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) regulations and guidelines.

The methods currently being used to complete the CRS include a record search at the Northwest Information Center (NWIC), a Native American Sacred Sites inventory conducted by the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC), and a field survey of Project Area by a Secretary of Interior-qualified archaeologist. Neither the NWIC record search nor the field survey resulted in the identification of any prehistoric archaeological resources within the Project Area.

Furthermore, the Native American Sacred Lands inventory conducted by the NAHC on July 13, 2021, was negative for Sacred Sites near the Project Area; however, the NAHC recommended we contact you for further information about Native American Sacred Sites within or near the Project Area that should be considered during the review.

If you have any additional information that would assist us in identifying Native American Sacred Sites or other tribal resources, or you have any initial concerns with impacts of the project on Sacred Sites or tribal cultural resources and would like to discuss this Project further, please contact me at your earliest convenience at (707)484-9628, or [email protected].

Thank you in advance for taking the time to review this request for information and consultation. I look forward to hearing from you at your earliest convenience.

Best Regards,
Sally Evans
--
Sally Evans, M.A., RPA | Principal Archaeologist / Cultural Resource Specialist Evans & De Shazo, Inc. - Archaeology ▪ Historic Preservation Main Office: 1141 Gravenstein Hwy S | Sebastopol | CA | 95472 | New Office Phone Number: 707-823-7400 | Cell: 707-484-9628 Oregon: 5305 River Road N., Keizer, OR 97303
http://www.evans-deshazo.com/
Attachment 7 Part 2 to Agenda Item Number 8
Attachment 7 Part 2 to Agenda Item Number 8
City Council Meeting Packet of March 1, 2022

7/16/2021 Evans & De Shazo, Inc. Mail - Information/Consultation Request - Cultural Resources Study of 7950 Bodega Avenue, Sebastopol, CA https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0?ik=0608d44c8b&view=pt&search=all&permthid=thread-a%3Ar-2906600731738866967&simpl=msg-a%3Ar-51611685… 1/2 Sally Evans <[email protected]>
Information/Consultation Request - Cultural Resources Study of 7950 Bodega Avenue, Sebastopol, CA
1 message
Sally Evans <[email protected]> Fri, Jul 16, 2021 at 12:32 PM To: [email protected]
Dear Mr. Cromwell,
Evans & De Shazo, Inc. (EDS) is completing a Cultural Resources Study (CRS) for the proposed subdivision project (Project) within a 0.35-acre vacant property at 7950 Bodega Avenue, Sebastopol, Sonoma County, California (APN 004-350-024) (Project Area) (location maps are attached). The proposed Project includes the construction of 10 mini townhome units, and associated infrastructure and landscaping (Project). A CRS was required by the City of Sebastopol Planning Department to determine potential impacts to cultural resources, including those that may be considered to be tribal cultural resources, in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) regulations and guidelines.

The methods currently being used to complete the CRS include a record search at the Northwest Information Center (NWIC), a Native American Sacred Sites inventory conducted by the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC), and a field survey of Project Area by a Secretary of Interior-qualified archaeologist. Neither the NWIC record search nor the field survey resulted in the identification of any prehistoric archaeological resources within the Project Area.

Furthermore, the Native American Sacred Lands inventory conducted by the NAHC on July 13, 2021, was negative for Sacred Sites near the Project Area; however, the NAHC recommended we contact you for further information about Native American Sacred Sites within or near the Project Area that should be considered during the review.

If you have any additional information that would assist us in identifying Native American Sacred Sites or other tribal resources, or you have any initial concerns with impacts of the project on Sacred Sites or tribal cultural resources and would like to discuss this Project further, please contact me at your earliest convenience at (707)484-9628, or [email protected].

Thank you in advance for taking the time to review this request for information and consultation. I look forward to hearing from you at your earliest convenience.

Best Regards,
Sally Evans
--
Sally Evans, M.A., RPA | Principal Archaeologist / Cultural Resource Specialist Evans & De Shazo, Inc. - Archaeology ▪ Historic Preservation Main Office: 1141 Gravenstein Hwy S | Sebastopol | CA | 95472 | New Office Phone Number: 707-823-7400 | Cell: 707-484-9628 Oregon: 5305 River Road N., Keizer, OR 97303
http://www.evans-deshazo.com/
Attachment 7 Part 2 to Agenda Item Number 8
Attachment 7 Part 2 to Agenda Item Number 8
City Council Meeting Packet of March 1, 2022

7/16/2021 Evans & De Shazo, Inc. Mail - Information/Consultation Request - Cultural Resources Study of 7950 Bodega Avenue, Sebastopol, CA https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0?ik=0608d44c8b&view=pt&search=all&permthid=thread-a%3Ar-5278805263446517125&simpl=msg-a%3Ar26478082… 1/2 Sally Evans <[email protected]>
Information/Consultation Request - Cultural Resources Study of 7950 Bodega Avenue, Sebastopol, CA
1 message
Sally Evans <[email protected]> Fri, Jul 16, 2021 at 12:22 PM To: Gene Buvelot <[email protected]>
Cc: [email protected]
Dear Mr. Sarris,
Evans & De Shazo, Inc. (EDS) is completing a Cultural Resources Study (CRS) for the proposed subdivision project (Project) within a 0.35-acre vacant property at 7950 Bodega Avenue, Sebastopol, Sonoma County, California (APN 004-350-024) (Project Area) (location maps are attached). The proposed Project includes the construction of 10 mini townhome units, and associated infrastructure and landscaping (Project). A CRS was required by the City of Sebastopol Planning Department to determine potential impacts to cultural resources, including those that may be considered to be tribal cultural resources, in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) regulations and guidelines.

The methods currently being used to complete the CRS include a record search at the Northwest Information Center (NWIC), a Native American Sacred Sites inventory conducted by the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC), and a field survey of Project Area by a Secretary of Interior-qualified archaeologist. Neither the NWIC record search nor the field survey resulted in the identification of any prehistoric archaeological resources within the Project Area.

Furthermore, the Native American Sacred Lands inventory conducted by the NAHC on July 13, 2021, was negative for Sacred Sites near the Project Area; however, the NAHC recommended we contact you for further information about Native American Sacred Sites within or near the Project Area that should be considered during the review.

If you have any additional information that would assist us in identifying Native American Sacred Sites or other tribal resources, or you have any initial concerns with impacts of the project on Sacred Sites or tribal cultural resources and would like to discuss this Project further, please contact me at your earliest convenience at (707)484-9628, or [email protected].

Thank you in advance for taking the time to review this request for information and consultation. I look forward to hearing from you at your earliest convenience.

Best Regards,
Sally Evans
--
Sally Evans, M.A., RPA | Principal Archaeologist / Cultural Resource Specialist Evans & De Shazo, Inc. - Archaeology ▪ Historic Preservation Main Office: 1141 Gravenstein Hwy S | Sebastopol | CA | 95472 | New Office Phone Number: 707-823-7400 | Cell: 707-484-9628 Oregon: 5305 River Road N., Keizer, OR 97303
http://www.evans-deshazo.com/
Attachment 7 Part 2 to Agenda Item Number 8
Attachment 7 Part 2 to Agenda Item Number 8
City Council Meeting Packet of March 1, 2022

7/16/2021 Evans & De Shazo, Inc. Mail - Information/Consultation Request - Cultural Resources Study of 7950 Bodega Avenue, Sebastopol, CA https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0?ik=0608d44c8b&view=pt&search=all&permthid=thread-a%3Ar2002052330994481845&simpl=msg-a%3Ar601827674… 1/2 Sally Evans <[email protected]>
Information/Consultation Request - Cultural Resources Study of 7950 Bodega Avenue, Sebastopol, CA
1 message
Sally Evans <[email protected]> Fri, Jul 16, 2021 at 12:22 PM To: Gene Buvelot <[email protected]>
Cc: [email protected]
Dear Mr. Buvelot,
Evans & De Shazo, Inc. (EDS) is completing a Cultural Resources Study (CRS) for the proposed subdivision project (Project) within a 0.35-acre vacant property at 7950 Bodega Avenue, Sebastopol, Sonoma County, California (APN 004-350-024) (Project Area) (location maps are attached). The proposed Project includes the construction of 10 mini townhome units, and associated infrastructure and landscaping (Project). A CRS was required by the City of Sebastopol Planning Department to determine potential impacts to cultural resources, including those that may be considered to be tribal cultural resources, in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) regulations and guidelines.

The methods currently being used to complete the CRS include a record search at the Northwest Information Center (NWIC), a Native American Sacred Sites inventory conducted by the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC), and a field survey of Project Area by a Secretary of Interior-qualified archaeologist. Neither the NWIC record search nor the field survey resulted in the identification of any prehistoric archaeological resources within the Project Area.

Furthermore, the Native American Sacred Lands inventory conducted by the NAHC on July 13, 2021, was negative for Sacred Sites near the Project Area; however, the NAHC recommended we contact you for further information about Native American Sacred Sites within or near the Project Area that should be considered during the review.

If you have any additional information that would assist us in identifying Native American Sacred Sites or other tribal resources, or you have any initial concerns with impacts of the project on Sacred Sites or tribal cultural resources and would like to discuss this Project further, please contact me at your earliest convenience at (707)484-9628, or [email protected].

Thank you in advance for taking the time to review this request for information and consultation. I look forward to hearing from you at your earliest convenience.

Best Regards,
Sally Evans
--
Sally Evans, M.A., RPA | Principal Archaeologist / Cultural Resource Specialist Evans & De Shazo, Inc. - Archaeology ▪ Historic Preservation Main Office: 1141 Gravenstein Hwy S | Sebastopol | CA | 95472 | New Office Phone Number: 707-823-7400 | Cell: 707-484-9628 Oregon: 5305 River Road N., Keizer, OR 97303
http://www.evans-deshazo.com/
Attachment 7 Part 2 to Agenda Item Number 8
Attachment 7 Part 2 to Agenda Item Number 8
City Council Meeting Packet of March 1, 2022




 


 






 

! 

"#!


!!

"
!


!$%


&
'$(
)
!
*
+
)
+
,
((

!-./01$221*
3/+


/ 
+

$/
 $ 45)
22&0&


+/

( 45)
&&&6 
7899:
;<8=>
?>899:@A<8=>BCA>D8EFGHFIJ K=LFMI8NOF=PQF=>R9N8NOF=
SATRA>N
B
QR9NRM89
SA>FRMHA>
7NRC:

FL
UVWX
YFCAZ8 [<A=RA\
7A]8>NF^F9\
Q[

5 

(
7899:
;<8=>
_
%`

$
 
a b

c!
0


,1
d e,

(
f ` 
,
g'

$
h
e

g
_*

`
3 3
a ijkl
mno
mjpqkr
stkun
v
ij
wxkyzr
{u|o
}siw~
qn
|z€j‚uƒ
k
„
†
lk
‡jnz
l|jn
w†
ˆ‰
}„‡w~
Šzl
†xj
€lz€znjˆ
n
‹ˆqtqnqzu
€lzpj|† }Œlzpj|†~
q†xqu
k
Žo‘k|lj
tk|ku†
€lz€jl†‰
k†
’“Ž
”zˆjƒk
•tju
jr
wj‹kn†z€zr
wzuzk
„z
u†‰r
„kqŠzluqk
}•Œ– ŽŽ—‘Ž‘Ž˜—~
}Œlzpj|†
•ljk~
}z|k‚zu
k€n
klj
k™k|xjˆ~o
šxj
€lz€znjˆ
Œlzpj|†
qu|
ˆjn
†xj
|zun†l
|‚zu
zŠ
›Ž
quq †zuxzj

uq†nr
kuˆ
knnz|qk†jˆ
quŠlkn†l
|†
lj
kuˆ
kuˆn|k€quƒ
}Œlzpj|†~o
•
„‡w
kn
ljœ
qljˆ
‹‰
†xj
„q†‰
zŠ wj‹kn†z€z
Œkuuquƒ
ij€kl†ju†
†z
ˆj†jlquj
€z†ju‚k
q€k|†n
†z
|
†
lk
ljnz
l|jnr
qu|
ˆquƒ
†xznj
†xk†
k‰
‹j |zunqˆjljˆ
†z
‹j
†lq‹k
|
†
lk
ljnz
l|jnr
qu
k||zlˆku|j
q†x
†xj
„kqŠzluqk
sutqlzuju†k

kq†‰
•|†
}„s•~ ljƒ
k‚zun
kuˆ
ƒ
qˆjqujno šxj
j†xzˆn
|
llju†‰
‹jquƒ

njˆ
†z
|z€j†j
†xj
„‡w
qu|
ˆj
k
lj|zlˆ
njkl|x
k†
†xj
–zl†xjn†
{uŠzlk‚zu
„ju†jl }–ž{„~r
k
–k‚tj
•jlq|ku
wk|ljˆ
wq†jn
qutju†zl‰
|zuˆ
|†jˆ
‹‰
†xj
–k‚tj
•jlq|ku
Ÿjlq†kƒj
„zqnnqzu
}–•Ÿ„~r kuˆ
k
jˆ
n
ltj‰
zŠ
Œlzpj|†
•ljk
‹‰
k
wj|lj†kl‰
zŠ
{u†jlqzl‘œ
kq jˆ
kl|xkjzzƒqn†o
–jq†xjl
†xj
–ž{„
lj|zlˆ
njkl|x uzl
†xj
jˆ
n
ltj‰
ljn
†jˆ
qu
†xj
qˆju‚ |k‚zu
zŠ
ku‰
€ljxqn†zlq|
kl|xkjzzƒq|k
ljnz
l|jn
q†xqu
†xj
Œlzpj|†
•ljko ¡
l†xjlzljr
†xj
–k‚tj
•jlq|ku
wk|ljˆ
¢kuˆn
qutju†zl‰
|zuˆ
|†jˆ
‹‰
†xj
–•Ÿ„
zu
£
‰
›r
˜Ž˜›r
kn
ujƒk‚tj
Šzl wk|ljˆ
wq†jn
ujkl
†xj
Œlzpj|†
•ljk¤
xzjtjlr
†xj
–•Ÿ„
lj|zjuˆjˆ
j
|zu†k|†
‰z

Šzl
Š
l†xjl
quŠzlk‚zu
k‹z
† –k‚tj
•jlq|ku
wk|ljˆ
wq†jn
q†xqu
zl
ujkl
†xj
Œlzpj|†
•ljk
†xk†
nxz
ˆ
‹j
|zunqˆjljˆ
ˆ
lquƒ
†xj
ljtqjo {Š
‰z

xktj
ku‰
kˆˆq‚zuk
quŠzlk‚zu
†xk†
z
ˆ
knnqn†

n
qu
qˆju‚Š‰quƒ
–k‚tj
•jlq|ku
wk|ljˆ
wq†jn
zl
z†xjl
†lq‹k ljnz
l|jnr
zl
‰z

xktj
ku‰
quq‚k
|zu|jlun
q†x
q€k|†n
zŠ
†xj
€lzpj|†
zu
wk|ljˆ
wq†jn
zl
†lq‹k
|
†
lk
ljnz
l|jn
kuˆ z
ˆ
q¥j
†z
ˆqn|
nn
†xqn
Œlzpj|†
Š
l†xjlr
€jknj
|zu†k|†
j
k†
‰z
l
jklqjn†
|zutjuqju|j
k†
¦§¨§©ª«ª¬­®¯«r zl
>899:@A<8=>BCA>D8EFGHFIo
šxku¥
‰z

qu
kˆtku|j
Šzl
†k¥quƒ
†xj
‚j
†z
ljtqj
†xqn
ljœ
jn†
Šzl
quŠzlk‚zu
kuˆ
|zun
†k‚zuo
{
zz¥
Šzlklˆ
†z xjklquƒ
Šlz
‰z

k†
‰z
l
jklqjn†
|zutjuqju|jo

'

"(
$
  %




7899:
;<8=>\
°G[G\
S±[
²
³´µ¶·µ¸¹º
»´·¼¹½¾º¾¿µÀÁ
Â
ÃĺÁÄ´¹º
ŽÀ¾Ä´·½
Ƹ½·µ¹ºµÀÁ ;<8=>
Ç
ÈA
7D8EF\
K=HG
B
[MHD8AF9FZ:

É
ÊO>NFMOH
±MA>AM<8NOF=

 

Ë

,
2
Ì




Í3%

Î
*
+
Î
)
Î
&2
Î

Ï3
Ë


d

Ï!
*
,
152
Î
,
21201
Ë
(
,
&5&
"

" $
Ï
Ð

Ë"
55

ÑÒÒÓÔÕÕÖÖÖ×ØÙÚÛÜÝÞØÜÑÚßà×áàâÕ Attachment 7 Part 2 to Agenda Item Number 8 Attachment 7 Part 2 to Agenda Item Number 8
City Council Meeting Packet of March 1, 2022




 


 






 

! 

"#!


!!

"
!


!$%


&
'$(
)
!
*
+
)
+
,
((

!-./01$221*
3/+


/ 
+

$/
 $ 45)
22&0&


+/

( 45)
&&&6 
789:;<=
>8;?
@?ABCADE
&F G8;HD?
IC
J9K?8?B
L*

M
3 3
N 

O!



5,0
P Q,
 %


L
%M

$
 
N R
 %

Q
.
%!






(
$
(

*



$
+
S
T

Q
*




+
 





3

!$
+
$

%!




!




%!

+



*



+
S 
$



3

$

P




%

$





+
 




$
(

* 
!!


!





+
S


Q
U%

"







$



+


$
+


 


P





$



$
*



!
!!



!


%
*

!

$
$!

( 
+
S

Q
Q
*
3
 ! 
3

!




! 




+
S
3

++
+
 
 $
(
% 



%

$


$


(

+%




!
%



+$

T
3!$

.



%!

+

%!





!


V
 .


 

W




%

%



 




(



!
$

X)

YZ[\]^
_`
abc^Z^d

abc^Z^d
e
fg^dh
__i

&&j

++

P3 %
P
.3 %
k1



(
)
5

lmnmo
nnpqrnnr

lmnmo
nmsqspmt
ubvwx[

lmnmo
yyyqnyzn
{^|dwcwx[ }~€‚ƒ„
†„‡
~„}ƒˆ

‰Š‹Œ
Ž‹‘
’“”Œ‹ŒŒ‹•”–
”—
”˜
—•™š”’Œ–
›‹‘Œ
•“
œ“‹•šŒ
Ž‹‘
ŒŒžŒ
’’™Š—
’•
‹’
‹Œ
™•”›‹—”’‹‘
”—
˜
Ÿ
‘ž‘‘˜ œ“‹‹‘ž—

¡›
˜•š
“
”•’
’Š
‹”’”——
“™‹œ‹”’
•“
š’Š•“‹¢—
ž”’
›•“
’Š
‹”’”——
“™‹œ‹”’–
˜•š
Š
“™‹—
’Š‹Œ
ŒŒž
”—
’’™Š”’Œ
‹”
““•“–
”—
”˜
“‹£– —‹ŒŒ‹”’‹•”–
•“
“œ“•—š™’‹•”
‹Œ
Œ’“‹™’‘˜
œ“•Š‹Ÿ‹’—

¡›
˜•š
“
”•’
’Š
‹”’”——
“™‹œ‹”’–
œ‘Œ
‹—‹’‘˜
”•’‹›˜
šŒ
Ÿ˜
“œ‘˜
Ž‹‘
•“
Ÿ˜
’‘œŠ•”
’
¤¥¦¥§
¦¦¨Ž©¦¦©–
”— —Œ’“•˜
’Š
•“‹ž‹”‘
’“”Œ‹ŒŒ‹•”
”—
‹’Œ
’’™Š”’Œ
£‹’Š•š’
“—‹”ž
’Š
•“
Œ‹”ž
’Š

ª‹‘š“
’•
›•‘‘•£
’Š‹Œ
œ“•™ŒŒ
˜
Ÿ
š”‘£›š‘  «X!$
¬
$$
­ ®?¯¯°
±²?HB
L
%M

$
 
N 

O!



0,&1
P Q,
³'

$
U
Q

³
L*

M
3 3
N ´µ
¶·¸¹º»¼ ½¾»¹¿
ÀÁÂ
ÃÁ·
ÀÁ·
¸Ä»µÅ
·¸Æ»·ºµ¹Æ
Ǿ¸
È·ÁɸÊÇ
Ȃ
ËÌÍÎ
¶Áº¸Æ»
Ïи¹Â¸Ñ
Ò
¾»Ð¸
ÊÁÄÈŸǸº
Ǿ¸
·¸Ó¸»·Ê¾
»¹º
Ǿ¸
õ¸Åº Ó·иÀ¼
¹¸µÇ¾¸·
ÁÃ
Ô¾µÊ¾
·¸ÓÂÅǸº
µ¹
Ǿ¸
µº¸¹ÇµÃµÊ»ÇµÁ¹
ÁÃ
»¹À
È·¸¾µÓÇÁ·µÊ
»·Ê¾»¸ÁÅÁƵʻÅ
»·ÇµÃ»ÊÇÓ¼
ø»Ç·¸Ó¼
Á·
º¸ÈÁÓµÇÓÑ
Ò ÔµÅÅ
Õ¸
ÊÁÄÈŸǵ¹Æ
Ǿ¸
·¸ÈÁ·Ç
µ¹
Ǿ¸
¹¸ÖÇ
øÔ
º»ÀÓ
»¹º
ÓÂÕĵÇǵ¹Æ
µÇ
ÇÁ
Ǿ¸
ʵÇÀ
ÁÃ
׸ջÓÇÁÈÁÅ
ØÅ»¹¹µ¹Æ
ٸȻ·Çĸ¹ÇÑ
Ò¹
Ǿ¸ ĸ»¹ÇµÄ¸¼
ÈŸ»Ó¸
ŸÇ
ĸ
¿¹ÁÔ
µÃ
ÀÁÂ
¾»Ð¸
»¹À
Ú¸ÓǵÁ¹ÓÑ ¶¸ÓÇ
۸ƻ·ºÓ¼
×»ÅÅÀ
«X!$
¬
$$
­
Attachment 7 Part 2 to Agenda Item Number 8
Attachment 7 Part 2 to Agenda Item Number 8
City Council Meeting Packet of March 1, 2022

Watrous, Stephen
1998 Russian Expansion to America. Electronic document, http://www.fortross.org/russianamerican-company.htm#The Russian Advance to California. Accessed September 2020.

Waters, Michael R.
1992 Principles of Geoarchaeology: A North American Perspective. The University of Arizona Press, Tucson, Arizona.

Weber, Janet Baliki
2019 Pioneering Irishman Jasper O'Farrell helped shape Sonoma County. The Press Democrat. https://www.pressdemocrat.com/article/news/pioneering-irishman-jasper-ofarrell-helpedshape-sonoma-county/?artslide=6a. Accessed July 2021.

Western Sonoma County Historical Society
2003 Images of America: Sebastopol. Arcadia Publishing.

Wickstrom, Brian P., and David A. Fredrickson
1982 Archaeological Investigations at CA-SON-20, Santa Rosa, Sonoma County, California.

Confidential report on file at the Northwest Information Center, Rohnert Park, California.

Attachment 7 Part 2 to Agenda Item Number 8
Attachment 7 Part 2 to Agenda Item Number 8
City Council Meeting Packet of March 1, 2022

EXHIBIT E
Soil Engineering Consultation; Reese & Associates; October 2015 Attachment 7 Part 2 to Agenda Item Number 8
Attachment 7 Part 2 to Agenda Item Number 8
City Council Meeting Packet of March 1, 2022

Attachment 7 Part 2 to Agenda Item Number 8
Attachment 7 Part 2 to Agenda Item Number 8
City Council Meeting Packet of March 1, 2022

Attachment 7 Part 2 to Agenda Item Number 8
Attachment 7 Part 2 to Agenda Item Number 8
City Council Meeting Packet of March 1, 2022

Attachment 7 Part 2 to Agenda Item Number 8
Attachment 7 Part 2 to Agenda Item Number 8
City Council Meeting Packet of March 1, 2022

Attachment 7 Part 2 to Agenda Item Number 8
Attachment 7 Part 2 to Agenda Item Number 8
City Council Meeting Packet of March 1, 2022

Attachment 7 Part 2 to Agenda Item Number 8
Attachment 7 Part 2 to Agenda Item Number 8
City Council Meeting Packet of March 1, 2022

Attachment 7 Part 2 to Agenda Item Number 8
Attachment 7 Part 2 to Agenda Item Number 8
City Council Meeting Packet of March 1, 2022

Attachment 7 Part 2 to Agenda Item Number 8
Attachment 7 Part 2 to Agenda Item Number 8
City Council Meeting Packet of March 1, 2022

Attachment 7 Part 2 to Agenda Item Number 8
Attachment 7 Part 2 to Agenda Item Number 8
City Council Meeting Packet of March 1, 2022

Attachment 7 Part 2 to Agenda Item Number 8
Attachment 7 Part 2 to Agenda Item Number 8
City Council Meeting Packet of March 1, 2022

Attachment 7 Part 2 to Agenda Item Number 8
Attachment 7 Part 2 to Agenda Item Number 8
City Council Meeting Packet of March 1, 2022

Attachment 7 Part 2 to Agenda Item Number 8
Attachment 7 Part 2 to Agenda Item Number 8
City Council Meeting Packet of March 1, 2022

Attachment 7 Part 2 to Agenda Item Number 8
Attachment 7 Part 2 to Agenda Item Number 8
City Council Meeting Packet of March 1, 2022

Attachment 7 Part 2 to Agenda Item Number 8
Attachment 7 Part 2 to Agenda Item Number 8
City Council Meeting Packet of March 1, 2022

Attachment 7 Part 2 to Agenda Item Number 8
Attachment 7 Part 2 to Agenda Item Number 8
City Council Meeting Packet of March 1, 2022

EXHIBIT F
Soil Engineering Consultation; Reese & Associates; August 2020 Attachment 7 Part 2 to Agenda Item Number 8
Attachment 7 Part 2 to Agenda Item Number 8
City Council Meeting Packet of March 1, 2022

13 4 LYS T RA CO UR T
TELEP HO N E ( 7 0 7 ) 52 8-30 7 8
Huntley Square, LLC
630 Airpark Road, Suite A
Napa, CA 94559
Attention: Beth Farley
[email protected]

REESE CO NSULTING

GEOTECHNICAL
& ASSOCIATES E N G I N E E R S
August 19, 2020
Job No. 2116.1.13
Report
SA NT A ROSA , C A 954 03
FACS IMI LE (707 ] 52 8 -2837
Soil Engineering Consultation
Bodega A venue Subdivision
Sebastopol, California
This report presents the results of our soil engineering consultation regarding the proposed residential subdivision located at 7950 Bodega A venue in Sebastopol, California. We provided soil engineering consultation for the project and presented the results in our report dated October 29, 2015. Our report was oriented toward developing four single-family, singlestory residences with concrete slab-on-grade floors at the site. It is currently planned to subdivide the property into 10 lots and construct studio buildings with zero lot lines. Six of the studios will be two-stories and four will be one-story. The recommendations presented in our report, along with the following supplemental recommendations, are applicable to the currently planned project. We can provide alternate recommendations for foundation and slab support, if requested.

Retaining walls 6 to 8 feet in height are planned on the south side of the site. The walls will generally retain cut for the new public sidewalk. The buildings are planned to be setback 4 to 5 feet from the top of the wall. Accordingly, the walls should be designed to resist a surcharge load resulting from building foundations. Where an imaginary one-and-one-half horizontal to one vertical (1 ½: 1) line projected down from an adjacent foundation intersects a retaining wall, the portion of the wall below the intersection should be designed for an additional horizontal surcharge load of 100 psf. The walls can be supported by spread footings bottomed on firm natural soils and at least 18 inches deep or by drilled piers using the following recommendations. - 1 -
Attachment 7 Part 2 to Agenda Item Number 8
Attachment 7 Part 2 to Agenda Item Number 8
City Council Meeting Packet of March 1, 2022

REESE CONSULTING

GEOTECHNICAL
& ASSOCIATES E N G I N E E R S
Drilled Piers - Drilled piers can be used for support of the site retaining walls on the south side of the site. Drilled piers should be at least 18 inches iri diameter and bottom at least 8 . feet below the ground surface. Vertical loads on the piers can be carried below the upper 1 ½ feet in skin friction using a value of 600 psf End bearing should be neglected because of the difficulty of cleaning out small diameter holes and the uncertainty of mobilizing end bearing and skin friction simultaneously. Resistance to lateral loads on piers can be obtained from a passive equivalent fluid pressure of 300 pcf applied over two pier diameters. The passive pressure can be assumed to commence at the ground surface but should be neglected in the upper 1 ½ feet unless confined by pavements or slabs. Pull-out capacity of the piers can be assumed to be one-half of the downward capacity.

Piers should be reinforced as determined by the structural design engineer. In general, piers should be .spaced no closed that 3 diameters, center to center.

To retard wet concrete from settling, pier holes should not contain more than 3 inches of slough. It niay be necessary to tamp the slough with a heavy timber prior to concrete placement, as determined in the field by the soil engineer.

Groundwater and caving soils were not encountered during our exploration. However, caving soils and/or perched groundwater could be encountered during pier drilling operations. If caving soils are encountered, it may be necessary to case the holds. If groundwater is encountered, it may be necessary to dewater the holes or place the concrete by an approved pumping or trernie method.

Soil Engineering Drainage
Ponding water will tend to soften the site soils and could be detrimental to foundations . . It is important that the building areas be sloped to drain away from foundations. We recommend that good, positive surface drainage sloping away from the building at least 1/4-inch per foot for at least 4 feet out away from the buildings be provided. The roofs should be provided with gutters, and the downspouts should discharge onto paved areas or splash blocks that drain at least 30 inches away from the foundation or be connected to nonperforated, rigid plastic pipes that outlet away from the building.

To provide an outlet for water that could accumulate beneath floor slabs and reduce the risk of future moisture migration up through the concrete floors, installation of a system of perforated plastic pipes in the grade below the slab rock should be considered. The underslab subdrain system, if installed, should be designed to drain each bay created by interior and/or perimeter foundations. The underslab subdrain system should be connected to a nonperforated - 2 -
Attachment 7 Part 2 to Agenda Item Number 8
Attachment 7 Part 2 to Agenda Item Number 8
City Council Meeting Packet of March 1, 2022

REESE CONSULTING

GEOTECHNICAL
& ASSOCIATES E N G I N E E R S
outlet pipe that extends through or beneath the perimeter foundation to a suitable discharge point.

A typical cross-section of our recommended underslab subdrain is shown on Plate 1. We can provide additional consultation concerning the configuration and location of the underslab subdrain system during final design once foundation plans have been prepared, if desired.

Homeowner and/or professional landscaping should maintain good positive flow of surface water away from and around the buildings. It should be recognized that fences, walks, patio slabs, lawns, planters, etc. can impede water flow and promote surface soil saturation and seepage into underfloor areas.

Seismic Design Parameters
The geologic maps reviewed did not indicate the presence of active faults at the site, and the property is not located within a presently designated Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone.

Therefore, we judge that there is little risk of fault-related ground rupture during earthquakes. In a seismically active region such as Northern California, there is always some possibility for future faulting at any site. Because the site will be subject to strong ground shaking during earthquakes, it will be necessary to design the project in strict accordance with current standards for earthquake-resistant construction. Based on the procedures outlined in Section 1613 of the 2019 California Building Code (CBC), the seismic provisions are as follows:
2019 CBC Ground Motion Parameters
Site Class C
Mapped Spectral Response Accelerations:

1.500g

0.600g
Design Spectral Response Accelerations:

SDs
Sm
- 3 -

1.200g

0.560g
Attachment 7 Part 2 to Agenda Item Number 8
Attachment 7 Part 2 to Agenda Item Number 8
City Council Meeting Packet of March 1, 2022

REESE CONSULTING

GEOTECHNICAL
& ASSOCIATES E N G I N E E R S
We should be notified to review grading plans and final foundation plans for conformance with the intent of our recommendations. We should be notified t~ observe site preparation and grading to verify that the conditions are as anticipated and to modify our recommendations, if warranted. Field and laboratory tests should be performed to ascertain that the recommended moisture content and degree of compaction are being attained. We should also be notified to observe pier drilling operations and footing excavations to verify that the conditions encountered are as anticipated.

We trust this provides the information needed at this time. If you have questions or wish to discuss this in more detail, please do not hesitate to contact us.

Yours very truly,

REESE & ASSOCIATES
~ -b-vi1.~
Jonathan D. Morris
Geotechnical Engineer No. 2911
(}4-, _// ·O /l/711 -l1 ------- 1effrey K. Reese
Civil Engineer No. 47753
JDM/JKR:nay/ra/Job No. 1733.1.13
Copies Submitted: 3
cc: Huntley Square
Allan Lavery
[email protected]
-4-
Attachment 7 Part 2 to Agenda Item Number 8
Attachment 7 Part 2 to Agenda Item Number 8
City Council Meeting Packet of March 1, 2022

REESE& Job No: 2116.1.13
ASSOCII\TES Date: 8-10-2020

CONSULTING
GEOTECHNICAL Appr: 5DM

ENGINEERS
concrete slab
2 inches sand,
if used
minimum 2-inch-diamcter,
perforated, rigid plastic pipe
(SDR 35 or equivalent}

TYPICAL CROSS-SECTION

UNDERSLAB SUBDRAIN

BODEGA AVENUE SUBDIVISION

SEBASTOPOL, CALIFORNIA
PLATE
1 Attachment 7 Part 2 to Agenda Item Number 8
Attachment 7 Part 2 to Agenda Item Number 8
City Council Meeting Packet of March 1, 2022

EXHIBIT G
Initial Storm Water Low Impact Development Submittal;
Robertson Engineering, Inc.; May 2020
Attachment 7 Part 2 to Agenda Item Number 8
Attachment 7 Part 2 to Agenda Item Number 8
City Council Meeting Packet of March 1, 2022

Attachment 7 Part 2 to Agenda Item Number 8
Attachment 7 Part 2 to Agenda Item Number 8
City Council Meeting Packet of March 1, 2022

Attachment 7 Part 2 to Agenda Item Number 8
Attachment 7 Part 2 to Agenda Item Number 8
City Council Meeting Packet of March 1, 2022

Attachment 7 Part 2 to Agenda Item Number 8
Attachment 7 Part 2 to Agenda Item Number 8
City Council Meeting Packet of March 1, 2022

Attachment 7 Part 2 to Agenda Item Number 8
Attachment 7 Part 2 to Agenda Item Number 8
City Council Meeting Packet of March 1, 2022

Attachment 7 Part 2 to Agenda Item Number 8
Attachment 7 Part 2 to Agenda Item Number 8
City Council Meeting Packet of March 1, 2022

Attachment 7 Part 2 to Agenda Item Number 8
Attachment 7 Part 2 to Agenda Item Number 8
City Council Meeting Packet of March 1, 2022

Attachment 7 Part 2 to Agenda Item Number 8
Attachment 7 Part 2 to Agenda Item Number 8
City Council Meeting Packet of March 1, 2022

Attachment 7 Part 2 to Agenda Item Number 8
Attachment 7 Part 2 to Agenda Item Number 8
City Council Meeting Packet of March 1, 2022

Attachment 7 Part 2 to Agenda Item Number 8
Attachment 7 Part 2 to Agenda Item Number 8
City Council Meeting Packet of March 1, 2022

Attachment 7 Part 2 to Agenda Item Number 8
Attachment 7 Part 2 to Agenda Item Number 8
City Council Meeting Packet of March 1, 2022

Attachment 7 Part 2 to Agenda Item Number 8
Attachment 7 Part 2 to Agenda Item Number 8
City Council Meeting Packet of March 1, 2022

Attachment 7 Part 2 to Agenda Item Number 8
Attachment 7 Part 2 to Agenda Item Number 8
City Council Meeting Packet of March 1, 2022

Attachment 7 Part 2 to Agenda Item Number 8
Attachment 7 Part 2 to Agenda Item Number 8
City Council Meeting Packet of March 1, 2022

Attachment 7 Part 2 to Agenda Item Number 8
Attachment 7 Part 2 to Agenda Item Number 8
City Council Meeting Packet of March 1, 2022

Attachment 7 Part 2 to Agenda Item Number 8
Attachment 7 Part 2 to Agenda Item Number 8
City Council Meeting Packet of March 1, 2022

Attachment 7 Part 2 to Agenda Item Number 8
Attachment 7 Part 2 to Agenda Item Number 8
City Council Meeting Packet of March 1, 2022

Attachment 7 Part 2 to Agenda Item Number 8
Attachment 7 Part 2 to Agenda Item Number 8
City Council Meeting Packet of March 1, 2022

EXHIBIT H
Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment prepared by
Environmental Geology Services; August 2015
Attachment 7 Part 2 to Agenda Item Number 8
Attachment 7 Part 2 to Agenda Item Number 8
City Council Meeting Packet of March 1, 2022

REPORT:

Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment
7950 Bodega Avenue
Sebastopol, California
Sonoma County APN 004-350-024
Prepared For:

Mr. Dante Love
Pendant Homes, Inc.
100 E Street, Suite 317
Santa Rosa, CA 95404
Prepared By:

Environmental Geology Services
6169 Amie Drive
Windsor, CA 95492
www.EGSconsultants.com
_______________________________________________________ David L. Bush, PG 8989
Principal Geologist
Project #532.0815
August 28, 2015
Attachment 7 Part 2 to Agenda Item Number 8
Attachment 7 Part 2 to Agenda Item Number 8
City Council Meeting Packet of March 1, 2022

Environmental Geology Services August 28, 2015 --- Project #532.0815

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ....................................................................................................... Page -1-

2.0 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................... Page -5-

2.1 Purpose ...................................................................................................................... Page -5-

2.1.1 Definitions ................................................................................................... Page -6-

2.2 Scope of Services .................................................................................................... Page -10-

2.2.1 Exclusions ................................................................................................. Page -11-

2.3 Significant Assumptions ........................................................................................... Page -12-

2.4 Limitations and Exceptions ...................................................................................... Page -12-

2.5 Data Gaps ................................................................................................................ Page -13-

2.6 Special Terms and Conditions ................................................................................. Page -14-

2.7 User Reliance .......................................................................................................... Page -14-

2.8 Involved Parties ....................................................................................................... Page -15-

2.9 Shelf Life .................................................................................................................. Page -15-

3.0 GENERAL PROPERTY CHARACTERISTICS .................................................................... Page -16-

3.1 Site Location and Legal Description ........................................................................ Page -16-

3.2 Site and Vicinity General Characteristics ................................................................. Page -16-

3.3 Current Use of the Property ..................................................................................... Page -16-

3.4 Description of Improvements ................................................................................... Page -16-

3.4.1 Structures .................................................................................................. Page -17-

3.4.2 Roads ........................................................................................................ Page -17-

3.4.3 Sewage Disposal ...................................................................................... Page -17-

3.4.4 Water Supply ............................................................................................. Page -17-

3.4.5 Heating and Cooling Systems ................................................................... Page -17-

3.5 Current Use of Adjoining Properties ........................................................................ Page -17-

4.0 USER PROVIDED INFORMATION ..................................................................................... Page -18-

4.1 Title Reports ............................................................................................................. Page -18-

4.2 Environmental Liens ................................................................................................ Page -18-

4.3 Use Limitations ........................................................................................................ Page -18-

4.4 Specialized Knowledge ............................................................................................ Page -18-

4.5 Valuation Reduction for Environmental Issues ........................................................ Page -19-

4.6 Owner, Property Manager, and Occupant Information ............................................ Page -20-

4.7 Reason for Performing Phase I ................................................................................ Page -20-

5.0 RECORDS REVIEW ............................................................................................................ Page -21-

5.1 Standard Environmental Records Sources .............................................................. Page -21-

5.2 Additional Environmental Sources ........................................................................... Page -22-

5.3 Tribal Records .......................................................................................................... Page -22-

5.4 Physical Setting ....................................................................................................... Page -22-

5.4.1 Regional Physiographic Conditions .......................................................... Page -22-

5.4.2 Soil Conditions .......................................................................................... Page -23-

5.4.3 Geologic Conditions ................................................................................ Page -23-

5.4.4 Ground Water Conditions .......................................................................... Page -23-

5.5 Results of Site History and Land Use Review ......................................................... Page -23- Attachment 7 Part 2 to Agenda Item Number 8
Attachment 7 Part 2 to Agenda Item Number 8
City Council Meeting Packet of March 1, 2022

Environmental Geology Services August 28, 2015 --- Project #532.0815

5.5.1 Sanborn Fire Insurance Maps ................................................................... Page -23-

5.5.2 City Directory ............................................................................................. Page -23-

5.5.3 City Records Review ................................................................................. Page -24-

5.5.4 Aerial Photographs .................................................................................... Page -24-

5.5.5 Personal Interviews ................................................................................... Page -25-

5.5.6 Synopsis of Previous and Current Environmental Investigations .............. Page -26-

5.5.7 Summary of Land Use .............................................................................. Page -26-

6.0 SITE RECONNAISSANCE ................................................................................................ Page -27-

6.1 Methodology and Limiting Conditions ...................................................................... Page -27-

6.2 General Site Setting ................................................................................................. Page -27-

6.2.1 Current Use of Subject Property ............................................................... Page -27-

6.2.2 Adjacent Off-Site and Vicinity Observations ............................................. Page -28-

6.3 Exterior Observations .............................................................................................. Page -28-

6.4 Interior Observations ................................................................................................ Page -28-

7.0 INTERVIEWS ...................................................................................................................... Page -29-

7.1 Interviews with Owner and Others ........................................................................... Page -29-

7.2 Interview with Occupants of Subject Property ......................................................... Page -29-

7.3 Interviews with Local Officials .................................................................................. Page -29-

8.0 FINDINGS............................................................................................................................ Page -30-

9.0 CONCLUSIONS .................................................................................................................. Page -32-

10.0 RECOMENDATIONS ........................................................................................................ Page -33-

11.0 PROOF OF QUALIFICATIONS ......................................................................................... Page -34-

12.0 REFERENCES .................................................................................................................. Page -36-

LIST OF APPENDICES
Appendix A Plates
Appendix B Site Photos
Appendix C EDR Radius Map w/ GeoCheck7
Appendix D EDR Historical Aerial Photography Service
Appendix E EDR Historical Topographic Mapping
Appendix F EDR City Directory Abstract
Appendix G EDR Certified Sanborn7
Mapping
Appendix H Title Report
Attachment 7 Part 2 to Agenda Item Number 8
Attachment 7 Part 2 to Agenda Item Number 8
City Council Meeting Packet of March 1, 2022

REPORT: Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Page 1
7950 Bodega Avenue
Sebastopol, California
Sonoma County APN 004-350-024
Environmental Geology Services August 28, 2015 --- Project #532.0815

1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Pursuant to the request and assignment of Mr. Dante Love, Pendant Homes, Inc., 100 E Street, Suite 317, Santa Rosa, CA 95404 (Client), Environmental Geology Services (Consultant), performed a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) on the r eferenced property located at 7950 Bodega Avenue, Sebastopol, Sonoma County, State of California (Plate 1, Site Location Map, Appendix A). The subject property lies within that real property referred to as Sonoma County Assessor Parcel Number (APN) 004-350-024.

Purpose
The Client has requested this Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) as part of their due diligence purchasing the property.

Scope of Work
Environmental Geology Services (EGS) and its= Environmental Professionals researched the site history and historical records to identify past and present land uses as part of due diligence to determine if Recognized Environmental Conditions (REC’s), Historical REC’s (HREC’s), Controlled REC’s (CREC’s), or Vapor Encroachment Conditions (VEC’s) may exist, or may have existed on the property. Our research attempted to identify these conditions as they may relate to hazardous substances or petroleum products released to, or that may have migrated in or through, the environment (soil, soil vapor, and groundwater). EGS also determined if de minimis conditions exist at the site. De minimis conditions are not REC’s, HREC’s, CREC’s, or VEC’s and are excluded from those definitions in accordance with ASTM E1527-13.

EGS=s scope of research and records review consisted of subcontracting a regulatory agency records review to Environmental Data Resources, Inc., conducting file reviews and/or inquiries via the State GeoTracker Database, Department of Toxic Substances (DTSC) Control EnviroStor Database and at the Healdsburg/Sebastopol JPA (HSJPA, Local CUPA), Sonoma County Environmental Health Division (SCEHD), Sonoma County Permit and Resource Management Department (PRMD), North Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board (NC-RWQCB), inquiries with the Client, review of historical aerial photography and topographical maps, and other historical records, as well as interviews with persons who have current and past knowledge of the property including (if available) the current property owner, Client=s representatives and adjacent property owners and/or tenants if possible. In addition, our Environmental Professional conducted a site reconnaissance of the property to visually observe existing conditions. We also observed the adjacent properties to the extent possible without crossing property lines.

Attachment 7 Part 2 to Agenda Item Number 8
Attachment 7 Part 2 to Agenda Item Number 8
City Council Meeting Packet of March 1, 2022

REPORT: Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Page 2
7950 Bodega Avenue
Sebastopol, California
Sonoma County APN 004-350-024
Environmental Geology Services August 28, 2015 --- Project #532.0815 Site and Vicinity Characteristics
Surface topography is generally flat lying, at the top of a local knoll at an elevation of 239 feet above mean sea level (MSL). The property is located in a residential area along Bodega Avenue, approximately ¾ mile west of downtown Sebastopol, California (Plate 1, Site Location Map, Appendix A). Current access to the site is via Golden Ridge Avenue, the nearest cross street to Bodega Avenue (Plate 2, Site Map, Appendix A). The nearest primary surface water body to the site is Atascadero Creek, approximately 3000 feet to the west of the site.

Site Description and Current Use
The property is consists of Sonoma County APN 004-350-024, which totals approximately

0.35+/- acres (Plate 3, AP Map, Appendix A). The subject property is currently vacant, but has historically been developed with a small Quonset hut. The concrete slab for the former Quonset hut remains on the site and totals approximately 550 SF. The remaining portion of the property is vacant, with two remnant apple trees from a previous orchard, a dirt walking path used by neighbors, and various piles of soil and debris that has been dumped on the site along the north and northwest portions of the property.

Previous Site Use
The subject property has been developed with an apple orchard dating back to at least 1942 and likely earlier, based on our review of historic aerial photography. Although the site is currently vacant, an approximately 550 SF concrete slab is present on the north central portion of the site which was the location of a Quonset hut, which first appeared on the site in the historic aerial photograph from 1952. It appears that the Quonset hut was removed from the property sometime during the late 1980’s or early 1990’s based on our aerial photography review.

Surrounding Area Development
Surrounding area development consists of the following:

North of site – Residential
East of site – Residential
South of site – Sebastopol Memorial Lawn Cemetery
Attachment 7 Part 2 to Agenda Item Number 8
Attachment 7 Part 2 to Agenda Item Number 8
City Council Meeting Packet of March 1, 2022