Sebastopol City Council
April 2, 2024

The Canopy Detailed Report, 9/20/2023
80 / 121
Daily, — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Winter
(Max)
Hearths 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Consume
r
Products

1.75 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Architectu
ral
Coatings

0.14 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total 1.89 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Hearths 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Consume
r
Products

0.32 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Architectu
ral
Coatings

0.03 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Landscap
e
Equipme
nt

0.04 < 0.005 0.49 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 1.19 1.19 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.19 Total 0.39 < 0.005 0.49 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 0.00 1.19 1.19 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.19

4.3.2. Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Source ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Hearths 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

The Canopy Detailed Report, 9/20/2023
81 / 121
Consume 1.75 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
r
Architectu
ral
Coatings

0.14 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Landscap
e
Equipme
nt

0.48 0.05 5.45 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 14.6 14.6 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 14.6 Total 2.37 0.05 5.45 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 0.00 14.6 14.6 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 14.6 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Hearths 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Consume
r
Products

1.75 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Architectu
ral
Coatings

0.14 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total 1.89 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Hearths 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Consume
r
Products

0.32 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Architectu
ral
Coatings

0.03 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Landscap
e
Equipme
nt

0.04 < 0.005 0.49 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 1.19 1.19 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.19 Total 0.39 < 0.005 0.49 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 0.00 1.19 1.19 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.19 Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

The Canopy Detailed Report, 9/20/2023
82 / 121

4.4. Water Emissions by Land Use

4.4.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land Use ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Condo/To
wnhouse
High Rise
— — — — — — — — — — 4.94 6.42 11.4 0.51 0.01 — 27.7
Parking
Lot
— — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Apartmen
ts
Low Rise
— — — — — — — — — — 0.99 1.28 2.27 0.10 < 0.005 — 5.54
Total — — — — — — — — — — 5.93 7.70 13.6 0.61 0.01 — 33.2 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Condo/To
wnhouse
High Rise
— — — — — — — — — — 4.94 6.42 11.4 0.51 0.01 — 27.7
Parking
Lot
— — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Apartmen
ts
Low Rise
— — — — — — — — — — 0.99 1.28 2.27 0.10 < 0.005 — 5.54
Total — — — — — — — — — — 5.93 7.70 13.6 0.61 0.01 — 33.2 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Condo/To
wnhouse
High Rise
— — — — — — — — — — 0.82 1.06 1.88 0.08 < 0.005 — 4.58
Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

The Canopy Detailed Report, 9/20/2023
83 / 121
Parking
Lot
— — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Apartmen
ts
Low Rise
— — — — — — — — — — 0.16 0.21 0.38 0.02 < 0.005 — 0.92
Total — — — — — — — — — — 0.98 1.28 2.26 0.10 < 0.005 — 5.50

4.4.2. Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land Use ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Condo/To
wnhouse
High Rise
— — — — — — — — — — 4.94 6.42 11.4 0.51 0.01 — 27.7
Parking
Lot
— — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Apartmen
ts
Low Rise
— — — — — — — — — — 0.99 1.28 2.27 0.10 < 0.005 — 5.54
Total — — — — — — — — — — 5.93 7.70 13.6 0.61 0.01 — 33.2 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Condo/To
wnhouse
High Rise
— — — — — — — — — — 4.94 6.42 11.4 0.51 0.01 — 27.7
Parking
Lot
— — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Apartmen
ts
Low Rise
— — — — — — — — — — 0.99 1.28 2.27 0.10 < 0.005 — 5.54
Total — — — — — — — — — — 5.93 7.70 13.6 0.61 0.01 — 33.2 Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

The Canopy Detailed Report, 9/20/2023
84 / 121
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Condo/To
wnhouse
High Rise
— — — — — — — — — — 0.82 1.06 1.88 0.08 < 0.005 — 4.58
Parking
Lot
— — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Apartmen
ts
Low Rise
— — — — — — — — — — 0.16 0.21 0.38 0.02 < 0.005 — 0.92
Total — — — — — — — — — — 0.98 1.28 2.26 0.10 < 0.005 — 5.50

4.5. Waste Emissions by Land Use

4.5.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land Use ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Condo/To
wnhouse
High Rise
— — — — — — — — — — 31.9 0.00 31.9 3.19 0.00 — 112
Parking
Lot
— — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Apartmen
ts
Low Rise
— — — — — — — — — — 6.38 0.00 6.38 0.64 0.00 — 22.3
Total — — — — — — — — — — 38.3 0.00 38.3 3.83 0.00 — 134 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

The Canopy Detailed Report, 9/20/2023
85 / 121
Condo/To — — — — — — — — — — 31.9 0.00 31.9 3.19 0.00 — 112 wnhouse
High Rise
Parking
Lot
— — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Apartmen
ts
Low Rise
— — — — — — — — — — 6.38 0.00 6.38 0.64 0.00 — 22.3
Total — — — — — — — — — — 38.3 0.00 38.3 3.83 0.00 — 134 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Condo/To
wnhouse
High Rise
— — — — — — — — — — 5.28 0.00 5.28 0.53 0.00 — 18.5
Parking
Lot
— — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Apartmen
ts
Low Rise
— — — — — — — — — — 1.06 0.00 1.06 0.11 0.00 — 3.70
Total — — — — — — — — — — 6.34 0.00 6.34 0.63 0.00 — 22.2

4.5.2. Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land Use ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Condo/To
wnhouse
High Rise
— — — — — — — — — — 31.9 0.00 31.9 3.19 0.00 — 112
Parking
Lot
— — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Apartmen
ts
Low Rise
— — — — — — — — — — 6.38 0.00 6.38 0.64 0.00 — 22.3
Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

The Canopy Detailed Report, 9/20/2023
86 / 121
Total — — — — — — — — — — 38.3 0.00 38.3 3.83 0.00 — 134 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Condo/To
wnhouse
High Rise
— — — — — — — — — — 31.9 0.00 31.9 3.19 0.00 — 112
Parking
Lot
— — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Apartmen
ts
Low Rise
— — — — — — — — — — 6.38 0.00 6.38 0.64 0.00 — 22.3
Total — — — — — — — — — — 38.3 0.00 38.3 3.83 0.00 — 134 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Condo/To
wnhouse
High Rise
— — — — — — — — — — 5.28 0.00 5.28 0.53 0.00 — 18.5
Parking
Lot
— — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Apartmen
ts
Low Rise
— — — — — — — — — — 1.06 0.00 1.06 0.11 0.00 — 3.70
Total — — — — — — — — — — 6.34 0.00 6.34 0.63 0.00 — 22.2

4.6. Refrigerant Emissions by Land Use

4.6.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land Use ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

The Canopy Detailed Report, 9/20/2023
87 / 121
Condo/To — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.55 0.55
wnhouse
Apartmen
ts
Low Rise
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.03 0.03
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.58 0.58
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Condo/To
wnhouse
High Rise
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.55 0.55
Apartmen
ts
Low Rise
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.03 0.03
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.58 0.58
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Condo/To
wnhouse
High Rise
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.09 0.09
Apartmen
ts
Low Rise
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.01 0.01
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.10 0.10

4.6.2. Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land Use ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Condo/To
wnhouse
High Rise
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.55 0.55
Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

The Canopy Detailed Report, 9/20/2023
88 / 121
Apartmen
Low Rise
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.03 0.03
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.58 0.58
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Condo/To
wnhouse
High Rise
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.55 0.55
Apartmen
ts
Low Rise
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.03 0.03
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.58 0.58
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Condo/To
wnhouse
High Rise
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.09 0.09
Apartmen
ts
Low Rise
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.01 0.01
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.10 0.10

4.7. Offroad Emissions By Equipment Type

4.7.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Equipme
nt
Type
ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

The Canopy Detailed Report, 9/20/2023
89 / 121
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

4.7.2. Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Equipme
nt
Type
ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

4.8. Stationary Emissions By Equipment Type

4.8.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Equipme
nt
Type
ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

The Canopy Detailed Report, 9/20/2023
90 / 121
Daily, — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Summer
(Max)
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

4.8.2. Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Equipme
nt
Type
ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

4.9. User Defined Emissions By Equipment Type

4.9.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

The Canopy Detailed Report, 9/20/2023
91 / 121
Equipme
Type
ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

4.9.2. Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Equipme
nt
Type
ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

4.10. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type
Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

The Canopy Detailed Report, 9/20/2023
92 / 121

4.10.1. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Vegetatio
n
ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

4.10.2. Above and Belowground Carbon Accumulation by Land Use Type - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land Use ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

4.10.3. Avoided and Sequestered Emissions by Species - Unmitigated Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

The Canopy Detailed Report, 9/20/2023
93 / 121
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Species ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Sequeste
red
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Removed — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Sequeste
red
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Removed — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Sequeste
red
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

The Canopy Detailed Report, 9/20/2023
94 / 121
Removed — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

4.10.4. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type - Mitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Vegetatio
n
ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

4.10.5. Above and Belowground Carbon Accumulation by Land Use Type - Mitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land Use ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

The Canopy Detailed Report, 9/20/2023
95 / 121
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

4.10.6. Avoided and Sequestered Emissions by Species - Mitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Species ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Sequeste
red
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Removed — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Sequeste
red
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Removed — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

The Canopy Detailed Report, 9/20/2023
96 / 121
Avoided — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Sequeste
red
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Removed — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

5. Activity Data

5.1. Construction Schedule
Phase Name Phase Type Start Date End Date Days Per Week Work Days per Phase Phase Description Demolition - Phase 1 Demolition 6/1/2024 7/18/2024 7.00 48.0 — Demolition - Phase 2 Demolition 3/1/2025 4/15/2025 7.00 46.0 — Site Preparation- Phase 1 Site Preparation 7/19/2024 8/11/2024 7.00 24.0 — Site Preparation - Phase 2 Site Preparation 4/16/2025 5/8/2025 7.00 23.0 — Grading- Phase 1 Grading 8/12/2024 9/28/2024 7.00 48.0 — Grading - Phase 2 Grading 5/9/2025 6/23/2025 7.00 46.0 — Building ConstructionPhase 1Building Construction 9/29/2024 3/28/2026 7.00 546 — Building Construction -
Phase 2
Building Construction 6/24/2025 11/29/2026 7.00 524 —
Paving- Phase 1 Paving 3/29/2026 5/14/2026 7.00 47.0 —
Paving - Phase 2 Paving 11/30/2026 1/13/2027 7.00 45.0 — Architectural CoatingPhase 1Architectural Coating 5/15/2026 6/30/2026 7.00 47.0 — Architectural Coating -
Phase 2
Architectural Coating 1/14/2027 2/27/2027 7.00 45.0 —
Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

The Canopy Detailed Report, 9/20/2023
97 / 121

5.2. Off-Road Equipment

5.2.1. Unmitigated
Phase Name Equipment Type Fuel Type Engine Tier Number per Day Hours Per Day Horsepower Load Factor Demolition - Phase 1 Aerial Lifts Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 46.0 0.31 Demolition - Phase 1 Tractors/Loaders/Backh
oes
Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 84.0 0.37
Demolition - Phase 2 Aerial Lifts Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 46.0 0.31 Demolition - Phase 2 Tractors/Loaders/Backh
oes
Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 84.0 0.37
Site Preparation- Phase
1 Rubber Tired Dozers Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 367 0.40 Site Preparation- Phase
1 Tractors/Loaders/Backh
oes
Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 84.0 0.37
Site Preparation- Phase
1 Scrapers Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 423 0.48
Site Preparation- Phase
1 Graders Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 148 0.41
Site Preparation -
Phase 2
Rubber Tired Dozers Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 367 0.40
Site Preparation -
Phase 2
Tractors/Loaders/Backh
oes
Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 84.0 0.37
Site Preparation -
Phase 2
Graders Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 148 0.41
Site Preparation -
Phase 2
Scrapers Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 423 0.48
Grading- Phase 1 Graders Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 148 0.41 Grading- Phase 1 Tractors/Loaders/Backh
oes
Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 84.0 0.37
Grading- Phase 1 Rubber Tired Dozers Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 367 0.40 Grading- Phase 1 Plate Compactors Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 8.00 0.43 Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

The Canopy Detailed Report, 9/20/2023
98 / 121
Grading- Phase 1 Scrapers Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 423 0.48 Grading - Phase 2 Graders Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 148 0.41 Grading - Phase 2 Tractors/Loaders/Backh
oes
Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 84.0 0.37
Grading - Phase 2 Rubber Tired Dozers Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 367 0.40 Grading - Phase 2 Plate Compactors Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 8.00 0.43 Grading - Phase 2 Scrapers Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 423 0.48 Building ConstructionPhase 1Forklifts Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 82.0 0.20 Building ConstructionPhase 1Cranes Diesel Average 1.00 7.00 367 0.29 Building ConstructionPhase 1Tractors/Loaders/Backh
oes
Diesel Average 1.00 7.00 84.0 0.37
Building ConstructionPhase 1Cement and Mortar
Mixers
Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 10.0 0.56
Building Construction -
Phase 2
Forklifts Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 82.0 0.20
Building Construction -
Phase 2
Cranes Diesel Average 1.00 7.00 367 0.29
Building Construction -
Phase 2
Tractors/Loaders/Backh
oes
Diesel Average 1.00 7.00 84.0 0.37
Building Construction -
Phase 2
Cement and Mortar
Mixers
Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 10.0 0.56
Paving- Phase 1 Paving Equipment Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 89.0 0.36 Paving- Phase 1 Rollers Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 36.0 0.38 Paving- Phase 1 Tractors/Loaders/Backh
oes
Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 84.0 0.37
Paving- Phase 1 Graders Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 148 0.41 Paving - Phase 2 Paving Equipment Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 89.0 0.36 Paving - Phase 2 Rollers Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 36.0 0.38 Paving - Phase 2 Tractors/Loaders/Backh
oes
Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 84.0 0.37
Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

The Canopy Detailed Report, 9/20/2023
99 / 121
Paving - Phase 2 Graders Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 148 0.41 Architectural CoatingPhase 1Cement and Mortar
Mixers
Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 10.0 0.56
Architectural CoatingPhase 1Skid Steer Loaders Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 71.0 0.37 Architectural Coating -
Phase 2
Cement and Mortar
Mixers
Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 10.0 0.56
Architectural Coating -
Phase 2
Skid Steer Loaders Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 71.0 0.37

5.2.2. Mitigated
Phase Name Equipment Type Fuel Type Engine Tier Number per Day Hours Per Day Horsepower Load Factor Demolition - Phase 1 Aerial Lifts Diesel Tier 4 Final 1.00 8.00 46.0 0.31 Demolition - Phase 1 Tractors/Loaders/Backh
oes
Diesel Tier 4 Final 1.00 8.00 84.0 0.37
Demolition - Phase 2 Aerial Lifts Diesel Tier 4 Final 1.00 8.00 46.0 0.31 Demolition - Phase 2 Tractors/Loaders/Backh
oes
Diesel Tier 4 Final 1.00 8.00 84.0 0.37
Site Preparation- Phase
1 Rubber Tired Dozers Diesel Tier 4 Final 1.00 8.00 367 0.40 Site Preparation- Phase
1 Tractors/Loaders/Backh
oes
Diesel Tier 4 Final 2.00 8.00 84.0 0.37
Site Preparation- Phase
1 Scrapers Diesel Tier 4 Final 1.00 8.00 423 0.48
Site Preparation- Phase
1 Graders Diesel Tier 4 Final 1.00 8.00 148 0.41
Site Preparation -
Phase 2
Rubber Tired Dozers Diesel Tier 4 Final 1.00 8.00 367 0.40 Site Preparation -
Phase 2
Tractors/Loaders/Backh
oes
Diesel Tier 4 Final 2.00 8.00 84.0 0.37
Site Preparation -
Phase 2
Graders Diesel Tier 4 Final 1.00 8.00 148 0.41
Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

The Canopy Detailed Report, 9/20/2023
100 / 121
Site Preparation -
Phase 2
Scrapers Diesel Tier 4 Final 1.00 8.00 423 0.48
Grading- Phase 1 Graders Diesel Tier 4 Final 1.00 8.00 148 0.41 Grading- Phase 1 Tractors/Loaders/Backh
oes
Diesel Tier 4 Final 1.00 8.00 84.0 0.37
Grading- Phase 1 Rubber Tired Dozers Diesel Tier 4 Final 1.00 8.00 367 0.40 Grading- Phase 1 Plate Compactors Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 8.00 0.43 Grading- Phase 1 Scrapers Diesel Tier 4 Final 1.00 8.00 423 0.48 Grading - Phase 2 Graders Diesel Tier 4 Final 1.00 8.00 148 0.41 Grading - Phase 2 Tractors/Loaders/Backh
oes
Diesel Tier 4 Final 1.00 8.00 84.0 0.37
Grading - Phase 2 Rubber Tired Dozers Diesel Tier 4 Final 1.00 8.00 367 0.40 Grading - Phase 2 Plate Compactors Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 8.00 0.43 Grading - Phase 2 Scrapers Diesel Tier 4 Final 1.00 8.00 423 0.48 Building ConstructionPhase 1Forklifts Diesel Tier 4 Final 1.00 8.00 82.0 0.20 Building ConstructionPhase 1Cranes Diesel Tier 4 Final 1.00 7.00 367 0.29 Building ConstructionPhase 1Tractors/Loaders/Backh
oes
Diesel Tier 4 Final 1.00 7.00 84.0 0.37
Building ConstructionPhase 1Cement and Mortar
Mixers
Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 10.0 0.56
Building Construction -
Phase 2
Forklifts Diesel Tier 4 Final 1.00 8.00 82.0 0.20
Building Construction -
Phase 2
Cranes Diesel Tier 4 Final 1.00 7.00 367 0.29
Building Construction -
Phase 2
Tractors/Loaders/Backh
oes
Diesel Tier 4 Final 1.00 7.00 84.0 0.37
Building Construction -
Phase 2
Cement and Mortar
Mixers
Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 10.0 0.56
Paving- Phase 1 Paving Equipment Diesel Tier 4 Final 1.00 8.00 89.0 0.36 Paving- Phase 1 Rollers Diesel Tier 4 Final 2.00 8.00 36.0 0.38 Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

The Canopy Detailed Report, 9/20/2023
101 / 121
Paving- Phase 1 Tractors/Loaders/Backh Diesel Tier 4 Final 2.00 8.00 84.0 0.37 Paving- Phase 1 Graders Diesel Tier 4 Final 1.00 8.00 148 0.41 Paving - Phase 2 Paving Equipment Diesel Tier 4 Final 1.00 8.00 89.0 0.36 Paving - Phase 2 Rollers Diesel Tier 4 Final 2.00 8.00 36.0 0.38 Paving - Phase 2 Tractors/Loaders/Backh
oes
Diesel Tier 4 Final 2.00 8.00 84.0 0.37
Paving - Phase 2 Graders Diesel Tier 4 Final 1.00 8.00 148 0.41 Architectural CoatingPhase 1Cement and Mortar
Mixers
Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 10.0 0.56
Architectural CoatingPhase 1Skid Steer Loaders Diesel Tier 4 Final 1.00 8.00 71.0 0.37 Architectural Coating -
Phase 2
Cement and Mortar
Mixers
Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 10.0 0.56
Architectural Coating -
Phase 2
Skid Steer Loaders Diesel Tier 4 Final 1.00 8.00 71.0 0.37

5.3. Construction Vehicles

5.3.1. Unmitigated
Phase Name Trip Type One-Way Trips per Day Miles per Trip Vehicle Mix Demolition - Phase 1 — — — —
Demolition - Phase 1 Worker 5.00 11.7 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Demolition - Phase 1 Vendor — 8.40 HHDT,MHDT
Demolition - Phase 1 Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Demolition - Phase 1 Onsite truck — — HHDT
Site Preparation- Phase 1 — — — —
Site Preparation- Phase 1 Worker 12.5 11.7 LDA,LDT1,LDT2 Site Preparation- Phase 1 Vendor — 8.40 HHDT,MHDT
Site Preparation- Phase 1 Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

The Canopy Detailed Report, 9/20/2023
102 / 121
Site Preparation- Phase 1 Onsite truck—— HHDT
Grading- Phase 1————
Grading- Phase 1 Worker 12.5 11.7 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Grading- Phase 1 Vendor— 8.40 HHDT,MHDT
Grading- Phase 1 Hauling 5.46 20.0 HHDT
Grading- Phase 1 Onsite truck—— HHDT
Building Construction- Phase 1————
Building Construction- Phase 1 Worker 69.1 11.7 LDA,LDT1,LDT2 Building Construction- Phase 1 Vendor 10.3 8.40 HHDT,MHDT Building Construction- Phase 1 Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Building Construction- Phase 1 Onsite truck—— HHDT
Paving- Phase 1————
Paving- Phase 1 Worker 15.0 11.7 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Paving- Phase 1 Vendor— 8.40 HHDT,MHDT
Paving- Phase 1 Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Paving- Phase 1 Onsite truck—— HHDT
Architectural Coating- Phase 1————
Architectural Coating- Phase 1 Worker 27.6 11.7 LDA,LDT1,LDT2 Architectural Coating- Phase 1 Vendor— 8.40 HHDT,MHDT
Architectural Coating- Phase 1 Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Architectural Coating- Phase 1 Onsite truck—— HHDT
Demolition - Phase 2————
Demolition - Phase 2 Worker 5.00 11.7 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Demolition - Phase 2 Vendor— 8.40 HHDT,MHDT
Demolition - Phase 2 Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Demolition - Phase 2 Onsite truck—— HHDT
Site Preparation - Phase 2————
Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

The Canopy Detailed Report, 9/20/2023
103 / 121
Site Preparation - Phase 2 Worker 12.5 11.7 LDA,LDT1,LDT2 Site Preparation - Phase 2 Vendor — 8.40 HHDT,MHDT
Site Preparation - Phase 2 Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Site Preparation - Phase 2 Onsite truck — — HHDT
Grading - Phase 2 — — — —
Grading - Phase 2 Worker 12.5 11.7 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Grading - Phase 2 Vendor — 8.40 HHDT,MHDT
Grading - Phase 2 Hauling 4.26 20.0 HHDT
Grading - Phase 2 Onsite truck — — HHDT
Building Construction - Phase 2 — — — —
Building Construction - Phase 2 Worker 69.1 11.7 LDA,LDT1,LDT2 Building Construction - Phase 2 Vendor 10.3 8.40 HHDT,MHDT Building Construction - Phase 2 Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Building Construction - Phase 2 Onsite truck — — HHDT
Paving - Phase 2 — — — —
Paving - Phase 2 Worker 15.0 11.7 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Paving - Phase 2 Vendor — 8.40 HHDT,MHDT
Paving - Phase 2 Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Paving - Phase 2 Onsite truck — — HHDT
Architectural Coating - Phase 2 — — — —
Architectural Coating - Phase 2 Worker 28.0 11.7 LDA,LDT1,LDT2 Architectural Coating - Phase 2 Vendor — 8.40 HHDT,MHDT Architectural Coating - Phase 2 Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Architectural Coating - Phase 2 Onsite truck — — HHDT

5.3.2. Mitigated
Phase Name Trip Type One-Way Trips per Day Miles per Trip Vehicle Mix Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

The Canopy Detailed Report, 9/20/2023
104 / 121
Demolition - Phase 1————
Demolition - Phase 1 Worker 5.00 11.7 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Demolition - Phase 1 Vendor— 8.40 HHDT,MHDT
Demolition - Phase 1 Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Demolition - Phase 1 Onsite truck—— HHDT
Site Preparation- Phase 1————
Site Preparation- Phase 1 Worker 12.5 11.7 LDA,LDT1,LDT2 Site Preparation- Phase 1 Vendor— 8.40 HHDT,MHDT
Site Preparation- Phase 1 Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Site Preparation- Phase 1 Onsite truck—— HHDT
Grading- Phase 1————
Grading- Phase 1 Worker 12.5 11.7 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Grading- Phase 1 Vendor— 8.40 HHDT,MHDT
Grading- Phase 1 Hauling 5.46 20.0 HHDT
Grading- Phase 1 Onsite truck—— HHDT
Building Construction- Phase 1————
Building Construction- Phase 1 Worker 69.1 11.7 LDA,LDT1,LDT2 Building Construction- Phase 1 Vendor 10.3 8.40 HHDT,MHDT Building Construction- Phase 1 Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Building Construction- Phase 1 Onsite truck—— HHDT
Paving- Phase 1————
Paving- Phase 1 Worker 15.0 11.7 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Paving- Phase 1 Vendor— 8.40 HHDT,MHDT
Paving- Phase 1 Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Paving- Phase 1 Onsite truck—— HHDT
Architectural Coating- Phase 1————
Architectural Coating- Phase 1 Worker 27.6 11.7 LDA,LDT1,LDT2 Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

The Canopy Detailed Report, 9/20/2023
105 / 121
Architectural Coating- Phase 1 Vendor— 8.40 HHDT,MHDT
Architectural Coating- Phase 1 Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Architectural Coating- Phase 1 Onsite truck—— HHDT
Demolition - Phase 2————
Demolition - Phase 2 Worker 5.00 11.7 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Demolition - Phase 2 Vendor— 8.40 HHDT,MHDT
Demolition - Phase 2 Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Demolition - Phase 2 Onsite truck—— HHDT
Site Preparation - Phase 2————
Site Preparation - Phase 2 Worker 12.5 11.7 LDA,LDT1,LDT2 Site Preparation - Phase 2 Vendor— 8.40 HHDT,MHDT
Site Preparation - Phase 2 Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Site Preparation - Phase 2 Onsite truck—— HHDT
Grading - Phase 2————
Grading - Phase 2 Worker 12.5 11.7 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Grading - Phase 2 Vendor— 8.40 HHDT,MHDT
Grading - Phase 2 Hauling 4.26 20.0 HHDT
Grading - Phase 2 Onsite truck—— HHDT
Building Construction - Phase 2————
Building Construction - Phase 2 Worker 69.1 11.7 LDA,LDT1,LDT2 Building Construction - Phase 2 Vendor 10.3 8.40 HHDT,MHDT Building Construction - Phase 2 Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Building Construction - Phase 2 Onsite truck—— HHDT
Paving - Phase 2————
Paving - Phase 2 Worker 15.0 11.7 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Paving - Phase 2 Vendor— 8.40 HHDT,MHDT
Paving - Phase 2 Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

The Canopy Detailed Report, 9/20/2023
106 / 121
Paving - Phase 2 Onsite truck — — HHDT
Architectural Coating - Phase 2 — — — —
Architectural Coating - Phase 2 Worker 28.0 11.7 LDA,LDT1,LDT2 Architectural Coating - Phase 2 Vendor — 8.40 HHDT,MHDT Architectural Coating - Phase 2 Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Architectural Coating - Phase 2 Onsite truck — — HHDT

5.4. Vehicles

5.4.1. Construction Vehicle Control Strategies
Non-applicable. No control strategies activated by user.

5.5. Architectural Coatings
Phase Name Residential Interior Area Coated
(sq ft)
Residential Exterior Area Coated
(sq ft)
Non-Residential Interior Area
Coated (sq ft)
Non-Residential Exterior Area
Coated (sq ft)
Parking Area Coated (sq ft)
Architectural Coating- Phase 1 84,456 28,152 0.00 0.00 697 Architectural Coating - Phase 2 80,784 26,928 0.00 0.00 667

5.6. Dust Mitigation

5.6.1. Construction Earthmoving Activities
Phase Name Material Imported (Cubic Yards) Material Exported (Cubic Yards) Acres Graded (acres) Material Demolished (sq. ft.) Acres Paved (acres) Demolition - Phase 1 0.00 0.00 0.00 — —
Demolition - Phase 2 0.00 0.00 0.00 — —
Site Preparation- Phase 1 0.00 0.00 48.0 0.00 —
Site Preparation - Phase 2 0.00 0.00 46.0 0.00 —
Grading- Phase 1 2,092 0.00 96.0 0.00 —
Grading - Phase 2 0.00 1,566 92.0 0.00 —
Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

The Canopy Detailed Report, 9/20/2023
107 / 121
Paving- Phase 1 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.52
Paving - Phase 2 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.52

5.6.2. Construction Earthmoving Control Strategies
Non-applicable. No control strategies activated by user.

5.7. Construction Paving
Land Use Area Paved (acres) % Asphalt
Condo/Townhouse High Rise — 0%
Parking Lot 0.52 100%
Apartments Low Rise — 0%

5.8. Construction Electricity Consumption and Emissions Factors kWh per Year and Emission Factor (lb/MWh)
Year kWh per Year CO2 CH4 N2O
2024 0.00 204 0.03 < 0.005
2025 0.00 204 0.03 < 0.005
2026 0.00 204 0.03 < 0.005
2027 0.00 204 0.03 < 0.005

5.9. Operational Mobile Sources

5.9.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Type Trips/Weekday Trips/Saturday Trips/Sunday Trips/Year VMT/Weekday VMT/Saturday VMT/Sunday VMT/Year Condo/Townhouse
High Rise
576 576 576 210,240 4,649 4,649 4,649 1,696,962
Parking Lot 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

The Canopy Detailed Report, 9/20/2023
108 / 121
Apartments Low 108 108 108 39,478 873 873 873 318,652
Rise

5.9.2. Mitigated
Land Use Type Trips/Weekday Trips/Saturday Trips/Sunday Trips/Year VMT/Weekday VMT/Saturday VMT/Sunday VMT/Year Condo/Townhouse
High Rise
576 576 576 210,240 4,649 4,649 4,649 1,696,962
Parking Lot 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Apartments Low
Rise
108 108 108 39,478 873 873 873 318,652

5.10. Operational Area Sources

5.10.1. Hearths

5.10.1.1. Unmitigated
Hearth Type Unmitigated (number)
Condo/Townhouse High Rise —
Wood Fireplaces 0
Gas Fireplaces 0
Propane Fireplaces 0
Electric Fireplaces 0
No Fireplaces 80
Conventional Wood Stoves 0
Catalytic Wood Stoves 0
Non-Catalytic Wood Stoves 0
Pellet Wood Stoves 0
Apartments Low Rise —
Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

The Canopy Detailed Report, 9/20/2023
109 / 121
Wood Fireplaces0
Gas Fireplaces0
Propane Fireplaces0
Electric Fireplaces0
No Fireplaces 16
Conventional Wood Stoves0
Catalytic Wood Stoves0
Non-Catalytic Wood Stoves0
Pellet Wood Stoves0

5.10.1.2. Mitigated
Hearth Type Unmitigated (number)
Condo/Townhouse High Rise—
Wood Fireplaces0
Gas Fireplaces0
Propane Fireplaces0
Electric Fireplaces0
No Fireplaces 80
Conventional Wood Stoves0
Catalytic Wood Stoves0
Non-Catalytic Wood Stoves0
Pellet Wood Stoves0
Apartments Low Rise—
Wood Fireplaces0
Gas Fireplaces0
Propane Fireplaces0
Electric Fireplaces0
Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

The Canopy Detailed Report, 9/20/2023
110 / 121
No Fireplaces 16
Conventional Wood Stoves 0
Catalytic Wood Stoves 0
Non-Catalytic Wood Stoves 0
Pellet Wood Stoves 0

5.10.2. Architectural Coatings
Residential Interior Area Coated (sq ft) Residential Exterior Area Coated (sq ft) Non-Residential Interior Area Coated (sq ft)
Non-Residential Exterior Area Coated
(sq ft)
Parking Area Coated (sq ft)
165240 55,080 0.00 0.00 1,364

5.10.3. Landscape Equipment
Season Unit Value
Snow Days day/yr 0.00
Summer Days day/yr 180

5.10.4. Landscape Equipment - Mitigated
Season Unit Value
Snow Days day/yr 0.00
Summer Days day/yr 180

5.11. Operational Energy Consumption

5.11.1. Unmitigated
Electricity (kWh/yr) and CO2 and CH4 and N2O and Natural Gas (kBTU/yr) Land Use Electricity (kWh/yr) CO2 CH4 N2O Natural Gas (kBTU/yr) Condo/Townhouse High Rise 518,756 204 0.0330 0.0040 0.00 Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

The Canopy Detailed Report, 9/20/2023
111 / 121
Parking Lot 19,919 204 0.0330 0.0040 0.00
Apartments Low Rise 130,471 204 0.0330 0.0040 0.00

5.11.2. Mitigated
Electricity (kWh/yr) and CO2 and CH4 and N2O and Natural Gas (kBTU/yr) Land Use Electricity (kWh/yr) CO2 CH4 N2O Natural Gas (kBTU/yr) Condo/Townhouse High Rise 518,756 204 0.0330 0.0040 0.00 Parking Lot 19,919 204 0.0330 0.0040 0.00
Apartments Low Rise 130,471 204 0.0330 0.0040 0.00

5.12. Operational Water and Wastewater Consumption

5.12.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Indoor Water (gal/year) Outdoor Water (gal/year) Condo/Townhouse High Rise 2,578,944 0.00
Parking Lot 0.00 0.00
Apartments Low Rise 515,789 0.00

5.12.2. Mitigated
Land Use Indoor Water (gal/year) Outdoor Water (gal/year) Condo/Townhouse High Rise 2,578,944 0.00
Parking Lot 0.00 0.00
Apartments Low Rise 515,789 0.00

5.13. Operational Waste Generation

5.13.1. Unmitigated
Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

The Canopy Detailed Report, 9/20/2023
112 / 121
Land Use Waste (ton/year) Cogeneration (kWh/year)
Condo/Townhouse High Rise 59.2 —
Parking Lot 0.00 —
Apartments Low Rise 11.8 —

5.13.2. Mitigated
Land Use Waste (ton/year) Cogeneration (kWh/year)
Condo/Townhouse High Rise 59.2 —
Parking Lot 0.00 —
Apartments Low Rise 11.8 —

5.14. Operational Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Equipment

5.14.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Type Equipment Type Refrigerant GWP Quantity (kg) Operations Leak Rate Service Leak Rate Times Serviced Condo/Townhouse High
Rise
Average room A/C &
Other residential A/C
and heat pumps
R-410A 2,088 < 0.005 2.50 2.50 10.0
Condo/Townhouse High
Rise
Household refrigerators
and/or freezers
R-134a 1,430 0.12 0.60 0.00 1.00
Apartments Low Rise Average room A/C &
Other residential A/C
and heat pumps
R-410A 2,088 < 0.005 2.50 2.50 10.0
Apartments Low Rise Household refrigerators
and/or freezers
R-134a 1,430 0.12 0.60 0.00 1.00

5.14.2. Mitigated
Land Use Type Equipment Type Refrigerant GWP Quantity (kg) Operations Leak Rate Service Leak Rate Times Serviced Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

The Canopy Detailed Report, 9/20/2023
113 / 121
Condo/Townhouse High R-410A 2,088 < 0.005 2.50 2.50 10.0 Rise
Average room A/C &
Other residential A/C
and heat pumps
Condo/Townhouse High
Rise
Household refrigerators
and/or freezers
R-134a 1,430 0.12 0.60 0.00 1.00
Apartments Low Rise Average room A/C &
Other residential A/C
and heat pumps
R-410A 2,088 < 0.005 2.50 2.50 10.0
Apartments Low Rise Household refrigerators
and/or freezers
R-134a 1,430 0.12 0.60 0.00 1.00

5.15. Operational Off-Road Equipment

5.15.1. Unmitigated
Equipment Type Fuel Type Engine Tier Number per Day Hours Per Day Horsepower Load Factor

5.15.2. Mitigated
Equipment Type Fuel Type Engine Tier Number per Day Hours Per Day Horsepower Load Factor

5.16. Stationary Sources

5.16.1. Emergency Generators and Fire Pumps
Equipment Type Fuel Type Number per Day Hours per Day Hours per Year Horsepower Load Factor

5.16.2. Process Boilers
Equipment Type Fuel Type Number Boiler Rating (MMBtu/hr) Daily Heat Input (MMBtu/day) Annual Heat Input (MMBtu/yr)

5.17. User Defined
Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

The Canopy Detailed Report, 9/20/2023
114 / 121
Equipment Type Fuel Type

5.18. Vegetation

5.18.1. Land Use Change

5.18.1.1. Unmitigated
Vegetation Land Use Type Vegetation Soil Type Initial Acres Final Acres

5.18.1.2. Mitigated
Vegetation Land Use Type Vegetation Soil Type Initial Acres Final Acres

5.18.1. Biomass Cover Type

5.18.1.1. Unmitigated
Biomass Cover Type Initial Acres Final Acres

5.18.1.2. Mitigated
Biomass Cover Type Initial Acres Final Acres

5.18.2. Sequestration

5.18.2.1. Unmitigated
Tree Type Number Electricity Saved (kWh/year) Natural Gas Saved (btu/year)

5.18.2.2. Mitigated
Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

The Canopy Detailed Report, 9/20/2023
115 / 121
Tree Type Number Electricity Saved (kWh/year) Natural Gas Saved (btu/year)

6. Climate Risk Detailed Report

6.1. Climate Risk Summary
Cal-Adapt midcentury 2040–2059 average projections for four hazards are reported below for your project location. These are under Representation Concentration Pathway (RCP) 8.5 which assumes GHG emissions will continue to rise strongly through 2050 and then plateau around 2100.

Climate Hazard Result for Project Location Unit
Temperature and Extreme Heat 8.86 annual days of extreme heat Extreme Precipitation 18.6 annual days with precipitation above 20 mm Sea Level Rise 0.00 meters of inundation depth
Wildfire 4.51 annual hectares burned
Temperature and Extreme Heat data are for grid cell in which your project are located. The projection is based on the 98th historical percentile of daily maximum/minimum temperatures from observed historical data (32 climate model ensemble from Cal-Adapt, 2040–2059 average under RCP 8.5). Each grid cell is 6 kilometers (km) by 6 km, or 3.7 miles (mi) by 3.7 mi.

Extreme Precipitation data are for the grid cell in which your project are located. The threshold of 20 mm is equivalent to about ¾ an inch of rain, which would be light to moderate rainfall if received over a full day or heavy rain if received over a period of 2 to 4 hours. Each grid cell is 6 kilometers (km) by 6 km, or 3.7 miles (mi) by 3.7 mi.

Sea Level Rise data are for the grid cell in which your project are located. The projections are from Radke et al. (2017), as reported in Cal-Adapt (2040–2059 average under RCP 8.5), and consider different increments of sea level rise coupled with extreme storm events. Users may select from four model simulations to view the range in potential inundation depth for the grid cell. The four simulations make different assumptions about expected rainfall and temperature are: Warmer/drier (HadGEM2-ES), Cooler/wetter (CNRM-CM5), Average conditions (CanESM2), Range of different rainfall and temperature possibilities (MIROC5). Each grid cell is 50 meters (m) by 50 m, or about 164 feet (ft) by 164 ft.

Wildfire data are for the grid cell in which your project are located. The projections are from UC Davis, as reported in Cal-Adapt (2040–2059 average under RCP 8.5), and consider historical data of climate, vegetation, population density, and large (> 400 ha) fire history. Users may select from four model simulations to view the range in potential wildfire probabilities for the grid cell. The four simulations make different assumptions about expected rainfall and temperature are: Warmer/drier (HadGEM2-ES), Cooler/wetter (CNRM-CM5), Average conditions (CanESM2), Range of different rainfall and temperature possibilities (MIROC5). Each grid cell is 6 kilometers (km) by 6 km, or 3.7 miles (mi) by 3.7 mi.

6.2. Initial Climate Risk Scores
Climate Hazard Exposure Score Sensitivity Score Adaptive Capacity Score Vulnerability Score Temperature and Extreme Heat N/A N/A N/A N/A
Extreme Precipitation 5 0 0 N/A
Sea Level Rise 1 0 0 N/A
Wildfire 1 0 0 N/A
Flooding N/A N/A N/A N/A
Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

The Canopy Detailed Report, 9/20/2023
116 / 121
Drought N/A N/A N/A N/A
Snowpack Reduction N/A N/A N/A N/A
Air Quality Degradation 0 0 0 N/A
The sensitivity score reflects the extent to which a project would be adversely affected by exposure to a climate hazard. Exposure is rated on a scale of 1 to 5, with a score of 5 representing the greatest exposure.

The adaptive capacity of a project refers to its ability to manage and reduce vulnerabilities from projected climate hazards. Adaptive capacity is rated on a scale of 1 to 5, with a score of 5 representing the greatest ability to adapt.

The overall vulnerability scores are calculated based on the potential impacts and adaptive capacity assessments for each hazard. Scores do not include implementation of climate risk reduction measures.

6.3. Adjusted Climate Risk Scores
Climate Hazard Exposure Score Sensitivity Score Adaptive Capacity Score Vulnerability Score Temperature and Extreme Heat N/A N/A N/A N/A
Extreme Precipitation 5 1 1 4
Sea Level Rise 1 1 1 2
Wildfire 1 1 1 2
Flooding N/A N/A N/A N/A
Drought N/A N/A N/A N/A
Snowpack Reduction N/A N/A N/A N/A
Air Quality Degradation 1 1 1 2
The sensitivity score reflects the extent to which a project would be adversely affected by exposure to a climate hazard. Exposure is rated on a scale of 1 to 5, with a score of 5 representing the greatest exposure.

The adaptive capacity of a project refers to its ability to manage and reduce vulnerabilities from projected climate hazards. Adaptive capacity is rated on a scale of 1 to 5, with a score of 5 representing the greatest ability to adapt.

The overall vulnerability scores are calculated based on the potential impacts and adaptive capacity assessments for each hazard. Scores include implementation of climate risk reduction measures.

6.4. Climate Risk Reduction Measures

7. Health and Equity Details

7.1. CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Scores
The maximum CalEnviroScreen score is 100. A high score (i.e., greater than 50) reflects a higher pollution burden compared to other census tracts in the state.

Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

The Canopy Detailed Report, 9/20/2023
117 / 121
Indicator Result for Project Census Tract
Exposure Indicators —
AQ-Ozone 6.38
AQ-PM 5.09
AQ-DPM 32.7
Drinking Water 59.7
Lead Risk Housing 50.0
Pesticides 78.9
Toxic Releases 0.95
Traffic 35.2
Effect Indicators —
CleanUp Sites 0.00
Groundwater 84.3
Haz Waste Facilities/Generators 16.6
Impaired Water Bodies 58.7
Solid Waste 70.4
Sensitive Population —
Asthma 31.1
Cardio-vascular 20.6
Low Birth Weights 20.9
Socioeconomic Factor Indicators —
Education 22.2
Housing 63.3
Linguistic 3.74
Poverty 30.8
Unemployment 77.1
Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

The Canopy Detailed Report, 9/20/2023
118 / 121

7.2. Healthy Places Index Scores
The maximum Health Places Index score is 100. A high score (i.e., greater than 50) reflects healthier community conditions compared to other census tracts in the state.

Indicator Result for Project Census Tract
Economic —
Above Poverty 60.25920698
Employed 89.43924034
Median HI 61.32426537
Education —
Bachelor's or higher 75.15719235
High school enrollment 11.8311305
Preschool enrollment 46.13114333
Transportation —
Auto Access 76.73553189
Active commuting 78.09572693
Social —
2-parent households 31.79776723
Voting 98.54998075
Neighborhood —
Alcohol availability 24.08571795
Park access 49.53163095
Retail density 40.95983575
Supermarket access 72.92441935
Tree canopy 94.23841909
Housing —
Homeownership 45.09174901
Housing habitability 55.54985243
Low-inc homeowner severe housing cost burden 60.70832799 Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

The Canopy Detailed Report, 9/20/2023
119 / 121
Low-inc renter severe housing cost burden 21.80161684
Uncrowded housing 96.93314513
Health Outcomes —
Insured adults 64.54510458
Arthritis 0.0
Asthma ER Admissions 61.3
High Blood Pressure 0.0
Cancer (excluding skin) 0.0
Asthma 0.0
Coronary Heart Disease 0.0
Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease 0.0
Diagnosed Diabetes 0.0
Life Expectancy at Birth 66.1
Cognitively Disabled 35.0
Physically Disabled 54.0
Heart Attack ER Admissions 80.5
Mental Health Not Good 0.0
Chronic Kidney Disease 0.0
Obesity 0.0
Pedestrian Injuries 64.9
Physical Health Not Good 0.0
Stroke 0.0
Health Risk Behaviors —
Binge Drinking 0.0
Current Smoker 0.0
No Leisure Time for Physical Activity 0.0
Climate Change Exposures —
Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

The Canopy Detailed Report, 9/20/2023
120 / 121
Wildfire Risk 0.0
SLR Inundation Area 0.0
Children 87.0
Elderly 16.8
English Speaking 65.2
Foreign-born 14.4
Outdoor Workers 64.4
Climate Change Adaptive Capacity —
Impervious Surface Cover 86.7
Traffic Density 36.3
Traffic Access 23.0
Other Indices —
Hardship 26.5
Other Decision Support —
2016 Voting 98.9

7.3. Overall Health & Equity Scores
Metric Result for Project Census Tract
CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Score for Project Location (a) 26.0 Healthy Places Index Score for Project Location (b) 74.0 Project Located in a Designated Disadvantaged Community (Senate Bill 535) No Project Located in a Low-Income Community (Assembly Bill 1550) No Project Located in a Community Air Protection Program Community (Assembly Bill 617) No a: The maximum CalEnviroScreen score is 100. A high score (i.e., greater than 50) reflects a higher pollution burden compared to other census tracts in the state. b: The maximum Health Places Index score is 100. A high score (i.e., greater than 50) reflects healthier community conditions compared to other census tracts in the state.

7.4. Health & Equity Measures
Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

The Canopy Detailed Report, 9/20/2023
121 / 121
No Health & Equity Measures selected.

7.5. Evaluation Scorecard
Health & Equity Evaluation Scorecard not completed.

7.6. Health & Equity Custom Measures
No Health & Equity Custom Measures created.

8. User Changes to Default Data
Screen Justification
Land Use Sum of project site is 6.1 acres. Each ADU is approximately 300 square feet Construction: Construction Phases Phase 1: June 2024 to June 2026 and Phase 2: March 2025 to February 2027.

Construction: Off-Road Equipment Based on applicant provided information Operations: Vehicle Data Based on TIS provided by W-Trans. 684 daily vehicle trips Operations: Hearths No fireplaces based on applicant provided information Operations: Architectural Coatings Based on BAAQMD Regulation 8 Rule 3 Construction: Architectural Coatings Based on BAAQMD Regulation 8 Rule 3 Operations: Energy Use The project would not include natural gas. Converted naturgal gas assumptions to electricity Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

Appendix C
Biological Resources Analysis
Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

Normal
Biological Resource Analysis
“The Canopy”
Sebastopol, Sonoma County, California
Prepared for
City Ventures
444 Spear Street
Suite 200
San Francisco, CA 94105
Prepared by
Integral Consulting Inc.
433 Visitacion Avenue
Brisbane, CA 94005
July 2023
Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

Gravenstein Highway Residential Project
Biological Resource Analysis July 2023
ii

CONTENTS
LIST OF FIGURES .............................................................................................................iv LIST OF TABLES ............................................................................................................... v ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS ...................................................................................vi 1 Introduction ............................................................................................................ 1-1

1.1 PURPOSE OF THE DOCUMENT ..............................................................................1-1

1.2 PROJECT LOCATION..............................................................................................1-1 2 Proposed Project ..................................................................................................... 2-1

2.1 PROJECT OVERVIEW.............................................................................................2-1

2.2 SIGNIFICANCE THRESHOLDS FOR PROJECT IMPACTS ........................................2-1 3 Current Condition of Natural Environment................................................................ 3-1

3.1 PERSONNEL AND SURVEY DATES .........................................................................3-1

3.1.1 General Site Survey....................................................................................3-1

3.2 LIMITATIONS AND ASSUMPTIONS THAT MAY INFLUENCE RESULTS....................3-1

3.3 EXISTING CONDITIONS........................................................................................3-1

3.3.1 Soils...........................................................................................................3-2 4 Potential Impacts to Special-Status Species ............................................................ 4-1

4.1 APPLICABLE LAWS................................................................................................4-1

4.1.1 Endangered Species Act of 1973...............................................................4-1

4.1.2 Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA)...............................................................4-1

4.1.3 California Endangered Species Act (CESA).................................................4-2

4.1.4 California Native Plant Protection Act and California Fish and Game Code (Plants) .............................................................................................4-2

4.1.5 California Fish and Game Code (Fully Protected Species)..........................4-2

4.1.6 California Fish and Game Code (Birds).......................................................4-2

4.1.7 CDFW Species of Special Concern..............................................................4-3

4.2 METHODOLOGY.....................................................................................................4-3

4.3 SPECIAL-STATUS PLANTS IN VICINITY OF THE PROJECT SITE............................4-4

4.4 SPECIAL-STATUS WILDLIFE IN VICINITY OF THE PROJECT SITE ........................4-4

4.4.1 Special-Status Birds...................................................................................4-5

4.5 IMPACT ASSESSMENT...........................................................................................4-5

4.5.1 Special-Status Birds...................................................................................4-5 Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

Gravenstein Highway Residential Project
Biological Resource Analysis July 2023
iii
5 Potential Impacts to Special-Status Habitats ........................................................... 5-1

5.1 APPLICABLE LAWS................................................................................................5-1

5.1.1 Section 404 Clean Water Act (CWA)...........................................................5-1

5.1.2 National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit Program .....................................................................................................5-1

5.1.3 Section 401 Clean Water Act (CWA)...........................................................5-2

5.1.4 FESA ..........................................................................................................5-2

5.2 METHODOLOGY.....................................................................................................5-2

5.3 AQUATIC RESOURCES...........................................................................................5-3

5.4 CRITICAL HABITAT................................................................................................5-3

5.5 WILDLIFE CORRIDORS AND NURSERY SITES.......................................................5-3

5.6 SENSITIVE NATURAL COMMUNITIES....................................................................5-3

5.7 IMPACT ASSESSMENT...........................................................................................5-4

5.7.1 Waters of the U.S./State.............................................................................5-4

5.7.2 Critical Habitat...........................................................................................5-4

5.7.3 Wildlife Corridors and Nursery Sites ..........................................................5-4

5.7.4 Sensitive Natural Communities..................................................................5-4 6 Applicable Local Plans, Ordinances, and Laws ......................................................... 6-1

6.1 SEBASTOPOL GENERAL PLAN 2035......................................................................6-1

6.1.1 Goal COS 6: Conserve, Protect, and Enhance Trees and Native Vegetation..................................................................................................6-1

6.2 SEBASTOPOL TREE ORDINANCE...........................................................................6-2 7 Mitigation Measures................................................................................................. 7-4

7.1 BIOLOGICAL IMPACT 1: NESTING BIRDS .............................................................7-4

7.1.1 Mitigation Measure BIO-1..........................................................................7-4

7.2 BIOLOGICAL IMPACT 2: TREES.............................................................................7-5

7.2.1 Mitigation Measure BIO-2..........................................................................7-5 8 References .............................................................................................................. 8-1 Appendix A. Tables of Special-Status Plant and Wildlife Species Known to Occur in the Vicinity of the Project Site
Appendix B. Tree Inventory Report (prepared by Horticultural Associates) Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

Gravenstein Highway Residential Project
Biological Resource Analysis July 2023
iv

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Site and Vicinity Map
Figure 2. Special-Status Plants Known to Occur in the Vicinity of the Project Site Figure 3. Special-Status Wildlife Known to Occur in the Vicinity of the Project Site Figure 4. Designated Critical Habitat Map
Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

Gravenstein Highway Residential Project
Biological Resource Analysis July 2023
v

LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. Plants Observed on Project Site
Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

Gravenstein Highway Residential Project
Biological Resource Analysis July 2023
vi

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
AMSL above mean sea level
BMP best management practice
CDFW California Department of Fish and Wildlife
CEQA California Environmental Quality Act
CESA California Endangered Species Act
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
CNDDB California Natural Diversity Database
CNPS California Native Plant Society
CWA Clean Water Act
DPS Distinct Population Segment
FESA Federal Endangered Species Act
LID Low Impact Development
MBTA Migratory Bird Treaty Act
MND Mitigated Negative Declaration
MS4s municipal separate storm sewer systems
NMFS National Marine Fisheries Service
NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
PBF physical or biological features
Porter Cologne Porter Cologne Water Quality Control Act quad quadrangle
Regional Water Board Regional Water Quality Control Board SWRCB California State Water Resources Control Board
USACE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
U.S.C. United States Code
USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
USGS U.S. Geological Survey
WDR waste discharge requirements
WOTUS waters of the U.S./State
Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

Gravenstein Highway Residential Project
Biological Resource Analysis July 2023
vii
Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

Gravenstein Highway Residential Project
Biological Resource Analysis July 2023
1-1
1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 PURPOSE OF THE DOCUMENT
The City of Sebastopol is requiring a Biological Resource Analysis for the construction of an approximately 6.1-acre medium-density residential development (”The Canopy” [the Project]) within the City of Sebastopol, in accordance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (California Public Resources Code, Division 13, Section 2100 et seq.) and CEQA Guidelines (Title 14, California Code of Regulations, Chapter 3, Section 15000 et seq.). The City of Sebastopol is the CEQA Lead Agency for the Project.

The purpose of this Biological Resource Analysis is to gather information necessary to complete a review of biological resources and potential Project effects to those resources under CEQA. The analysis herein considers the Project location in conjunction with proposed work activities to analyze potential Project-related impacts on the natural environment.

1.2 PROJECT LOCATION
The 6.1-acre Gravenstein Highway Residential Project site (Project site) is located at 1003- 1011 Gravenstein Highway North in Sebastopol, Sonoma County, California (Figure 1. Project Site and Vicinity Map). The site is composed of two parcels: Assessor’s Parcel Numbers 060- 261-028 and 060-261-026. For the purposes of this BRA, the Project site assessed herein includes the approximately 6.1-acre Project Site is located on the northern boundary of the City of Sebastopol, Sonoma County, California (the approximate center of the Project Site is at 38°41'17.26"N, 122°84'03.34"W). The Project Site is located east of the intersection of Mill Station Road and the Gravenstein Highway. The Project Site is bound to the north by a public trail, existing residential development, and a charter school, to the south by existing residential development and an existing commercial development (including buildings and parking lots), and to the east by Hurlburt Avenue, and to the west by Gravenstein Highway.

Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

Gravenstein Highway Residential Project
Biological Resource Analysis July 2023
2-1
2 PROPOSED PROJECT

2.1 PROJECT OVERVIEW
The proposed Project includes the construction of an approximately 6.1-acre residential development, with 80 townhome style condominiums, and associated infrastructure, utilities, an access road, a play area, and landscaping, as well as a 6’ wide pedestrian pathway to connect the Joe Rodota Trail to Gravenstein Highway on the southern border of the site. Project implementation would include the, mass grading of the entire Project site (with the exception of locations where trees are to be protected in-place which includes the area roughly within the dripline of the trees), and construction of project components.

The Project would be constructed using typical site grading, site improvement, and Type ‘V’ wood-framed construction techniques per the California Building Code requirements. Project implementation would require the use of water trucks, scrapers, compactors, bulldozers, caterpillars, back-hoes, augers, concrete trucks, and assorted other hand tools and professional grade equipment.

Pending Project approval, grading is anticipated to commence in mid-2024 with Project completion proposed for late-2025. Crews typically would work during daylight hours and consistently with the City of Sebastopol’s ordinances for construction. These dates and times are subject to change, pending issuance of project permits and agency authorizations.

2.2 SIGNIFICANCE THRESHOLDS FOR PROJECT IMPACTS
Potential impacts associated with implementation of the Project are addressed in the following sections. In accordance with Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines, Project-related impacts would be considered significant if the Project would result in one or more of the following effects:
a. Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special-status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by CDFW or USFWS; or b. Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by CDFW or USFWS; or
c. Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the CWA (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means; or Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

Gravenstein Highway Residential Project
Biological Resource Analysis July 2023
2-2
d. Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites; or
e. Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan.

Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

Gravenstein Highway Residential Project
Biological Resource Analysis July 2023
3-1
3 CURRENT CONDITION OF NATURAL ENVIRONMENT

3.1 PERSONNEL AND SURVEY DATES

3.1.1 General Site Survey
Integral Consulting Inc personnel Cameron Johnson conducted a general site survey of the Project site on May 21, 2021, to record biological resources and to assess the likelihood of resource agency regulated areas on the Project site. Sadie McGarvey and Luke Davies conducted an updated survey of the Project site on July 18, 2023, to document current site conditions. These surveys involved searching all habitats on the site and recording all plant and wildlife species observed, cross-referencing the onsite habitats against the habitat requirements of regionally known special-status species to determine suitability of the Project site to support such species.

3.2 LIMITATIONS AND ASSUMPTIONS THAT MAY INFLUENCE RESULTS All necessary portions of the Project site were accessible to the surveying biologists. protocol rare-plant surveys have not been completed. Wildlife species, however, may be cryptic, generally difficult to detect, transient, nocturnal, or migratory species that may only occur within the Project site for short or fleeting time periods. Wildlife species may only be active during particular times of the year, such as the breeding season, or may only use the Project site temporarily. For these reasons, plant and wildlife species may be present but not observed. This limitation may influence the study results.

3.3 EXISTING CONDITIONS
The Project Site overall is relatively flat with a gentle western-facing slope, with elevations ranging from approximately 200 feet above mean sea level (AMSL) at the eastern border to approximately 190 feet AMSL at the northwestern corner of the site. The Project Site consists of a remnant apple orchard that is interspersed with native trees including coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia), Douglas fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii), valley oak (Quercus lobata), and Coast redwood (Sequoia sempervirens).

The southeastern portion of the Project site was formerly occupied by a community garden, however, at the time the July 2023 survey, the garden boxes had been removed and the site was dominated by ruderal vegetation. Ruderal vegetation is characterized by species that colonize and thrive in disturbed areas, collectively referred to as ruderal species. These species may be native or non-native, but are often thought of as “weedy” species. Dominant species included non-native herbaceous species such as bristly ox-tongue (Helminthotheca Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

Gravenstein Highway Residential Project
Biological Resource Analysis July 2023
3-2
echioides), French broom (Genista monspessulana), wild radish (Raphanus sativus), and hairy cat’s-ear (Hypochaeris radicata). Lesser dominants include non-native grasses such as slender wild oats (Avena barbata), rip-gut brome (Bromus diandrus), soft chess (Bromus hordeaceus), and foxtail barley (Hordeum murinum).

Overall, the Project site is highly disturbed and actively managed. At the time of the site visit, the orchard portions of the site had been recently disced and there was minimal herbaceous vegetation present, and the ruderal portion of the site had been recently mowed and there was evidence of significant weedy herbaceous vegetation present on the site prior to mowing. The edges of the Project Site are dominated by dense Himalayan blackberry (Rubus armeniacus) thickets and ruderal vegetation, in areas where the equipment could not access. A list of all observed onsite plant species is included in Table 1.

3.3.1 Soils
According to the Natural Resource Conservation Service, two soil units, or types, have been mapped on the Project Site (NRCS 2021): Goldridge fine sandy loam, 2 to 9 Percent Slopes, representing approximately 21% of the on-site soils, and Sebastopol sandy loam, 2 to 9% slopes, representing approximately 79% of the onsite soils. Goldridge fine sandy loam is listed as a hydric soil on the California Hydric Soils List for Sonoma County; Sebastapol sandy loam is not a listed hydric soil.

Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

Gravenstein Highway Residential Project
Biological Resource Analysis July 2023
4-1
4 POTENTIAL IMPACTS TO SPECIAL-STATUS SPECIES

4.1 APPLICABLE LAWS
Special-status species include species considered to be rare by federal and/or state resource agencies (USFWS, National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), CDFW) and/or the scientific community (CNPS) and are accordingly legally protected pursuant to the federal, state, and/or local laws described below in addition to CEQA.

4.1.1 Endangered Species Act of 1973
The Endangered Species Act of 1973 (referred to as the Federal Endangered Species Act [FESA]) prohibits the “take” of any wildlife species listed by the USFWS or NMFS (collectively referred to as the Services) as threatened or endangered, including the destruction of habitat that could hinder species recovery. The term “take” is defined by FESA as harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, collect, or attempt to engage in any such conduct, with habitat protected under the “harm” and “harass” definitions. The USFWS and NMFS oversee the implementation of FESA (50 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) § 402.7, Section 305(b)(4)(B)) and have regulatory authority over listed plants, wildlife, and fish. When species are listed as endangered or threatened under FESA, the federal government is also directed to designate critical habitat for these species. To remain compliant with the FESA, federal agencies, such as USACE, are required to consult with the resource agencies prior to issuance of a permit if a project may adversely affect a federally listed species. If USACE is able to determine the project would have no effect on a listed species (when there is no potential for presence of a listed species), no additional consultation is required.

The USFWS and NMFS administer the FESA and authorize exceptions to the take provisions through issuance of Biological Opinions in consultation with the federal action agency (e.g., USACE or the Federal Emergency Management Agency). The USFWS has primary responsibility for terrestrial and freshwater organisms, whereas the responsibilities of the NMFS are mainly marine wildlife, such as whales, and anadromous fish, such as salmon.

4.1.2 Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA)
The MBTA of 1918 (16 United States Code (U.S.C.) 703-712; Ch. 128; July 13, 1918; 40 Stat. 755; as amended in 1936; 1960, 1968, 1969, 1974, 1978, 1986, and 1998) (between the United States, Canada, Mexico, and Japan) prohibits the take (harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or attempt to engage in any such conduct) of any migratory bird or any part, nest, or egg of any such bird. The USFWS issues permits for take of migratory birds related to scientific collecting, banding and marking, falconry, raptor propagation, depredation, import, export, taxidermy, waterfowl sale and disposal, and special purposes.

Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

Gravenstein Highway Residential Project
Biological Resource Analysis July 2023
4-2

4.1.3 California Endangered Species Act (CESA)
The CESA prohibits the “take” of any wildlife species listed as endangered and threatened by the State of California. The term “take” is defined by Fish and Game Code Section 86 as hunt, pursue, catch, capture, or kill, or attempt to hunt, pursue, catch, capture, or kill. Section 2090 of the CESA requires state agencies to comply with regulations for protection and recovery of listed species and to promote conservation of these species. CDFW administers the CESA and authorizes exceptions to the take provisions through Section 2081 agreements (Incidental Take Permits) (except for designated “fully protected species”). Regarding rare plant species, the CESA defers to the California Native Plant Protection Act of 1977. Species that the California Fish and Game Commission has noticed as being under review for listing by CDFW are likewise given full CESA protection.

4.1.4 California Native Plant Protection Act and California Fish and Game Code (Plants)
The CNPS designates California Rare Plants through a ranking system. Ranks 1A, 1B, and 2 meet the definitions established in Section 1901, Chapter 10 (Native Plant Protection Act of 1977) or Sections 2062 and 2067 of the CESA and are eligible for state listing. Some Rank 3 and 4 plants may fall under Section 15380 of the CEQA Guidelines.

4.1.5 California Fish and Game Code (Fully Protected Species) The State of California designated 37 species of wildlife that were rare or faced possible extinction with the classification of Fully Protected in the 1960s to provide additional protection to those species. To provide additional protections for wildlife that is rare or faces potential extinction, California Fish and Game Code Sections 3511, 4700, 5050, and 5515 designate “fully protected” status for specific birds, mammals, reptiles, amphibians, and fish.

Fully protected species cannot be taken or possessed at any time and no licenses or permits can be issued for their take. Exceptions are established for scientific research collection, relocation of the bird species for the protection of livestock, and take resulting from recovery activities for state-listed species.

4.1.6 California Fish and Game Code (Birds)
California Fish and Game Code Section 3503 prohibits the take of nest or eggs of any bird.

Raptors and other fully protected bird species are further protected in Sections 3503.5 and 3511, which state that these species or parts thereof may not be taken or possessed at any time.

Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

Gravenstein Highway Residential Project
Biological Resource Analysis July 2023
4-3

4.1.7 CDFW Species of Special Concern
A species of special concern is an administrative designation given by CDFW to a native species that meets one or more of the following criteria: is extirpated from the state; is federally (but not state) listed; is experiencing, or formerly experienced, population declines or range restrictions; or has naturally small populations at high risk of declines. While this designation carries no legal status, CEQA Guidelines Section 15380 clearly indicates that species of special concern should be included in an analysis of project impacts.

4.2 METHODOLOGY
Information about special status species that could occur on the Project site was obtained from the following sources:
• CNDDB RareFind 5 (CDFW 2021; CDFW 2023)
• CNPS Inventory of Rare, Threatened, and Endangered Plants of California (CNPS 2023) • Existing literature as cited in the text
The CNDDB was used to query all special-status species with known occurrences within 3 miles of the Project site. A query of the CNPS Inventory of Rare, Threatened, and Endangered Plants of California was conducted for state and federally listed and candidate species, as well as CNPS-ranked species known to occur within the same U.S. Geological Survey 7.5-Minute quadrangle (quad) as the Project site (Sebastopol quad) and/or one or more of the 8 quads surrounding the Project site, to determine additional special-status plants with potential to occur on the Project site.

The species identified in these searches were compiled in tables (Appendix A) and evaluated for likelihood of occurrence on the Project site. The potential for species to be adversely affected by the Project was classified as high, moderate, low, or none using the following definitions:
• High: The potential for a species to occur was considered high when the Project site was located within the range of the species, recorded observations were identified within known dispersal distance of the Project site, and suitable habitat was present on the Project site.
• Moderate: The potential for a species to occur was considered moderate when the Project site was located within the range of the species, recorded observations were identified nearby but outside known dispersal distance of the Project site, and suitable habitat was present on the Project site. A moderate classification was also assigned when recorded observations were identified within known dispersal distance of the Project site but habitat on the Project site was of limited or marginal quality.

Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

Gravenstein Highway Residential Project
Biological Resource Analysis July 2023
4-4
• Low: The potential for a species to occur was considered low when the Project site was within the range of the species, but no recorded observations within known dispersal distance were identified, and habitat on the Project site was limited or of marginal quality. The potential for a species to occur was also classified as low when the Project site was located at the edge of a species’ range and recorded observations were extremely rare, but habitat on the Project site was suitable. • None: The potential for a species to occur was considered none when a species was not expected to occur within or adjacent to the Project site due to lack of suitable habitat and recorded observations within dispersal distance from the Project site.

4.3 SPECIAL-STATUS PLANTS IN VICINITY OF THE PROJECT SITE According to the CNDDB and the CNPS Inventory of Rare, Threatened, and Endangered Plants of California, a total of 39 special-status plant species are known to occur in the vicinity of the Project site. All of these species require specialized habitats that do not occur within the Project site’s ruderal and orchard vegetation communities, including chapparal, bogs and fens, marshes and swamps, meadows and seeps, riparian, coastal habitats, woodlands and forests.

A brief description of each of these species is included within Appendix A (Table A-1), including the species’ status, habitat, and probability of occurring on the Project site. No special-status plants have been observed onsite during general surveys.

4.4 SPECIAL-STATUS WILDLIFE IN VICINITY OF THE PROJECT SITE According to the CNDDB and existing literature, a total of 7 special-status wildlife species are known to occur within 3 miles of the Project site. A brief description of each of these species is included in Appendix A (Table A-2), including the species’ status, habitat, and probability of occurring within the Project site.

Due to lack of suitable habitat, all of the regionally known special-status wildlife species identified as occurring in the vicinity of the Project site are not expected to occur on the Project site. The routinely disturbed and actively managed ruderal and orchard habitats on the Project site do not provide necessary habitat components for these special-status species, which require the following habitat types:
• streams/rivers (Coho salmon - Central California Coast Evolutionary Significant Unit [Oncorhynchus kisutch], steelhead - Central California Coast Distinct Population Segment [Oncorhynchus mykiss irideus] and California freshwater shrimp [Syncaris pacifica])
• marshes/lagoons or emergent wetlands (tri-colored blackbird [Agelaius tricolor]) Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

Gravenstein Highway Residential Project
Biological Resource Analysis July 2023
4-5
• habitats adjacent to ponds and/or streams (California giant salamander [Dicamptodon ensatus], western pond turtle [Emys marmorata], and California red-legged frog [Rana draytonii])
• grasslands adjacent to seasonal wetlands and ponds on the Santa Rosa Plain (California tiger salamander [Ambystoma californiense])

4.4.1 Special-Status Birds
The ruderal habitat and the onsite trees provide suitable nesting habitat for a variety of birds including passerines and raptors. No nests were observed onsite, however, owing to the mobile nature of birds and the seasonality of their nesting cycle, and in light of the presence of abundant suitable nesting habitat onsite, it is possible that birds could nest on the Project site during future nesting seasons.

4.5 IMPACT ASSESSMENT

4.5.1 Special-Status Birds
As part of site preparation activities, the entire Project site (with the exception of locations where trees are to be protected in-place) would be graded and compacted, and onsite shrubs and trees would be removed, resulting in permanent impacts to suitable nesting bird habitat.

While it is unlikely that the Project would result in take of individual birds, active nests (i.e., nests with viable eggs and/or chicks) may be affected by Project-related activities that result in nest abandonment or destruction.

Implementation of the Mitigation Measure BIO-1, which requires preconstruction nesting bird surveys as well as monitoring of nests observed onsite until a qualified biologist determines that nesting is complete and young have fledged, would minimize potential for adverse effects on nesting birds. Accordingly, while Project implementation could result in impacts to specialstatus birds, these impacts would be reduced to a level considered less than significant pursuant to CEQA.

Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

Gravenstein Highway Residential Project
Biological Resource Analysis July 2023
5-1
5 POTENTIAL IMPACTS TO SPECIAL-STATUS HABITATS

5.1 APPLICABLE LAWS
Aquatic resources and special status species habitats are regulated by state and federal resource agencies (USACE, California State Water Resources Control Board [SWRCB], and CDFW) and are accordingly legally protected via the federal and/or state laws defined below in addition to CEQA.

5.1.1 Section 404 Clean Water Act (CWA)
Section 404 of the CWA, administered by USACE, establishes a program to regulate the discharge of dredged or fill material into waters of the United States, including open water. Per Section 404, a permit is required prior to discharge of fill material into waters of the United States, unless the activity is exempt from Section 404 regulation.

Waters of the United States generally include tidal waters, lakes, ponds, rivers, streams (including intermittent streams), and wetlands. Other waters are non-tidal, perennial, and intermittent watercourses and tributaries to such watercourses [33 C.F.R. 328.3(a), 51 F.R. 41250, November 13, 1986].

5.1.2 National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit Program
The NPDES Permit Program, also authorized by the CWA, controls water pollution by regulating point sources (discrete conveyances such as pipes or constructed ditches) that discharge pollutants into waters of the United States. The implementation of this federal program has been charged to the State of California for implementation through the SWRCB and Regional Water Quality Control Boards (Regional Water Board). In California, NPDES permits are also referred to as waste discharge requirements (WDR) that regulate discharges to waters of the United States.

Also implemented by the Regional Water Board is the Municipal Storm Water Permitting Program, which regulates storm water discharges from municipal separate storm sewer systems (MS4s). The MS4 Permit Program was established to restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity waters of the U.S./State and reduce/eliminate storm water pollution.

Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

Gravenstein Highway Residential Project
Biological Resource Analysis July 2023
5-2

5.1.3 Section 401 Clean Water Act (CWA)
The SWRCB and its nine regional water boards have been charged with the protection and enhancement of water quality in the state of California. Pursuant to the Porter Cologne Water Quality Control Act (Porter Cologne), waters of the State are defined as “any surface water or groundwater, including saline waters, within the boundaries of the state.” This is generally taken to include all waters of the U.S., all surface waters not considered to be waters of the U.S. (non-jurisdictional wetlands), groundwater, and territorial seas (with territorial boundaries extending 3.0 nautical miles beyond outermost islands, reefs, and rocks and includes all waters between the islands and the coast). Per Porter Cologne, the Regional Water Board has authority to regulate discharges of fill and dredged material into Waters of the State.

5.1.4 FESA
When species are listed as endangered or threatened under FESA, the federal government is also directed to designate critical habitat for these species. Critical habitat is designated by the Services to protect areas that are essential to the survival of federally listed wildlife species.

Under FESA, critical habitat is defined as a “specific geographic areas that contain features essential to the conservation of an endangered or threatened species and that may require special management and protection.” When designating critical habitat, the Services focused on the principal biological or physical features in the defined area that are essential to the conservation of the listed species. These features are termed primary constituent elements.

The 2016 critical habitat regulations (81 FR 7214, Feb. 11, 2016, codified at 50 CFR 402.02) replaced this term with physical or biological features (PBFs). The FESA requires Federal agencies to use their authorities to conserve endangered and threatened species and to consult USFWS and/or NMFS about actions that they carry out, fund, or authorize to ensure that they will not destroy or adversely modify critical habitat.

5.2 METHODOLOGY
Information about aquatic resources and special-status habitats that could occur on the Project site was obtained from the following sources:
• CNDDB RareFind 5 (CDFW 2021; CDFW 2023
• USFWS Critical Habitat shapefiles
• Existing literature as cited in the text
The CNDDB was used to query all special-status habitats with known occurrences within 3 miles of the Project site. USFWS shapefiles were used to map critical habitat in the vicinity of the Project site.

Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

Gravenstein Highway Residential Project
Biological Resource Analysis July 2023
5-3

5.3 AQUATIC RESOURCES
The Project site does not support any potentially jurisdictional WOTUS under the jurisdiction of the USACE pursuant to the CWA (Section 404) and under the jurisdiction of the State Water Quality Control Board pursuant to the CWA (Section 401) and Porter Cologne.

5.4 CRITICAL HABITAT
The Project site does not occur within or near any designated critical habitat. A single designated critical habitat unit occurs approximately 1.2 miles east of the Project site. This critical habitat was designated for the Sonoma County California tiger salamander Distinct Population Segment (DPS) in 2011 (Federal Register 76:54346-54372)(Figure 3. Critical Habitat Map).

5.5 WILDLIFE CORRIDORS AND NURSERY SITES
The Project site does not act as a wildlife corridor or a nursery site. A wildlife corridor is a portion of land that adjoins two or more larger areas of similar natural environment, often connecting wildlife populations separated by natural or created activities, disturbances, or structures. Wildlife corridors are used for dispersal and migration of wildlife, allowing for genetic exchange, population growth, and access to larger stretches of suitable habitats, and reducing habitat fragmentation. While the Project site provides marginal resting and roosting habitat, it is isolated from adjacent parcels by development and the heavily trafficked Highway 12 and Sebastopol Road.

A nursery site is an area where juveniles occur at higher densities, avoid predation more successfully, or grow faster there than in a different habitat (Beck et. al. 2001). The Project site exhibits no evidence of being a nursery site. While suitable nesting bird habitat occurs onsite, the site’s small size, disturbed condition, and location within a developed and disturbed setting preclude its use as a nursery location.

5.6 SENSITIVE NATURAL COMMUNITIES
No Sensitive Natural Communities occur on the Project site. According to the CNDDB, three Sensitive Natural Communities occur in the vicinity of the Project site: Northern Hardpan Vernal Pool, Northern Vernal Pool, and Coastal and Valley Freshwater Marsh. However, there is no evidence for any of these Sensitive Natural Communities on site. No vernal pools or marshes occur on the Project site, and these Sensitive Natural Communities likewise do not occur onsite.

Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

Gravenstein Highway Residential Project
Biological Resource Analysis July 2023
5-4
Coast Live Oak, a component of Coast Live Oak Woodland and Forest Sensitive Natural Community (Code 71.060.00), occurs on the Project site. The collective definition of Coast Live Oak Woodland and Forest provided by CNPS (CNPS 2023b) includes coast live oak as a dominant or co-dominant in the upland tree canopy with big leaf maple (Acer macrophyllum), madrone (Arbutus menziesii), California black walnut (Juglans californica), blue oak (Quercus douglasii), Engelmann oak (Quercus engelmannii), California black oak (Quercus kelloggii), valley oak, and California bay (Umbellularia californica), with a relative canopy cover of 50%.

Coast live oaks do not make up 50% or greater of the canopy cover in areas where they occur on the Project site. Accordingly, the plant community associated with the Coast Live Oak Woodland and Forest community does not occur onsite.

Waters of the State are generally likewise identified as a sensitive natural community by CDFW, however there are no waters of the State that occur on the Project site.

5.7 IMPACT ASSESSMENT

5.7.1 Waters of the U.S./State
Project implementation would not result in impacts to waters of the U.S./State.

5.7.2 Critical Habitat
Project implementation would not result in impacts to designated critical habitat.

5.7.3 Wildlife Corridors and Nursery Sites
Project implementation would not result in impacts to wildlife corridors or nursery sites.

5.7.4 Sensitive Natural Communities
Project implementation would not result in impacts to Sensitive Natural Communities.

Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

Gravenstein Highway Residential Project
Biological Resource Analysis July 2023
6-1
6 APPLICABLE LOCAL PLANS, ORDINANCES, AND LAWS

6.1 SEBASTOPOL GENERAL PLAN 2035
The General Plan 2035 was adopted by the City of Sebastopol in 2016. The General Plan is the guiding document for development within the City of Sebastopol and addresses issues related to physical development, growth management, transportation services, public facilities, community design, energy efficiency, and conservation of resources through Goals and Policies that are required for projects within the City of Sebastopol Planning Area.

Additional local natural resource conservation and land use policies presented within the 2035 General Plan are applicable to the proposed Project. Only policy measures and recommendations regarding impacts to natural resources and deemed pertinent to the proposed Project are addressed in this section. Policies regarding specific project requirements such as County implementation of the review process and specific action recommendations for local, state, or federal agencies are not addressed below. Similarly, policy measures and recommendations that are clearly referring to projects or activities that are not related to the proposed Project (e.g., development on hillsides, filling and dredging of lagoons, etc.) are not addressed below.

6.1.1 Goal COS 6: Conserve, Protect, and Enhance Trees and Native Vegetation
Policy COS 6-1
Conserve existing native vegetation where possible and integrate regionally native plant species into development and infrastructure projects where appropriate.

A total of 41 trees and additional understory vegetation will be removed as part of site preparation, both native and non-native species will be included. The city of Sebastopol prescribes a replacement ratio of 2:1 for native trees with a d.b.h of at least 10 inches and nonnative trees with a d.b.h of at least 20 inches. Implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-2 below, which would include replacement of trees removed from the Project site would ensure that the Project would not result in a conflict with General Plan Policy COS 6-1.

Policy COS 6-2
Require the use of primarily locally sourced native and drought-tolerant plants and trees for landscaping on public projects, if feasible, and strongly encourage their use for landscaping on private projects.

The trees to be planted for landscaping purposes on the Project site will be native species.

Landscape plans shall be approved by the City prior to issuance of building permits.

Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

Gravenstein Highway Residential Project
Biological Resource Analysis July 2023
6-2
Policy COS 6-3
Avoid removal of large, mature trees that provide wildlife habitat or contribute to the visual quality of the environment through appropriate project design and building siting. If full avoidance is not possible, prioritize planting of replacement trees on-site over off-site locations.

Replacement trees for high-quality mature trees should generally be of like kind, and provide for comparable habitat functionality, where appropriate site conditions exist.

A total of 41 trees as defined by the City of Sebastopol are to be removed from the project site.

Implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-2 below, which would include replacement of trees removed from the Project site would ensure that the Project would not result in a conflict with General Plan Policy COS 6-3.

Policy COS 6-4
Facilitate the preservation of existing trees, the planting of additional street trees, and the replanting of trees lost through disease, new construction or by other means.

A total of 41 trees as defined by the City of Sebastopol are to be removed from the project site.

Implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-2 below, which would include replacement of trees removed from the Project site would ensure that the Project would not result in a conflict with General Plan Policy COS 6-4.

Policy COS 6-5
Require new development to incorporate trees in landscape plans.

Native trees shall be incorporated into the landscaping plans of the development. Landscape plans shall be approved by the City prior to issuance of building permits.

6.2 SEBASTOPOL TREE ORDINANCE
The City of Sebastopol adheres to a tree ordinance (Municiple Code: Chapter 8.12 – Trees Protection) (Tree Ordinance) in order to regulate the removal of large and/or significant trees (which include heritage, protected, or street trees). For undeveloped properties, the removal, alteration (i.e., trimming), or relocation of trees 4-inch or greater in diameter requires a tree removal permit. Further, the tree ordinance requires that proposed development preserve and protect heritage trees present onsite to the greatest extent possible.

An arborist survey was conducted on the Project site by Horticultural Associates in October 2022 (Appendix B). A total of 133 trees with a diameter of 6-inches or greater were identified onsite. Project implementation would require removal of 16 Coast Live Oak, 1 valley oak, 14 Coast redwood, 2 Black Oak, 5 Douglas Fir, and 3 ornamental trees. Orchard trees such as apple and pears are not included in the arborist survey as they are not protected species and Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

Gravenstein Highway Residential Project
Biological Resource Analysis July 2023
6-3
most are generally over-mature, declining, decayed or dying back. The City of Sebastopol prescribes tree replacement for all trees removed. Implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO2 below, which would include replacement of trees removed from the Project site would ensure that the Project would not result in a conflict with the Tree Ordinance.

Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

Gravenstein Highway Residential Project
Biological Resource Analysis July 2023
7-4
7 MITIGATION MEASURES
Potential impacts associated with implementation of the proposed Project are addressed below. With implementation of the specific mitigation measures recommended below, all Project-related impacts to natural resources can be reduced to a level considered less than significant.

7.1 BIOLOGICAL IMPACT 1: NESTING BIRDS
The onsite vegetation and structures provide suitable nesting habitat for various birds protected pursuant to the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and California Fish and Game Code, Sections 3503, 3503.5, and 3511. Project-related activities could result in take of protected birds in the form of disturbance causing nest abandonment or destruction. The mitigation measure presented below would reduce these impacts to a level considered less than significant pursuant to the CEQA.

7.1.1 Mitigation Measure BIO-1
Vegetation removal, ground disturbance, or structure removal (collectively referred to as construction activities) shall be scheduled to avoid the bird nesting season to the greatest extent possible. The nesting season for most birds and raptors in the San Francisco Bay Area is February 1 thought September 15.

If construction activities cannot be scheduled to occur between September 16 and January 31, pre-construction surveys for nesting birds and raptors shall be completed by a qualified ornithologist or biologist to ensure that no nests shall be disturbed during project implementation. This survey shall be completed no more than 14 days prior to the initiation of construction activities. During this survey, the qualified ornithologist/biologist shall inspect all suitable nesting habitat on the Project site and within the zone of influence (the area immediately surrounding the Project site that supports suitable nesting habitat that could be impacted by the proposed Project due to visual or auditory disturbance associated with the removal of vegetation and construction activities scheduled to occur during the nesting season)
If an active nest is found sufficiently close to the work areas to be disturbed by construction activities, the qualified ornithologist/biologist, in consultation with the California Department of Fish and Wildlife, shall determine the extent of a construction free buffer zone to be established around the nest, typically 250 feet, to ensure than protected bird and raptor nests shall not be disturbed during project construction. This buffer shall remain in place until such a time as the young have been determined (by a qualified ornithologist/biologist) to have fledged.

Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

Gravenstein Highway Residential Project
Biological Resource Analysis July 2023
7-5
Prior to the initiation of construction activities, the qualified ornithologist/biologist shall submit a report indicating the results of the survey and any designated buffer zones to the satisfaction of the Director of the Planning, Building, and Code Enforcement or the Director’s designee.

7.2 BIOLOGICAL IMPACT 2: TREES
A total of 41 trees would be removed from the Project site as a result of Project implementation. As such, implementation of the Project has the potential to conflict with the City of Sebastopol Tree Ordinance. The following mitigation measure would ensure that the Project does not conflict with the City of Sebastopol Tree Ordinance.

7.2.1 Mitigation Measure BIO-2
All protected ordinance-sized trees removed from the Project site shall be replaced as appropriate for the size class and species of the tree removed, based on the City of Sebastopol tree mitigation requirements for native, non-native, and orchard trees. Replacement ratios for individual trees to be removed is 2:1.). Replacement trees shall be either planted onsite or at a City-approved offsite location, or a fee of $75 per replacement tree would be provided to the City of Sebastopol tree fund in-lieu off-site tree planting in the community. If onsite/offsite planting is implemented, a replacement tree planting plan shall be approved by the City along with landscape plans prior to Project implementation.

Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

Gravenstein Highway Residential Project
Biological Resource Analysis July 2023
8-1
8 REFERENCES
Beck, M.W., K.L. Heck, K.W. Able, D.L. Childers, D.B. Eggleston, B.M. Gillanders, B. Halpern, C.G.

Hays, K. Hoshino, T.J. Minello, R.J. Orth, P.F. Sheridan, M.P. Weinstein. 2001. The Identification, Conservation, and Management of Estuarine and Marine Nurseries for Fish and Invertebrates:

A better understanding of the habitats that serve as nurseries for marine species and the factors that create site-specific variability in nursery quality will improve conservation and management of these areas. BioScience, Volume 51, Issue 8, August 2001, Pages 633–641, https://doi.org/10.1641/0006-3568(2001)051[0633:TICAMO]2.0.CO;2 CDFW. 2021. California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) – Commercial version dated March 2, 2021. https://map.dfg.ca.gov/rarefind/view/RareFind.aspx.

CDFW. 2023. California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) – Commercial versions dated July 5, 2023. https://map.dfg.ca.gov/rarefind/view/RareFind.aspx.

CNPS (California Native Plant Society). 2021. Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants of California (online edition, v8-03). Website http://www.rareplants.cnps.org. Accessed July 21, 2023.

CNPS (California Native Plant Society). 2023. Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants of California (online edition, v9-01 1.5). Website http://www.rareplants.cnps.org. Accessed July 21, 2023
CNPS (California Native Plant Society). 2023b. A Manual of California Vegetation, Online Edition. http://www.cnps.org/cnps/vegetation/; searched on [Accessed July 21, 2023].

California Native Plant Society, Sacramento, CA.CDFG. 2000. Guidelines for assessing the effects of proposed developments on rare and endangered plants and plant communities.

December 9, 1983, revised May 8, 2000.

Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

Appendix A.

Special-Status Plant and Wildlife Species Known to Occur in the Vicinity of the Project Site July 2023 Integral Consulting Inc. Page 1 of 6
Table A-1. Special-Status Plant Species Known to Occur in the Vicinity of the Project Site Common Name Scientific Name Status Habitat Type/Components Occurrence Information Probability of Occurring on the Project Site Sonoma alopecurus Alopecurus aequalis var.
sonomensis
Federally Endangered
CNPS Rank 1B.1
Freshwater marshes and
swamps, and riparian scrub
This species has been recorded on the same
USGS quad as the Project site (Sebastopol)
None. No marshes or swamps or riparian habitats
occur on or near the Project site. The Project site does not provide suitable habitat for this species.

Vine Hill Manzanita Arctostaphylos densiflora State Endangered CNPS Rank 1B.1
Acid marine sand chaparral This species has been recorded on the same USGS quad as the Project site (Sebastopol)
None. No chaparral occurs on or near the Project site.

The Project site does not provide suitable habitat for
this species.

Rincon Ridge Manzanita Arctostaphylos stanfordiana ssp. decumbens
CNPS Rank 1B.1 Rhyolitic chaparral and
cismontane woodland
CNPS Inventory 9-Quad Search None. No woodlands or chaparral occur on or near the Project site. The Project site does not provide suitable habitat for this species.

Sonoma Sunshine Blennosperma bakeri Federally Endangered California Endangered
CNPS Rank 1B.1
Mesic valley and foothill
grassland, and vernal pools
The closest record for this species occurs
approximately 1.4 miles west of the Project
site (CNDDB Occurrence No. 37).

None. The project site does not provide suitable mesic
habitat for this species.

Bolander's Reed Grass Calamagrostis bolanderi CNPS Rank 4.2 Bogs and fens, broadleafed upland forest, closed-cone
coniferous forest, coastal scrub,
mesic meadows and seeps,
freshwater marshes and
swamps, and North Coast
coniferous forest
CNPS Inventory 9-Quad Search None. No bogs, fens, forests, scrub, meadows, seeps, or marshes/swamps occur on or near the Project site.

This Project site does not provide suitable habitat for this species.

Thurber's Reed Grass Calamagrostis crassiglumis CNPS Rank 2B.1 Mesic coastal scrub and freshwater marshes and swamps
CNPS Inventory 9-Quad Search None. No marshes/swamps or scrub habitats occur on or near the Project site. This Project site does not
provide suitable habitat for this species.

Johnny-nip Castilleja ambigua var. ambigua CNPS Rank 4.2 Coastal bluff scrub, coastal prairie, coastal scrub, marshes
and swamps, valley and foothill
grassland, and margins of vernal
pools
CNPS Inventory 9-Quad Search None. The Project site does not provide suitable habitat for this species.

Pitkin Marsh Paintbrush Castilleja uliginosa CNPS Rank 1A Freshwater marshes and swamps
CNPS Inventory 9-Quad Search None. No marshes/swamps occur on or near the Project site. This Project site does not provide suitable habitat for this species.

Rincon Ridge Ceanothus Ceanothus confusus CNPS Rank 1B.1 Closed-cone coniferous forest, chaparral, and cismontane
woodland
CNPS Inventory 9-Quad Search None. No forests, woodlands, or chaparral occur on or near the Project site. The Project site does not provide suitable habitat for this species.

Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

Appendix A.

Special-Status Plant and Wildlife Species Known to Occur in the Vicinity of the Project Site July 2023 Integral Consulting Inc. Page 2 of 6
Table A-1. Special-Status Plant Species Known to Occur in the Vicinity of the Project Site Common Name Scientific Name Status Habitat Type/Components Occurrence Information Probability of Occurring on the Project Site Vine Hill Ceanothus Ceanothus foliosus var. vineatus CNPS Rank 1B.1 Chaparral CNPS Inventory 9-Quad Search None. No chaparral occurs on or near the Project site.

The Project site does not provide suitable habitat for
this species.

Glory Brush Ceanothus gloriosus var.
exaltatus
CNPS Rank 4.3 Chaparral CNPS Inventory 9-Quad Search None. No chaparral occurs on or near the Project site.

The Project site does not provide suitable habitat for
this species.

Holly-leaved Ceanothus Ceanothus purpureus CNPS Rank 1B.2 Chaparral and cismontane woodland
CNPS Inventory 9-Quad Search None. No woodlands or chaparral occur on or near the Project site. The Project site does not provide suitable habitat for this species.

Sonoma spineflower Chorizanthe valida Federally Endangered State Endangered
CNPS Rank 1B.1
Sandy coastal prairie This species has been recorded on the same USGS quad as the Project site (Sebastopol)
None. The Project site does not occur within the
coastal region and does not provide suitable habitat
for this species.

Vine Hill clarkia Clarkia imbricata Federally Endangered State Endangered
CNPS Rank 1B.1
Chaparral, and valley and foothill
grassland
This species has been recorded on the same
USGS quad as the Project site (Sebastopol)
None. The highly disturbed and actively managed
nature of the Project site precludes presence of this
species.

Peruvian dodder Cuscuta obtusiflora var.
glandulosa
CNPS Rank 2B.2 Chaparral (openings),
cismontane woodland, and valley
and foothill grassland
CNPS Inventory 9-Quad Search None. While the ruderal habitat occurring on the Project site provide marginal habitat for this species, this species has not been observed onsite.

Golden larkspur Delphinium luteum Federally Endangered
State Rare
CNPS Rank 1B.1
Chaparral, coastal prairie, and
coastal scrub
This species has been recorded on the same
USGS quad as the Project site (Sebastopol)
None. No chapparal or coastal region habitats occur on
or near the Project site. The Project site does not
provide suitable habitat for this species.

Dwarf Downingia Downingia pusilla CNPS Rank 2B.2 Mesic valley and foothill grassland, and vernal pools
The closest record for this species occurs
approximately 2.0 miles south of the Project
site (CNDDB Occurrence No. 86).

None. The project site does not provide suitable mesic
habitat for this species.

Swamp harebell Eastwoodiella californica CNPS Rank 1B.2 Bogs and fens, closed-cone coniferous forest, coastal prairie,
meadows and seeps, marshes
and swamps, and North Coast
coniferous forest
CNPS Inventory 9-Quad Search None. The Project site does not provide suitable habitat for this species.

Slender cottongrass Eriophorum gracile CNPS Rank 4.3 Bogs and fens, meadows and seeps, and upper montane
coniferous forest
CNPS Inventory 9-Quad Search None. No bogs, fens, meadows, seeps, or forests occur on or near the Project site. The Project site does not
provide suitable habitat for this species.

Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

Appendix A.

Special-Status Plant and Wildlife Species Known to Occur in the Vicinity of the Project Site July 2023 Integral Consulting Inc. Page 3 of 6
Table A-1. Special-Status Plant Species Known to Occur in the Vicinity of the Project Site Common Name Scientific Name Status Habitat Type/Components Occurrence Information Probability of Occurring on the Project Site Fragrant fritillary Fritillaria liliacea CNPS Rank 1B.2 Cismontane woodland, coastal prairie, coastal scrub, and valley
and foothill grassland
CNPS Inventory 9-Quad Search None. The highly disturbed and actively managed nature of the Project site precludes presence of this
species.

Congested-headed
hayfield tarplant
Hemizonia congesta
ssp. congesta
CNPS Rank 1B.2 Valley and foothill grassland The closest record for this species occurs approximately 1.0 mile west of the Project
site (CNDDB Occurrence No. 27).

None. The highly disturbed and actively managed
nature of the Project site precludes presence of this
species.

Thin-lobed horkelia Horkelia tenuiloba CNPS Rank 1B.2 Broadleafed upland forest, chaparral, and valley and foothill
grassland
CNPS Inventory 9-Quad Search None. The highly disturbed and actively managed nature of the Project site precludes presence of this
species.

Harlequin lotus Hosackia gracilis CNPS Rank 4B.2 Broadleafed upland forest, coastal bluff scrub, closed-cone
coniferous forest, cismontane
woodland, coastal prairie, coastal
scrub, meadows and seeps,
marshes and swamps, North
Coast coniferous forest, and
valley and foothill grassland
CNPS Inventory 9-Quad Search None. The highly disturbed and actively managed nature of the Project site precludes presence of this
species.

Coast iris Iris longipetala CNPS Rank 4B.2 Coastal prairie, lower montane coniferous forest, and meadows
and seeps
CNPS Inventory 9-Quad Search None. No prairies, forests, meadows, or seeps occur on or near the Project site. This Project site does not provide suitable habitat for this species.

Burke's goldfields Lasthenia burkei Federally Endangered State Endangered
CNPS Rank 1B.1
Meadows and seeps (mesic), and
vernal pools
The closest record for this species occurs
approximately 1.1 miles northwest of the
Project site (CNDDB Occurrence No. 28).

None. The Project site does not provide suitable mesic
habitat for this species.

Baker's goldfields Lasthenia californica ssp. bakeri CNPS Rank 1B.2 Openings in closed-cone coniferous forest, coastal scrub,
meadows and seeps, and
marshes and swamps
CNPS Inventory 9-Quad Search None. No forests, scrub, meadows, seeps, or marshes or swamps occur on or near the Project site. The
Project site does not provide suitable habitat for this species.

Legenere Legenere limosa CNPS Rank 1B.1 Vernal pools The closest record for this species occurs approximately 1.8 miles southwest of the
Project site (CNDDB Occurrence No. 39).

None. No vernal pools occur on or near the Project
site. The Project site does not provide suitable habitat for this species.

Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

Appendix A.

Special-Status Plant and Wildlife Species Known to Occur in the Vicinity of the Project Site July 2023 Integral Consulting Inc. Page 4 of 6
Table A-1. Special-Status Plant Species Known to Occur in the Vicinity of the Project Site Common Name Scientific Name Status Habitat Type/Components Occurrence Information Probability of Occurring on the Project Site Pitkin marsh lily Lilium pardalinum ssp. pitkinense Federally Endangered State Endangered
CNPS Rank 1B.1
Cismontane woodland, meadows
and seeps, and freshwater
marshes and swamps
This species has been recorded on the same
USGS quad as the Project site (Sebastopol)
None. No woodlands, meadows, seeps, or
marshes/swamps occur on or near the Project site.

This Project site does not provide suitable habitat for this species.

Sebastopol meadowfoam Limnanthes vinculans Federally Endangered State Endangered
CNPS Rank 1B.1
Vernally mesic meadows and
seeps, valley and foothill
grassland, and vernal pools
The closest record for this species occurs
approximately 0.9 mile west of the Project
site (CNDDB Occurrence No. 22).

None. The Project site does not provide suitable mesic
habitat for this species
Marsh microseris Microseris paludosa CNPS Rank 1B.2 Closed-cone coniferous forest, cismontane woodland, coastal
scrub, and valley and foothill
grassland
The closest record for this species occurs
approximately 2.7 miles south of the Project
site (CNDDB Occurrence No. 20).

None. The highly disturbed and actively managed
nature of the Project site precludes presence of this
species.

Baker's navarretia Navarretia leucocephala ssp.
bakeri
CNPS Rank 1B.1 Cismontane woodland, lower
montane coniferous forest,
meadows and seeps, valley and
foothill grassland, and vernal
pools
The closest record for this species occurs
approximately 0.9 mile west of the Project
site (CNDDB Occurrence No. 21).

None. The highly disturbed and actively managed
nature of the Project site precludes presence of this
species.

Lobb's aquatic buttercup Ranunculus lobbii CNPS Rank 4B.2 Cismontane woodland, North Coast coniferous forest, valley
and foothill grassland, and vernal
pools
CNPS Inventory 9-Quad Search None. The highly disturbed and actively managed nature of the Project site precludes presence of this
species.

White beaked-rush Rhynchospora alba CNPS Rank 2B.2 Bogs and fens, meadows and seeps, and freshwater marshes
and swamps
CNPS Inventory 9-Quad Search None. No bogs, fens, meadows, seeps, or marshes/swamps occur on or near the Project site.

This Project site does not provide suitable habitat for this species.

California beaked-rush Rhynchospora californica CNPS Rank 1B.1 Bogs and fens, lower montane coniferous forest, meadows and
seeps, and freshwater marshes
and swamps
CNPS Inventory 9-Quad Search None. No bogs, fens, forests, meadows, seeps, or marshes/swamps occur on or near the Project site.

This Project site does not provide suitable habitat for this species.

Brownish beaked-rush Rhynchospora capitellata CNPS Rank 2B.2 Lower montane coniferous forest, meadows and seeps,
marshes and swamps, and upper
montane coniferous forest
CNPS Inventory 9-Quad Search None. No forests, meadows, seeps, or marshes/swamps occur on or near the Project site.

This Project site does not provide suitable habitat for this species.

Round-headed beaked-rush Rhynchospora globularis CNPS Rank 2B.1 Freshwater marshes and swamps
CNPS Inventory 9-Quad Search None. No marshes/swamps occur on or near the Project site. This Project site does not provide suitable habitat for this species.

Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

Appendix A.

Special-Status Plant and Wildlife Species Known to Occur in the Vicinity of the Project Site July 2023 Integral Consulting Inc. Page 5 of 6
Table A-1. Special-Status Plant Species Known to Occur in the Vicinity of the Project Site Common Name Scientific Name Status Habitat Type/Components Occurrence Information Probability of Occurring on the Project Site Two-fork clover Trifolium amoenum Federally Endangered
CNPS Rank 1B.1
Coastal bluff scrub and valley
and foothill grassland
(sometimes serpentinite)
An historic record for this species occurs in
the vicinity of the Project site (CNDDB
Occurrence No. 20).

None. The highly disturbed and actively managed
nature of the Project site precludes presence of this
species.

Saline clover Trifolium hydrophilum CNPS Rank: 1B.2 Mesic soils in marshes and swamps, valley and foothill
grassland, and vernal pools
The closest record for this species occurs
approximately 2.5 miles west of the Project
site (CNDDB Occurrence No. 16).

None. The project site does not provide suitable mesic
habitat for this species.

Oval-leaved viburnum Viburnum ellipticum CNPS Rank: 2B.3 Mesic soils in marshes and swamps, valley and foothill
grassland, and vernal pools
CNPS Inventory 9-Quad Search None. The project site does not provide suitable mesic habitat for this species.

Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

Appendix A.

Special-Status Plant and Wildlife Species Known to Occur in the Vicinity of the Project Site July 2023 Integral Consulting Inc. Page 6 of 6
Table A-2. Special-Status Wildlife Species Known to Occur in the Vicinity of the Project Site Common Name Scientific Name Status Habitat Type/Components Occurrence Information Probability of Occurring on the Project Site Tri-colored Blackbird Agelaius tricolor California Candidate Endangered
Nests in emergent wetland with
tall, dense cattails or tules, or
thickets of willow, blackberry, or
tall herbs
An historic record (1976) for this species is
located at the Project site (CNDDB Occurrence
No. 831).

None. Emergent wetlands do not occur on or near the
Project site. The Project site does not provide suitable habitat for this species.

California Tiger Salamander Ambystoma californiense Federally Endangered California Threatened
Grasslands adjacent to seasonal
wetlands and ponds
The closest record for this species occurs
approximately 2 miles east of the Project site
(CNDDB Occurrence No. 60).

None. The Project site occurs outside of the known range for this species.

California Giant Salamander Dicamptodon ensatus California Species of Special Concern
In or near streams in damp
forests and riparian habitats
The closest record for this species is located
approximately 2.8 miles northwest of the
Project site (CNDDB Occurrence No. 221).

None. No damp forests or riparian habitats occur on or
near the Project site. The Project site does not provide suitable habitat for this species.

Western Pond Turtle Emys marmorata California Species of Special Concern
A variety of habitats adjacent to
permanent or nearly permanent
water.

The closest record for this species is located
approximately 1.2 mile east of the Project site
(CNDDB Occurrence No. 682).

None. This Project site does not provide suitable habitat for this species.

Coho Salmon
- Central California Coast ESU
Oncorhynchus kisutch Federally Endangered Spawn from streams and freshwater tributaries to
estuarine and marine waters of
the Pacific Ocean, from Punta
Gorda, CA to Aptos Creek,
including the San Francisco Bay
and tributaries.

The closest record for this species is located
approximately 3 miles northwest of the Project
site (CNDDB Occurrence No. 25) in Mark West
Creek.

None. No streams or rivers on the Project site. The Project site does not provide suitable habitat for this species.

California Red-Legged Frog Rana draytonii Federally Threatened California Species of
Special Concern
Grassland and riparian habitats
adjacent to creeks/streams with
plunge pools or ponds
The closest record for this species is located
approximately 2.4 miles south of the Project
site (CNDDB Occurrence No. 742).

None. No streams or ponds occur on or near the Project
site. The Project site does not provide suitable habitat for this species. Further, this species is not known to occur in Sebastopol.

California Freshwater Shrimp Syncaris pacifica Federally Endangered California Endangered
Perennially flowing streams with
slow moving water and flat
gradients
The closest record for this species is located
approximately 1 mile southwest of the Project
site (CNDDB Occurrence No. 9).

None. No perennially flowing streams or rivers occur on or near the Project site. The Project site does not provide suitable habitat for this species.

Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

C:\Users\ldavies\Documents\ArcGIS\Projects\GravensteinHighway_figure\GravensteinHighway_figure.aprx Layout Name: z-Letter_Portrait3 7/24/2023 11:21 AM The Canopy Project Figure 1.

Site and Vicinity Map
Occidental Rd
G
ravenstein Hwy N
Occidental Rd
Santa Rosa Golf
& Country Club
Graton
Manzana
Barlow
Gra venstein Hwy S
Ragle Ranch
Park
Sebastopol
Gravenstein
Project Boundary
Imagery Source: ESRI
0 0.5 1
Miles ¯
Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

C:\Users\ldavies\Documents\ArcGIS\Projects\GravensteinHighway_figure\GravensteinHighway_figure.aprx Layout Name: z-Letter_Landscape 7/24/2023 11:21 AM Monte Rio
Camp Meeker
Ross
Occidental
Bodega
Freestone
12 Graton
116
Sebastopol
Knowles
Corner
Project Boundary
CNAME
Baker's goldfields
Baker's navarretia
Burke's goldfields
Greene's narrow-leaved daisy
Peruvian dodder
Pitkin Marsh lily
Sebastopol meadowfoam
Sonoma spineflower
Sonoma sunshine
Vine Hill ceanothus
Vine Hill manzanita
congested-headed hayfield
tarplant
fragrant fritillary
golden larkspur
oval-leaved viburnum
saline clover
swamp harebell
thin-lobed horkelia
two-fork clover
3 Miles
Imagery Source: ESRI
The Canopy Project Figure 2.

Rare Plants Map
0 2 4
Miles ¯
Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

C:\Users\ldavies\Documents\ArcGIS\Projects\GravensteinHighway_figure\GravensteinHighway_figure.aprx Layout Name: z-Letter_Portrait 7/24/2023 11:21 AM The Canopy Project Figure 3.

CNDDB Records Map
Aerial Source: Esri, Maxar (2021)
Ross
Valley Ford
Freestone
12 Graton
116
Sebastopol
Bloomfield
Knowles
Corner
Turner
0 1.5 3
Miles ¯
Project Boundary
California freshwater shrimp
California giant salamander
California red-legged frog
California tiger salamander -
Sonoma County DPS
coho salmon - central
California coast ESU
tricolored blackbird
western pond turtle
3 Miles
Imagery Source: ESRI
Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

C:\Users\ldavies\Documents\ArcGIS\Projects\GravensteinHighway_figure\GravensteinHighway_figure.aprx Layout Name: z-Letter_Portrait1 7/24/2023 11:21 AM The Canopy Project Figure 4.

Designated Critical Habitat Map
Graton Rd
Guerneville Hwy
Occidental Rd
Forestville
Ross
Bodega Hwy
Freestone
12 Guerneville Rd
Frei R d
Laguna
Rd
Piner Rd
Occidental Rd
Olivet Rd
Santa Rosa Golf
& Country Club
Graton
Riccas Corner
Manzana
Barlow
Llano
Rd
Gravenstein Hwy S
Ragle Ranch
Park
Sebastopol
Knowles
Corner
Gravenstein
Piner Rd
S Wright Rd Fulton Rd
Fulton Rd
Llano Rd
Gravenstein Hwy S
Todd Rd
Ludwig Ave
Turner
comname
California tiger Salamander
3 Miles
Project Boundary
0 1 2
Miles ¯
Imagery Source: ESRI
Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

Table 1: Plants Observed on Project Site
Scientific Name Common Name
Acacia dealbata
Anthemis arvensis
Atriplex prostrata
silver wattle
Corn chamomile
Fat-hen
Avena barbata Slender wild oat
Bromus diandrus Rip-gut brome
Bromus hordeaceus Soft chess
Carduus pycnocephalus Italian thistle
Cichorium intybus Chicory
Convolvulus arvensis
Daucus pusillus
Orchard morning glory
Wild carrot
Elymus caput-medusae
Eschscholzia californica
Erodium botrys
Medusa head
California poppy
Big heron bill
Geranium dissectum
Genista monspessulana
Cutleaf geranium
French Broom
Helminthotheca echioides
Heterotheca grandiflora
Hirschfeldia incana
Hordeum Murinum
Bristly ox-tongue
Telegraph weed
Mustard
Foxtail barley
Hypochaeris radicata Hairy cats ear
Lactuca saligna Willow lettuce
Malus domestica
Medicago polymorpha
Navarretia leptalea
Apple
California burclover
Bridges pincushionplant
Phalaris aquatica
Plantago lanceolata
Harding grass
Ribwort
Pinus radiata Monterey pine
Plantago lanceolata
Prunus persica
Narrow leaved plantain
Peach
Pseudotsuga menziesii Douglas fir
Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

Quercus agrifolia Coast live oak
Raphanus sativus Radish
Rubus armeniacus
Rumex crispus
Salvia apiana
Senegalia greggii
Himalayan blackberry
Curly dock
White sage
Devil’s claw
Sequoia sempervirens
Sonchus asper
Solanum nigrum
Coast redwood
Spiny sowthistle
Black nightshade
Taraxacum officinale
Toxicodendron diversilobum
Verbascum virgatum
Dandelion
Poison oak
Wand mullein
Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

BIOLOGICAL CONSTRAINTS ANALYSIS
1003 Gravenstein Highway

CITY OF SEBASTAPOL, SONOMA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
May 27, 2021
Prepared by:

Johnson Marigot Consulting, LLC
433 Visitacion Ave
Brisbane, California 94005
On behalf of:

SEB, LLC
3121 Michelson Drive, Suite 150
Irvine, CA 92612
Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

Biological Constraints Analysis

CONTENTS
1003 Gravenstein Highway
Introduction.................................................................................................................................................................... 1 Methodology................................................................................................................................................................... 1 Existing Site Conditions............................................................................................................................................. 1 Vegetation................................................................................................................................................................... 2 Ruderal.................................................................................................................................................................... 2 Stormwater basin............................................................................................................................................... 2 Soils ............................................................................................................................................................................... 2 Waters of the U.S./State........................................................................................................................................ 3 Biological Resource Constraints ............................................................................................................................ 3 SPECIAL STATUS SPECIES ................................................................................................................................... 3 Plants ....................................................................................................................................................................... 3 Wildlife.................................................................................................................................................................... 4 Trees ............................................................................................................................................................................. 5 Waters of the U.S./State........................................................................................................................................ 5 Conclusions and Recommendations ..................................................................................................................... 5 Figures
Figure 1. Property Site Map
Figure 2. NRCS Soils Map
Figure 3. CNDDB – Federal
Figure 4. Critical Habitat
Tables
Table 1. Plants Observed at 1003 Gravenstein Highway
Table 2. Special-Status Plant Species Known to Occur in the Vicinity of 1003 Gravenstein Hwy Table 3. Special-Status Wildlife Spp. Known to Occur in the Vicinity of 1003 Gravenstein Hwy Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

1003 Gravenstein Highway 1 Johnson Marigot Consulting, LLC Biological Constraints Analysis May 2021

INTRODUCTION
Johnson Marigot Consulting, LLC has been retained to provide a biological constraints analysis for the approximately 6.3-acre property located at 1003 Gravenstein Highway, in the City of Sebastopol, Sonoma County, California (herein referred to as the property) (Figure 1). The purpose of this report is to qualitatively identify potential occurrences and/or habitat for special-status plant and animal species on the property, and to identify local, state, and/or federal biological constraints and ordinances applicable to the development of the property.

METHODOLOGY
Prior to conducting a site visit, a literature review was conducted for special-status species known to occur in the vicinity of the property. In addition to a literature review, the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) and the California Native Plant Society (CNPS) Inventory of Rare, Threatened, and Endangered Plants of California were queried for occurrences of special-status species in the vicinity of the property (note that CNDDB occurrences that were greater than 50 years old were not considered). A list of these special-status species has been compiled in tables (Table 2 and 3) which also discuss listing/ranking status, required habitat components, proximity of records to the property, and probability of occurrence on the property.

On May 21, 2021, Johnson Marigot Consulting, LLC personnel Mr. Cameron Johnson conducted a site visit to evaluate biological resources present on the property. This site assessment included a survey of the entire property in order to characterize the vegetation, topography, and current and historic uses of the property (as well as the surrounding properties), and to investigate waters of the U.S./State. This information was used to determine the potential for the property to provide suitable habitat for special-status species (presence of habitat components necessary to support the species) and sensitive habitats.

EXISTING SITE CONDITIONS
The approximately 6.2-acre property is located on the northern boundary of the City of Sebastopol, Sonoma County, California (the approximate center of the property is at 38°41'17.26"N, 122°84'03.34"W). The property is located east of the intersection of Mill Station Road and the Gravenstein Highway. The property is bound to the north by a public trail, existing residential development, and a sports facility, to the south by an existing commercial development (including buildings and parking lots), and to the east by Hurlburt Avenue. A portion of the site (approximately 0.8-ac) is currently occupied by a community Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

1003 Gravenstein Highway 2 Johnson Marigot Consulting, LLC Biological Constraints Analysis May 2021
garden site.

The property overall is relatively flat with a gentle western-facing slope, with elevations ranging from approximately 200 feet above mean sea level (AMSL) at the eastern border to approximately 190 feet AMSL at the northwestern corner of the site.

VEGETATION
The property consists of an apple orchard that is interspersed with an occasional Coast live oak tree. Trees occurring on the property include coast live oak trees (Quercus agrifolia) interspersed throughout the orchard, and several Douglas fir trees (Pseudotsuga menziesii) and Coast redwood trees (Sequoia sempervirens) that occur along the northern boundary of the site. The site is considered disturbed as it is maintained as an apple orchard. At the time of the site visit the site had been recently disced and mowed and there was very little understory vegetation present. A list of all observed onsite plant species is included in Table 1

RUDERAL
The edges of the property, in areas where the mowers and disks could not cover, there exist some vegetation that is dominated by species that colonize and thrive in disturbed areas, collectively referred to as ruderal species. These species may be native or non-native, but are often thought of as “weedy” species. The property is dominated by non-native herbaceous species such as bristly ox-tongue (Helminthotheca echioides), wild radish (Raphanus sativus), and hairy cat’s-ear (Hypochaeris radicata). Lesser dominants include non-native grasses such as slender wild oats (Avena barbata), rip-gut brome (Bromus diandrus), and soft chess (Bromus hordeaceus).

STORMWATER BASIN
At the northwestern corner of the property (off of the property) there is an existing stormwater basin. This feature was likely constructed when the adjacent commercial project was constructed, and there is evidence that the majority of the project site, as well as commercial development and the associated parking lots, currently drain to this basin. The basin is designed to temporarily retain stormwater prior to discharge to the City stormwater system. The basin is currently vegetated almost entirely by silver wattle (Acacia dealbata), with some Harding grass (Phalaris aquatica) in the understory.

SOILS
According to the Natural Resource Conservation Service, two soil units, or types, have been mapped on the property (NRCS 2021): Goldridge fine sandy loam, 2 to 9 Percent Slopes, representing approximately 21% of the on-site soils, and Sebastopol sandy loam, 2 to 9% slopes, representing approximately 79% of the onsite soils (Figure 2).

Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

1003 Gravenstein Highway 3 Johnson Marigot Consulting, LLC Biological Constraints Analysis May 2021
Goldridge fine sandy loam is listed as a hydric soil on the California Hydric Soils List for Sonoma County; Sebastapol sandy loam is not a listed hydric soil.

WATERS OF THE U.S./STATE
The property appears to derive its hydrology from direct precipitation only, and is well drained. Onsite slopes are groomed and do not result in any pooling or ponding, and there are no distinct flow patterns (i.e. sheet flow only). There are existing storm drains located at the lower elevation of the site (along the northwestern boundary), and there is no evidence of any onsite waters or wetlands present.

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCE CONSTRAINTS

SPECIAL STATUS SPECIES
Special-status species include those considered to be rare by state and federal resource agencies (CDFW and the United States Fish and Wildlife Service [USFWS]) and/or the scientific community (CNPS), and are accordingly legally protected via local, state, and/or federal law.

For purposes of this assessment, special-status species are defined as plants or animals protected pursuant to:

1. Federal Endangered Species Act(FESA),

2. State Endangered Species Act (CESA),

3. California Fish and Game Codes that protect nesting birds (Section 3503), raptors (Section 3503.5), and “fully protected species”(Sections 3511, 4700, 5050, and 5515)

4. Migratory Bird Treaty Act,

5. CNPS “rare” designation - all of the plants constituting California Rare Plant Rank 1A, 1B, and 2 meet the definitions of Sec. 1901, Chapter 10 (Native Plant Protection Act) or Secs. 2062 and 2067 of the CESA of the California Department of Fish and Game Code, and are eligible for state listing (CNPS Inventory, 6th Edition, 2001), and/or

6. CDFW "species of special concern"(SSC) designation.

For a brief description of all special-status wildlife known to occur in the vicinity of the property, see the attached Special-Status Plant/Wildlife Species Known to Occur in the Vicinity of the 1003 Gravenstein Highway Property tables (Tables 2 and 3).

PLANTS
According to the CNDDB and the CNPS Inventory of Rare, Threatened, and Endangered Plants of California, a total of 12 records for special-status plant species occur in the vicinity Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

1003 Gravenstein Highway 4 Johnson Marigot Consulting, LLC Biological Constraints Analysis May 2021
of the property (within 3 miles of the property and/or on the same U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) 7.5’ topographic quadrangle (quad) (Sebastopol quad), or the adjacent quads (Table 2). Protocol-level rare plant surveys were not conducted on the property, and none were observed during the site visit.

The California Natural Diversity Database shows records for three federally-listed species within 2-miles of the Project Site; of these, there are two plants (Burke’s goldfields and Sebastopol meadowfoam) and one animal (California freshwater shrimp). There is no habitat for any of these species present on the project site (Figure 3).

The site does not contain any wetlands, and it is routinely disked and mowed as an orchard; none of these special-status plants are expected to occur on the property.

WILDLIFE
State and Federally Listed Wildlife
While no special-status wildlife species have been recorded on the property, due to the site’s location and its proximity to open spaces and agricultural fields, nine special-status wildlife species are known to occur, or have the potential to occur within 3 miles of the property: tricolored blackbird (Agelaius tricolor), California tiger salamander (Ambystoma californiense), burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia), white-tailed kite (Elanus lecurus), western pond turtle (Emys marmorata), steelhead - Central California Coast DPS (Oncorhynchus mykiss ssp. irideus), foothill yellow-legged frog (Rana boylii), California red-legged frog (Rana draytonii), and California freshwater shrimp (Syncaris pacifica) (Table 3). Eight of these species require specialized habitats that do not occur on the property such as emergent wetlands with tall dense vegetation (tri-colored blackbird), ponds (California tiger salamander) permanent/nearly-permanent waters (western pond turtle, steelhead, California freshwater shrimp), rocky streams (foothill yellow-legged frog, California red-legged frog), and open grasslands with ground squirrel burrows (burrowing owl, California tiger salamander).

The California Natural Diversity Database shows records for three federally-listed species within 2-miles of the Project Site; of these, there are two plants (Burke’s goldfields and Sebastopol meadowfoam) and one animal (California freshwater shrimp). There is no habitat for any of these species present on the project site (Figure 3). The Project site is not within designated Critical Habitat for any listed species, nor does it contain suitable habitat for any listed species (Figure 4).

The property does provide suitable nesting habitat for one of the regionally-known specialAgenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

1003 Gravenstein Highway 5 Johnson Marigot Consulting, LLC Biological Constraints Analysis May 2021
status species: white-tailed kite (CDFW fully protected species). The coast live oak, fir, and redwood trees on the property provide suitable nesting habitat and there are suitable grasslands north of the site that provide suitable foraging habitat for the white-tailed kite. As such, in the absence of protocol-level surveys for these species, their presence on the property cannot be ruled out.

Nesting Birds
The trees and orchard that occur on and adjacent to the property provide suitable nesting habitat for many species of passerine (perching) birds and raptors (birds of prey) known to occur in the vicinity of the property. No nests were observed in the trees or grassland on or adjacent to the property during the site assessment, however, owing to the mobile nature of birds and the seasonality of their nesting cycle, this does not mean that birds will not nest onsite at a future date.

TREES
Pursuant to City of Sebastopol Code of Ordinances Chapter 8.12 (Tree Protection), the alteration, removal, or relocation of the onsite trees requires a tree removal permit. As such, if the development of the property requires the removal of the coast live oak and/or the Coast redwood trees on the property, a tree removal permit from the City of Sebastopol will likely be required.

WATERS OF THE U.S./STATE
The Project site does not contain any regulated waters of the U.S., or waters of the State California.

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
While the property is fairly disturbed, it does provide suitable habitat for one regionally known special-status species: white-tailed kite. Due to the presence of suitable nesting habitat for white-tailed kite on the property, if work is scheduled to commence during the nesting season (February 1 through August 30), impacts to this species cannot be ruled out in the absence of nesting bird surveys. Similarly, due to the presence of trees (including the existing orchard trees) that provide suitable nesting habitat for more common, yet still protected, avian species, impacts to these species cannot be ruled out in the absence of nesting bird surveys. A preconstruction survey should be conducted of all suitable nesting habitat prior to the commencement of vegetation removal/ground disturbance, if such work is scheduled to commence during the nesting season.

Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

1003 Gravenstein Highway 6 Johnson Marigot Consulting, LLC Biological Constraints Analysis May 2021
On-site Coast live oaks and Coast redwood trees are subject to the City of Sebastopol’ tree preservation ordinance. Prior to removal of any on-site trees, all on-site Coast live oaks and Coast redwoods should be identified and mapped, and a Tree Protection Plan and Tree Removal Permit will be required by the City for removal of any of these trees that are inconsistent with on-site development.

Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

1003 Gravenstein Highway 7 Johnson Marigot Consulting, LLC Biological Constraints Analysis May 2021
Table 1. Plants Observed at 1003 Gravenstein Highway
Scientific Name Common Name
Acacia dealbata silver wattle
Avena barbata Slender wild oat
Bromus diandrus Rip-gut brome
Bromus hordeaceus Soft chess
Carduus pycnocephalus Italian thistle
Cichorium intybus Chicory
Convolvulus arvensis Orchard morning glory
Elymus caput-medusae Medusa head
Geranium dissectum Cutleaf geranium
Helminthotheca echioides Bristly ox-tongue
Hypochaeris radicata Hairy catsear
Lactuca serriola Prickly wild lettuce
Malus domestica Apple
Phalaris aquatica Harding grass
Pinus radiata Monterey pine
Plantago lanceolata Narrow leaved plantain
Pseudotsuga menziesii Douglas fir
Quercus agrifolia Coast live oak
Raphanus sativus Radish
Rubus armeniacus Himalayan blackberry
Sequoia sempervirens Coast redwood
Taraxacum officinale Dandelion
Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

1003 Gravenstein Highway 8
Biological Constraints Analysis
Johnson Marigot Consulting, LLC
May 2021
Table 2. Special-Status Plant Species Known to Occur in the Vicinity of 1003 Gravenstein Highway Common
Name ScientificName Status
Occurrence
Information Habitat
Probability of Occurring on
the Project Site
Blooming
Period
Clara Hunt's
milk-vetch Astragalus claranus
Federally Endangered
State Threatened
CNPS 1B.1
known to occur
within the 8
adjacent Quads
Chaparral, Cismontane woodland, Valley
and foothill grassland
None. The Project Site is farmed
and management methods render
the site as unsuitable habitat for
this species. Mar-May
Sonoma
sunshine Blennosperma bakeri
Federally Endangered
State Endangered
CNPS 1B.1
known to occur in
the Sebastopol
Quad Valley and foothill grassland, Vernal pools
None. The Project Site does not
provide suitable habitat for this
species. Mar-May
Vine Hill
ceanothus Cenothus foliosus var. vineatus CNPS 1 B.1
known to occur in
the Sebastopol
Quad Chaparral
None. The Project Site is farmed
and management methods render
the site as unsuitable habitat for
this species. Mar-May
Sonoma
spineflower Chorizanthe valida
Federally Endangered
State Endangered
CNPS 1B.1
known to occur in
the Sebastopol
Quad Coastal prairie
None. The Project Site is farmed
and management methods render
the site as unsuitable habitat for
this species. Jun-Aug
Vine Hill clarkia Clarkia imbricata
Federally Endangered
State Endangered
CNPS 1B.1
known to occur in
the Sebastopol
Quad Chaparral, Valley and foothill grassland
None. The Project Site is farmed
and management methods render
the site as unsuitable habitat for
this species. Jun-Aug
Pennell's bird'sbeak Cordylanthus tenuis ssp. capillarisFederally Endangered CNPS 1B.2
known to occur
within the 8
adjacent Quads Chaparral, Closed-cone coniferous forest None. The Project Site does not
provide suitable habitat for this
species. Jun-Sep
Baker's
larkspur Delphinium bakeri
Federally Endangered
State Endangered
CNPS 1B.1
known to occur
within the 8
adjacent Quads
Broadleafed upland forest, Coastal scrub,
Valley and foothill grassland
None. The Project Site is farmed
and management methods render
the site as unsuitable habitat for
this species. Mar-May
golden larkspur Delphinium luteum
Federally Endangered
CNPS 1B.1
known to occur in
the Sebastopol
Quad Chaparral, Coastal prairie, Coastal scrub
None. The Project Site is farmed
and management methods render
the site as unsuitable habitat for
this species. Mar-May
Burke's
goldfields Lasthenia burkei
Federally Endangered
State Endangered
CNPS 1B.1
known to occur in
the Sebastopol
Quad Meadows and seeps, Vernal pools
None. The Project Site does not
provide suitable habitat for this
species. Apr-Jun
Pitkin Marsh
lily Lilium pardalinum ssp. pitkinense
Federally Endangered
State Endangered
CNPS 1B.1
known to occur in
the Sebastopol
Quad
Cismontane woodland, Marshes and
swamps, Meadows and seeps
None. The Project Site does not
provide suitable habitat for this
species. Jun-Jul
Sebastopol
meadowfoam Limnanthes vinculans
Federally Endangered
State Endangered
CNPS 1B.1
known to occur in
the Sebastopol
Quad
Meadows and seeps, Valley and foothill
grassland, Vernal pools
None. The Project Site does not
provide suitable habitat for this
species. Apr-May
many-flowered
navarretia Navarretia leucocephala ssp. plieantha
Federally Endangered
State Endangered
CNPS 1B.2
known to occur in
the Sebastopol
Quad Vernal pools
None. The Project Site does not
provide suitable habitat for this
species. May-Jun
Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

1003 Gravenstein Highway 9
Biological Constraints Analysis
Johnson Marigot Consulting, LLC
May 2021
Table 3. Special-Status Wildlife Species Known to Occur in the Vicinity of 1003 Gravenstein Highway Common Name Scientific Name Status Habitat
Type/Components Occurrence Information Probability of Occurring on the Project Site Tri-colored
Blackbird Agelaius tricolor State Candidate Endangered
Nests in emergent wetland with
tall, dense cattails or tules, or
thickets of willow, blackberry, or
tall herbs
known to occur in the Sebastopol Quad None. No suitable habitat occurs on or near the Project Site.

California Tiger
Salamander
Ambystoma
californiense
Federally Threatened
State Threatened
Grasslands adjacent to seasonal
wetlands and ponds
The closest record for this species occurs
approximately 1.7 mile east of the Project SIte
(CNDDB Occurrence No. 937).

None. No suitable habitat occurs on or
near the Project Site.

Burrowing Owl Athene cunicularia California Species of
Concern
Open, dry grassland and desert
habitats, and in grass, forb and
open shrub habitats with ground
squirrel burrows
The closest record for this species occurs
greater than 3-miles from the Project Site.

None. No suitable habitat was observed
on the property. Preconstruction nesting
surveys should be conducted.

White-tailed Kite Elanus leucurus California Fully
Protected
Forages in grasslands
Nests in trees with dense canopy
The closest record for this species occurs
greater than 3-miles from the Project Site.

However, this species is known to occur
regionally and on-site trees represent potential
nesting habitat.

Moderate. The project site provides
suitable nesting habitat for this species.

Preconstruction nesting surveys should
be conducted.

Western Pond Turtle Emys marmorata California Species of Concern
A variety of habitats adjacent to
permanent or nearly permanent
water
The closest record for this species occurs
approximately 1.0 miles east of the Project site
(CNDDB Occurrence No. 682).

None. No suitable habitat occurs on or
near the Project Site.
steelhead -
Central California
Coast DPS Oncorhynchus mykiss Federally Threatened
Freshwater streams with well
developed riparian canopy Critical Habitat approx 1-mile south of project site Jonive Creek
None. No suitable habitat occurs on or
near the Project Site.

Foothill Yellowlegged Frog Rana boylii California Species of Concern
In or near rocky streams in a
variety of habitats
The closest record for this species occurs
approximately 3.9 mile southwest of the
Project Site (CNDDB Occurrence No. 1835).

None. No suitable habitat occurs on or
near the Project Site.

California RedLegged Frog Rana draytonii
Federally Threatened
California Species of
Concern
Grassland and riparian habitats
adjacent to creeks/streams with
plunge pools or ponds
The closest record for this species occurs
greater than 3-miles from the Project Site.

None. No suitable habitat occurs on or
near the Project Site.

California
freshwater shrimp Syncaris pacifica
Federally Endangered
California
Endangered
Freshwater streams with well
developed riparian canopy
The closest record of this species is in Jonive
Creek approx 1-mile from the Project Site
(CNDDB Occurrence No. 9)
None. No suitable habitat occurs on or
near the Project Site.

Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

1003 GravensteinHwy
Sebastopol, CA
Legend
Approximate Boundary
600 ft
N
➤
© 2018 Google
© 2018 Google Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

Soil Map—Sonoma County, California
(NRCS Soils)
Natural Resources
Conservation Service
Web Soil Survey
National Cooperative Soil Survey
5/24/2021

4251360 4251410 4251460 4251510 4251560 4251610
4251360 4251410 4251460 4251510 4251560 4251610 4251660 513710 513760 513810 513860 513910 513960 514010 514060 514110 514160 513710 513760 513810 513860 513910 513960 514010 514060 514110 514160 38° 24' 47'' N
122° 50' 34'' W
38° 24' 47'' N
122° 50' 15'' W
38° 24' 37'' N
122° 50' 34'' W
38° 24' 37'' N
122° 50' 15'' W
N
Map projection: Web Mercator Corner coordinates: WGS84 Edge tics: UTM Zone 10N WGS84 0 100 200 400 600
Feet
0 30 60 120 180
Meters
Map Scale: 1:2,150 if printed on A landscape (11" x 8.5") sheet.

Soil Map may not be valid at this scale.

Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

100
3 Gravenstein Highway
Sebastapol, CA
CNDDB records - Federal
Legend
0 Burke's goldfields
0 Ca freshwater shrimp - Project Site
0 Sebastapol meadowfoam
Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

1003 GravensteinHighway
Sebastapol, CA
Designated Critical Habitat
Legend
California tiger salamander (Sonoma)
Project Site
Steelhead
1 mi
N
➤
© 2021 Google
© 2021 Google Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

Appendix D
Tree Inventory Reports
Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

Appendix E
Confidential Cultural Resources Evaluation
Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

This appendix item is not public because it contains confidential information regarding the location of cultural resources. To discuss this report, please contact:

City of Sebastopol Planning Department
7120 Bodega Avenue
Sebastopol, California 95472
(707) 823-6167
Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

Appendix F
Geotechnical Investigation
Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION
On

PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT

GRAVENSTEIN VILLAGE
At
1003, 1005 and 1007 Gravenstein Highway,
Sebastopol, California
For

SEB LLC

By
Quantum Geotechnical, Inc.

Project No. E037.G
June 17, 2021
Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

6288 San Ignacio Avenue, Suite A, San Jose, CA 95119 Phone (408)-629-3822, Facsimile (408) 629-3825 1110 Burnett Avenue, Suite B, Concord, CA 94520 Phone: (925) 788-2751 QUANTUM GEOTECHNICAL, INC.

Project No. E037.G
June 17, 2021
Mr. Craig Atkins

SEB LLC
3121 Michelson Drive
Suite 150
Irvine, CA 92612
Subject: Proposed Residential Development
Gravenstein Village
1003, 1005 and 1007 Gravenstein Highway
Sebastopol, California

GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION
Dear Mr. Atkins;
In accordance with your authorization, Quantum Geotechnical, Inc., has investigated the geotechnical conditions at the subject site located in Sebastopol, California The accompanying report presents the results of our field investigation. Our findings indicate that development of the site for the proposed development is feasible provided the recommendations of this report are carefully followed and are incorporated into the project plans and specifications.

Should you have any questions relating to the contents of this report or should additional information be required, please contact our office at your convenience.

Sincerely,
Quantum Geotechnical, Inc.

Simon Makdessi, P.E., G.E.

President
Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL

GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION
Purpose and Scope ...............................................................................................................4 Proposed Development ........................................................................................................4 Site Location and Description ..............................................................................................4 General Geologic Conditions ...............................................................................................5 Investigation ........................................................................................................................6 Subsurface Conditions ........................................................................................................6 Liquefaction Potential Evaluation .......................................................................................7 Dynamic Compaction/Settlement Evaluation .....................................................................7 2019 CBC Seismic Design Criteria ....................................................................................7

DISCUSSION, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
General .................................................................................................................................9 Demolition ...........................................................................................................................9 Grading ..............................................................................................................................10 Surface and Subsurface Drainage ......................................................................................12 Bio-Filtration Areas ...........................................................................................................12 Foundations ........................................................................................................................14 Post-Tensioned Slab-On-Grade ...................................................................................14 General Construction Requirements for Post-Tensioned Slab-On-Grade ...................15 Miscellaneous Concrete Flatwork ......................................................................................16 Retaining Walls………………………………………………………………… ..............17 Retaining Wall/Soundwall Foundations - Spread Footings ...............................................18 Retaining Wall/Soundwall Foundations- Pier Footings ....................................................18 Pavement Areas .................................................................................................................19 Utility Trenches .................................................................................................................20 Project Review and Construction Monitoring ...................................................................21 REFERENCES ..............................................................................................................................22 LIMITATIONS AND UNIFORMITY OF CONDITIONS ..........................................................23

APPENDIX A
Figure 1, Site Vicinity and Fault Map ...............................................................................25 Figure 2, Regional Geologic Map ......................................................................................26 Figure 3, Site Plan ..............................................................................................................27 Figure 4, Logs of Test Borings B-1 to B-4 ........................................................................28 Key to Boring Logs ............................................................................................................33

APPENDIX B
Laboratory Investigation ....................................................................................................35 Summary of Laboratory Test Results, Table B-1 ..............................................................36

APPENDIX C
The Grading Specifications ................................................................................................38 Guide Specifications for Rock Under Floor Slabs .............................................................43

Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

Project No. E037.G Geotechnical Investigation/Gravenstein Hwy, Sebastopol June 17, 2021 Quantum Geotechnical, Inc. Page 4 of 43

GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION

PURPOSE AND SCOPE
The purpose of the investigation for the proposed new residential development located at 1003, 1005 and 1007 Gravenstein Hwy, Sebastopol in California was to determine the surface and subsurface soil conditions at the subject site. Based on the results of the investigation, criteria were established for the grading of the site, the design of foundations for the proposed development, and the construction of other related facilities on the property.

Our investigation included the following:
a. Field reconnaissance by the Soil Engineer;
b. Determine the general seismicity of the site in accordance with the 2019 CBC; c. Excavation and logging of four exploratory soil borings; c. Laboratory testing of soil samples;
d. Analysis of the data and formulation of conclusions and recommendations; and e. Preparation of this written report.

PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
Based on a review of a Conceptual Site Plan by WHA, it is our understanding that the proposed project consists of developing the site for the construction of a multi-family residential subdivision, and associated improvements. Preliminary development plans indicate a total of 80 units within 19 buildings.. Grading details are not known but are anticipated to consist of cuts and fills up to 5 feet given the gently undulating nature of the terrain. The proposed structures are planned to be founded on a post-tensioned slab foundation

SITE LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION
The site is located in an established residential neighborhood in the western part of Sebastopol, on the north east side of Gravenstein Highway, just south of the intersection with Mill Station Road.

The site resides on gently undulating terrain within a broad northwest to southeast trending valley at elevation approximately 185 to 200 feet above mean sea level. The site is irregular in shape and approximately 6.1 acres in size.

Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

Project No. E037.G Geotechnical Investigation/Gravenstein Hwy, Sebastopol June 17, 2021 Quantum Geotechnical, Inc. Page 5 of 43
The site is currently occupied by an apple orchard, asphaltic concrete trail and a community garden at the south corner. Vegetation cover consists of short to tall grass, scattered blackberry bushes, many apple trees, some pear and almond trees and mature redwood, oak and other native trees,

GENERAL GEOLOGIC CONDITIONS
The site is located within the Coast Ranges Geomorphic Province of California. Throughout the Cenozoic Era, the western part of California has been affected by tectonic forces associated with lateral or transform plate motion between the North American and Pacific crustal plates, which has produced a complex system of northwest-trending faults - the San Andreas, Hayward, and Calaveras Fault systems being the most prominent within the Bay Area. Uplift, erosion and subsequent re-deposition of sedimentary rocks within this province have been driven primarily by the northwest-southeast directed strike-slip movement of the tectonic plates and the associated northeast oriented compressional stress. The northwest-trending coastal mountain ranges are the result of an orogeny believed to have been occurring since the Pleistocene epoch (approximately 2-3 million years before present).

According to the geologic map of Blake et al. (2005), the site is underlain by sediments of the Wilson Grove Formation of Mio-Pliocene age. This formation consists predominantly of “mostly massive or thick-bedded, buff-weathering, light-grey, fine grained quartz lithic arenite”. It is expected that this bedrock is capped in places by a thin fill of Holocene age alluvium and weathered bedrock. These soils would be expected to consist of silty clays to sandy silts.

The California Geological Survey (CGS) has not yet published a map categorizing liquefaction or landslide hazards in the vicinity. The Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) liquefaction susceptibility map categorizes the site in an area with low susceptibility. The site lies within proximity of several major Quaternary active Bay Area faults including: the Joy Woods Fault 6.5 miles due west, the Rodgers Creek Fault 8.1 miles northeast, the Bennett Valley Fault 10.8 miles northeast, and the San Andreas Fault 12.2 miles southwest. The California Water Resources Library indicates that at a nearby site, approximately 0.2 miles to the north, groundwater historically has been encountered at 20 feet below ground surface.

Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

Project No. E037.G Geotechnical Investigation/Gravenstein Hwy, Sebastopol June 17, 2021 Quantum Geotechnical, Inc. Page 6 of 43

INVESTIGATION
The field investigation was performed on May 6, 2021, and included a reconnaissance of the site and the drilling of four exploratory borings, at the locations shown on Figure 3, “Site Plan” attached to Appendix A.

The borings were drilled to depths ranging from 21 to 41 feet below the existing grade. The drilling was performed with a truck-mounted DR 10K1 drill rig utilizing 8 inch diameter hollow stem augers. Visual classifications were made from cuttings and the samples in the field. As the drilling proceeded, disturbed soil samples were obtained by means of a 2.0 inch O.D. split-spoon sampler.

The sampler was driven into the in-situ soil under the impact of a 140-pound hammer undergoing a free fall of 30 inches. The number of blows required to advance the sampler 12 inches into the soil is reported on the boring logs. The samples were sealed and returned to the laboratory for testing. Classifications made in the field were verified in the laboratory after further examination and testing. The stratification of the soils, descriptions, location of undisturbed soil samples and blow counts are shown on the respective "Logs of Test Borings" contained within Appendix A.

Laboratory testing was conducted for moisture content, Atterberg Limits, sieve analysis, and corrosion potential. The laboratory test results are presented on the boring logs, and summarized in Appendix B.

SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS
The subsurface conditions as encountered in the borings were generally consistent across the site and consisted of a 1 to 2 foot thick surface layer of silty sand underlain by stiff to very stiff sandy clay with layers/zones of medium dense clayey sand, to a depth of 14 to 20 feet, where a medium dense to dense, silty, gravelly or clayey sand was encountered to the maximum depth explored of

41.5 feet.

Groundwater was encountered in boring B-1 at a depth of 33 feet, at the time of our investigation.

Groundwater elevation may fluctuate based on seasonality, nearby development activities, and urbanization, among other factors.

Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

Project No. E037.G Geotechnical Investigation/Gravenstein Hwy, Sebastopol June 17, 2021 Quantum Geotechnical, Inc. Page 7 of 43
A more thorough description and stratification of the soil conditions are presented on the respective, “Logs of Test Borings” in Appendix A. The approximate locations of the borings are shown on Figure 3, “Site Plan” Appendix A.

LIQUEFACTION POTENTIAL EVALUATION
Liquefaction occurs primarily in relatively loose, saturated, cohesionless soils. Under earthquake stresses, these soils become “quick”, lose their strength and become incapable of supporting the weight of the overlying soils or structures. The data used for evaluating liquefaction potential of the subsurface soils consisted of the penetration resistance, the soil gradation, the relative density of the materials, and the groundwater level. For the purpose of our evaluation, we have assumed a design groundwater table depth of 30 feet.

Loose to medium dense cohesionless soil such as sands and some silts and low plasticity clays are potentially liquefiable, while dense and very dense cohesionless sands and gravels are considered to have a very low potential for liquefaction. Based on the data from boring B-1, it is estimated that a liquefaction induced settlement of 0.75 inch may occur. Given the variability in consistency and distribution of the sand layers across the site, a differential settlement of 0.4 inches over 100 feet is estimated. Due to the presence of a thick predominantly non-liquefiable cover overlying any potential liquefiable sand layers, no sand boils are expected and will limit any surface manifestations of liquefaction to differential settlements estimated above.

DYNAMIC COMPACTION/SETTLEMENT EVALUATION
Strong earthquake shaking can cause densification of loose to medium dense cohesionless soils above the groundwater table. The cohesionless soil above the groundwater table in all borings were generally medium dense and has the potential for dynamic settlement. Dynamic settlements of up to 0.5 inch may occur. A differential settlement of 0.3 inches over 100 feet is estimated. 2019 CBC SEISMIC DESIGN CRITERIA
The potential damaging effects of regional earthquake activity should be considered in the design of structures. As a minimum, seismic design should be in accordance with Chapter 16 of the 2019 Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

Project No. E037.G Geotechnical Investigation/Gravenstein Hwy, Sebastopol June 17, 2021 Quantum Geotechnical, Inc. Page 8 of 43
California Building Code (CBC). The 2019 CBC utilizes the design procedures outlined in the ASCE 7-16 Standard.

Using the criteria in Chapter 20 of ASCE 7-16, in its current condition, the site is classified as Site Class F, due to the presence of liquefiable soil, and a site response analysis is required. However, per the requirements of ASCE 7-10, section 20.3.1.1, a site response analysis is not required because the fundamental period of vibration of the proposed structures is less than 0.5 seconds, and the seismic design can be based on using a site class as determined from Table 20.3-1.

Accordingly, the site is classified as Site Class D. The seismic design parameters have been developed using the online “Seismic Design Maps” tool (6) by the Structural Engineering Association (SEA) and Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development (OSHPD) and a site location based on longitude and latitude. The seismic design parameters generated for the subject site for a latitude of 38.411627° N, and longitude of 122.840338°
W, are presented in Table I:

According to Section 11.4.8 of ASCE 7-16, a ground motion hazard analysis shall be performed when the coefficient S1 has a value greater than or equal to 0.2 for Site Class D and E sites. A ground motion hazard analysis is excepted if the Cs value is determined by equation 12.8-2 of ASCE 7-16. This is to be determined by the structural engineer. In the event that the calculated Cs values do not trigger a ground motion hazard analysis, the following parameters may be used.

Table I
2019 CBC Seismic Design Criteria
Seismic Parameter Coefficient Value
Site Class – Stiff Soil D
Peak Ground Acceleration (Site Modified) PGAM 0.55
Mapped MCE Spectral Acceleration at Short-Period 0.2 secs Ss 1.500 Mapped MCE Spectral Acceleration at a Period of 1.0s S1 0.600 Adjusted MCE, 5% Damped Spectral Response
Acceleration at Short Period of 0.2s SMS 1.500
Adjusted MCE, 5% Damped Spectral Response
Acceleration at Period of 1.0s SM1 1.020
Design 5% Damped Spectral Response Acceleration at
Short Period of 0.2s for Occupancy Category I/II/III SDS 1.000 Design 5% Damped Spectral Response Acceleration at
Period of 1.0s for Occupancy Category I/II/III SD1 0.680

Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

Project No. E037.G Geotechnical Investigation/Gravenstein Hwy, Sebastopol June 17, 2021 Quantum Geotechnical, Inc. Page 9 of 43

DISCUSSIONS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

GENERAL

1. From a geotechnical point of view, the site is suitable for the construction of the proposed residential development provided the recommendations presented in this report are incorporated into the project plans and specifications.

2. The most prominent geotechnical features of this site are; a) the presence of moderately expansive near surface clay soil that may form the foundation subgrade.
b) and potentially liquefiable soil deposits.

3. Atterberg Limits testing on the surficial clay registered a Plasticity Index (PI) value of 9, 10 and 22, indicating the near surface materials to vary from low to moderately expansive. The moderately expansive soil material is prone to heave and shrink movements with changes in moisture content and must be carefully considered in the design and construction of foundations, drainage, hardscape and pavements. A post-tensioned slab foundation is the most appropriate foundation system for the proposed structures.

4. As indicated earlier, combined total liquefaction and dynamic settlements are estimated to be of the order of 1.25 inches, with differential settlement of 0.7 inches over 100 feet. This differential settlement must be incorporated into the design of gravity utilities and foundations.

SITE DEMOLITION

5. Prior to any grading, demolition and grubbing of the existing orchard trees, walkways and the community garden, on the site should be completed. Demolition should include the complete removal of all surface and subsurface structures. In addition, all known underground structures such as irrigation pipes or tanks (if present) must be located on the grading plans so that proper removal may be carried out, and all excavations are left open for proper backfilling. It is vital that Quantum Geotechnical Inc., intermittently observe the removal of subsurface structures and excavations, and be notified in ample time to ensure that no subsurface structures or excavations are covered. If Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

Project No. E037.G Geotechnical Investigation/Gravenstein Hwy, Sebastopol June 17, 2021 Quantum Geotechnical, Inc. Page 10 of 43
Quantum Geotechnical Inc., is not contacted to observe the demolition and removal of tree root systems, further backhoe exploratory investigation will need to be performed prior to the commencement of grading.

6. Excavations made by the grubbing/removal of the trees and any irrigation pipes will create significant disturbed/loose areas, and where this occurs the loose material should be excavated and replaced as engineered fill, or if it is less than 1 foot in thickness, can be compacted in place, prior to placing fill. We recommend that excavations greater than 1 foot deep be left open by the demolition contractor for backfill in accordance with the requirements for engineered fill. Any soil exposed by the removal operations which are deemed soft or unsuitable by the Soil Engineer, shall be excavated as uncompacted fill and be removed as required by the Soil Engineer during grading. Any resulting excavations should be properly backfilled with engineered fill under the observation of the Soil Engineer. It is important that Quantum Geotechnical Inc., be present during removal activities to verify that all excavations created by removal of subsurface structures are left open and located on a grading plan. If any excavations are loosely backfilled without our knowledge and these excavations are not located and backfilled during grading, future settlement of these loosely filled excavations could occur and may cause damage to structures and improvements.

GRADING

7. The grading requirements presented herein are an integral part of the grading specifications presented in Appendix C of this report and should be considered as such.

8. Grading activities during the rainy season on cohesive soils will be hampered by excessive moisture. Grading activities may be performed during the rainy season, however, achieving proper compaction may be difficult due to excessive moisture; and delays may occur. In addition, measures to control potential erosion may need to be provided. Grading performed during the dry months will minimize the occurrence of the above problems.

9. The site contains much vegetation cover and stripping of vegetation and topsoil will be required. Vegetation conditions may be different at the time of grading, and the extent of any stripping will be revaluated at that time. Organically contaminated soil material or strippings may be utilized in landscape areas located outside the building footprint.

Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

Project No. E037.G Geotechnical Investigation/Gravenstein Hwy, Sebastopol June 17, 2021 Quantum Geotechnical, Inc. Page 11 of 43

10. Demolition of the existing structures and grubbing of trees may create disturbed/loose areas, and where this occurs the loose material should be excavated and replaced as engineered fill or if it is less than 1 foot in thickness, compacted in place, prior to placing fill. In addition, removal of portions of the existing pavements will be performed. The removed concrete, asphaltic concrete and aggregate base can be reused as fill provided the concrete and AC is broken down to pieces less than 6 inches in size and thoroughly mixed with soil material, however, we recommend that AC not be used in the upper 2 feet of soil in landscape areas as the AC may affect plant growth.

11. Following the removal of any strippings, old fill or loose fill, the top 8 inches of exposed native ground should be scarified and compacted to a minimum degree of relative compaction of 90% at 2 to 3 percent above optimum moisture content as determined by ASTM D1557-12 Laboratory Test Procedure. After recompacting the subgrade, the site may be brought to the desired finished grades by placing engineered fill in lifts of 8 inches in uncompacted thickness and compacting to a relative compaction of at least 90%, at 2 to 3 percent above optimum moisture content.

12. Given the undulating topography of the site and anticipated pad grading, differential fill thickness across a building pad may generally be of the order of 1 to 4 feet. Differential fill thicknesses less than 7 feet do not require mitigation by sub-excavation.

13. In addition, it is anticipated that due to the undulating topography some building pads will be graded such that the building pad will be created by cut and fill. The depth of cut and fill appears to range from 0 to 6 feet. For lots located within cut/fill areas, we recommend that the cut portion of the building pad be sub-excavated to a depth of 2 feet, and the excavation be backfilled with the sub-excavated material as engineered fill. If the base of the sub-excavation is to be ripped moisture conditioned as needed and recompacted in place to the requirements of engineered fill.

14. The near surface soil has variable expansion potential, and it is likely that due to the planned grading, the material at pad grade will have variable expansion potential. This may create non-uniform performance of the soil expansion for cut pads, fill pads and cut/fill pads. This condition will be evaluated in the field during grading, and where this condition occurs, we recommend that the upper 2 feet of the building pad and extending 5 feet laterally beyond the Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

Project No. E037.G Geotechnical Investigation/Gravenstein Hwy, Sebastopol June 17, 2021 Quantum Geotechnical, Inc. Page 12 of 43
building perimeter, consist of uniformly mixed and blended soil material. We further recommend this condition be evaluated during grading when the building pad is within 1 foot of design grade, and specific recommendations will be provided for each building pad

15. All soils encountered during our investigation are suitable for use as engineered fill when placed and compacted at the recommended moisture content and provided it does not contain any debris.

SURFACE AND SUBSURFACE DRAINAGE

16. All finish grades should be provided with a positive gradient to an adequate discharge point in order to provide rapid removal of surface water runoff away from all foundations. No ponding of water should be allowed on the pad or adjacent to the foundations. Surface drainage must be designed by the project Civil Engineer and maintained by the property owners at all times. The pad should be graded in a manner that surface flow is to a controlled discharge system.

17. Lot slopes and drainage must be provided by the project Civil Engineer to remove all storm water from the pad and to minimize storm and/or irrigation water from seeping beneath the structures. Should surface water be allowed to seep under the structure, foundation movement resulting in structural cracking and damage will occur. Finished grades around the perimeter of the structure should be compacted and should be sloped at a minimum 2% gradient away from the exterior foundation. Surface drainage requirements constructed by the builder should be maintained during landscaping. In particular, the creation of planter areas confined on all sides by concrete walkways or decks and the residence foundation is not desirable since any surface water due to rain or irrigation becomes trapped in the planter area with no outlet. If such a landscape feature is necessary, surface area drains in the planter area or a subdrain along the foundation perimeter must be installed.

BIO-FILTRATION FACILITIES

18. According to local government requirements, roof downspout and drain flows should be directed to at grade bio-filtration areas, or raised planter boxes next to the building perimeter, where possible. From a geotechnical and maintenance point of view it is undesirable to discharge Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

Project No. E037.G Geotechnical Investigation/Gravenstein Hwy, Sebastopol June 17, 2021 Quantum Geotechnical, Inc. Page 13 of 43
water into at grade bio-filtration areas near foundations, because of the possibility of water ponding for sustained periods of time, potentially creating excessive moisture related issues. However, certain design features could be made to minimize such potential effects. In addition, the property owners must always maintain the bio-filtration area to ensure that they are performing as designed and that water does not pond in the area for longer than 48 hours.

19. Typically, the bio-filtration areas consist of an 18 inch layer of sandy loam over 18 inches of permeable gravel material. The top of the bio-filtration area is typically approximately 1 foot below pad grade, therefore, the base of the bio-filtration area will be approximately 4 feet below pad grade. The base of the bio-filtration area will typically contain a perforated pipe to drain any water that may collect within 24 hours. In some situations, the bio-filtration areas may be located immediately adjacent the building structure.

20. Where bio-filtration areas are located closer than 5 feet of the building, the section of loose loam and gravel will provide reduced lateral support, and we recommend a deepened footing be constructed along the perimeter the building adjacent to the bio-filtration area and extending 3 feet beyond in plan length. The depth of the deepened footing will depend on how close the biofiltration area is located to the building perimeter. As a guide, the footing is to be deepened such that when an imaginary line inclined at 45 degrees from the outside edge base of the footings, it extends below the base of the bio-filtration area excavation. Where bio-filtration areas are located further than 5 feet, no special design is required. Provided the bio-filtration facility is lined with an impermeable liner, no waterproofing of the deepened footing is required.

21. Where bio-filtration areas are located closer than 3 feet of street pavements, a deepened curb footing is required. Where bio-filtration areas are located closer than 1 foot of street pavements, because pavements do not have a positive connection to a deepened curb/footing, the deepened curb/footing may need to be designed as a retaining wall rigid enough to create minimal lateral deflections.

22. Where bio-filtration areas are located closer than 2 feet of hardscape areas, a deepened edge footing is required. The deepened edge should extend at least 1 foot below the subgrade.

Where the bio-filtration area is immediately adjacent the hardscape, the deepened edge is to extend at least 3 inches below the base of the bio-filtration system.

Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

Project No. E037.G Geotechnical Investigation/Gravenstein Hwy, Sebastopol June 17, 2021 Quantum Geotechnical, Inc. Page 14 of 43

FOUNDATIONS

23. Provided the site is prepared as recommended in the “Grading” section, a post-tensioned slab foundation may be satisfactorily used. The slab must be designed to tolerate the expansive clay criteria presented in this section and the estimated total and differential settlements due to liquefaction and consolidation settlement provided earlier.

Post Tensioned Slab-on-Grade

24. Post-tensioned slabs should be designed using the following criteria which is based on the design method presented in the Post-Tensioning Institute, Standard Requirements for Design and Analysis of Shallow Post-Tensioned Concrete Foundations on Expansive Soils (PTI DC10.5-12), 2012. Using the relevant site soil and climatic parameters, the recommended geotechnical criteria for use in the design of the post-tensioned slabs is as follows; Swelling Mode
Center Lift Edge Lift
Edge Moisture Variation Distance (em) 8.9 feet 4.6
Differential Soil Movement (ym) 0.70 inches 1.19 inches

25. The maximum allowable bearing pressure at the base of the slab and for localized thickened footings should not exceed 2,000 p.s.f. for dead plus sustained live loads.

26. As indicated earlier, bio-filtration areas may be designed close to the foundation. Where bio-filtration areas are located closer than 5 feet of the building, the section of loose loam and gravel, will provide reduced lateral support, and we recommend a deepened footing be constructed along the perimeter the building adjacent to the bio-filtration area and extending 3 feet beyond in plan length. The depth of the deepened footing will depend on how close the bio-filtration area to the building perimeter. As a guide, the footing is to be deepened such that when an imaginary line inclined at 45 degrees from the outside edge base of the footings, it extends below the base of the bio-filtration area excavation.

Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

Project No. E037.G Geotechnical Investigation/Gravenstein Hwy, Sebastopol June 17, 2021 Quantum Geotechnical, Inc. Page 15 of 43
General Construction Requirements for Post Tensioned Slab-on-Grade

27. Prior to construction of the slab, the slab subgrade should be observed by the Soil Engineer to verify that all under-slab utility trenches greater than 18 inches in width have been properly backfilled and compacted, and that no loose or soft soils are present on the slab subgrade.

28. Where the building pad consist of clayey soil, the slab subgrade should be soaked to saturation (minimum 5% above optimum) to a depth of 12 to 18 inches prior to placement of the capillary break or vapor retarder/barrier. This should be verified and approved by the Soil Engineer. The penetration of a thin metal probe to a depth of 10-12 inches generally indicates sufficient saturation.

29. The four (4) inch (minimum thickness) layer of gravel typically placed to provide a capillary break beneath concrete slab-on-grade floors may be omitted beneath the monolithically poured mat slab foundations provided that the slabs are at least 10 inches thick as recommended above. If it is desired to use a 4 inch layer or thinner of gravel section, the gravel should consist of broken stone, crushed or uncrushed gravel, quarry waste, or a combination thereof. The aggregate shall be free from deleterious substances. It shall be of such quality that the absorption of water in a saturated dry condition does not exceed 3% of the oven dry weight of the sample. The material shall be ¾” minus material with no more than 3% passing the #200 sieve, as specified in Appendix C.

30. A moisture vapor retarder/barrier is recommended beneath all slabs-on-grade that will be covered by moisture-sensitive flooring materials such as vinyl, linoleum, wood, carpet, rubber, rubber-backed carpet, tile, impermeable floor coatings, adhesives, or where moisture-sensitive equipment, products, or environments will exist. We recommend that design and construction of the moisture vapor retarder/barrier conform to Section 1805 of the 2013 CBC and relevant sections of American Concrete Institute (ACI) guidance documents 302.1R-04, 302.2R-06 and 360R-10.

31. The moisture vapor retarder/barrier can be placed above the 4 inches of gravel or directly on the soil subgrade and should consist of a minimum 10 mils thick polyethylene with a maximum perm rating of 0.1 in accordance with ASTM E 1745. Seams in the moisture vapor retarder/barrier should be overlapped no less than 6 inches or in accordance with the manufacturer’s recommendations. Joints and penetrations should be sealed with the manufacturer’s recommended adhesives, pressure-sensitive tape, or both. The contractor must avoid damaging or puncturing the Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

Project No. E037.G Geotechnical Investigation/Gravenstein Hwy, Sebastopol June 17, 2021 Quantum Geotechnical, Inc. Page 16 of 43
moisture vapor retarder/barrier and repair any punctures with additional polyethylene properly lapped and sealed. The installation of the vapor retarder membrane must be in conformance with ASTM E1643.

32. A minimum of two inches of wetted sand should be placed over the vapor retarder membrane to facilitate curing of the concrete and to act as a cushion to protect the membrane. The perimeter of the mat should be thickened to bear on the prepared building pad and to confine the sand. During winter construction, sand may become saturated due to rainy weather prior to pouring. Saturated sand is not desirable because the sand cushion may become over saturated, and boil into the concrete causing undesirable structural monopolies of sand pockets within the slab.

As an alternate, a sand-fine gravel mixture that is stable under saturated conditions may be used.

However, the material must be approved by the Soil Engineer prior to use.

33. Alternatively, the sand layer may be eliminated provided the concrete has a maximum water/cement ratio of 0.45 and a 10 mil Class A vapor retarder membrane, such as Stego® Wrap.

In any case, the vapor retarder/barrier should have a maximum perm rating of 0.3 in accordance with ASTM E 1745. Seams in the moisture vapor retarder/barrier should be overlapped no less than 6 inches or in accordance with the manufacturer’s recommendations. Joints and penetrations should be sealed with the manufacturer’s recommended adhesives, pressure-sensitive tape, or both.

The contractor must avoid damaging or puncturing the vapor retarder/barrier and repair any punctures with additional polyethylene properly lapped and sealed.

34. It is our understanding that the preferred post-tensioned slab section is to consist of a slab with concrete having a water/cement ratio of no greater than 0.45, over a vapor retarder membrane underlain by soil subgrade. The sand and gravel sections that are sometimes typically used will not be utilized for this project. This is acceptable from a geotechnical point of view.

MISCELLANEOUS CONCRETE FLATWORK

35. Miscellaneous flatwork, driveways, and walkways may be designed with a minimum thickness of 4.0 inches. Any exterior concrete flatwork such as driveways, steps, patios, or walkways should be designed independently of the slab, and expansion joints should be provided between the flatwork and the structural unit. Control joints should be constructed to create squares Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

Project No. E037.G Geotechnical Investigation/Gravenstein Hwy, Sebastopol June 17, 2021 Quantum Geotechnical, Inc. Page 17 of 43
or rectangles with a maximum spacing of 15 feet on large slab areas. Control joints for walkways should be constructed at a maximum of 5 feet spacing.

RETAINING WALLS

36. Retaining walls should be designed to resist lateral pressures exerted from a media having an equivalent fluid weight as follows:

Active Condition = 45 p.c.f. for horizontal backslope
At-rest Condition = 65 p.c.f.

Passive Condition = 250 p.c.f.

Coefficient of Friction = 0.30

37. For a non-horizontal backslope, the active condition equivalent fluid weight can be increased by 1.5 p.c.f. for each 2 degree rise in slope from the horizontal.

38. Active conditions occur when the top of the wall is free to move outward. At-rest conditions apply when the top of wall is restrained from any movement.

39. It should be noted that the effects of any surcharge, traffic or compaction loads behind the walls must be accounted for in the design of the walls.

40. The above criteria are based on fully drained conditions. If drained conditions are not possible, then the hydrostatic pressure must be included in the design of the wall. An additional linear distribution of hydrostatic pressure of 63 p.c.f. should be adopted, in this case.

41. In order to achieve fully-drained conditions, a drainage filter blanket should be placed behind the wall. The blanket should be a minimum of 12 inches thick and should extend the full height of the wall to within 12 inches of the surface. If the excavated area behind the wall exceeds 12 inches, the entire excavated space behind the 12-inch blanket should consist of compacted engineered fill or blanket material. The drainage blanket material may consist of either granular crushed rock and drain pipe fully encapsulated in geotextile filter fabric or Class II permeable material that meets CalTrans Specification, Section 68, with drainage pipe but without fabric. A 4-inch perforated drain pipe should be installed in the bottom of the drainage blanket and should be underlain by at least 4 inches of filter type material. A 12-inch cap of clayey soil material should be placed over the drainage blanket. All back drains should be outlet to suitable drainage devices.

Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

Project No. E037.G Geotechnical Investigation/Gravenstein Hwy, Sebastopol June 17, 2021 Quantum Geotechnical, Inc. Page 18 of 43
Retaining wall less than 3 feet in height may be provided with backdrains or weep holes.

42. As an alternate to the 12-inch drainage blanket, a pre-fabricated strip drain (such as Miradrain) may be used between the wall and retained soil. In this case, the wall must be designed to resist an additional lateral hydrostatic pressure of 30 p.c.f.

43. Piping with adequate gradient shall be provided to discharge water that collects behind the walls to an adequately controlled discharge system away from the structure foundation.

44. The retaining walls may be founded on a friction pier foundation or on spread footing foundations. Spread footing and pier design criteria are given below.

RETAINING WALL/SOUNDWALL FOUNDATION - SPREAD FOOTINGS

45. Spread footings should have a minimum depth of eighteen (18) inches below lowest adjacent pad grade (i.e., trenching depth) for soil subgrade. At this depth, the recommended design bearing pressure for continuous footings should not exceed 2,500 p.s.f. due to dead plus sustained live loads and 3,300 p.s.f. due to all loads which include wind and seismic.

46. To accommodate lateral loads, the passive resistance of the foundation soil can be utilized.

The passive soil pressures can be assumed to act against the front face of the footing below a depth of one foot below the ground surface. It is recommended that a passive pressure equivalent to that of a fluid weighing 250 p.c.f. be used. The weight of the soil above the footing can be used in the frictional calculations. For design purposes, an allowable friction coefficient of 0.30 can be assumed at the base of the spread footing.

RETAINING WALL/SOUNDWALL FOUNDATION - PIER FOOTINGS

47. The piers should be designed on the basis of skin friction acting between the soil and the pier. For the soils at the site, an allowable skin friction value of 500 p.s.f. can be used for combined dead and live loads, below a depth of 2 feet. This value can be increased by one-third for total loads which include wind or seismic forces. Given the moderately expansive nature of the soil, we recommend that any grade beams footings or bottom of soundwall panels that are buried into the ground, should be designed for an uplift pressure of 500 p.s.f. acting against the bottom of the Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

Project No. E037.G Geotechnical Investigation/Gravenstein Hwy, Sebastopol June 17, 2021 Quantum Geotechnical, Inc. Page 19 of 43
grade beam/soundwall panel and an uplift adhesion of 300 p.s.f. acting along the upper 2 feet of the pier. Resistance to uplift is to be provided by the pier foundations, and an allowable skin friction value of 500 p.s.f can be used below 2 feet. The size, depth and spacing of the piers is to be determined by the structural engineer.

48. To resist lateral loads, the passive resistance of the soil can be used. The soil passive pressures can be assumed to act against the lateral projected area twice the pier diameter. It is recommended that a passive pressure equivalent to that of a fluid weighing 250 p.c.f be used below 2 feet of final pad grade.

PAVEMENT AREAS

49. R-value tests were not performed as part of this investigation, as the soil expected at subgrade level is not known and depends on the planned grading. Assuming the subgrade material will consist of the moderately expansive clay material, we will assume an R-value of 5 for preliminary design.

50. Based on an R-Value of 5, the following flexible pavement sections are recommended.

Traffic Index
AC
(inches)
Class II¹ AB
(inches)

4.5 3.0 10.0

5.0 3.0 12.0

5.5 3.0 14.0

6.0 4.0 13.5

7.0 4.0 17.0
Notes: ¹Minimum R-Value = 78
R-Value = Resistance Value
All Layers in compacted thickness to Cal-Trans Standard Specifications

51. After underground facilities have been placed in the areas to receive pavement and removal of excess material has been completed, the upper 6 inches of the sub-grade soil shall be scarified, Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

Project No. E037.G Geotechnical Investigation/Gravenstein Hwy, Sebastopol June 17, 2021 Quantum Geotechnical, Inc. Page 20 of 43
moisture conditioned, and compacted to a minimum relative compaction of 95% in accordance with the grading recommendations specified in this report.

52. All aggregate base material placed subsequently should be compacted to a minimum relative compaction of 95% based on the ASTM Test Procedure of D1557-12 (latest edition). The construction of the pavement areas should conform to the requirements set forth by the latest Standard Specifications of the Department of Transportations of the State of California and/or City of Sebastopol, Department of Public Works.

53. If planter areas are provided within or immediately adjacent to the pavement areas, provisions should be made to control irrigation water from entering the pavement subgrade. Water entering the pavement section at subgrade level, which does not have a means for discharge, could cause softening of this zone.

UTILITY TRENCHES

54. Applicable safety standards require that trenches in excess of 5 feet must be properly shored or that the walls of the trench slope back to provide safety for installation of lines. If trench wall sloping is performed, the inclination should vary with the soil type. The underground contractor should request an opinion from the Soil Engineer as to the type of soil and the resulting inclination.

55. With respect to state-of-the-art construction or local requirements, utility lines are generally bedded with granular materials. These materials can convey surface or subsurface water beneath the structures. It is, therefore, recommended that all utility trenches which possess the potential to transport water be sealed with a compacted impervious cohesive soil material or lean concrete where the trench enters/exits the building perimeter.

56. Utility trenches extending underneath all traffic areas must be backfilled with native or approved import material and compacted to a relative compaction of 90% to within 6 inches of the subgrade. The upper 6 inches should be compacted to 95% relative compaction in accordance with Laboratory Test Procedure ASTM D1557 (latest edition). Backfilling and compaction of these trenches must meet the requirements set forth by the City of Sebastopol, Department of Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

Project No. E037.G Geotechnical Investigation/Gravenstein Hwy, Sebastopol June 17, 2021 Quantum Geotechnical, Inc. Page 21 of 43
Public Works. Utility trenches within landscape areas may be compacted to a relative compaction of 85%.

PROJECT REVIEW AND CONSTRUCTION MONITORING

57. All grading and foundation plans for the development must be reviewed by the Soil Engineer prior to contract bidding or submitted to governmental agencies so that plans are reconciled with soil conditions and sufficient time is allowed for suitable mitigative measures to be incorporated into the final grading specifications.

58. Quantum Geotechnical, Inc. should be notified at least two working days prior to site clearing, grading, and/or foundation operations on the property. This will give the Soil Engineer ample time to discuss the problems that may be encountered in the field and coordinate the work with the contractor.

59. Field observation and testing during the demolition and/or foundation operations must be provided by representatives of Quantum Geotechnical, Inc. to enable them to form an opinion regarding the adequacy of the site preparation, the acceptability of fill materials, and the extent to which the earthwork construction and the degree of compaction comply with the specification requirements. Any work related to the grading and/or foundation operations performed without the full knowledge and under the direct observation of the Soil Engineer will render the recommendations of this report invalid. This does not imply full-time observation. The degree of observation and frequency of testing services would depend on the construction methods and schedule, and the item of work.

Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

Project No. E037.G Geotechnical Investigation/Gravenstein Hwy, Sebastopol June 17, 2021 Quantum Geotechnical, Inc. Page 22 of 43

REFERENCES

1. California Geological Survey. 2008. Guidelines for Evaluating and Mitigating Seismic Hazards in California. Special Publication 117A.

2. Structural Engineers Association and Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development. 2018. “Seismic Design Maps”. Accessed June 17, 2021 from web site:
https://seismicmaps.org/.

3. U.S. Geological Survey and California Geological Survey. 2020. "Quaternary fault and fold database for the United States". Accessed June 17, 2021 from USGS web site:
http//earthquakes.usgs.gov/regional/qfaults/.

4. U.S. Geological Survey. 2020. “The National Map - Elevation”. Accessed June 17, 2021, from USGS website: https://viewer.nationalmap.gov/theme/elevation/##bottom

Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

Project No. E037.G Geotechnical Investigation/Gravenstein Hwy, Sebastopol June 17, 2021 Quantum Geotechnical, Inc. Page 23 of 43

LIMITATIONS AND UNIFORMITY OF CONDITIONS

1. It should be noted that it is the responsibility of the owner or his representative to notify Quantum Geotechnical, Inc., in writing, a minimum of two working days before any clearing, grading, or foundation excavations can commence at the site.

2. The recommendations of this report are based upon the assumption that the soil conditions do not deviate from those disclosed in the borings and from a reconnaissance of the site. Should any variations or undesirable conditions be encountered during the development of the site, Quantum Geotechnical, will provide supplemental recommendations as dictated by the field conditions.

3. This report is issued with the understanding that it is the responsibility of the owner, or his representative, to ensure that the information and recommendations contained herein are brought to the attention of the Architect and Engineer for the project and incorporated into the plans and the necessary steps are taken to see that the Contractor and Subcontractors carry out such recommendations in the field.

4. At the present date, the findings of this report are valid for the property investigated. With the passage of time, significant changes in the conditions of a property can occur due to natural processes or works of man on this or adjacent properties. In addition, legislation or the broadening of knowledge may result in changes in applicable standards. Changes outside of our control may render this report invalid, wholly or partially. Therefore, this report should not be considered valid after a period of two (2) years without our review, nor should it be used, or is it applicable, for any properties other than those investigated.

5. Not withstanding all the foregoing, applicable codes must be adhered to at all times.

Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

APPENDIX A
Figure 1 - Site Vicinity and Fault Map
Figure 2 - Regional Geologic Map
Figure 3 - Site Plan
Logs of Test Borings
Key to Boring Log

Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

San Andreas Fault
Sargent Fault
Calaveras Fault

QUANTUM
GEOTECHNICAL, INC.

SITE VICINITY AND FAULT MAP
Proposed Townhome Development
1003-1007 Gravenstein Hwy., Sebastopol
Sonoma County, California
Project No.

E037.G
Drawn by:

D.T.

Figure No.
1 1. Base Map: Google Earth, 2021 2. Fault Map Overlay: U.S. Geological Survey and California Geological Survey. 2020. Quaternary fault and fold database for the United States. Accessed July 15, 2021 from USGS web site: https://earthquake.usgs.gov/hazards/qfaults/.

SITE Rodgers Creek Fault
Green Valley Fault
Napa Fault
San Andreas Fault
1” = 20 Mi.
0 20 Mi.

Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

QUANTUM
GEOTECHNICAL, INC.

REGIONAL GEOLOGIC MAP
Proposed Townhome Development
1003-1007 Gravenstein Hwy., Sebastopol
Sonoma County, California
Project No.

E037.G
Drawn by:

D.T.

Figure No.
2 SITE
Map Legend
1) Qha – Alluvium (Holocene)
2) Qpa –Alluvial Fan Deposits (Pleistocene) 3) TPms – Sedimentary Rock (Pliocene) 4) TPmv –Volcanic Rock (Pliocene)

1. Base Map: Google Earth, 2021 2. Geologic Map Overlay: Graymer, R.W., Moring, B.C., Saucedo, G.J., Wentworth, C.M., Brabb, E.E., and Knudsen, K.L. 2006. “Geologic Map of the San Francisco Bay Region”. USGS. Scientific Investigations Map 2918.

Qpa
Qha
Qha
Qpa
TPms
TP
TP
ms
mv
1” = 4 Mi.
0 4 Mi.

Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

QUANTUM
GEOTECHNICAL, INC.

SITE PLAN
Proposed Townhome Development - Gravenstein Village
1003 - 1007 Gravenstein Hwy., Sebastopol
Sonoma County, California
Project No.

E037.G
Drawn by:

D.T.

Figure No.
3 Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

Project: Gravenstein Village
Project Location: 1003-1007 Gravenstein
Hwy., Sebastopol
Project Number: E037.G
Log of Boring B-1
Date(s)

Drilled 05-06-21
Drilling

Method Hollow Stem
Drill Rig

Type DR10K1
Groundwater Level

and Date Measured 33 ft.

Borehole

Backfill Grout
Logged By SM
Drill Bit

Size/Type 8"
Drilling

Contractor Clearheart
Sampling

Method(s) Modified California
Location See Site Plan
Checked By DT
Total Depth

of Borehole 41.5 ft.

Approximate

Surface Elevation 201 ft. amsl.

Hammer

Data Auto.

Material Type
SM
CL
CL
SM
LL, %
37 PI, %
10 Graphic LogWater Content, %Percent Fines (-#200)

29.3 28.2

43.1 23.9

27.9 Dry Unit Weight, pcf

86.7 90.0

73.4 95.8

92.6 MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
Silty SAND: Light brown; dry; fine sand; some fine gravel; dense.

Sandy CLAY: Orange to reddish brown with light brown mottling; moist; stiff, friable.

Sandy Silty CLAY: Variegated light to orange brown with black charcoal specks, moist to very moist; firm/stiff.

Clayey silty fine SAND: Cream brown with black charcoal specks; moist; medium dense.

Depth (feet)
0 5
10 15
20 25
30 Sample Number
1-1
1-2
1-3
1-4
1-5
1-6
Sample TypeSampling Resistance, blows/ft
18 16
14 21
24 18
Elevation (feet)
201
196
191
186
181
176
171
C:\Users\Danepc\AppData\Local\Temp\borings_temp\tmpfile.bgs[Soil Boring Lab.tpl] Sheet 1 of 2
Quantum Geotechnical, Inc.
1110 Burnett Ave., Ste B

Concord, CA 94520
Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

Project: Gravenstein Village
Project Location: 1003-1007 Gravenstein
Hwy., Sebastopol
Project Number: E037.G
Log of Boring B-1
Material Type
SM
SM
Graphic Log

MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
Water Content, %Dry Unit Weight, pcfPercent Fines (-#200)LL, %PI, % Clayey silty fine to medium SAND: Cream brown with black charcoal specks; moist; medium dense.

Silty SAND: Cream brown; wet; medium dense; fine to medium sand; rounded to subrounded gravels up to 1/2 inch in size.

Bottom of Boring at 41.5 ft.

Groundwater encountered at 33 ft.

Depth (feet)
30 35
40 45
50 55
60 65
Sample Number
1-7
1-8
1-9
Sample TypeSampling Resistance, blows/ft
23 20
38 Elevation (feet)
171
166
161
156
151
146
141
136
C:\Users\Danepc\AppData\Local\Temp\borings_temp\tmpfile.bgs[Soil Boring Lab.tpl] Sheet 2 of 2
Quantum Geotechnical, Inc.
1110 Burnett Ave., Ste B

Concord, CA 94520
Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

Project: Gravenstein Village
Project Location: 1003-1007 Gravenstein
Hwy., Sebastopol
Project Number: E037.G
Log of Boring B-2
Date(s)

Drilled 05-06-21
Drilling

Method Hollow Stem
Drill Rig

Type DR10K1
Groundwater Level

and Date Measured None Encountered
Borehole

Backfill Grout
Logged By SM
Drill Bit

Size/Type 8"
Drilling

Contractor Clearheart
Sampling

Method(s) Modified California
Location See Site Plan
Checked By DT
Total Depth

of Borehole 26.5 ft.

Approximate

Surface Elevation 201 ft. amsl.

Hammer

Data Auto.

Material Type
SM
CL
CL
SM
CL
LL, %
35 PI, %
9 Percent Fines (-#200)

47.2 Graphic LogWater Content, %

24.6 21.4

18.2 20.9
Dry Unit Weight, pcf

93.3 100.3

92.2 95.8

MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
Silty SAND: Light brown; dry; contains gravel.

Sandy CLAY: Red - orange brown with light yellow brown mottling; slightly moist to moist; stiff, friable.

At 6 ft.: As above but vari-colored with charcoal specks up to 1/8 inch in size.

Clayey to Silty fine to medium SAND: Cream with black mottling; slightly moist to moist; stiff;
At 20 ft.: Grades from clayey silty sand to silty clayey sand with fine gravel and sandy silty clay with fine gravel.

Bottom of Boring at 26.5 ft.

No groundwater was encountered.

Depth (feet)
0 5
10 15
20 25
30 Sample Number
2-1
2-2
2-3
2-4
2-5
2-6
Sample TypeSampling Resistance, blows/ft
17 22
11 17
25 19
Elevation (feet)
201
196
191
186
181
176
171
C:\Users\Danepc\AppData\Local\Temp\borings_temp\tmpfile.bgs[Soil Boring Lab.tpl] Sheet 1 of 1
Quantum Geotechnical, Inc.
1110 Burnett Ave., Ste B

Concord, CA 94520
Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

Project: Gravenstein Village
Project Location: 1003-1007 Gravenstein
Hwy., Sebastopol
Project Number: E037.G
Log of Boring B-3
Date(s)

Drilled 05-06-21
Drilling

Method Hollow Stem
Drill Rig

Type DR10K1
Groundwater Level

and Date Measured None Encountered
Borehole

Backfill Grout
Logged By SM
Drill Bit

Size/Type 8"
Drilling

Contractor Clearheart
Sampling

Method(s) Modified California
Location See Site Plan
Checked By DT
Total Depth

of Borehole 21.5 ft.

Approximate

Surface Elevation 201 ft. amsl.

Hammer

Data Auto.

Material Type
SM
CL
CL
SM
SC
Graphic LogWater Content, %Percent Fines (-#200)LL, %PI, %

26.1 26.3

19.8 Dry Unit Weight, pcf

94.1 93.3
100.8

MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
Silty SAND: Light brown; dry; dense; contains gravel.

Sandy CLAY: Variegated reddish to orange brown and yellow brown; slightly moist to moist; stiff to very stiff; contains fine gravel.

At 10 ft.: As above; grades to clayey sand with fine gravel; contains large oxidized nodules.

Silty fine to medium SAND with clay: Cream brown; slightly moist; medium dense; minor black mottles.

Clayey SAND: Cream to yellow brown; moist; dense; contains fine gravel up to 1/4 inch.

Bottom of Boring at 21.5 ft.

No groundwater was encountered.

Depth (feet)
0 5
10 15
20 25
30 Sample Number
3-1
3-2
3-3
3-4
3-5
Sample TypeSampling Resistance, blows/ft
31 26
23 20
29 Elevation (feet)
201
196
191
186
181
176
171
C:\Users\Danepc\AppData\Local\Temp\borings_temp\tmpfile.bgs[Soil Boring Lab.tpl] Sheet 1 of 1
Quantum Geotechnical, Inc.
1110 Burnett Ave., Ste B

Concord, CA 94520
Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

Project: Gravenstein Village
Project Location: 1003-1007 Gravenstein
Hwy., Sebastopol
Project Number: E037.G
Log of Boring B-4
Date(s)

Drilled 05-06-21
Drilling

Method Hollow Stem
Drill Rig

Type DR10K1
Groundwater Level

and Date Measured None Encountered
Borehole

Backfill Grout
Logged By SM
Drill Bit

Size/Type 8"
Drilling

Contractor Clearheart
Sampling

Method(s) Modified California
Location See Site Plan
Checked By DT
Total Depth

of Borehole 26.5 ft.

Approximate

Surface Elevation 201 ft. amsl.

Hammer

Data Auto.

Material Type
SM
CL
SC
SM
LL, %
60 PI, %
22 Percent Fines (-#200)

54.3 Graphic LogWater Content, %

22.9 25.6

21.0 22.5
Dry Unit Weight, pcf

97.2 97.9

92.2 81.3

MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
Silty SAND: Light brown; dry; dense; some gravel.

Sandy CLAY with gravel up to 1/4-1/2 inch: Variegated reddish to orange brown and yellow brown; moist; very stiff, friable.

At 10 ft.: As above but grading to clayey sand with gravel and black charcoal specks.

Silty fine to medium SAND: Cream brown with black mottles; moist; medium dense; fine to medium sand.

Bottom of Boring at 26.5 ft.

No groundwater was encountered.

Depth (feet)
0 5
10 15
20 25
30 Sample Number
4-1
4-2
4-3
4-4
4-5
4-6
Sample TypeSampling Resistance, blows/ft
29 30
22 10
20 19
Elevation (feet)
201
196
191
186
181
176
171
C:\Users\Danepc\AppData\Local\Temp\borings_temp\tmpfile.bgs[Soil Boring Lab.tpl] Sheet 1 of 1
Quantum Geotechnical, Inc.
1110 Burnett Ave., Ste B

Concord, CA 94520
Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

Project: Gravenstein Village
Project Location: 1003-1007 Gravenstein
Hwy., Sebastopol
Project Number: E037.G
Key to Log of Boring
Elevation (feet)Depth (feet)Sample TypeSample NumberSampling Resistance, blows/ftMaterial TypeGraphic Log

MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
Water Content, %Dry Unit Weight, pcfPercent Fines (-#200)LL, %PI, % 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13

COLUMN DESCRIPTIONS
1 Elevation (feet): Elevation (MSL, feet).
2 Depth (feet): Depth in feet below the ground surface. 3 Sample Type: Type of soil sample collected at the depth interval shown.
4 Sample Number: Sample identification number.
5 Sampling Resistance, blows/ft: Number of blows to advance driven sampler one foot (or distance shown) beyond seating
interval
using the hammer identified on the boring log.
6 Material Type: Type of material encountered.
7 Graphic Log: Graphic depiction of the subsurface material encountered.
8 MATERIAL DESCRIPTION: Description of material encountered.

May include consistency, moisture, color, and
other descriptive
text.
9 Water Content, %: Water content of the soil sample, expressed as percentage of dry weight of sample.
10 Dry Unit Weight, pcf: Dry weight per unit volume of soil sample measured in laboratory, in pounds per cubic
foot.
11 Percent Fines (-#200): The percent fines (soil passing the No. 200 Sieve) in the sample. WA indicates a
Wash Sieve, SA indicates a
Sieve Analysis.
12 LL, %: Liquid Limit, expressed as a water content.
13 PI, %: Plasticity Index, expressed as a water content.

FIELD AND LABORATORY TEST ABBREVIATIONS
CHEM: Chemical tests to assess corrosivity
COMP: Compaction test
CONS: One-dimensional consolidation test
LL: Liquid Limit, percent
PI: Plasticity Index, percent
SA: Sieve analysis (percent passing No. 200 Sieve)
UC: Unconfined compressive strength test, Qu, in ksf
WA: Wash sieve (percent passing No. 200 Sieve)

MATERIAL GRAPHIC SYMBOLS
Lean CLAY, CLAY w/SAND, SANDY CLAY (CL) Clayey SAND (SC) Silty SAND (SM)

TYPICAL SAMPLER GRAPHIC SYMBOLS

2.5-inch-OD Modified
California w/ brass liners

OTHER GRAPHIC SYMBOLS
Water level (at time of drilling, ATD)
Water level (after waiting)
Minor change in material properties within a
stratum
Inferred/gradational contact between strata
? Queried contact between strata

GENERAL NOTES
1: Soil classifications are based on the Unified Soil Classification System. Descriptions and stratum lines are interpretive, and actual lithologic changes may be gradual. Field descriptions may have been modified to reflect results of lab tests. 2: Descriptions on these logs apply only at the specific boring locations and at the time the borings were advanced. They are not warranted to be representative of subsurface conditions at other locations or times.

C:\Users\Danepc\AppData\Local\Temp\borings_temp\tmpfile.bgs[Soil Boring Lab.tpl] Figure B-1
Sheet 1 of 1
Quantum Geotechnical, Inc.
1110 Burnett Ave., Ste B

Concord, CA 94520
Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

APPENDIX B
Laboratory Investigation
Summary of Laboratory Test Results
Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

Project No. E037.G Geotechnical Investigation/Gravenstein Hwy, Sebastopol June 17, 2021 Quantum Geotechnical, Inc. Page 35 of 43

LABORATORY INVESTIGATION
The laboratory testing program was directed towards providing sufficient information for the determination of the engineering characteristics of the site soils so that the recommendations outlined in this report could be formulated.

The following tests were performed
 Moisture content;
 Sieve analysis
 Atterberg Limits tests;
A summary of all laboratory test results is presented on Table B-I of this appendix and on the respective "Logs of Test Borings", Appendix A.

Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

Project No. E037.G Geotechnical Investigation/Gravenstein Hwy, Sebastopol June 17, 2021 Quantum Geotechnical, Inc. Page 36 of 43

SUMMARY OF LABORATORY TESTS
TABLE B-1
Sample
Number
Depth
(ft)
Moisture
Content
(% Dry
Wt.)
Dry Density
(pcf)
Sieve
Analysis
(% Passing
No. 200 Sieve)
Atterberg Limits
Liquid
Limit
(%)
Plasticity
Index
(%)
1-1 3 29.3 86.7
1-2 6 28.2 90.0 37 10
1-3 11 43.1 73.4
1-4 16 23.9 95.8
1-5 21 27.9 92.6
1-8 31
2-1 3 24.6 93.3 47.2 35 9
2-2 6 21.4 100.3
2-3 11 18.2 92.2
2-4 16 20.9 95.8
3-1 3 26.1 94.1
3-2 6 26.3 93.3
3-3 11 19.8 100.8
4-1 3 22.9 97.2
4-2 6 25.6 97.9 54.3 60 22
4-3 11 21.0 92.2
4-4 16 22.5 81.3
Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

Appendix C
The Grading Specification
Guide Specifications for Rock Under Floor Slabs

Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

Project No. E037.G Geotechnical Investigation/Gravenstein Hwy, Sebastopol June 17, 2021 Quantum Geotechnical, Inc. Page 38 of 43

THE GRADING SPECIFICATIONS
on
Proposed Residential Development
Gravenstein Hwy,
Sebastopol, California

1. General Description

1.1 These specifications have been prepared for the grading and site development of the subject residential development. Quantum Geotechnical Inc., hereinafter described as the Soil Engineer, should be consulted prior to any site work connected with site development to ensure compliance with these specifications.

1.2 The Soil Engineer should be notified at least two working days prior to any site clearing or grading operations on the property in order to observe the stripping of organically contaminated material and to coordinate the work with the grading contractor in the field.

1.3 This item shall consist of all clearing or grubbing, preparation of land to be filled, filling of the land, spreading, compaction and control of fill, and all subsidiary work necessary to complete the grading of the filled areas to conform with the lines, grades, and slopes as shown on the accepted plans. The Soil Engineer is not responsible for determining line, grade elevations, or slope gradients.

The property owner, or his representative, shall designate the person or organizations who will be responsible for these items of work.

1.4 The contents of these specifications shall be integrated with the soil report of which they are a part; therefore, they shall not be used as a self-contained document.

2. Tests
The standard test used to define maximum densities of all compaction work shall be the ASTM D1557-12 Laboratory Test Procedure. All densities shall be expressed as a relative compaction in terms of the maximum dry density obtained in the laboratory by the foregoing standard procedure.

Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

Project No. E037.G Geotechnical Investigation/Gravenstein Hwy, Sebastopol June 17, 2021 Quantum Geotechnical, Inc. Page 39 of 43

3. Clearing, Grubbing, and Preparing Areas To Be Filled

3.1 If encountered, all vegetable matter, trees, root systems, shrubs, debris, and organic topsoil shall be removed from all structural areas and areas to receive fill.

3.2 If encountered, any soil deemed soft or unsuitable by the Soil Engineer shall be removed.

Any existing debris or excessively wet soils shall be excavated and removed as required by the Soil Engineer during grading.

3.3 All underground structures shall be removed from the site such as old foundations, abandoned pipe lines, septic tanks, and leach fields.

3.4 The final stripped excavation shall be approved by the Soil Engineer during construction and before further grading is started.

3.5 After the site has been cleared, stripped, excavated to the surface designated to receive fill, and scarified, it shall be disked or bladed until it is uniform and free from large clods. The native subgrade soils shall be moisture conditioned and compacted to the requirements as specified in the grading section of this report. Fill can then be placed to provide the desired finished grades. The contractor shall obtain the Soil Engineer's approval of subgrade compaction before any fill is placed.

4. Materials

4.1 All fill material shall be approved by the Soil Engineer. The material shall be a soil or soilrock mixture which is free from organic matter or other deleterious substances. The fill material shall not contain rocks or lumps over 6 inches in greatest dimension and not more than 15% larger than 2- 1/2 inches. Materials from the site below the stripping depth are suitable for use in fills provided the above requirements are met.

4.2 Materials existing on the site are suitable for use as compacted engineered fill after the removal of all debris and organic material. All fill soils shall be approved by the Soil Engineer in the field.

Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

Project No. E037.G Geotechnical Investigation/Gravenstein Hwy, Sebastopol June 17, 2021 Quantum Geotechnical, Inc. Page 40 of 43

4.3 Should import material be required, it should be approved by the soil Engineer before it is brought to the site.

5. Placing, Spreading, and Compacting Fill Material

5.1 The fill materials shall be placed in uniform lifts of not more than 8 inches in uncompacted thickness. Each layer shall be spread evenly and shall be thoroughly blade mixed during the spreading to obtain uniformity of material in each layer. Before compaction begins, the fill shall be brought to a water content that will permit proper compaction by either (a) aerating the material if it is too wet, or (b) spraying the material with water if it is too dry.

5.2 After each layer has been placed, mixed, and spread evenly, either import material or native material shall be compacted to a relative compaction designated for engineered fill.

5.3 Compaction shall be by footed rollers or other types of acceptable compacting rollers. Rollers shall be of such design that they will be able to compact the fill to the specified density. Rolling shall be accomplished while the fill material is within the specified moisture content range. Rolling of each layer shall be continuous over its entire area and the roller shall make sufficient trips to ensure that the required density has been obtained. No ponding or jetting shall be permitted.

5.4 Field density tests shall be made in each compacted layer by the Soil Engineer in accordance with Laboratory Test Procedure ASTM D1556-15 or D6938-10. When footed rollers are used for compaction, the density tests shall be taken in the compacted material below the surface disturbed by the roller. When these tests indicate that the compaction requirements on any layer of fill, or portion thereof, has not been met, the particular layer, or portion thereof, shall be reworked until the compaction requirements have been met.

5.5 No soil shall be placed or compacted during periods of rain nor on ground which contains free water. Soil which has been soaked and wetted by rain or any other cause shall not be compacted until completely drained and until the moisture content is within the limits hereinbefore described or Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

Project No. E037.G Geotechnical Investigation/Gravenstein Hwy, Sebastopol June 17, 2021 Quantum Geotechnical, Inc. Page 41 of 43
approved by the Soil Engineer. Approval by the Soil Engineer shall be obtained prior to continuing the grading operations.

6. Pavement

6.1 The proposed subgrade under pavement sections, native soil, and/or fill shall be compacted to a minimum relative compaction of 95% at 2% above optimum moisture content for a depth of 12 inches.

6.2 All aggregate base material placed subsequently should also be compacted to a minimum relative compaction of 95% based on the ASTM Test Procedure D1557-12. The construction of the pavement in the parking and traffic areas should conform to the requirements set forth by the latest Standard Specifications of the Department of Transportation of the State of California and/or City of Sebastopol, Department of Public Works.

6.3 It is recommended that soils at the proposed subgrade level be tested for a pavement design after the preliminary grading is completed and the soils at the site design subgrade levels are known.

7. Utility Trench Backfill

7.1 The utility trenches extending under concrete slabs-on-grade shall be backfilled with native on-site soils or approved import materials and compacted to the requirements pertaining to the adjacent soil. No ponding or jetting will be permitted.

7.2 Utility trenches extending under all pavement areas shall be backfilled with native or approved import material and properly compacted to meet the requirements set forth by the City of Sebastopol, Department of Public Works.*

7.3 Where any opening is made under or through the perimeter foundations for such items as utility lines and trenches, the openings must be resealed so that they are watertight to prevent the possible entrance of outside irrigation or rain water into the underneath portion of the structures.

Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

Project No. E037.G Geotechnical Investigation/Gravenstein Hwy, Sebastopol June 17, 2021 Quantum Geotechnical, Inc. Page 42 of 43

8. Subsurface Line Removal

8.1 The methods of removal will be designated by the Soil Engineer in the field depending on the depth and location of the line. One of the following methods will be used.

8.2 Remove the pipe and fill and compact the soil in the trench according to the applicable portions of sections pertaining to compaction and utility backfill.

8.3 The pipe shall be crushed in the trench. The trench shall then be filled and compacted according to the applicable portions of Section 5.

8.4 Cap the ends of the line with concrete to prevent entrance of water. The length of the cap shall not be less than 5 feet. The concrete mix shall have a minimum shrinkage.

9. Unusual Conditions

9.1 In the event that any unusual conditions not covered by the special provisions are encountered during the grading operations, the Soil Engineer shall be immediately notified for additional recommendations.

10. General Requirements
Dust Control

10.1 The contractor shall conduct all grading operations in such a manner as to preclude windblown dirt and dust and related damage to neighboring properties. The means of dust control shall be left to the discretion of the contractor and he shall assume liability for claims related to windblown material.

Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

Project No. E037.G Geotechnical Investigation/Gravenstein Hwy, Sebastopol June 17, 2021 Quantum Geotechnical, Inc. Page 43 of 43

GUIDE SPECIFICATIONS FOR ROCK UNDER FLOOR SLABS
Definition
Graded gravel or crushed rock for use under slabs-on-grade shall consist of a minimum thickness of mineral aggregate placed in accordance with these specifications and in conformance with the dimensions shown on the plans. The minimum thickness is specified in the accompanying report.

Material
The mineral aggregate shall consist of broken stone, crushed or uncrushed gravel, quarry waste, or a combination thereof. The aggregate shall be free from deleterious substances. It shall be of such quality that the absorption of water in a saturated dry condition does not exceed 3% of the oven dry weight of the sample.

Gradation
The mineral aggregate shall be of such size that the percentage composition by dry weight, as determined by laboratory sieves (U.S. Sieves) will conform to the following gradation:

Sieve Size Percentage Passing
¾’’ 90-100
No. 4 25-60
No. 8 18-45
No. 200 0-3
Placing
Subgrade, upon which gravel or crushed rock is to be placed, shall be prepared as outlined in the accompanying soil report.

Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

Appendix G
Transportation Impact Study
Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

490 Mendocino Avenue, Suite 201 SANTA ROSA, CA 95401 707.542.9500 414 13th Street, 5th Floor OAKLAND, CA 94612 510.444.2600 w-trans.com
Draft Report
Transportation Impact Study for
The Canopy Project
Prepared for the
City of Sebastopol
September 6, 2023
Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

A Draft Transportation Impact Study for The Canopy Project September 2023
Table of Contents
Introduction ................................................................................................................................................................................. 1 Transportation Setting ............................................................................................................................................................. 3 Circulation System .................................................................................................................................................................... 6 Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) .............................................................................................................................................. 10 Safety Issues .............................................................................................................................................................................. 12 Emergency Access .................................................................................................................................................................. 13 Capacity Analysis .................................................................................................................................................................... 14 Conclusions and Recommendations ............................................................................................................................... 27 Study Participants and References ................................................................................................................................... 28 Figures

1. Site Plan............................................................................................................................................................................................... 2

2. Study Area and Existing Lane Configurations...................................................................................................................... 5

3. Existing Traffic Volumes.............................................................................................................................................................17

4. Future Traffic Volumes................................................................................................................................................................19

5. Project Traffic Volumes...............................................................................................................................................................22

6. Existing plus Project Traffic Volumes....................................................................................................................................23

7. Future plus Project Traffic Volumes.......................................................................................................................................26 Tables

1. Collision Rates for the Study Intersections............................................................................................................................ 4

2. Bicycle Facility Summary .............................................................................................................................................................. 7

3. Transit Routes.................................................................................................................................................................................... 8

4. Vehicle Miles Traveled Analysis Summary ..........................................................................................................................11

5. Intersection Level of Service Criteria.....................................................................................................................................15

6. Existing Peak Hour Intersection Levels of Service............................................................................................................18

7. Future Peak Hour Intersection Levels of Service ..............................................................................................................20

8. Trip Generation Summary.........................................................................................................................................................21

9. Trip Distribution Assumptions.................................................................................................................................................21

10. Existing and Existing plus Project Peak Hour Intersection Levels of Service.........................................................24

11. Future and Future plus Project Intersection Levels of Service....................................................................................25 Appendices
A. Collision Rate Calculations
B. Intersection Level of Service Calculations
Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

1 Draft Transportation Impact Study for The Canopy Project September 6, 2023
Introduction
This report presents an analysis of the potential transportation, traffic, and mobility impacts that would be associated with a proposed residential development to be located at 1009-1011 Gravenstein Highway North in the City of Sebastopol. The traffic study was completed in accordance with the criteria established by the City of Sebastopol and is consistent with standard traffic engineering techniques.

Prelude
The purpose of a traffic impact study is to provide City staff and policy makers with data that they can use to make an informed decision regarding the potential transportation impacts of the proposed project, and any associated improvements that would be required to mitigate these impacts to an acceptable level under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the City’s General Plan, or other policies. This report provides an analysis of those items that are identified as areas of environmental concern under the CEQA. Impacts associated with access for pedestrians, bicyclists, and to transit; the vehicle miles traveled (VMT) generated by the project; and safety concerns are addressed in the context of the CEQA criteria. While no longer a part of the CEQA review process, vehicular traffic service levels at key intersections were evaluated for consistency with General Plan policies by determining the number of new trips that the proposed use would be expected to generate, distributing these trips to the surrounding street system based on anticipated travel patterns specific to the proposed project, then analyzing the effect the new traffic would be expected to have on the study intersections and need for improvements to maintain acceptable operation.

The report is organized to provide background data that supports the various aspects of the analysis, followed by the assessment of CEQA issues and then evaluation of policy-related issues.

Project Profile
Project Description
The proposed residential project site is located on a vacant 6.1-acre parcel in northwest Sebastopol. It is adjacent to the O’Reilly Media Center to the west, which fronts on SR 116 (Gravenstein Highway North). Access would be provided via the intersection of SR 116/Mill Station Road as well as via the southernmost drive aisle of the existing office park parking lot to the south. The project would include 80 three-story townhome-style condominiums, with the potential for 16 ADA-accessible accessory dwelling units (ADUs). For the purposes of CEQA, full buildout of the site with 96 units was assumed. The proposed project site plan is shown in Figure 1.

Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

Transportation Impact Study for The Canopy Project
seb080.ai 9/23
North
Not to Scale
Occidental Rd
Gravenstei
n
H
wyN
Healdsburg Ave
Mill Station Rd
Covert Ln
N Main St
HurlbutA
v
e
Murphy Ave
1 2
3 4 5 6
Project Site
116
116
116
116
Figure 1– Site Plan
Source: Weinstein Architects + Urban Designers LLC 3/13 Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

3 Draft Transportation Impact Study for The Canopy Project September 6, 2023
Transportation Setting
Study Area and Periods
The study area varies depending on the topic. For pedestrian trips it consists of all streets within a half-mile of the project site that would lie along primary routes of pedestrian travel, or those leading to nearby generators or attractors. For bicycle trips it consists of all streets within one mile of the project site that would lie along primary routes of bicycle travel. For the safety and traffic operational analyses, it consists of the project frontage and the following intersections:

1. SR 116 (Gravenstein Highway North)/Occidental Road

2. SR 116 (Gravenstein Highway North)/Mill Station Road

3. SR 116 (Gravenstein Highway North)/Hurlbut Avenue

4. SR 116 (Gravenstein Highway North-Healdsburg Avenue)/Covert Lane

5. SR 116 (Healdsburg Avenue)/Murphy Avenue

6. SR 116 (Healdsburg Avenue-North Main St)/North Main Street Operating conditions during the a.m. and p.m. peak periods were evaluated to capture the highest potential impacts for the proposed project as well as the highest volumes on the local transportation network. The morning peak hour occurs between 7:00 and 9:00 a.m. and reflects conditions during the home to work or school commute, while an extended p.m. peak hour between 2:00 and 6:00 p.m. was analyzed to capture afternoon traffic from the adjacent Sebastopol Charter School as well as traffic typically reflecting the highest level of congestion during the homeward bound commute.

Study Intersections
SR 116 (Gravenstein Highway North)/Occidental Road is a four-legged signalized intersection located outside of the Sebastopol City limits. Crosswalks with pedestrian phasing are present on all but the south leg. Protected left-turn phasing is present on the northbound and southbound approaches and the eastbound and westbound approaches are split-phased or operate concurrently.

SR 116 (Gravenstein Highway North)/Mill Station Road is a four-legged signalized intersection with marked crosswalks and pedestrian phasing on all but the south leg. Protected left-turn phasing is present on the northbound and southbound approaches and the eastbound and westbound approaches are split-phased.

SR 116 (Gravenstein Highway North)/Hurlbut Avenue is a signalized four-legged intersection with marked zebra crosswalks on all four legs. Protected left-turn phasing is present on the northern and southern approaches and pedestrian phasing is present on all four legs. Class II bike lanes are available on the north and south legs of the intersection.

SR 116 (Gravenstein Highway North-Healdsburg Avenue)/Covert Lane is a tee intersection with stop controls on the Covert Lane approach. Covert Lane runs east-west, but curves to the north as it approaches SR 116. East of Covert Lane, SR 116 runs east-west, but curves to the north to the west of Covert Lane. In this study, SR 116 is considered to be the north and south legs and Covert Lane is the west leg. Class II bike lanes exist on both sides of the north leg of SR 116 and exist on the southwest side of SR 116 on the south leg. There are no marked crosswalks on any legs of the intersection.

SR 116 (Healdsburg Avenue)/Murphy Avenue is a three-way intersection with the stop control on the northbound Murphy Avenue approach. Marked crosswalks exist on the west and south legs of the intersection.

Class II bike lanes exist on the east and west legs of the intersection, while there are sharrow markings on the south leg. Yield markings are on the east and west legs approaching the intersection and Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacons (RRFB) are present on the west leg.

Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

4 Draft Transportation Impact Study for the Canopy Project September 6, 2023
SR 116 (Healdsburg Avenue-North Main Street)/North Main Street is a signalized tee intersection with zebra crosswalks and pedestrian phasing on the north and east legs. Protected left-turn phasing exists on the eastern approach of the intersection. North Main Street curves to the west as it approaches Healdsburg Avenue and continues north. Class II bike lanes are present on the north side of the east leg, both sides of the west leg, and Class II bike lanes are present on both sides of the north leg.

The locations of the study intersections and the existing lane configurations and controls are shown in Figure 2.

Collision History
The collision history for the study area was reviewed to determine any trends or patterns that may indicate a safety issue. Collision rates were calculated based on records available from the California Highway Patrol as published in their Statewide Integrated Traffic Records System (SWITRS) reports. The most current five-year period available is January 1, 2018, through December 31, 2022.

As presented in Table 1, the calculated collision rates for the study intersections were compared to average collision rates for similar facilities statewide, as indicated in 2022 Collision Data on California State Highways, California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). These average rates statewide are for intersections in the same environment (urban, suburban, rural), with the same number of approaches, and the same controls. Four of the six study intersections had calculated collision rates at or below the statewide average collision rate for similar interactions. The intersections of SR 116/ Occidental Rodd and SR 116/Covert Lane were determined to have collision rates above the statewide average, so these intersections were further reviewed. The collision rate calculations are provided in Appendix A.

Table 1 – Collision Rates for the Study Intersections
Study Intersection Number of
Collisions
(2018-2022)
Calculated
Collision Rate
(c/mve)
Statewide Average
Collision Rate
(c/mve)

1. SR 116/Occidental Rd 12 0.29 0.20

2. SR 116/Mill Station Rd 4 0.14 0.33

3. SR 116/Hurlbut Ave 5 0.18 0.33

4. SR 116/Covert Ln 7 0.22 0.13

5. SR 116/Murphy Ave 4 0.13 0.13

6. SR 116 (Healdsburg Ave-N Main St)/N Main St 6 0.12 0.28 Note: c/mve = collisions per million vehicles entering; Bold text = higher than the statewide average Of the 12 collisions that occurred at the intersection of SR 116/Occidental Road, eight were rear ends and four were sideswipes. Unsafe speed was the major factor in six of these collisions, improper passing resulted in three collisions, following too closely, unsafe starting and backing, and driving under the influence were stated as the primary causes for one collision each. While the collision rate is marginally higher than the statewide average, the injury rate is much lower: 16.7 percent versus the statewide average of 47.5 percent. No remedial action is therefore recommended.

The intersection of SR 116/Covert Lane had a total of seven collisions reported with four broadsides, one rear-end, one hit object, and one unspecified. Right-of-way violations were the primary cause of four of these collisions and unsafe speeds, driving on the wrong side of road, and driving under the influence each contributed to one collision. While this intersection has an above average collision rate, no patterns of correctable behavior could be determined and therefore no remedial action is recommended. However, it should be noted that this intersection has been identified for the future installation of a roundabout or traffic signal. The City will be coordinating with Caltrans for future planning and identification of funds to complete this project.

Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

Transportation Impact Study for The Canopy Project
seb080.ai 9/23
Not to Scale
1 2
3 4 5 6
Project Site
116
116
116
116
Figure 2 – Study Area and Existing Lane Configurations
Study Intersection
LEGEND
1 2
3 4
5 6
Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

6 Draft Transportation Impact Study for the Canopy Project September 6, 2023
Circulation System
This section addresses the first transportation bullet point on the CEQA checklist, which relates to the potential for a project to conflict with a program, plan, ordinance, or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities.

Pedestrian Facilities
Existing and Planned Pedestrian Facilities
Pedestrian facilities include sidewalks, crosswalks, pedestrian signal phases, curb ramps, curb extensions, and various streetscape amenities such as lighting, benches, etc. Existing pedestrian facilities along the proposed project site frontage as well as within a one-quarter mile distance of the project site were reviewed.

A generally connected pedestrian network currently exists along SR 116 near the project site. However, there is no sidewalk on the west side of SR 116 north of its intersection with Danmar Drive. Sidewalks are present on the east side of SR 116 south of its intersection with Mill Station Road, and the West County-Joe Rodota Trail follows the east side of SR 116 north of Mill Station Road. As part of the project, pedestrian paths are planned to be built to connect the project site to the existing pedestrian network on the east side of SR 116. One pedestrian path would be located along the southeastern boundary of the project site and connect to the existing sidewalk on SR 116, and one would be located on the north side of the project site and connect to the West County-Joe Rodota Trail.

Caltrans has recently solicited bids for a project to install a new crosswalk with a HAWK (Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon) signal across the north leg of the intersection of SR 116/Danmar Drive. It is expected that this Caltrans-funded improvement will be installed before the end of 2023. It is recommended that a new pedestrian path be added through the center of the site to link the project and mixed commercial office park to the new HAWK crossing.

Pedestrian Safety
The collision history for the study area was reviewed to determine if any trends or patterns may indicate a potential safety issue for pedestrians. Collision records available from SWITRS reports were reviewed for the most current five-year period available, which was January 1, 2018, through December 31, 2022, at the time of the analysis.

During the five-year study period there was one reported collision involving a pedestrian within a half mile of the project site. It occurred at the intersection of SR 116/Hurlbut Avenue, which is signalized and has high visibility crosswalks with pedestrian phasing. Based upon details contained in the SWITRS report, the collision was likely due to either driver or pedestrian inattention, and no remedial actions are recommended.

Finding – Pedestrian facilities serving the project site are adequate. The paths proposed and recommended as part of the project would provide adequate access to the existing pedestrian facilities. The project would not conflict with any existing plans or policies relative to pedestrian facilities.

Bicycle Facilities
Existing and Planned Bicycle Facilities
The Highway Design Manual 7th Edition, Caltrans, 2020, classifies bikeways into four categories:
• Class I Multi-Use Path – a completely separated right-of-way for the exclusive use of bicycles and pedestrians with cross flows of motorized traffic minimized.
• Class II Bike Lane – a striped and signed lane for one-way bike travel on a street or highway. • Class III Bike Route – signage only for shared use with motor vehicles within the same travel lane on a street or highway.
• Class IV Bikeway – also known as a separated bikeway, a Class IV Bikeway is for the exclusive use of bicycles and includes a separation between the bikeway and the motor vehicle traffic lane. The separation may Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

7 Draft Transportation Impact Study for The Canopy Project September 6, 2023
include, but is not limited to, grade separation, flexible posts, inflexible physical barriers, striped buffers, or on-street parking.

In the project vicinity there are several existing Class I, II, and III bikeway facilities, including the Class I multi-use bicycle and pedestrian West County-Joe Rodota Trail, which runs between Occidental Road and North Main Street.

There are existing bicycle lanes along SR 116 between the north city limit and North Main Street, along Covert Lane between Ragle Road and SR 116, and along High School Road-North Main Street between Occidental Road and SR 116. There are also several Class III bike routes in the project vicinity, most of which feature sharrow pavement markings.

According to the Countywide Active Transportation Plan (2014), bike lanes are planned along SR 116 between Occidental Road and the north city limit, on Bodega Avenue between Ragle Road and Dutton Avenue, and along Mill Station and Ragle roads between SR 116 and Covert Lane. Class I facilities are planned adjacent to Occidental Road and Bodega Avenue, and a Class III route is planned on Mill Station Road west of Ragle Road. Bicyclists ride in the roadway and/or on sidewalks along all other streets within the project study area. Table 2 summarizes the existing and planned bicycle facilities in the project vicinity, as contained in the Countywide Active Transportation Plan.

Table 2 – Bicycle Facility Summary
Status
Facility
Class Length
(miles)
Begin Point End Point
Existing
West County/Rodota Trail I 1.68 Occidental Rd N Main St Occidental Rd II 1.83 Mill Station Rd High School Rd
Covert Ln II 0.50 Ragle Rd SR 116
SR 116 II 0.52 North City Limit Covert Ln
SR 116 (Healdsburg Ave) II 0.64 Covert Ln N Main St
High School Rd/N Main St II 1.56 Occidental Rd SR 116
Valentine Ave III 0.60 Ragle Rd Murphy Ave
Danmar Dr/Norlee St III 0.48 SR 116 Covert Ln
Washington Ave III 0.56 Willard Libby Park Bodega Ave
Ragle Rd III 0.52 Covert Ln Bodega Ave
Pleasant Hill Ave III 0.50 Covert Ln Bodega Ave
Zimpher Dr III 0.21 Covert Ln Valentine Ave
Murphy Ave III 0.38 SR 116 Valentine Ave
Planned
West County/Rodota Trail I 0.91 West County/Rodota Trail (west segment)
SR 116
Bodega Ave I 0.29 Atascadero Creek Ragle Rd
Mill Station Rd II 0.26 Ragle Rd SR 116
Bodega Ave II 0.87 Ragle Rd Dutton Ave-Jewell Ave
SR 116 II 0.95 Occidental Rd North City Limit
Ragle Rd II 0.41 Mill Station Rd Covert Ln
Mill Station Rd III 1.91 Occidental Rd Ragle Rd
Source: Countywide Active Transportation Plan, Sonoma County Transportation Authority, 2014 The project as proposed would not result in the construction of any new bicycle facilities.

Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

8 Draft Transportation Impact Study for the Canopy Project September 6, 2023
Bicyclist Safety
Collision records for the study area were reviewed to determine if there had been any bicyclist-involved crashes during the five-year study period between January 1, 2018, and December 31, 2022. There were two reported collisions involving bicyclists in the study area and both were likely caused by the cyclist violating the vehicle’s right of way. No remedial action is therefore recommended.

Finding – Existing and planned bicycle facilities would provide adequate access for bicyclists traveling to and from the project. The project would not conflict with any policies or plans for bicycle facilities.

Transit Facilities
Existing Transit Facilities
Sonoma County Transit
Sonoma County Transit (SCT) provides fixed-route bus service in Sebastopol and surrounding areas. SCT Route 20, Route 24, and Route 26 all have stops within a half mile of the project site. Route 20 runs from the Coddingtown Mall in the City of Santa Rosa to Monte Rio in the Russian River Area. Route 24 runs from the Sebastopol Transit Hub to the intersection of SR 116/Mill Station Road, and Route 26 operates on school days only with one bus run in each direction per day, at 7:22 a.m. and 3:38 p.m. Existing transit routes and details regarding their operation are summarized in Table 3.

Table 3 – Transit Routes
Transit
Agency
Route
Distance
to Stop
(mi)1
Service Connections
Days of
Operation
Time Frequency
Sonoma County Transit
Route #20 < 0.1 Mon-Fri
Sat-Sun
6:30 a.m. - 9:30 p.m.
6:30 a.m. - 9:30 p.m.
50 – 80 min
50 – 105 min
Monte Rio
Coddingtown/Santa Rosa
Route #24 < 0.1 Mon-Fri
Sat
7:45 a.m. - 6:30 p.m.
7:45 a.m. - 5:30 p.m.
45 – 55 min
45 – 55 min
Sebastopol
SR 116/Mill Station Road
Route #26 < 0.1 School
Days
7:22 a.m.
3:38 p.m.
1 run
1 run
Mirabel Park
Sonoma State Univ.

Notes: 1 Defined as the shortest walking distance between the project site and the nearest bus stop Source: sctransit.com/maps-schedules
Two bicycles can be carried on most SCT buses, and bike rack space is provided on a first-come, first-served basis.

Additional bicycles are allowed on SCT buses at the discretion of the bus operator.

Dial-a-ride, also known as paratransit or door-to-door service, is available for those who are unable to independently use the transit system due to a physical or mental disability. SCT Paratransit is designed to serve the needs of individuals with disabilities within the City of Sebastopol and the greater Sonoma County area.

Impact on Transit Facilities
Given the size of the proposed project, there is unlikely to be substantial new demand for transit service generated by the development, though it is likely that some residents or visitors will occasionally choose to use transit. The existing pedestrian facilities are adequate to provide access to the project site from the transit stops and there are sufficient routes and headways to accommodate the nominal additional demand.

Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

9 Draft Transportation Impact Study for The Canopy Project September 6, 2023
Finding – Existing public transit routes are adequate to accommodate the additional demand generated by the project, and existing bus stops accessible via continuous sidewalks. Transit facilities serving the project site are therefore considered to be adequate and the project would not conflict with any programs or policies regarding transit.

Significance Finding – The proposed project would have a less-than-significant impact relative to pedestrian, bicycle, and transit modes as it would be consistent with existing plans, policies, and programs for these modes.

Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

10 Draft Transportation Impact Study for the Canopy Project September 6, 2023
Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT)
The potential for the project to conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines § 15064.3, subdivision (b) was evaluated based the project’s anticipated Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT). This is the second bullet point in the CEQA checklist.

Background
The Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) associated with a project is the primary basis for determining traffic impacts under CEQA. Because the City of Sebastopol has not yet adopted standards of significance for evaluating VMT, guidance provided by the California Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR) in the publication Transportation Impacts (SB 743) CEQA Guidelines Update and Technical Advisory, 2018, was used (referred to herein as the Technical Advisory). These criteria are consistent with those applied by Caltrans as outlined in the Vehicle Miles Traveled-Focused Transportation Impact Study Guide, California Department of Transportation, May 2020.

Significance Threshold
The OPR Technical Advisory provides VMT threshold guidance for several land use types. Residential uses are assessed using a home-based VMT per capita metric, with VMT significance thresholds set at a level of 15 percent below the citywide or regional average. The Technical Advisory indicates that it may be appropriate to apply a countywide, rather than regional, average if most people both live and work within the smaller geographic area.

According to data contained in the Sonoma County Travel Behavior Study, SCTA, 2020, approximately 98 percent of Sebastopol’s vehicle trips remain within Sonoma County. Use of a common model to produce both projectlevel and threshold values also allows for a clear “apples to apples” assessment. Accordingly, the applied significance threshold was based on the Sonoma County per-capita VMT average rather than the nine-County Bay Area regional average.

SCTA operates and maintains the regional travel demand model that produces baseline VMT estimates. The VMT thresholds and projections applied in this analysis reflect the SCTM19 model updated in December 2021, which remains the current version as of the August 2023 timeframe of this analysis. Based on output from the SCTA model, the existing average residential VMT per capita in the County of Sonoma is 16.60 miles. VMT significance thresholds are set at 15 percent below this level, or 14.11 miles. Accordingly, the project would have a potentially significant impact on VMT if its projected residential VMT per Capita exceeds 14.11 miles.

Project VMT Assessment
VMT per Capita
The SCTA model includes traffic analysis zones (TAZ) covering geographic areas throughout Sonoma County. The Canopy project site is located within TAZ 803, which has a baseline VMT per capita of 15.57 miles. Based on the model, for the project to achieve the applied threshold of 15 percent below the Countywide average, its projected VMT per capita would need to be reduced by 9.4 percent.

Consideration was given to whether adjustments to the baseline per-capita VMT estimates produced by the SCTA model are warranted to reflect project-specific details. The most common adjustments pertain to project density, provision of affordable housing, mix of uses, and off-site improvements to non-auto travel networks. The publication Handbook for Analyzing Greenhouse Gas Emission Reductions, Assessing Climate Vulnerabilities, and Advancing Health and Equity, California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA), 2021, includes a methodology to determine the VMT reductions associated with increases in residential density. Per the CAPCOA methodology, a minimum density of 9.1 units per acre would need to be achieved before VMT reduction benefits could be realized. The residential density of the proposed project is 15.7 dwelling units per acre and applying the CAPCOA density methodology results in a VMT reduction of 16.05 percent, or 2.5 VMT. Applying this percentage Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

11 Draft Transportation Impact Study for The Canopy Project September 6, 2023
reduction yields an adjusted VMT value of 13.07, which is below the threshold of 14.11, and therefore does not yield a significant project impact for VMT. Table 4 shows a summary of the VMT analysis.

Table 4 – Vehicle Miles Traveled Analysis Summary
VMT Metric Baseline
VMT Rate
(Countywide Avg)
Significance
Threshold
(15% Below
Countywide Avg)
Project VMT per Capita
Project Site
TAZ 8031
Meets
Threshold?
Residential VMT per Capita
(Countywide Baseline) 16.60 14.11 15.57 No
Applicable VMT Reduction Baseline Density
(Countywide Avg)
Project Density Calculated
VMT Reduction
Adjusted VMT
Higher Density Residential 9.1 du/acre 15.7 du/acre 16.05% 13.07 Notes: VMT Rate is measured in VMT per Capita, or the number of daily miles driven per resident; TAZ=Traffic Analysis Zone1; du/acre=dwelling units per acre
Significance Finding – Applying an allowable residential density reduction of 16.05 percent to the project VMT reduces the VMT impact of the project to a less-than-significant level. The project is expected to meet the applicable significance threshold for vehicle miles traveled.

Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

12 Draft Transportation Impact Study for the Canopy Project September 6, 2023
Safety Issues
The potential for the project to impact safety was evaluated in terms of the adequacy of sight distance and need for turn lanes at the project access locations, as well as the adequacy of stacking space in left-turn lanes at the study intersections. This section addresses the third transportation bullet on the CEQA checklist which is whether or not the project would substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment).

Site Access
Primary access to the site would be provided at two locations: by an existing private drive that links the existing office development adjacent to the project to Mill Station Road and via the southernmost drive aisle of the office development’s parking lot. A new curb cut and driveway would be created at the southernmost point of this drive aisle to provide more direct access to SR 116.

Sight Distance
Sight distances along SR 116 at the proposed new project driveway at the southernmost parking lot drive aisle were evaluated based on sight distance criteria contained in the Highway Design Manual published by Caltrans.

Though Caltrans does not indicate a recommended sight distance for driveways in urban areas, for safety reasons the stopping sight distance was evaluated using the approach travel speed as the basis for determining the recommended sight distance. Additionally, the stopping sight distance needed for a following driver to stop if there is a vehicle waiting to turn into a side street or driveway was evaluated based on the stopping sight distance criterion and approach speed on the major street. Based on a posted speed of 35 mph for SR 116, the minimum stopping sight distance needed is 250 feet.

Field measurements indicate that sight distance at the driveways on SR 116 is over 300 feet in each direction and exceeds the stopping sight distance needed for vehicles traveling five mph above the posted speed limit of 35 mph. The sight distance at the private driveway location on Mill Station Road was field measured at 100 feet in each direction and does not meet the stopping sight distance requirement of 200 feet in each direction for five mph over the prima facie speed limit of 25 mph. As landscaping and signage can impede sight lines, any landscaping or signage placed within the vision triangle at the driveway should be less than three feet or more than seven feet above the pavement surface to maintain a clear line of sight.

Significance Finding – Sufficient sight distance is anticipated to be available at the new driveway created by the project at the southernmost drive aisle of the existing office park parking lot. However, existing sight distance at the driveway intersection at Mill Station Road would need to be increased to 200 feet in each direction in order to be deemed sufficient.

Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024