Ricardo Oliveira
April 22, 2026
Mary Gourley
City Clerk
City of Sebastopol
7120 Bodega Ave.
Sebastopol, CA 95472
Re: Formal Writen Objec�on to CEQA Exemp�on Finding and Approval of Alcohol Use Permit for Mansoor (Apple Noir, LLC) at 8050 Bodega Avenue — Planning File 2026-002 — City Council Hearing of April 21, 2026
I. INTRODUCTION
The undersigned hereby submits this formal writen objec�on to the City of Sebastopol's finding that the proposed restaurant use at 8050 Bodega Avenue is categorically exempt from environmental review under Sec�on 15301 — Exis�ng Facili�es, Class 1 — of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, and to the City Council's April 21, 2026 decision denying the appeal and upholding the Planning Commission's approval of the Alcohol Use Permit for Mansoor (Apple Noir, LLC). This objec�on is submited to formally preserve the undersigned's opposi�on in the administra�ve record for purposes of any further administra�ve or judicial proceedings.
For the reasons set forth below, the City's CEQA determina�on is legally inadequate on mul�ple independent grounds. The Class 1 categorical exemp�on does not apply to this project. The site presents unusual circumstances — specifically a severe and documented parking deficiency — that trigger the mandatory excep�on to categorical exemp�ons under CEQA Guidelines Sec�on 15300.2(c). The applicant's own submited plans reveal a physical expansion of the use that independently disqualifies the project from Sec�on 15301 exemp�on. The City's single-sentence CEQA determina�on fails to cons�tute the required legal analysis under California law. The City Council's decision was made on an improper basis — the Council's expressed preference for a restaurant use rather than the applicable legal standards. And the administra�ve record was corrupted by false tes�mony regarding parking easements that do not exist, which must be
formally corrected. At minimum, the City is required to prepare an Ini�al Study to determine whether a Nega�ve Declara�on or Environmental Impact Report is warranted.
II. PROJECT BACKGROUND AND RELEVANT HISTORY
The subject property at 8050 Bodega Avenue is a 7,047 square foot commercial building previously occupied by the Gravenstein Grill, which closed in December 2023. A new restaurant operator, Mansoor (Apple Noir, LLC), is proposing to occupy and operate at this loca�on. The Planning Commission approved an Alcohol Use Permit on February 24, 2026, and the City Council denied the undersigned's appeal on April 21, 2026, upholding the approval.
The parking situa�on at this site has been progressively degraded by three successive legal instruments during the opera�onal life of the prior restaurant:
1. An Easement Agreement executed August 16, 1985 and recorded December 31, 1986 (Document No. 86109627), between the owners of the neighboring office building parcel (Lot A) and the owner of what is now 8050 Bodega Avenue (Lot B), which granted the office building exclusive day�me use — between 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m., Monday through Friday — of 32 parking spaces on Lot B. Under this easement, 8050 Bodega Avenue retains the right to use 32 parking spaces on Lot A only between 7:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. and on weekends and holidays.
2. A 2018 lot division that par��oned off and sold to a new owner (4230 18th Street Partners, LP) a substan�al por�on of the original parcel, crea�ng the separate parcel now known as 8086 Bodega Avenue (APN 004-350-076).
3. A Grant of Parking and Storm Drain Easements recorded March 27, 2018 (Document No. 2018020661), in which the owner of 8050 Bodega Avenue granted to the owner of 8086 Bodega Avenue exclusive parking rights over designated por�ons of 8050 Bodega Avenue for hotel parking purposes, con�nuing indefinitely.
The cumula�ve effect of these three instruments is that a significant deficiency exists in dedicated parking for day�me restaurant use at 8050 Bodega Avenue un�l 7:00 p.m. and poten�ally a deficiency at other �mes.
Cri�cally, in 2018 a member of the Sebastopol Planning Department formally stated that the parking situa�on at this site needed to be reviewed and addressed. That review was never conducted. The prior restaurant con�nued to operate un�l December 2023 without the required parking review ever having taken place. The City is now using that same unreviewed, deficient parking condi�on as the CEQA baseline to jus�fy exemp�ng the new restaurant use from environmental review en�rely.
III. CORRECTION OF FALSE TESTIMONY IN THE ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD
At the April 21, 2026 City Council hearing, a prior owner of the subject property spoke during public comment and provided false informa�on regarding parking easements affec�ng 8050 Bodega Avenue, asser�ng the existence of easements or parking arrangements that do not exist in the recorded public record.
The undersigned hereby formally and specifically objects to that tes�mony and requests that this writen objec�on be treated as a correc�on of the record. The actual easements affec�ng parking at 8050 Bodega Avenue are those described in Sec�on II above and are supported by the following recorded instruments, copies of which were submited to the City as part of this proceeding and are part of the administra�ve record:
The 1985/1986 Easement Agreement (Document No. 86109627) is a recorded instrument in the Official Records of Sonoma County. Its terms are unambiguous: it grants the neighboring office building exclusive use of 32 parking spaces at 8050 Bodega Avenue between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m., Monday through Friday. The Grant of Parking and Storm Drain Easements (Document No. 2018020661) is likewise a recorded instrument in the Official Records of Sonoma County. Its terms grant exclusive parking rights over designated por�ons of 8050 Bodega Avenue to the owner of 8086 Bodega Avenue, con�nuing indefinitely. These are not disputed, ambiguous, or contested documents. They are official public records.
Any false tes�mony introduced at the hearing sugges�ng that these easements do not exist, have been terminated, have been modified, or do not affect parking at 8050 Bodega Avenue is contradicted by the official recorded documents and should be disregarded en�rely. At mul�ple �mes in yesterday’s hearing, it was stated that these easements do not include the City of Sebastopol as a party, and further falsely implying that therefore the easements can be disregarded in evalua�ng the use of 8050 Bodega Avenue. To the extent the City Council's decision was influenced by these false tes�monies, that cons�tutes an addi�onal basis for se�ng aside the decision, as a quasi-judicial decision that relies on materially false factual informa�on cannot stand.
The undersigned requests that the City Clerk atach this writen objec�on and correc�on directly to the administra�ve record for Planning File 2026-002 so that any reviewing court has a complete and accurate factual record before it.
IV. THE CITY COUNCIL'S DECISION WAS MADE ON AN IMPROPER BASIS At the April 21, 2026 hearing, members of the City Council expressed that they liked the idea of a new restaurant at this loca�on and were surprised that anyone would consider appealing the approval. These statements are part of the public record of the hearing and are deeply problema�c as a mater of administra�ve law.
The City Council, when ac�ng on an appeal of a planning decision, is exercising a quasi-judicial func�on. In that capacity it is required under California law to make its decision based on the applicable legal criteria — in this case, whether the CEQA exemp�on was properly applied, whether the parking deficiency cons�tutes unusual circumstances, and whether there is a fair argument of significant environmental impact. It is not permited to base its decision on its general enthusiasm for the proposed use or its surprise that a neighbor would invoke their legal right to appeal.
Statements expressing a preference for the restaurant use, made without any corresponding legal analysis of the CEQA issues presented, are evidence that the Council's decision was not grounded in the required legal findings. Under California law, a quasi-judicial decision that is not supported by adequate findings and is instead based on improper considera�ons is subject to reversal by a court on a Writ of Mandate. The undersigned preserves this argument for any subsequent judicial proceedings.
Furthermore, the record reflects that no member of the Council, and no member of City staff, presented any analysis of the parking deficiency at the site during the hearing. The CEQA unusual circumstances excep�on was not discussed, the actual parking availability under the recorded easements was not analyzed, and the Berkeley Hillside two-part test was never applied. The Council's decision to deny the appeal was made without any engagement with the legal framework that governs it. This is an independent basis for judicial reversal.
V. LEGAL FRAMEWORK
A. Sec�on 15301 — Class 1 Categorical Exemp�on
CEQA Guidelines Sec�on 15301 exempts from environmental review the opera�on, repair, maintenance, permi�ng, leasing, licensing, or minor altera�on of exis�ng public or private structures, facili�es, mechanical equipment, or topographical features, involving negligible or no expansion of use. The key considera�on under Sec�on 15301 is whether the project involves negligible or no expansion of use.
B. Sec�on 15300.2(c) — The Unusual Circumstances Excep�on Categorical exemp�ons are not absolute. CEQA Guidelines Sec�on 15300.2(c) provides that a categorical exemp�on shall not be used for an ac�vity where there is a reasonable possibility that the ac�vity will have a significant effect on the environment due to unusual circumstances.
This excep�on operates as a mandatory bar to the use of a categorical exemp�on when its condi�ons are met.
C. The Berkeley Hillside Two-Part Test
The California Supreme Court established the controlling legal framework for the unusual circumstances excep�on in Berkeley Hillside Preservation v. City of Berkeley (2015) 60 Cal.4th 1086. Whether unusual circumstances exist is a factual determina�on reviewed under the substan�al evidence standard, with the challenger bearing the burden of producing evidence of unusual circumstances that dis�nguish the project from others in the exempt class. Once unusual circumstances are established, the agency must conduct CEQA review if there is a fair argument that the unusual circumstances may result in a significant effect on the environment, with the less deferen�al fair argument standard applying to this second determina�on.
VI. ARGUMENT
A. The City's CEQA Determina�on Is Legally Inadequate on Its Face The en�rety of the City's CEQA analysis, as it appears in both the Planning Commission staff report and the City Council staff report, consists of a single sentence: "The project is categorically exempt from the requirements of CEQA pursuant to Section 15301, Existing Facilities, because the restaurant will be located within an existing structure." This is not a CEQA analysis. It is a conclusory label. Nowhere in the staff report, the Planning Commission findings, or the City Council resolu�on does the City acknowledge the severe parking deficiency at this site, consider whether that deficiency or any other circumstance cons�tutes an unusual circumstance under Sec�on 15300.2(c), or analyze whether a fair argument of significant environmental impact exists. The complete absence of any such analysis from the administra�ve record is itself an independent and sufficient ground to set aside the exemp�on finding.
This deficiency was compounded at the April 21, 2026 hearing, where no member of staff, no Council member, and no other par�cipant presented any analysis of the parking condi�ons, the recorded easements, or the CEQA unusual circumstances framework. The Council's decision was made on an en�rely empty CEQA record. Under California law, an agency invoking a categorical exemp�on must at minimum consider and address whether the excep�ons to categorical exemp�ons apply. The City's complete failure to engage with the unusual circumstances excep�on at any level — par�cularly given that the parking deficiency was documented in the record and raised by the appellant — cons�tutes an abuse of discre�on and a failure to proceed in the manner required by law.
B. The Applicant's Own Plans Reveal a Physical Expansion of Use The floor plan submited by the applicant as Exhibit A to the Alcohol Use Permit applica�on clearly shows a "New Pa�o" and “Extended Pa�o” areas beyond the exis�ng pa�o. This new outdoor area does not appear to be part of the prior restaurant's footprint and represents a physical expansion of the use beyond what previously existed at the site.
The Sec�on 15301 exemp�on applies only where there is negligible or no expansion of use. If the proposed restaurant is expanding into a new outdoor pa�o area not previously used for restaurant opera�ons, the exemp�on is facially inapplicable. The project would instead need to be analyzed under a different CEQA framework, and the newly added pa�o areas would need to be evaluated for their own environmental impacts including noise, traffic genera�on, and neighborhood compa�bility. Staff's failure to iden�fy or address this expansion in the CEQA analysis is an addi�onal and independent deficiency in the City's environmental determina�on.
C. The Project Presents Unusual Circumstances Under Sec�on 15300.2(c) The parking deficiency at 8050 Bodega Avenue is not a rou�ne condi�on. The City's own Planning Code requires 51 parking spaces for a restaurant of 7,047 square feet. The site has significantly less parking available during much of the �me, and possibly all of the �me.
This is not a marginal shor�all. It is a fundamental and severe deficiency that plainly dis�nguishes this project from a typical restaurant occupancy, which is the class of projects Sec�on 15301 is designed to exempt. No reasonable reading of the Class 1 exemp�on contemplates a 7,000 square foot restaurant with more than 50 seats opera�ng with far fewer parking spaces than the Planning Code requires.
This deficiency was created and progressively worsened by three specific legal instruments — described in detail in Sec�on II above and supported by recorded documents in the administra�ve record — that systema�cally reduced the parking available to support the restaurant use. The City's response that it cannot enforce private easements is correct as a mater of property law but is en�rely irrelevant to the CEQA analysis. The easements are submited not for enforcement but as documentary evidence of the actual physical parking condi�ons that exist at this site — which is precisely the evidence relevant to establishing the CEQA baseline. The City's obliga�on under CEQA is to evaluate environmental impacts as the project will actually operate in the real world. The recorded easements establish what parking is actually available for that use, and that evidence cannot be dismissed simply because the City is not a party to the easements.
Most significantly, the City's own Planning Department recognized in 2018 that this parking situa�on required review. This acknowledgment cons�tutes on-record evidence that the parking condi�on at this site was understood to be unusual and problema�c. The fact that this review was never conducted does not eliminate the unusual circumstance — it compounds it. The City cannot now invoke the very baseline it acknowledged needed scru�ny as jus�fica�on for bypassing CEQA review en�rely.
There is therefore substan�al evidence of unusual circumstances sufficient to sa�sfy the first part of the Berkeley Hillside test.
D. There Is a Fair Argument of Significant Environmental Impact Once unusual circumstances are established, the City must conduct CEQA review if there is a fair argument that significant environmental impacts may result. The concrete facts in the record more than sa�sfy this standard.
The proposed restaurant has over 50 patron seats. The applicant stated at the Planning Commission hearing that staffing alone would be at least 30 persons. This means at any given �me the restaurant may have in excess of 80 people — patrons and staff combined — arriving and depar�ng by vehicle at a site with much less available parking spaces. The neighborhood maps included in the applica�on materials confirm that the site is immediately surrounded by residen�al proper�es on mul�ple sides, making overflow parking impacts on those neighbors par�cularly acute.
With respect to traffic and circula�on, the overwhelming majority of vehicles will be forced to seek parking on adjacent streets and neighboring proper�es, crea�ng traffic conges�on and circula�on problems in the surrounding area. With respect to neighborhood impacts, overflow parking will displace onto neighboring streets and residen�al proper�es, crea�ng impacts on adjacent land uses and residents that have never been studied or mi�gated. The applicant acknowledged at the Planning Commission hearing that the business at 8086 Bodega Avenue — which holds the parking easement over 8050 Bodega — has been either failing or failed for the en�re period since the lot split, meaning the 2018 parking easement has not been fully exercised to date. A successful restaurant genera�ng parking demand well in excess of supply will create condi�ons materially worse than anything previously experienced at this loca�on.
None of these impacts have ever been studied. The 2018 Planning Department statement acknowledging that the parking situa�on needed review confirms that these are not specula�ve concerns — they are recognized issues that have been deferred without resolu�on for eight years.
E. SMC Chapter 17.160 Does Not Override CEQA
The City relies heavily on SMC Chapter 17.160.040, the nonconforming use provision, to jus�fy not requiring addi�onal parking. This reliance is misplaced in the context of CEQA. SMC
17.160.040 is a local zoning ordinance provision that addresses zoning code compliance only. It does not and cannot override CEQA, which is state law. Even if the applicant is legally excused from providing addi�onal parking under the City's Zoning Code, that local zoning determina�on has no bearing on the City's independent and mandatory obliga�on under state law to conduct environmental review when unusual circumstances exist. The two analyses are legally dis�nct and must be conducted separately. The City's confla�on of its zoning analysis with its CEQA obliga�on is a fundamental legal error.
VII. CONCLUSION AND REQUESTED RELIEF
For all of the foregoing reasons, the undersigned respec�ully requests that the City of Sebastopol:
1. Rescind the finding that the proposed restaurant use at 8050 Bodega Avenue is categorically exempt from CEQA review under Sec�on 15301 — Exis�ng Facili�es, Class 1, on the grounds that the City's CEQA determina�on is legally inadequate, unusual circumstances exist that trigger the mandatory excep�on under Sec�on 15300.2(c), the applicant's plans reveal a physical expansion of use disqualifying the project from Sec�on 15301 exemp�on, and there is a fair argument of significant environmental impact;
2. Require prepara�on of an Ini�al Study pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Sec�on 15063 to evaluate the environmental impacts of the proposed restaurant use, with par�cular focus on parking, traffic, circula�on, and neighborhood impacts;
3. Suspend all approvals related to the proposed restaurant use pending comple�on of the required environmental review;
4. Rescind the Alcohol Use Permit approved by the Planning Commission on February 24, 2026 and upheld by the City Council on April 21, 2026, as it was granted without the required environmental review having been completed; and
5. Formally correct the administra�ve record to reflect the true and accurate facts regarding the parking easements affec�ng 8050 Bodega Avenue, as set forth in Sec�on III of this objec�on, and to disregard the false tes�mony introduced at the April 21, 2026 hearing regarding those easements.
VIII. REQUESTS TO THE CITY CLERK
The undersigned respec�ully requests that the City Clerk:
1. Formally include this writen objec�on and all atachments in the official administra�ve record for Planning File 2026-002, and confirm in wri�ng that this has been done;
2. Atach this writen objec�on as a formal exhibit to the City Council resolu�on denying the undersigned's appeal, so that the objec�ons are permanently linked to the official decision document related to yesterday’s City Council hearing;
3. Formally note in the administra�ve record that post-hearing writen objec�ons were received that specifically dispute and correct false tes�mony given at the April 21, 2026 hearing regarding parking easements affec�ng 8050 Bodega Avenue, and that the