The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2021-08-25 PacketPage 1 of 2 Planning Commission Regular Meeting AGENDA Please join my meeting from your computer, tablet or smartphone. https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/678443853 You can also dial in using your phone. United States: +1 (408) 6503123; Access Code: 678443853 August 25, 2021 6:00 PM 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. ROLL CALL 3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 4.a. Approval of Draft Minutes of July 14, 2021, a Regular Meeting. Recommended Action: Approve the Draft Minutes of July 14, 2021, a Regular Meeting. Attachments: 1.20210714 PC Draft Minutes 5. APPEAL PROCESS All determinations of the Planning Commission regarding major discretionary planning permits are final unless a written appeal, stating the reasons for the appeal, is filed with the City Clerk within ten (10) days of the date the decision was made. An interested party may appeal only if he or she appeared and stated his or her position during the hearing on the decision from which the appeal is taken. For items on this agenda, the appeal must be received by September 6, 2021 6. COMMENTS FROM AUDIENCE ON NONAGENDA ITEMS The Planning Commission welcomes input from the audience. In order for everyone to be heard, please limit your comments to three (3) minutes per person and not more than ten (10) minutes per subject. The Brown Act regulations do not allow action to be taken on audience comments. 7. SITE VISIT VERIFICATION 8. VERIFICATION OF NOTICE 9. PLANNING COMMISSIONERS REPORT 10. DIRECTOR'S REPORT Page 1 of 414 Page 2 of 2 11. CONSENT CALENDAR 12. NEW BUSINESS 12.a. Consideration and Possible Recommendation to the City Council for approval of an Initial Study & Mitigated Negative Declaration and approval of the Ukiah Western Hills Open Land Acquisition & Limited Development Agreement Project. File No.: 205915. Recommended Action: Staff recommends the Planning Commission approve a recommendation to City Council for adoption of the Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration; and approval of the Ukiah Western Hills Open Land Acquisition and Limited Development Project including: acquisition and annexation of approximately 707 acres, prezoning, Lot Line Adjustments, a Development Agreement between Hull Properties and the City of Ukiah, and associated site improvements Attachments: 1.Draft Findings 2.Draft Conditions of Approval 3.Figures & Maps 4.Agency Referral Comments 5.Final Draft ISMND 081621_Western Hills Open Land Acquisition Limited Dev Agreement 6.Draft ISMND Public Comments Received 7.City Responses to Draft ISMND Comments Received 8.Correspondence Received for previously continued PC hearings 9.Draft Resolution for Prezoning 13. UNFINISHED BUSINESS 14. ADJOURNMENT Please be advised that the City needs to be notified 72 hours in advance of a meeting if any specific accommodations or interpreter services are needed in order for you to attend. The City complies with ADA requirements and will attempt to reasonably accommodate individuals with disabilities upon request. Materials related to an item on this Agenda submitted to the Planning Commission after distribution of the agenda packet are available at the Civic Center 300 Seminary Ave. Ukiah, CA 95482; and online at: www.cityofukiah/meetings/ at the end of the next business day. I hereby certify under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing agenda was posted on the bulletin board at the main entrance of the City of Ukiah City Hall, located at 300 Seminary Avenue, Ukiah, California, not less than 72 hours prior to the meeting set forth on this agenda. August 16, 2021 Stephanie Abba Planning Commission Secretary Page 2 of 414 Agenda Item 4a Page 1 of 2 CITY OF UKIAH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting Virtual Meeting Link: https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/678443853 Ukiah, CA 95482 July 14, 2021 6:00 p.m. 1. CALL TO ORDER The City of Ukiah Planning Commission held a Regular M eeting on July 14, 2021, having been legally noticed on July 9, 2021, which was called to order by Chair Christensen at 6:00 p.m. on the following virtual link: https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/678443853 CHAIR CHRISTENSEN PRESIDING 2. ROLL CALL Roll was taken with the following Commissioners Present: Rick Johnson, Michelle Johnson, Van Antwerp, Hilliker, and Chair Christensen. Commissioners Absent: None Staff Present: Craig Schlatter, Community Development Director; Mireya Turner, Planning Manager; and Stephanie Abba, Planning Commission Secretary. 3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE The Pledge of Allegiance was recited 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES a. Approval of June 23, 2021, Regular Meeting Minutes. Motion/Second: Hilliker/R. Johnson to approve the Minutes of June 23, 2021, a Regular Meeting, as submitted. Motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: R. Johnson, M. Johnson, Van Antwerp, and Hilliker. NOES: None. ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: Chair Christensen 5. APPEAL PROCESS No matters eligible for appeal were received. 6. COMMENTS FROM AUDIENCE ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS No public comment was received. 7. SITE VISIT VERIFICATION Chair Commissioner stated it was not needed. 8. VERIFICATION OF NOTICE Confirmed by Staff 9. PLANNING COMMISSIONERS REPORT Commissioners Hilliker and Rick Johnson stated they may not be able to attend the next meeting on July 28, 2021. It is the consensus of the Commissioners to cancel the next meeting on July 28, 2021. The next meeting would be on August 11, 2021. Page 3 of 414 Minutes of the Planning Commission, July 14, 2021, Continued: Page 2 of 2 10. DIRECTOR’S REPORT Presenter: Craig Schlatter, Community Development Director. Report Received. 11. CONSENT CALENDAR No items on consent calendar. 12. NEW BUSINESS a. Consideration and Possible Recommendation regarding Draft Resolution Approving an Initial Study/Negative Declaration and General Plan Amendment to Allow for Increased Density and Lot Coverage in Compliance with the General Plan and State Housing Laws; and Draft Ordinance Amending Division 9, Chapter 2 of the City code to Execute General Plan Housing Element Implementation Tasks and to comply with New State housing Laws. Motion/Second: M. Johnson/R. Johnson to approve a recommendation of approval to the City Council of the Draft Initial Study and Negative Declaration, Draft General Plan Text Amendment, and Draft Ordinance Amending Division 9, Chapter 2 of the City code to Execute General Plan Housing Element Imp lementation Tasks and to comply with State Housing Laws. Motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: R. Johnson, M. Johnson, Van Antwerp, Hilliker, and Chair Christensen. NOES: None. ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None 13. UNFINISHED BUSINESS No Unfinished Business 14. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 7:48 P.M. _______________________________________ Stephanie Abba, Planning Commission Secretary Page 4 of 414 AGENDA ITEM NO. 12a Department of Community Development Planning Division 300 Seminary Ave. Ukiah, CA 95482 Staff Report Western Hills Open Land Acquisition & Limited Development Agreement Project File No.: 20-5915 1 DATE: August 16, 2021 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Michelle Irace, Planning Manager SUBJECT: Recommendation to the City Council for approval of an Initial Study & Mitigated Negative Declaration and approval of the Ukiah Western Hills Open Land Acquisition & Limited Development Agreement Project. File No.: 20-5915. SUMMARY OWNER: D&J Investments, LLC; David Hull; Adonis Noguera; and City of Ukiah APPLICANT: City of Ukiah LOCATION: Several parcels located within unincorporated Mendocino County within the Ukiah Western Hills referred to as the “Hull Properties” (APNs 001-040-83, 157-070-01, 157-070-02, 003-190-01, 157-050-09, 157-060-02, 157-050-02, 157-050- 04, 157-050-01, 157-030-02, 157-030-03, 157-050-11 & 157- 050-12); “Noguera Properties” (APNs 003-190-09 & 003-110- 90); and the City-owned “Donation Parcel” (APNs 157-050- 03,157-060-003) TOTAL ACREAGE: ±707 acres GENERAL PLAN: Mendocino County General Plan (Ukiah Valley Area Plan), Remote Residential, 40 Acre Minimum (“RMR40”) ZONING DISTRICT: Upland Residential, 40 acre minimum (“UR:40”) AIRPORT COMPATIBILITY: ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: Parcels are located in the Other Airport Environs (“OAE”) area of the Ukiah Municipal Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan With the incorporation of the Mitigation Measures identified in the Initial Study & Mitigated Negative Declaration (ISMND), all impacts would be reduced to less than significant Page 5 of 414 Staff Report Western Hills Open Land Acquisition & Limited Development Agreement Project File No.: 20-5915 2 RECOMMENDATION: Make a recommendation to the City Council for adoption of the ISMND and Conditional Approval of the Project (see Draft Findings in Attachment 1 and Draft Conditions of Approval in Attachment 2). See Recommendation section below for more information. BACKGROUND The City has a vision, and is working towards a goal, of promoting the protection of Ukiah’s western urban interface to restore and conserve forest and stream ecosystems, provide large- scale wildfire mitigation and to protect the Upper Russian River Watershed to benefit fish, wildlife and the greater Ukiah community. Towards achievement of this goal, the City proposes to acquire and annex approximately 707 acres in the Western Hills for open space preservation while allowing the potential for future low-density residential development on the approximately 54 easternmost acres, consistent with existing development in the Hillside District of the Western Hills within the City of Ukiah limits. The Project site(s) consists of undeveloped parcels with fuel breaks and private access roads. The parcels have been subject to vegetation management and grading practices throughout 2017-2020, including clearing areas for potential water tank pad sites and house sites (proposed “Development Parcels”), over the last several years through the County’s permitting process. In 2003, an approximately 100-foot wide, 2.6-mile-long shaded fuel break was constructed (North to South) by Cal Fire along the base of the Western Hills along the entire length of the City to reduce fuel loads and protect the community from wildfire risk. The parcels are currently accessed through existing dirt and gravel roads that traverse the Noguera Properties and connect to Redwood Avenue (nearest address is 680 Redwood Ave.). The existing road was installed in the 1960’s, and road improvements were completed throughout 2015-2017; in 2018 the road was extended further west. The road ranges in width, from 18 ft to 35 ft, with the majority of it being a minimum of 20 ft wide. The sections that are 18 ft wide are approximately 100 ft long and have wider turn-outs immediately before or after them. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The “Proposed Project” includes the following: 1) Acquisition and annexation of the parcels; 2) Prezoning the parcels to “PF” Public Facilities, and “R1-H” Single-family Residential-Hillside Overlay (and associated Zoning Map and General Plan Map Amendments upon approval of the annexation application); 3) Sequential Lot Line Adjustments to reconfigure the existing parcels into seven lots (“Development Parcels”) for future potential development; 4) Development Agreement between Hull Properties and the City allowing up to one single-family home and one accessory dwelling unit on each Development Parcel (up to 14 units total); and 5) site improvements including extension of utilities, road improvements, and construction of the water storage tank(s). Each of these components are described further in detail below. Project Figures and Maps, including a location map (Figure 1), the existing parcel configuration (Figure 2), the proposed resulting parcel configuration and prezoning (Figure 3), existing zoning designations (Figure 4), and existing General Plan land use designations (Figure 5) as well as existing site photographs (Figures 6, 7, and 8) are included in Attachment 3. Page 6 of 414 Staff Report Western Hills Open Land Acquisition & Limited Development Agreement Project File No.: 20-5915 3 Acquisition and Annexation The Project proposes to annex the parcels listed below in Table 1, totaling approximately 707 acres (“Annexation Parcels”) within the County of Mendocino’s jurisdiction, into the City of Ukiah. One approximately 188-acre parcel (APNs 157-050-03 & 157-060-003) was donated to the City in December, 2020. The City is currently pursuing the purchase and acquisition of the remaining parcels (“Hull Properties”), with the exception of the “Noguera Properties” (APNs 003-190-09 & 003-110-90), which will be utilized for access only and remain under private ownership. In order to complete the acquisition, the City will enter into a Property Exchange and Development Agreement (“Development Agreement”) with the current owner of the Hull Properties, subject to the annexation application. Under the Development Agreement, the current owner will convey the Annexation Parcels to the City in exchange for real property owned by the City and a payment from the City of an amount to make up the difference between the fair market value of the exchanged properties. The proposed parcels for annexation would be contiguous to existing city limits, in accordance with LAFCo policies and the Government Code. Also in accordance with LAFCo-adopted procedures 1, and as required under the Development Agreement, the City will submit its annexation application to the Mendocino County Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCo), after the City acquires title to the Annexation Parcels and upon City Council approval of the Proposed Project. Prezone Government Code Section 65859 allows the City to adopt a zoning district for land outside of the city limits in anticipation of annexation and development (i.e., prezone). Under the provisions of the Government Code, the zoning district adopted by the City does not become effective unless and until the land is annexed into the City. With the exception of Development Parcels 1-3, which Hull Properties is choosing to retain the right to sell and develop prior to annexation (see Development Agreement and Assumptions section below for more information), once the parcels are annexed into the City, the Development Parcels would not be developed until the Lot Line Adjustments are recorded, and an applicant submits a project-specific site plan with a Use Permit application and receives Planning Commission approval for development of their home, in accordance with the Hillside Overlay Zoning District regulations 2 (see Staff Analysis section below for more information). Until the property is annexed, it is subject to existing zoning under Mendocino County’s Zoning Ordinance. Prezoning of the parcels will require a Zoning Map and General Plan Map Amendment upon approval of the annexation application. The City proposes to annex approximately 640 acres total, collectively referred to as the “Conservation Parcels”, for open space and conservation. Although the City does not currently have a standalone Open Space zoning designation, the City’s existing Public Facilities (PF) zoning designation is intended for public or quasi-public uses, including, but not limited to, natural resource conservation areas and parks and recreation. Accordingly, the Conservation Parcels are proposed to be prezoned “PF” (with a “Public” General Plan land use designation). See Figure 3, Proposed Parcel Configuration & Prezoning, contained within Attachment 3. The proposed Development Parcels (totaling approximately 54 acres) will be prezoned to Single- Family Residential-Hillside Overlay District (R1-H) with a General Plan Designation of Low 1 https://www.mendolafco.org/files/151e0a09b/FINAL+Adopted+Mendo+LAFCo+PP+Manual+2018+upd+5-5-21.pdf 2 The Hillside Overlay District Regulations can be found online at: https://www.codepublishing.com/CA/Ukiah/#!/Ukiah09/Ukiah0902-1100.html#art11 Page 7 of 414 Staff Report Western Hills Open Land Acquisition & Limited Development Agreement Project File No.: 20-5915 4 Density Residential (LDR), consistent with adjacent City zoning and development patterns in the Western Hills. In addition, the Noguera Properties (APNs 003-190-09 & 003-110-90) will be prezoned R1-H for consistency with surrounding zoning and land uses, but are not included as Development Parcels in the Development Agreement, as they will continue to be utilized for access only. The Hillside (–H) Overlay District is intended to support planning, design, and development activities that are in harmony with natural physical features and minimize potential safety, water runoff and soil erosion concerns associated with the natural terrain. This approach will allow the City to preserve and protect the Conservation Parcels (640 acres total), while permitting limited, orderly, clustered low-density single-family housing development within the Development Parcels (54 acres). Lot Line Adjustment To achieve the resulting proposed parcel configuration of up to seven Development Parcels, the Project also includes sequential Lot Line Adjustments in both the City and County jurisdictions, in accordance with the Subdivision Map Act.3 Hull Properties recently recorded sequential Lot Line Adjustments through the County’s ministerial procedures and will submit sequential Lot Line Adjustments through the City’s procedures to achieve configuration of the Development Parcels. Hull Properties intends to sell the Development Parcels (ranging in sizes from 5 to 10 acres each, in accordance with the R1-H regulations) for individual development. Although Development Parcels 1-3 may be developed prior to annexation, they will be developed in accordance with R1- H regulations through Declaration of Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs). Review of the Lot Line Adjustments will be conducted by the City Engineer prior to recordation of the final maps to ensure that all development standards contained within the R1-H zoning district are met. Table 1 identifies the existing parcels to be reconfigured and Figure 1, Project Location Map, identifies the Development Parcel area in yellow. Figure 2 shows the existing parcel configuration and Figure 3 shows the preliminary resulting parcel configuration and proposed prezoning. Although the final configuration of the Development Parcels may vary slightly, the footprint of the resulting configuration for the Development Parcels (54 acres) and number of parcels will remain the same. Table 1. Annexation Parcels, Proposed Lot Line Adjustments and Prezoning Assessor’s Parcel Number (APN) Existing Size (+/acres) Proposed Size (+/- acres) through Lot Line Adjustments 4 Resulting Parcel Configuration, Intended Use and Proposed Prezoning 001-040-83 77.6 9.8 Parcel 1 will become a Development Parcel intended for single family housing and prezoned R1-H. 157-070 01, 157-070-02, 003-190-01 & 157-050-09 148.2 5.1 Parcel 2 on Existing Conditions Tentative Map, contains several APNs but is one legal parcel (149 acres total). This parcel will become a Development Parcel intended for single-family housing and prezoned R1-H. 157-050-11 40.0 9.9 Parcel 3 will become a Development Parcel intended for single-family housing and prezoned R1-H. 3 The Subdivision Map Act excludes from its requirements lot line adjustments “between four or fewer existing adjoining parcels” if there is no resulting increase in the number of parcels. Government Code § 66412(d) 4 Resulting parcel configuration is subject to change but the Development Parcel area footprint and number of resulting parcels will remain the same. Page 8 of 414 Staff Report Western Hills Open Land Acquisition & Limited Development Agreement Project File No.: 20-5915 5 157-050-02 40.5 9.0 Parcel 4 will become a Development Parcel intended for single-family housing and prezoned R1-H. 157-050-01 40.3 5.0 Parcel 5 will become a Development Parcel intended for single-family housing and prezoned R1-H. 157-030-02 20.0 9.7 Parcel 6 will become a Development Parcel intended for single-family housing and prezoned R1-H. 157-050-12 40.0 5.0 Parcel 7 will become a Development Parcel intended for single-family housing and prezoned R1-H. 157-050-04 & 157-060-02 38.7 391.5 Parcel 8 will become a Conservation Parcel and be prezoned PF. The proposed water tanks will be placed on this parcel within the existing water tank pad site (on existing Parcel 2). 157-030-03 60.0 60.0 Parcel 9 is an Outside Conservation Parcel and will not be prezoned. 157-030-03 & 157-060-03 188.5 188.5 Parcel 10 (City-owned “Donation Parcel”) will become a Conservation Parcel and will be prezoned PF. “Noguera Properties” 003-190-09 & 003-110-90 10.20 4.14 10.20 4.14 These parcels contain the existing access road that will be improved but remain under private ownership. It will be included in the annexation proposal and prezoned R1-H, consistent with surrounding zoning and land uses, but no development is proposed; this parcel is not included in the Lot Line Adjustment. TOTAL +/- 707 acres Development Agreement and Assumptions The proposed Development Agreement between Hull Properties and the City limits development to one single-family dwelling and one accessory dwelling unit (ADU) per parcel (14 units total). Hull Properties is choosing to retain the right to sell and develop Development Parcels 1-3 prior to annexation. The Development Parcels are located within the County of Mendocino’s jurisdiction within the Upland Residential, 40-acre minimum (UR:40) zoning district. Construction of single- family homes within the County’s jurisdiction would be by-right and not require discretionary approval, environmental review, nor the development standards contained within the City’s R1-H zoning district. However, Hull Properties is choosing to require the single-family homes to be constructed to R1-H standards by including them in the Declaration of Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) for Development Parcels 1-3. In addition, although not required, the mitigation measures contained within the ISMND for residential development will also be included in the CC&Rs. Although Hull Properties is retaining the right to develop Development Parcels 1- 3 prior to annexation, they will still be included in the application for annexation and prezoned to R1-H. After the Annexation Parcels are successfully annexed into the City, the remaining Development Parcels (4-7) would not be developed until an applicant submits a project site plan for development, subject to discretionary review and received Planning Commission approval, as required by the City’s Hillside Overlay Zoning District. However, no purchasers have been identified, and the timing of the sale and development of the properties is unknown. The Noguera Properties that will be annexed and utilized for access are not included in the Hull Properties Development Agreement, nor the development assumptions. See Staff Analysis section below for more information. Infrastructure Improvements Approximately one-half mile of the existing 18 ft to 35 ft wide gravel private access road beginning at the access point at the terminus of on Redwood Avenue (traversing the Noguera Properties), to the house sites, would be paved to serve the future housing development sites. The road improvements will also include developing a cul-de-sac on Proposed Parcel 4 to serve the Development Parcels. All improvements will be in accordance with applicable fire and building Page 9 of 414 Staff Report Western Hills Open Land Acquisition & Limited Development Agreement Project File No.: 20-5915 6 codes. The property owner/developer will complete the road improvements; the road will remain under private ownership and be maintained by a Homeowner’s Association (HOA) through a road maintenance and access agreement. The agreement will also allow the City to maintain access to public utilities and city-owned properties. Sewer, water and electric utilities would be provided to the Development Parcels. Sewer and water will be developed by the property owner, while electric infrastructure will be developed by the property owner and/or the City. All utilities will be undergrounded and located within or adjacent to existing access roads, on private parcels and previously disturbed areas. A detailed Plan for Services will be included in the application for annexation. Easements will be required for all utility facilities in roadway and on parcels as necessary. An onsite community sewer system with a holding tank and sewer line, rather than a leach field, will be constructed for discharging wastewater (effluent only) to a sewer main at the end of Redwood Avenue. Proposed Development Parcels 1-3 are located within the Ukiah Valley Sanitation District (UVSD) service area, while Proposed Development Parcels 4-7 are not. However, sewer service would be provided to the Development Parcels by the City for parcels located both within and outside of the UVSD. Water utilities will be developed by the property owner on-site to support the Development Parcels; approximately 130,000 gallons of storage will be provided by two 65,000 gallon tanks (34ft in diameter and 10.5ft high) that will be placed within the existing water tank pad site (identified by a blue dot on Figure 1 in Attachment 3). Ultimately the Homeowners Association will own the tank and provide all maintenance on the tank and its associated equipment. Fire hydrants are also required to be installed with residential development. Electric utilities would be extended from Helen/Redwood Ave to provide electric service. Easements will be required for all utility facilities in the roadway and on parcels as necessary to provide electric service. The electric system will be in accordance with State and Federal requirements. Upon annexation, the City will own and maintain electric utility infrastructure through a utility easement. Construction Proposed road improvements, the underground extension of utilities, as well as the water tanks and hydrant systems would be completed by the property owner (or its contractors). Road improvements and utility extension is anticipated to take approximately 1-2 months during the dry season. Water tank construction would occur over 5-10 days. All construction will take place between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m., per the City’s Noise Ordinance, and will require the use of typical construction equipment including, but not limited to: hand tools, power tools, heavy equipment, manlift, small crane, backhoe, dozer, excavator, forklift, paver, roller, tractor, water truck, grader, etc. Construction equipment and staging will be located within existing disturbed areas and roadways. It is anticipated that approximately 8-10 construction workers will be needed for the road and water system improvements, and extension of utilities. Extension of utilities would require 2-24" wide trenches to be dug within the access road or other disturbed areas for approximately one-half-mile from the connection point within Redwood Avenue to the Development Parcels. Because the road and water tank pad site are pre-existing, minimal vegetation removal and grading will be required; no trees are proposed for removal. Additional grading may be required to extend driveways to the cul-de-sac and access road. Standard Best Management Practices including, but not limited to, the placement of straw, mulch, seeding, straw wattles, silt fencing, etc. will be implemented during construction, as appropriate. Page 10 of 414 Staff Report Western Hills Open Land Acquisition & Limited Development Agreement Project File No.: 20-5915 7 With the exception of Development Parcels 1-3 which may be developed by-right prior to annexation in the County’s jurisdiction, the construction of single-family homes would not begin until a buyer purchases one of the proposed Development Parcels and obtains an approved Use Permit by the Planning Commission for development of their home. Typically, construction of a single-family dwelling takes approximately 6-10 months to complete and would require the use of the aforementioned standard construction equipment. SURROUNDING LAND USE & ZONING As previously mentioned, the Project includes parcels currently outside of the City of Ukiah limits, within unincorporated Mendocino County. The Project site(s) currently carry a Remote Residential, 40 Acre Minimum (“RMR40”) land use designation within the Ukiah Valley Area Plan (UVAP; 2011) and the existing zoning is Upland Residential, 40-acre minimum (“UR:40”). Lands to the north (with the exception of the northeastern-most boundary), west and south are largely undeveloped but contain some rural residential development within unincorporated Mendocino County. To the east, the Project is bounded by lands within the City of Ukiah developed with single family housing and zoned Single-Family Residential-Hillside Overlay District (R1-H). A summary of zoning designations and land uses is provided below in Table 2. Project Figures and Maps, including a location map (Figure 1), the existing parcel configuration (Figure 2), the proposed parcel configuration and prezoning (Figure 3), existing zoning designations (Figure 4), and existing General Plan Land Use designations (Figure 5) as well as existing site photographs (Figures 6-8) are included in Attachment 3. Table 2, Surrounding Zoning and Land Uses AGENCY COMMENTS Project referrals were sent to the following trustee agencies with interest or jurisdiction over the project: City of Ukiah Public Works Department, City of Ukiah Police Department, City of Ukiah Electrical Utility Department, City of Ukiah Community Development Department - Building Division, City of Ukiah Municipal Airport Operations Manager, Ukiah Valley Fire Authority, California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, Mendocino County Planning and Building, Mendocino Transit Authority, California Department of Fish and Wildlife, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Regional Water Quality Control Board, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Native American ZONING: USE: NORTH County: Upland Residential, 40-acre minimum (UR:40) City: Single-Family Residential-Hillside Overlay District (R1-H) Undeveloped/ Rural Residential Undeveloped EAST City: Single-Family Residential-Hillside Overlay District (R1-H) Single-Family Residential SOUTH County: Upland Residential, 40-acre minimum (UR:40) Undeveloped/ Rural Residential WEST County: Upland Residential, 40-acre minimum (UR:40) Undeveloped/ Rural Residential Page 11 of 414 Staff Report Western Hills Open Land Acquisition & Limited Development Agreement Project File No.: 20-5915 8 Heritage Commission, local and California Native American tribes, Sonoma State University Northwest Information Center, Ukiah Valley Sanitation District, and Willow Water District. Comments received during agency review are included in Attachment 4 and Draft Conditions of Approval in response to agency comments are contained in Attachment 2. In addition, the Initial Study & Mitigated Negative Declaration (ISMND) was circulated for public review and comment to the aforementioned departments and agencies, in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Under CEQA the term “responsible agency” includes all public agencies other than the lead agency that have discretionary power over the Proposed Project. Annexation applications require approval by the Mendocino County Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCo), making LAFCo a responsible agency. The City of Ukiah has been collaborating with LAFCo for several months, providing them with multiple opportunities to comment on the Project. Comments received from LAFCo during the referral process are included in Attachment 4. In addition, City responses to their comments can also be found in Attachment 4. LAFCo also provided comments on the ISMND. Public comments received during the CEQA review period are included in Attachment 6 and City responses to comments received are included in Attachment 7. See the Environmental Documentation Section below for more information. STAFF ANALYSIS General Plan and Zoning Consistency The current Ukiah Valley Area Plan land use designation is Remote Residential, 40 Acre Minimum (“RMR40”) and the existing zoning is Upland Residential, 40-acre minimum (“UR:40”). Both of these designations are intended to be applied to lands having constraints for commercial agriculture, timber production or grazing, which are well suited for small scale farming and low density agricultural/residential uses. Both the existing RMR-40 land use designation and UR-40 zoning designation allow for one dwelling unit per 40 acres (and an ADU); housing development with the UR-40 zoning district is allowed by right. As previously discussed in the Project Description section above, the Conservation Parcels are proposed to be prezoned “PF” (with a “Public” General Plan land use designation) which specifically identifies public or quasi-public uses, including, but not limited to natural resource conservation areas and parks and recreation. Consistent with the Land Use Element of the 1995 City of Ukiah General Plan, the Public (P) land use designation is intended for public facilities as well as open space and conservation areas and may be applied to lands within the City, the Sphere of Influence (SOI), rural communities (identified as Calpella, Talmage and the Forks), master plan areas, and areas within the General Plan’s Unincorporated Planning Area (currently the same boundary as the UVAP and the City’s adopted SOI). Approximately 343 acres of the Conservation Parcels are located within the City’s SOI and 296 acres outside of it (see Figure 1 in Attachment 3). Under Government Code Section 56742, city- owned parcels are not required to be located within the City's SOI. Parcels can be located anywhere in the County, as long as they are less than 300 acres, owned by the City, and used for municipal purposes at the time of the annexation application. Because the portion of the Conservation Parcels proposed for annexation totals approximately 296 acres, and will be under city ownership for open space, this portion of the Project is consistent with the Government Code. Because the area located inside of the SOI is within the 95’ General Plan’s Unincorporated Planning Area, the proposed annexation and prezoning of the parcels to “PF” (with a P General Plan land use designation) are consistent with the intent and land uses identified within the 95’ Page 12 of 414 Staff Report Western Hills Open Land Acquisition & Limited Development Agreement Project File No.: 20-5915 9 General Plan. In addition, the City can utilize its Parks Ordinance (Division 1, Chapter 12 of the Ukiah City Code) to provide rules governing City and public use of “PF” zoned property. All proposed Development Parcels (totaling approximately 54 acres) would be prezoned to Single- Family Residential-Hillside Overlay District (R1-H) with a General Plan Designation of Low Density Residential (LDR), consistent with adjacent City zoning and development patterns in the Western Hills. These parcels are located within the ‘95 General Plan’s Unincorporated Planning Area, as well as the current UVAP/SOI boundary, and are consistent with the density and intent of the LDR land use designation and “R1-H” zoning. Although the Noguera Properties will be prezoned “R1-H” for consistency with surrounding zoning and land uses, they are not included in the Development Agreement and no development is proposed at this time; the parcels will continue to be used for access only. UCC Section §9267, Prezoning, states that the City may prezone unincorporated territory adjoining the City for the purpose of determining the zoning which will apply to such property in the event of subsequent annexation to the City. Prezoning of the parcels will also require a Zoning Map and General Plan Map Amendment upon approval of the annexation application by LAFCo. The “–H” Hillside Overlay District is intended to encourage planning, design, and development while preserving natural physical features and minimizing potential safety, water runoff and soil erosion concerns associated with the natural terrain. The City of Ukiah’s General Plan land use designation of Low Density Residential (LDR) allows for a density of six dwelling units per acre. Under these regulations, the 54 acres for residential development could conceivably be developed with up to 330 units. However, the proposed Development Agreement would restrict development to one single family dwelling per parcel and one ADU (except for in cases were the slope exceeds 50 percent, per the City’s Hillside Overlay Ordinance), for a total of up to14 units. R1-H zoning requires a minimum lot size of 10,000 sf (0.23 acre) for parcels with a slope up to 20%; minimum lot size increases as the slope of the parcel increases, as outlined in UCC Section 9139, Hillside Development Standards. Consistent with these standards, the resulting parcel configuration proposes 5-10-acre Development Parcels that would be prezoned “R1-H”. Development within the Hillside Overlay District also requires submittal of the following: soil and geological reports, subsurface investigations, grading plans, vegetation reports, grading plans, hydrology reports, and structure elevations. Additionally, each home would require approval of a Building Permit, which includes additional review and approval by County and City departments. Hull Properties recently recorded sequential Lot Line Adjustments through the County’s ministerial procedures and will submit sequential Lot Line Adjustments through the City’s procedures upon approval of the annexation application to achieve the resulting proposed parcel configuration for the Development Parcels. A copy of the final recorded Lot Line Adjustments, depicted the “proposed configuration” shown in Figure 3 will be submitted to the Community Development Department prior to submittal of a Use Permit for single family housing within Development Parcels 4-7. Review of the Lot Line Adjustments will be conducted by the City Engineer prior to recordation of the final maps to ensure that all development standards contained within the R1-H zoning district are met. Further, through the Use Permit process (for Parcels 4-7) and CC&R regulations (for Parcels 1-3) each proposed home would be subject to all R-1H development regulations (including slope, density, setbacks, height, fire safety and water requirements, access requirements, etc.) contained within the Hillside Overlay District. Hull Properties recently recorded sequential Lot Line Adjustments through the County’s ministerial procedures and will submit sequential Lot Line Adjustments through the City’s procedures upon Page 13 of 414 Staff Report Western Hills Open Land Acquisition & Limited Development Agreement Project File No.: 20-5915 10 approval of the annexation application to achieve the resulting proposed parcel configuration for the Development Parcels. A copy of the final recorded Lot Line Adjustments, depicted the “proposed configuration” shown in Figure 3 will be submitted to the Community Development Department prior to submittal of a Use Permit for single family housing within the Development Parcels. Review of the Lot Line Adjustments will be conducted by the City Engineer prior to recordation of the final maps to ensure that all development standards contained within the R1-H zoning district are met. In accordance with Ukiah City Code Section 8296(f), which states “Concurrent Permit Processing: when a lot line adjustment is part of a project that requires one or more discretionary planning entitlements and the applicant does not want the lot line adjustment unless the entire project is approved, then the lot line adjustment shall be reviewed as part of the discretionary planning application. In that event, all permits and approvals, including the lot line adjustment, shall be combined into one application, processed concurrently, and acted upon by the highest review authority required by this code based on the entitlements included in the application. (Ord. 1138, §2 (Exh. A), adopted 2012).” Hull properties has indicated that they wish to record the Lot Line Adjustments, regardless of whether or not the overall Project gets approved. As such, the Lot Line Adjustments remain ministerial and do not require approval by the highest review authority (City Council, in this case). Prezoning of the parcels will require a Zoning Map and General Plan Map Amendment upon approval of the annexation application. Although the City’s General Plan and County’s UVAP do not contain specific policies related to prezoning, they do contain goals and policies that strive for orderly, clustered development, supporting the City and County’s RHNA, and conservation of open space. The City’s 2019-2027 Housing Element includes Goal H-5 and Policy 5-1 which seek to support future housing needs through annexation efforts that lead to orderly expansion of growth. Similarly, the County’s 2019-2027 Housing Element includes Policy 1.3 and Actions 1.3a through 1.3d that strive to work cooperatively with cities within the County on regional housing, support annexation applications to the Mendocino LAFCo from incorporated cities for annexations of contiguous lands etc. Consistent with these goals and policies, the Proposed Project will allow the City to adequately preserve and protect the collective Conservation Parcels (640 acres total), while allowing orderly and clustered low-density residential development within the Development Parcels (54 acres), consistent with land use patterns within the Western Hills. Additionally, the 14 units that could be developed under the Development Agreement would fulfil a portion of the above moderate income units of housing required by the City’s Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) for the 2019-2027 Housing Element Planning Cycle (see Section 5.14, Population and Housing, of the ISMND for more information). Airport Compatibility The Ukiah Municipal Airport is located within the City of Ukiah jurisdictional limits. The Ukiah Municipal Airport Master Plan and the Mendocino County Airport Comprehensive Land Use Plan (ACLUP; 1996) had been the plans identifying areas with potential hazards and impacts to persons residing or working within the Airport Master Plan area for the last several decades. However, in February 2019, the City of Ukiah, in coordination with the County of Mendocino and the Mendocino County Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) initiated a planning effort to prepare an updated compatibility plan for the Ukiah Municipal Airport, titled the Ukiah Municipal Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (UKIALUCP). The UKIALUCP was adopted by the ALUC on May 20, 2021 and adopted by the Ukiah City Council on June 16, 2021. Under the new UKIALUCP, the Project is located within the Other Airport Environs (OAE) Compatibility Zone. Within this airport influenced area, no limits are prescribed with regard to Page 14 of 414 Staff Report Western Hills Open Land Acquisition & Limited Development Agreement Project File No.: 20-5915 11 intensity of use, density of dwelling units, nor are there any open land requirements specific to airport safety considerations. Noise and overflight factors are considered minimal, but there may be occasional overflights which may be intrusive to some outdoor activities. In general, the risk level for this zone is low, and no specific safety or airspace protection factors are identified. According to Table 3A of the UKIALUCP, most land-use categories would be considered normally compatible. When uses are identified as conditionally compatible for the OAE, concerns are typically associated with potential flight hazards such as land uses that may attract birds, generate dust, produce smoke or steam plumes, create electronic interference, or otherwise be considered hazardous. The project area is located within an Airspace High Terrain Zone, which would require that any proposed structures or objects having a height of more than 35 feet be referred to the ALUC for review. Per section 1.4.5 of the UKIALUCP, however, referral of the proposed pre-zoning associated with annexation does not require review of the ALUC, as only land use actions occurring within Compatibility Zones 1-6 require review (pg. 2-9). As described, the proposed project would not engender airport safety concerns under the UKIALUCP, and a review of associated residential uses are indicated as ‘Normally Compatible.’ Conclusion For the reasons discussed above, the Project would be consistent with the City’s General Plan, Zoning Code and Subdivision Ordinance, the County’s UVAP, as well as the Government Code and LAFCo policies related to annexation and prezoning. The Ukiah City Code does not identify specific findings required for annexation or prezoning, but Draft Findings supporting Staff’s recommendation are included in Attachment 1. Draft Conditions of Approval for the Project can be found in Attachment 2, and the Draft Resolution for the proposed prezoning can be found in Attachment 9. ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the City of Ukiah Planning Division prepared a draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration (ISMND) for the proposed project. The ISMND (State Clearinghouse No. 2021040428) was circulated for public review from April 16, 2021 through May 20, 2021. The Proposed Project was scheduled for Planning Commission consideration on May 26, 2021 and June 9, 2021. However, due to the amount of public comment received on the ISMND and the Development Agreement still being finalized, at Staff’s request, the hearings were continued to a later date; correspondence received for these hearings is included in Attachment 8. Public comments received during the CEQA review period are included in Attachment 6. The Draft ISMND can be found online at: https://www.cityofukiah.com/ceqa-review/. Revisions and clarifications based on public comment and changes in the Project Description were made to the Final Draft ISMND (see Attachment 5). City responses to comments received and a summary of changes made to the Project and ISMND are included in Attachment 7. The ISMND found that Project components including the acquisition, annexation, and prezoning of parcels (and associated Zoning Map and General Plan Map Amendments), in addition to the Lot Line Adjustments, would not directly result in impacts to the physical environment. However, under the Development Agreement, infrastructure improvements and the potential construction of up to seven single-family homes and associated ADUs, could result in a total of 14 units within the easternmost 54 acres of the Project area. It is unknown whether all of the single family homes, Page 15 of 414 Staff Report Western Hills Open Land Acquisition & Limited Development Agreement Project File No.: 20-5915 12 and ADUs in particular, would be developed, but physical impacts would vary depending on location, intensity, and other siting factors. However, the Proposed Project does not include specific development designs or proposals, nor does it grant any entitlements for development. Once the parcels are annexed into the City, the site(s) would not be developed until an applicant submits a project site plan for development and receives Planning Commission approval to develop a home on the Development Parcels (4-7). Development of Development Parcels 1-3 may occur prior to annexation, as Hull Properties is retaining the right to develop them within the County’s jurisdiction. If developed prior to annexation, construction of the single-family homes within the County’s jurisdiction would be by-right within the Upland Residential, 40-acre minimum (UR:40) zoning district, and would not require discretionary approval, environmental review, or the development standards contained within the City’s R1-H zoning district. However, Hull Properties is choosing to require the single-family homes to be constructed to R1-H standards by including them in the Declaration of Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) for Development Parcels 1-3. In addition, although not required, the mitigation measures contained within the ISMND for residential development will also be included in the CC&Rs. Although the Noguera Properties will be prezoned “R1-H” for consistency with surrounding zoning and land uses, they are not included in the Development Agreement and no development is proposed at this time; the parcels will continue to be used for access only. For these reasons, these parcels are not included as Development Parcels and have not been included in the development assumptions within the CEQA analysis. As described throughout the ISMND, construction and ground disturbing activities associated with these components could result in direct significant impacts to Air Quality, Biological Resources, Cultural/Tribal Cultural Resources, Geology and Soils, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, Hydrology and Water Quality, Noise, Utilities and Service Systems, and Wildfire. However, mitigation measures identified within the aforementioned sections would reduce all impacts to less than significant. Mitigation measures identified within the Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration related to ground disturbing activities and construction for road and utility improvements, as well as residential development, are included in the Development Agreement and Conditions of Approval to ensure that they are implemented accordingly. A Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program is provided in Section VII of the ISMND, as well as in Attachment A of the Conditions of Approval. All future residential development would be analyzed on a project level basis for consistency with land use policies; and would be subject to discretionary and environmental review of their individual and cumulative environmental impacts, as applicable (with the exception of by-right development). Based upon the analysis contained within the ISMND, all potential impacts resulting from the Proposed Project would be less than significant with incorporation of mitigation. Draft Findings for approval of the ISMND are included in Attachment 1. NOTICE The Notice of Intent to adopt the ISMND and conduct a public hearing was provided in the following manner, in accordance with Ukiah City Code (UCC) §9267 and California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15073: Page 16 of 414 Staff Report Western Hills Open Land Acquisition & Limited Development Agreement Project File No.: 20-5915 13 • Provided to property owners within 300 feet of the project parcels, as well as agencies and departments with jurisdiction or interest over the project on April 16, 2021, June 1, 2021 and August 13, 2021; • Provided to members of the public, agencies, and interested parties who submitted written comments on the Draft ISMND during the public review period on August 13, 2021; • Published in the Ukiah Daily Journal on April 24, 2021, June 5, 2021 and August 14, 2021; • Posted on the Project site on May 3, 2021, June 1, 2021, and August 11; • Posted at the Civic Center (glass case) 72 hours prior to the public hearing; • Noticed for continuance at the May 26, 2021 Planning Commission hearing to a date certain of June 9, 2021; and • Notice for continuance at the June 9, 2021 Planning Commission to a date uncertain. In addition, based on the amount of interest in the Project and to receive as much public input as possible, additional public noticing was conducted in the following manner: • Posted on the City of Ukiah website on April 16, 2021 and August 16, 2021; • Emailed to Planning Commissioners and City Councilmembers on April 16, 2021 and August 13, 2021; • Hand-delivered to all residences (in addition to and beyond the 300-foot requirement) on Redwood Avenue on May 13, 2021 and mailed to all residences on Redwood Avenue on August 11, 2021. RECOMMENDATION The Ukiah City Code places the authority for adoption of the Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration, as well as approval of the overall Project, including acquisition and annexation, prezoning, Lot Line Adjustments, Development Agreement, and associated site improvements with the City Council. The Planning Commission has the authority to consider the aforementioned and make recommendations to the City Council. With the exception of the ISMND and Development Agreement, each of the Project components requires further approval by other entities. Specifically, the annexation and prezoning require LAFCo approval and the Lot Line Adjustments for parcels within the City’s jurisdiction require approval by the City Engineer. Similarly, construction of future single-family homes on all Development Parcels requires approval of Building Permits, and under the Development Agreement, construction of homes within Development Parcels 4-7 requires approval of a Use Permit by the Planning Commission. As such, Staff recommends Planning Commission: 1) Conduct a public hearing; 2) Make a recommendation to the City Council to adopt the Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration; 3) Make a recommendation to the City Council to approve the Ukiah Western Hills Open Land Acquisition & Limited Development Agreement Project including: acquisition and annexation of approximately 707 acres, prezoning, Lot Line Adjustments, a Development Agreement between Hull Properties and the City of Ukiah, and associated site improvements; and 4) Make a recommendation to the City Council to adopt a resolution to prezone the Conservation Parcels to “PF” Public Facilities and the Development Parcels to “R1-H” Single Family Residential-Hillside Overlay District. Page 17 of 414 Staff Report Western Hills Open Land Acquisition & Limited Development Agreement Project File No.: 20-5915 14 ATTACHMENTS 1. Draft Findings 2. Draft Conditions of Approval 3. Project Figures and Maps 1) Location Map 2) Existing Parcel Configuration 3) Proposed Parcel Configuration and Prezoning 4) Existing Zoning Designation Map 5) Existing General Plan Land Use Designation Map 6-8) Existing Site Photographs 4. Agency Comments from Project Referral 5. Final Draft ISMND, Revised August 16, 2021 6. Written ISMND Comments Received during the Public Review Period 7. City Reponses to Written Comments Received on the Draft ISMND 8. Correspondence received for May 26, 2021 and June 9, 2021 Planning Commission hearings. 9. Draft Resolution for Prezoning of Annexation Parcels Page 18 of 414 Findings Western Hills Open Land Acquisition & Limited Development Agreement Project File No.: 20-5915 1 ATTACHMENT 1 DRAFT FINDINGS TO ADOPT AN INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND FOR APPROVAL OF THE UKIAH WESTERN HILLS OPEN LAND ACQUISITION & LIMITED DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT PROJECT FILE NO.: 20-5915. The Community Development Department’s recommendation for approval of an Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (SCH No. 2021040428) and conditional approval of the Ukiah Western Hills Open Land Acquisition & Limited Development Agreement Project (‘Proposed Project”) including: 1) Acquisition and annexation of approximately 707 acres; 2) Prezoning; 3) Sequential Lot Line Adjustments; 4) Development Agreement between Hull Properties and the City of Ukiah; and 5) Associated site improvements including extension of utilities, road improvements, and construction of the water storage tank(s), is based in part on the following findings, in accordance with UCC §9267 and §8297, as well as the Subdivision Map Act, Section 65895 of the Government Code and CEQA Guidelines Section 15074. 1. The proposed parcels for annexation would be contiguous to existing City of Ukiah city limits, in accordance with LAFCo policies and the Government Code Section 65895. 2. In accordance with LAFCo-adopted procedures, and as required under the Development Agreement, the City will submit its annexation application to the Mendocino County Local Agency Formation (LAFCo), after it acquires title to the Annexation Parcels, and upon City Council approval of the Proposed Project. As further described in the Staff Report, the Proposed Project would be consistent with the City’s General Plan Zoning Code, the County’s Ukiah Valley Area Plan, as well as the Government Code and LAFCo policies related to annexation and prezoning. Although the City’s General Plan and County’s Ukiah Valley Area Plan (UVAP) do not contain specific policies related to prezoning, they do contain goals and policies that strive for orderly, clustered development, and support the City’s and County’s Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) goals and conservation of open space. The City’s 2019-2027 Housing Element includes Goal H-5 and Policy 5-1 which seek to support future housing needs through annexation efforts that lead to orderly expansion of growth. Similarly, the County’s 2019-2027 Housing Element includes Policy 1.3 and Actions 1.3a through 1.3d that strive to work cooperatively with cities within the County on regional housing, support annexation applications to the Mendocino LAFCo from incorporated cities for annexations of contiguous lands etc. 3. The proposed Development Parcels (totaling approximately 54 acres) proposed for annexation are located within the ‘95 General Plan’s Unincorporated Planning Area, as well as the current UVAP/SOI boundary, and are consistent with the density and intent of the Low Density (LDR) land use designation and Single-Family Residential-Hillside Overlay Zoning District (R1-H) zoning. 4. Because the portion of the Conservation Parcels within the City’s current SOI (343 acres) are within the City’s ‘95 General Plan Unincorporated Planning Area, the proposed annexation and ‘PF” prezoning (with a P General Plan land use designation) is consistent with the intent and land uses identified within the ‘95 General Plan. In addition, the City can utilize its Parks Ordinance (Division 1, Chapter 12 of the Ukiah City Code) to provide rules governing City and Page 19 of 414 Findings Western Hills Open Land Acquisition & Limited Development Agreement Project File No.: 20-5915 2 public use of “PF” zoned property. The approximately 296 acres of Conservation parcels located outside of the SOI proposed for annexation and PF prezoning are consistent with Government Code Section 56742 that states city-owned parcels proposed for annexation can be located anywhere in the County, as long as they are less than 300 acres, owned by the City, and used for municipal purposes at the time of the annexation application. 5. In accordance with UCC Section §9267, Prezoning, the City may prezone unincorporated territory adjoining the City for the purpose of determining the zoning which will apply to such property in the event of subsequent annexation to the City. Prezoning of the parcels will also require a Zoning Map and General Plan Map Amendment upon approval of the annexation application by LAFCo. 6. To achieve the resulting proposed parcel configuration of up to seven Development Parcels, the Project includes sequential Lot Line Adjustments in both the City and County jurisdictions, in accordance with the Subdivision Map Act.1 Although Development Parcels 1-3 may be developed prior to annexation, they will be developed in accordance with R1-H regulations through Declaration of Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs). Review of the Lot Line Adjustments will be conducted by the City Engineer prior to recordation of the final maps to ensure that all development standards contained within the R1-H zoning district are met. 7. Although the final configuration of the Development Parcels may vary slightly, the footprint of the resulting configuration for the Development Parcels (54 acres) and number of parcels will remain the same. The Lot Line Adjustments will not create a greater number of parcels than existed prior to the adjustments and will not result in an increase in the number of nonconforming parcels, nor will it increase the nonconformity of any parcel. 8. The project was evaluated by various departments and agencies including (but not limited to) the City Engineer, City Building Division, City Department of Public Works, the County of Mendocino, Ukiah Valley Fire Authority, California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, etc. and conditions of approval have been incorporated to ensure public safety and access. 9. The potential development of seven single-family residential units and associated accessory dwelling units is compatible with surrounding land uses and will not be detrimental to the public’s health, safety, and general welfare. All future single-family residential development within the City’s jurisdiction will be subject to the City’s development regulations and discretionary review, as outlined in the Hillside Overlay Zoning District, as well as the mitigation measures identified in the Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Project. 10. In accordance with Sections 15070 through 15075 and Appendix G of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, the Planning Division prepared an Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration (ISMND; Attachment 5 to the Staff Report) for the Proposed Project. 11. In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15073 the ISMND (State Clearinghouse No. 2021040428) was circulated for public review and comment on April 16, 2021 through May 20, 2021. 12. Because the revisions and clarifications summarized within the Reponses to public comments document (Attachment 6 to the Staff Report), and others made to the Final Draft ISMND 1 The Subdivision Map Act excludes from its requirements lot line adjustments “between four or fewer existing adjoining parcels” if there is no resulting increase in the number of parcels. Government Code § 66412(d) Page 20 of 414 Findings Western Hills Open Land Acquisition & Limited Development Agreement Project File No.: 20-5915 3 (dated August 16, 2021) are for clarification purposes and/or do not result in a new significant effect that was previously not analyzed within the Draft ISMND, recirculation of the ISMND is not required (CEQA Guidelines Section 15073.5(a)). 13. The ISMND found that Project components including the acquisition, annexation, and prezoning of parcels (and associated Zoning Map and General Plan Map Amendments), in addition to the Lot Line Adjustments, would not result in impacts to the physical environment. However, construction and ground disturbing activities associated with the Development Agreement, future residential development, and site improvements could result in direct significant impacts to Air Quality, Biological Resources, Cultural/Tribal Cultural Resources, Geology and Soils, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, Hydrology and Water Quality, Noise, Utilities and Service Systems, and Wildfire. However, mitigation measures identified within the aforementioned sections and incorporated into the Mitigation Monitoring Repotting Program would reduce all impacts to less than significant. Tribal consultation was conducted and completed with Pinoleville Pomo Nation in accordance with Assembly Bill 52. 14. Based on information contained with the Staff Report, ISMND, public comments, and the whole record there is no substantial evidence that the Project will have a significant effect on the environment. 15. The Notice of Intent to adopt the ISMND and conduct a public hearing was provided in the following manner, in accordance with Ukiah City Code (UCC) §9267 and California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15073: • Provided to property owners within 300 feet of the project parcels, as well as agencies and departments with jurisdiction or interest over the project on April 16, 2021, June 1, 2021 and August 13, 2021; • Provided to members of the public, agencies, and interested parties who submitted written comments on the Draft ISMND during the public review period on August 13, 2021; • Published in the Ukiah Daily Journal on April 24, 2021, June 5, 2021 and August 14, 2021; • Posted on the Project site on May 3, 2021, June 1, 2021, and August 11; • Posted at the Civic Center (glass case) 72 hours prior to the public hearing; • Noticed for continuance at the May 26, 2021 Planning Commission hearing to a date certain of June 9, 2021; and • Notice for continuance at the June 9, 2021 Planning Commission to a date uncertain. In addition, based on the amount of interest in the Project and to receive as much public input as possible, additional public noticing was conducted in the following manner: • Posted on the City of Ukiah website on April 16, 2021 and August 16, 2021; • Emailed to Planning Commissioners and City Councilmembers on April 16, 2021 and August 13, 2021; • Hand-delivered to all residences (in addition to and beyond the 300-foot requirement) on Redwood Avenue on May 13, 2021 and mailed to all residences on Redwood Avenue on August 11, 2021. Page 21 of 414 Draft Conditions of Approval Western Hills Open Land Acquisition & Limited Development Agreement Project File No.: 20-5915 1 ATTACHMENT 2 DRAFT CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR THE UKIAH WESTERN HILLS OPEN LAND ACQUISITION & LIMITED DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT PROJECT FILE NO.: 20-5915. The following Conditions of Approval shall be made a permanent part of the Lot Line Adjustments, Development Agreement, site improvements, prezoning and annexation associated with the Ukiah Western Hills Open Land Acquisition & Limited Development Agreement Project, shall remain in force regardless of property ownership, and shall be implemented in order for t his entitlement to remain valid. Project Summary. As further described in the Staff Report, the Ukiah Western Hills Open Land Acquisition & Limited Development Project includes the following components: 1) Acquisition and annexation of approximately 707 acres into the City of Ukiah limits; 2) Pr ezoning the parcels to PF and R1-H (and associated Zoning Map and General Plan Map Amendments upon approval of the annexation application); 3) Sequential Lot Line Adjustments to reconfigure the existing parcels into seven lots (“Development Parcels”) for future potential development; 4) Development Agreement between Hull Properties and the City allowing up to one single-family home and one accessory dwelling unit on each Development Parcel (14 units total); and 5) site improvements including extension of utilities, road improvements, and construction of the water tanks. The Project includes several parcels located within unincorporated Mendocino County within the Ukiah Western Hills referred to as the “Hull Properties” (APNs 001-040-83, 157-070-01, 157-070- 02, 003-190-01, 157-050-09, 157-060-02, 157-050-02, 157-050-04, 157-050-01, 157-030-02, 157-030-03, 157-050-11 & 157-050-12); “Noguera Properties” (APNs 003-190-09 & 003-110-90); and the City-owned “Donation Parcel” (APNs 157-050-03,157-060-003). The following Conditions of Approval apply to the Project. City of Ukiah Special Conditions 1. In accordance with LAFCo-adopted procedures, and as required under the Development Agreement, the City will submit its annexation application to the Mendocino County Local Agency Formation (LAFCo), after it acquires title to the Annexation Parcels, and upon City Council approval of the Proposed Project. 2. An application for annexation and prezoning shall be approved by the Mendocino County Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCo) prior to the prezoning becoming effective. Prezoning will also require a General Plan Map Amendment and Zoning Map Amendment, upon approval of the annexation application. 3. Upon approval of the annexation application, a copy of the final Lot Line Adjustment shall be provided to the City Engineer for final review before recordation. The final map shall conform to the Subdivision Map Act and Division 9, Chapter 1 of the Ukiah Municipal Code, as applicable. A copy of the recorded Lot Line Adjustment shall be submitted to the Community Development Department prior to submittal of a Use Permit for single family housing within the Development Parcels located within the City’s jurisdiction. Page 22 of 414 Draft Conditions of Approval Western Hills Open Land Acquisition & Limited Development Agreement Project File No.: 20-5915 2 4. In accordance with the terms described in the Development Agreement, Hull shall have the option to withdraw the Hull Development Parcels from the City’s annexation application, if LAFCo has failed to approve the annexation within one (1) year from the date the Executive Officer of LAFCo accepts the application as complete. 5. The Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration prepared for the Project (SCH No. 2021040428) found that construction and ground disturbing activities associated with the Development Agreement, future residential development, and site improvements could result in direct significant impacts to Air Quality, Biological Resources, Cultural/Tribal Cultural Resources, Geology and Soils, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, Hydrology and Water Quality, Noise, Utilities and Service Systems, and Wildfire. However, the mitigation measures identified within the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (Attachment A) shall be implemented as described to reduce potential environmental impacts. These mitigation measures shall apply to all future ground disturbing activities and development (including residential development), as described further in the Mitigation Monitoring Reporting Program. 6. Future residential development of the Development Parcels shall be in accordance with the Hillside Overlay Zoning District regulations contained within UCC Sections 9135-9139. All future development shall require discretionary review and may require additional environmental review. Additional project-specific Conditions of Approval may be required upon review by City departments and applicable agencies. 7. In accordance with the terms described in the Development Agreement, Hull shall retain the right to develop Development Parcels 1-3 prior to annexation. Single-family homes on Development Parcels 1-3 shall be constructed to R1-H standards by including them in the Declaration of Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs). In addition, the mitigation measures contained within the ISMND for residential development shall also be included in the CC&Rs and implemented for Development Parcels 1-3 if developed prior to annexation. 8. If development of Development Parcels 1-3 occurs after annexation, development shall comply with all R1-H development standards and be subject to discretionary review, in accordance with the City’s Hillside Overlay District. 9. The Developer shall obtain regulatory permits, including but not limited to a 401 Water Quality Certification, California Department of Fish and Wildlife Lake and Streambed Alteration Agreement, etc., if work is proposed to the existing culverts, or in and around any watercourses in the future, in accordance with existing regulatory requirements. 10. The water tanks shall be painted green or a similar color to blend into the landscape. 11. An address assignment application shall be submitted to assign addresses to the proposed Development Parcels at the time of development. City of Ukiah Standard Conditions 12. City Council approval is not effective until the 10-day appeal period applicable to the project has expired without the filing of a timely appeal. If a timely appeal is filed, the project is subject to the outcome of the appeal and shall be revised as necessary to comply with any modifications, conditions, or requirements that were imposed as part of the appeal. Page 23 of 414 Draft Conditions of Approval Western Hills Open Land Acquisition & Limited Development Agreement Project File No.: 20-5915 3 13. All use, construction and the location thereof, or occupancy, shall conform to the application and to any supporting documents submitted therewith, including any maps, sketches, or plot plans accompanying the application or submitted by applicant in support thereof. 14. Any construction shall comply with the "Standard Specifications" for such type of construction now existing or which may hereafter be promulgated by the Engineering Department of the City of Ukiah; except where higher standards are imposed by law, rule, or regulation or by action of the Planning Commission such standards shall be met. 15. The Applicant shall submit verification of all applicable permits or approvals in compliance with all local, state and federal laws to the Community Development Department prior to issuance of building permits. Department of Public Works 16. Future residential development and site improvements (including road and access improvements) shall be reviewed by the Department of Public Works to identify site- specific requirements. 17. Construction projects that would disturb more than one acre of land, would be subject to the requirements of General Construction Activity Stormwater Permit (Construction General Permit Order 2009-0009-DWQ, also known as the CGP), which requires operators of such construction sites to implement stormwater controls and develop a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) identifying specific BMPs to be implemented to reduce the amount of sediment and other pollutants associated with construction sites from being discharged in stormwater runoff. 18. Applicable City water and sewer connection fees shall be paid at the time of building permit issuance. 19. All work within the public right-of-way shall be performed by a licensed and properly insured contractor. The contractor shall obtain an encroachment permit for work within this area or otherwise affecting this area. Encroachment permit fee shall be $45 plus 3% of estimated construction costs. Electric Utility Department 20. A 10-ft. utility easement for any underground distribution extended into the parcel beyond the existing PUE shall be required. Prior to recordation of the Lot Line Adjustment easements must be surveyed and deeded or defined on the map. Alterations to the 10-ft. utility easement shall be submitted to the COUEUD for approval. 21. Upon individual parcel development, additional easements may be required to provide electric service. 22. Future site improvements shall be submitted to the Electric Utility Department for review and comment. Construction requirements and associated developer costs will be determined to provide electric service. 23. Developer shall incur all costs of project, to include labor, materials, and equipment. Building Division Page 24 of 414 Draft Conditions of Approval Western Hills Open Land Acquisition & Limited Development Agreement Project File No.: 20-5915 4 24. Submit plans and building permit application. Please submit four complete plan sets, two wet stamped and signed. All Conditions of Approval shall be printed on the first page of the Building Plans. 25. The design and construction of all site alterations shall comply with the current California Building Code, Plumbing Code, Electrical Code, California Mechanical Code, California Fire Code, California Energy Code, Title 24 California Energy Efficiency Standards, California Green Building Standards Code and City of Ukiah Ordinances and Amendments. Ukiah Valley Fire Authority 26. All access improvements, roadways and residential development shall be reviewed by the Fire Marshall and adhere to all current local, state and federal fire regulations relating to access and safety, including but not limited to: California Building Code, Chapter 7A (Materials and Construction Methods for Exterior Wildfire Exposure, including Wildland Urban Interface regulations); California Residential Code, Section R337 (Materials and Construction Methods for Exterior Wildlife Exposure); California Referenced Standards Code, Chapter 12-7A (Fire Resistive Standards); California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Division 1.5, Chapter 7, Subchapter 3 (Fire Hazard Reduction Around Buildings and Structures); and California Government Code, Section 51182 (Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones). In addition, Public Resources Code Sections 4290 and 4291 contain additional requirements for lands within Very High Fire Severity Zones. These include the following in order to provide defensible space and fire protection for new construction and ensure adequate emergency access: increased property line setbacks for all applicable construction; on-site water storage for fire protection, driveway/roadway types and specifications based on designated usage; all weather driveway/roadway surfaces being engineered for 75,000lb vehicles; maximum slope of 16%; turnout requirements; gate requirements and setbacks, parking standards, fuels reduction regulations, etc. Page 25 of 414 Draft Conditions of Approval Western Hills Open Land Acquisition & Limited Development Agreement Project File No.: 20-5915 5 ATTACHMENT A UKIAH WESTERN HILLS OPEN LAND & LIMITED DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT PROJECT MITIGATION MONITORING REPORTING PROGRAM Potential Impact Mitigation Measure Implementation Responsibility Monitoring & Reporting Responsibility Timing Date Implemented Construction and ground disturbing activities could result in short- term impacts to air quality. AQ -1: Diesel Engines – Stationary and Portable Equipment and Mobile Vehicles: 1. Any stationary onsite diesel IC engines 50 horsepower or greater (i.e. large power generators or pumps) or any propane or natural gas engines 250 horsepower or greater may require a permit from the District. 2. Portable diesel powered equipment that may be used during the proposed project are required to be registered with the state Portable Equipment Registration Program (PERP) or obtain permits from the District. 3. Projects located adjacent to sensitive receptors (schools, child care facilities, health care facilities, senior facilities, businesses, and residences, etc.) during the construction phase of this project have the potential for exposure to diesel particulate. 4. Heavy duty truck idling and off-road diesel equipment or other diesel engine idling is limited to less than 5 minutes. Developer Developer During construction and ground disturbing activities AQ -2: Grading Projects- During Construction-All grading activities must comply with the following fugitive dust mitigation measures in accordance with District Regulation 1, Rule 1-430: 1. All visibly dry disturbed soil road surfaces shall be watered to minimize fugitive dust emissions. Developer Developer During construction and ground disturbing activities Page 26 of 414 Draft Conditions of Approval Western Hills Open Land Acquisition & Limited Development Agreement Project File No.: 20-5915 6 2. All unpaved surfaces, unless otherwise treated with suitable chemicals or oils, shall have a posted speed limit of 10 mph. 3. Earth or other material that has been transported by trucking or earth moving equipment, erosion by water, or other means onto paved streets shall be promptly removed. 4. Asphalt, oil, water, or suitable chemicals shall be applied on materials stockpiles, and other surfaces that can give rise airborne dusts. 5. All earthmoving activities shall cease when sustained winds exceed 15 mph. 6. The operator shall take reasonable precautions to prevent the entry of unauthorized vehicles onto the site during non-work hours. 7. The operator shall keep a daily log of activities to control fugitive dust. 8. For projects greater than one acre or one mile of road not located within a Naturally Occurring Asbestos Area, prior to starting any construction the applicant is required to: 1. Submit a Large Area Grading permit application to the District. 2. Obtain a final determination from the Air Quality Management District as to the need for an Asbestos Dust Mitigation Plan and/or Geologic Survey to comply with CCR sections 93106 and 93105 relating to Naturally Occurring Asbestos. 3. Obtain written verification from the District stating that the project is in compliance with State and Local regulations relating to Naturally Occurring Asbestos. 4. If the project is located within a Naturally Occurring Asbestos Area, additional mitigations shall be required. Page 27 of 414 Draft Conditions of Approval Western Hills Open Land Acquisition & Limited Development Agreement Project File No.: 20-5915 7 AQ -3: Property Development-Prior to starting any construction, the applicant is required to: a. Obtain a Property Development Permit from the District for any open outdoor burning. b. Obtain a Grading Permit, if applicable. c. Confirm whether the project is in a Naturally Occurring Asbestos Area, and follow additional MCAQMD recommendations, if applicable. d. Consider alternate means of disposal other than open burning, such as cutting the majority of the larger material up as firewood, and chipping smaller material, if feasible to mitigate impacts from open outdoor burning. e. Obtain written verification from the MCAQMD stating that the project is in compliance with State and Local regulations. Developer Developer Prior to construction Biological Resources Construction and ground disturbing activities could result in impacts to sensitive plant species and sensitive woodland tree habiat BIO-1: Sensitive Trees. If trees are proposed for removal, preconstruction surveys shall be conducted by a qualified biologist to identify Oregon white oak forest and woodland, as well as California bay forest and woodland habitat; removal of sensitive habitat shall be conducted in accordance with California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) regulations. Qualified Biologist Developer Prior to ground disturbing activities Construction and ground disturbing activities could impact Red-belly newt, and other special status amphibians and their habitat BIO-2: Sensitive Amphibian Species. A qualified biologist shall survey the area prior to any groundbreaking activities to determine the presence of Red-belly newt, or other sensitive amphibian species, and identify additional avoidance measures, if needed. A qualified biologist shall be on-site for any dewatering event to address the potential for the presence of Qualified Biologist Developer Prior to ground disturbing activities Page 28 of 414 Draft Conditions of Approval Western Hills Open Land Acquisition & Limited Development Agreement Project File No.: 20-5915 8 sensitive amphibian species such as foothill yellow- legged frog (Rana boylii). Construction, vegetation removal, and ground disturbing activities could impact nesting birds and their habitat BIO-3: Nesting Birds. Pre-construction surveys shall be conducted prior to any vegetation removal or ground disturbing activities occurring between March 1 and August 31 of any year. All active bird nests shall not be removed, relocated, or otherwise disturbed for any purpose until all fledglings have left the nest. Qualified Biologist Developer Prior to vegetation removal or ground disturbing activities between March 1 and August 31 Construction and ground disturbing activities could impact special- status insects and their habitat BIO-4: Special-Status Insects. A qualified biologist shall survey the area prior to any groundbreaking activities to determine the presence of special-status insect species and identify additional avoidance measures if needed. If a special-status insect nests are observed, active nests shall not be removed, relocated, or otherwise disturbed until the nest becomes inactive. Qualified Biologist Developer Prior to ground disturbing activities Construction and ground disturbing activities could impact special- status mammals and their habitat BIO-5: Special-Status Mammals. Pre-construction surveys shall be conducted prior to any vegetation removal or ground disturbing activities. If evidence of bat roosts is observed (i.e. bat guano, ammonia odor, grease stained cavities) around trees or structures, pre-construction bat surveys shall be conducted by a qualified biologist for activities that may affect bat roosting habitat and den sites. Qualified Biologist Developer Prior to ground disturbing activities Cultural Resources and Tribal Cultural Resources Page 29 of 414 Draft Conditions of Approval Western Hills Open Land Acquisition & Limited Development Agreement Project File No.: 20-5915 9 Ground disturbing activities have the potential for accidental discovery of unknown, undiscovered cultural resources and tribal cultural resources CUL-1: Unanticipated Discovery. If previously unidentified cultural, historic, palentologic or archeologic resources are encountered during project implementation, altering the materials and their stratigraphic context shall be avoided and work shall halt immediately. A qualified professional archaeologist shall be contacted to evaluate the resource and methods necessary to protect it. Project personnel shall not collect, move, or disturb cultural resources. Prehistoric resources include, but are not limited to, chert or obsidian flakes, projectile points, mortars, pestles, and dark friable soil containing shell and bone dietary debris, heat-affected rock, or human burials. Historic resources include stone or abode foundations or walls; structures and remains with square nails; and refuse deposits or bottle dumps, often located in old wells or privies. Qualified archaeologist Developer During ground disturbing activities Ground disturbing activities have the potential for accidental discovery of unknown Native American remains CUL-2: Encountering Native American Remains. If human remains are encountered during ground disturbing activities, all work shall stop in the immediate vicinity of the discovered remains and the County Coroner and a qualified archaeologist shall be notified immediately so that an evaluation can be performed. If the remains are deemed to be Native American and prehistoric, the Native American Heritage Commission must be contacted by the Coroner so that a “Most Likely Descendant” can be designated and further recommendations regarding treatment of the remains will be provided. Qualified archaeologist Developer During ground disturbing activities Geology and Soils Ground disturbing activities could result in impacts associated with Incorporation of Mitigation Measure CUL-1 Qualified archaeologist Developer During ground disturbing activities Page 30 of 414 Draft Conditions of Approval Western Hills Open Land Acquisition & Limited Development Agreement Project File No.: 20-5915 10 erosion, the loss of topsoil and landslides if not properly designed GEO-1: The Project shall comply with the erosion and design standards outlined in Chapter 7 of the Ukiah City Code. Prior to any ground disturbance, erosion and sediment control plans shall be submitted to the Public Works and Community Development Departments for review and approval. Said plans shall protect against soil erosion and runoff through the implementation of appropriate Best Management Practices (BMPs). Typical BMPs include the placement of straw, mulch, seeding, straw wattles, silt fencing, etc. No silt, sediment or other materials shall be allowed to flow from the project area. Developer Developer Prior to any ground disturbance and throughout construction activities; ongoing as needed to control erosion Hazards and Hazardous Materials Project construction could result in a hazard to the public or the environment if the incidental use of petroleum hydrocarbons (fuel, oil) in tools used during construction were to lead to accidental leaks or spills in or around the work area HAZ-1: The developer shall establish and implement construction site management practices that will prevent toxic materials and other debris from entering the City’s storm drainage and waterway systems, including: a) There shall be no storage of hazardous materials at the Project Site; b) The developer shall provide adequate materials management, including covering, securing, and segregating potentially toxic materials (grease, oils, fuel, solvents, etc.); and c) The developer shall maintain supplies on-hand to contain spills of oil and any other hazardous materials used on-site. Developer Developer During construction Construction of the Project may involve the use of gasoline-powered tools and equipment potentially HAZ-2: Should portable gasoline-powered equipment be used on site, the following firesafe precautions shall be taken: a) Spark arresters are required on all portable gasoline-powered equipment. b) Equipment shall be maintained in good working condition, with exhaust systems and spark Developer Developer During construction Page 31 of 414 Draft Conditions of Approval Western Hills Open Land Acquisition & Limited Development Agreement Project File No.: 20-5915 11 introducing new temporary sources of ignition that could increase fire risk. arresters in proper working order and free of carbon buildup. c) Fuel the equipment in a safe place where spills can be contained and a fire extinguisher is nearby. Use the recommended gas/oil mixture and do not top off. Use a funnel or spout for pouring. Wipe off any spills. d) Do not refuel running or hot equipment. Dispense fuel at least 10 feet from sources of ignition. e) Do not use equipment in areas of dry vegetation. Keep leaves and dry materials away from a hot muffler. f) No smoking or open flame allowed near gasoline- powered equipment. Hydrology and Water Quality Ground disturbing activities and construction of the project would result in impervious surfaces that could impact water quality Implementation of Mitigation Measures GEO-1 and HAZ-1 Developer Developer Prior to and during construction; ongoing as needed to control erosion Noise Ground disturbing activities and construction of the project would result in temporary noise impacts NOI-1: Prior to building permit or grading permit issuance, the developer shall comply with the following: a. Construction contracts shall specify that all construction equipment, fixed or mobile, shall be equipped with properly operating and maintained mufflers and other state-required noise attenuation devices. b. Construction haul routes shall be designed to avoid or lessen impacts to noise-sensitive uses Developer Developer Prior to issuance of building or grading permits, and during construction Page 32 of 414 Draft Conditions of Approval Western Hills Open Land Acquisition & Limited Development Agreement Project File No.: 20-5915 12 (e.g., residences, schools, convalescent homes), to the extent feasible. c. During construction, stationary construction equipment shall be placed such that emitted noise is directed away from sensitive noise receivers. d. Per the City’s Noise Ordinance, construction shall not take place outside of the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. Utilities and Service Systems City sewer, water and electric utilities would be extended to the area which could result in physical impacts to the environment Implementation of BIO-1 through BIO-5, and GEO-1. See BIO-1 through BIO-5 and GEO-1 See BIO-1 through BIO-5 and GEO-1 See BIO-1 through BIO-5 and GEO-1 Wildfire Construction of the Project may involve the use of gasoline-powered equipment and machinery, potentially introducing new sources of ignition that could increase fire risk Implementation of Mitigation Measure HAZ-2 Developer Developer During construction Page 33 of 414 APN:00104083 APN:00319001 APN:15707002 APN:15707001 APN:15705009 APN:15705011 APN:15705012 APN:15705002 APN:15706003 & 157050003 APN:157030003 APN:15703002 APN:15705001 APN:15705004 APN:15706002 Sphere of Influence APNs:003-190-09 & 003-110-90 Ukiah Western Hills Open Land Acquisition & Limited Development Project Annexation Parcels (+/-707ac) Parcel Donation to City Development Parcels (+/-54ac) Proposed Water Tanks Sphere of Influence City Limits Existing Access Road This map is a guide. Every reasonable effort has been made to ensure accuracy of the map and data provided. Parcel lines are not intended to represent surveyed data.Document Path: S:\Public Works\Stricklin, Andrew\GIS\Projects\Planning\Western Hills Project Figure 1ATTACHMENT 3Location MapPage 34 of 414 : k, E E;I.fitHN-SE;r$;iTs:tq..EB€E '.,6E!9ofEq\$oRIIEo*)EqI\0'ii*)h'lx.x r{ I I ------------------t I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I *t* r.YE fibi o-\ f N s € f{dq:Br d$E't$ o :*B etr .t) $ tNse$ b"ES8 frE&ts $ tB t^. bI r.S a-oBs so{q o0bEo b u=$Hn ii$-* 5 a'".€*\ RSNrtf, $ti$ n fc$* N $ EsSR Figure 2Existing Parcel Configuraton Page 35 of 414 Proposed Parcel Configuration & Prezoning for Western Hills (Hull Properties) Open Land Acquisition & Limited Development Agreement Project Sphere of Influence Conservation Parcels” (640ac) with Public Facilities (PF) Prezoning “Development Parcels (54ac) with Single-Family Residential- Hillside Overlay District (R1-H) Prezoning Last revised June 2, 2021 Figure 3 Proposed Parcel Configuration & PrezoningPage 36 of 414 ECHO WAYOAKKNOLLROADDOOLANCANYONDRIVE MYSZKAPLACE CALVERTCOURT GIORNOAVENUE MIL L COU RT WALNUT AVENUE WEST CLAY STREET WEST PERKINS STREET PA R K B O U L E V A R D HIGHLANDAVENUEPF R1 R1H RL RL UR 40 UR 40 RR5 RL RR10 RR5 CASE: OWNER: APN: APLCT: AGENT: ADDRESS: µANX 2021-0001 HULL, David Various City of Ukiah City of Ukiah Western Hills 1:18,000 0 1,400700 Feet 0 0.250.125 Miles MENDOCINO COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT- 2/4/2021City Limits Zoning Districts Public Roads Existing Zoning Designation Map Figure 4 Page 37 of 414 ECHO WAYOAKKNOLLROADDOOLANCANYONDRIVE MYSZKAPLACE CALVERTCOURT GIORNOAVENUE MIL L COU RT WALNUT AVENUE WEST CLAY STREET WEST PERKINS STREET PA R K B O U L E V A R D HIGHLANDAVENUEWEST ST A N D L E Y STREET RMR 20 RMR 40 RL 160 RL 160 RL 160 RMR 40 RMR 40 RR 10 RR 5 RR 5CASE: OWNER: APN: APLCT: AGENT: ADDRESS: µANX 2021-0001 HULL, David Various City of Ukiah City of Ukiah Western Hills 1:18,000 0 1,400700 Feet 0 0.250.125 Miles MENDOCINO COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT- 2/4/2021City Limits General Plan Classes Public Roads LDR Figure 5 Existing General Plan Land Use Designation MapPage 38 of 414 Existing Site Photographs Existing access road Figure 6 Page 39 of 414 Existing water tank site Figure 7 Page 40 of 414 Existing "house site" on one of the proposed Development Parcels Figure 8 Page 41 of 414 PROJECT REVIEW REFERRAL Please provide comments by: The City of Ukiah Community Development Department is soliciting input on the project described below for use in the staff analysis, CEQA document, and public hearing documents. Please identify any questions you have or missing information you need to complete your review, as well as suggested Conditions of Approval. Please indicate whether you have comments and sign and date below. Return this Project Referral Form by the date noted above to the Project Planner listed. Name and Affiliation/Department (please print) _____________________________________________________ ☐ No Comment ☐ Comments / Conditions of Approval Attached Signature Date TO: City Community Development Director Mendocino County Planning and Building City Building Official Mendocino County Surveyor/Assessor City Public Works Dept. Mendocino Transit Authority Ukiah Valley Fire Authority US Army Corps of Engineers City Police Dept. Captain Regional Water Quality Control Board City Police Dept. Community Service Officer CA Dept. of Fish and Wildlife City Electric Utility Dept. CA Dept. of Transportation Ukiah Municipal Airport Operations Manager Sonoma State Northwest Information Center Airport Land Use Commission AT & T Mendocino County Air Quality PG & E Mendocino County Environmental Health FROM PROJECT PLANNER: PROJECT INFORMATION: Project Name & Permit #: Site Address & APN: General Plan: Zoning: Airport Compatibility Zone: Date Filed: Resubmittal: Date Referred: Prev. Projects on Site (include file #) Applicant/Agent Name: Phone: Email: Project Summary: California Military Land Use Office Other: Mendocino County Local Agency Formation Commission, Mendocino County Resource Conservation District, Ukiah Valley Sanitation District, Willow Water District, Native American Tribes, California Native American Heritage Commission Michelle Irace mirace@cityofukiah.com ATTACHMENT 4 Page 42 of 414 Comments / Conditions of Approval: Page 43 of 414 From:Michelle Irace To:eo@mendolafco.org Cc:analyst@mendolafco.org Subject:RE: Revised Referral Package_Western Hills Acquisition Open Land & Dev Agreement Project_Rev031621 Date:Tuesday, April 13, 2021 2:13:00 PM Attachments:image001.png Hi Uma, Your comments have been received. Thank you, Michelle Irace , Planning Manager Department of Community Development 300 Seminary Avenue, Ukiah, CA 95482 www.cityofukiah.com/community-development From: Uma Hinman <eo@mendolafco.org> Sent: Monday, April 12, 2021 5:23 PM To: Michelle Irace <mirace@cityofukiah.com> Cc: analyst@mendolafco.org Subject: RE: Revised Referral Package_Western Hills Acquisition Open Land & Dev Agreement Project_Rev031621 [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Hello Michelle, Thank you for the opportunity to review and provide comments on the Ukiah Western Hills (Hull Properties) Open Land Acquisition & Development Agreement (IS 20-5915) Second Project Referral. I am touching base to let you know that we are currently backlogged and unfortunately cannot conduct a thorough review of the revised project referral at this time. Based on a cursory level of review, we identified the following items for consideration. -Please note that all areas proposed for annexation will need to be prezoned, regardless of their location in relationship to the Sphere of Influence. -Please include detachment from the Ukiah Valley Sanitation District into the project scope for, at a minimum, future Proposed Development Parcels 1-3. I apologize that we cannot provide a more detailed response at this time, but we will participate as a Responsible Agency in the upcoming environmental review process. LAFCo Page 44 of 414 I look forward to continuing to work with you on this project. Uma Hinman, Executive Officer Mendocino Local Agency Formation Commission 200 S. School Street, Ukiah, CA 95482 Office: (707) 463-4470 Cell: (916) 813-0818 www.mendolafco.org From: Michelle Irace <mirace@cityofukiah.com> Sent: Tuesday, March 16, 2021 3:11 PM To: Michelle Irace <mirace@cityofukiah.com> Subject: Revised Referral Package_Western Hills Acquisition Open Land & Dev Agreement Project_Rev031621 Good Afternoon, The City of Ukiah is soliciting comments for the Western Hills Acquisition Open Land & Development Agreement Project from departments and agencies with interest or jurisdiction over the project. The initial referral was sent on January 29, 2021 for review and comment. In response to comments received, the Project Description has been revised and the project is being referred for the second time. The referral package, including the revised Project Description, is attached. Your comments are appreciated by March 29, 2021. Thank you, Michelle Irace , Planning Manager Department of Community Development 300 Seminary Avenue, Ukiah, CA 95482 www.cityofukiah.com/community-development Page 45 of 414 300 Seminary Avenue • Ukiah • CA • 95482-5400 Phone: (707)463-6200 · Fax: (707)463-6204 ·www.cityofukiah.com 1 March 16, 2021 Mendocino Local Agency Formation Commission Uma Hinman, Executive Officer 200 S. School Street, Ukiah, CA 95482 VIA EMAIL: eo@mendolafco.org Subject: Comments Received on the Ukiah Western Hills (Hull Properties) Open Land Acquisition & Development Agreement (Is 20-5915) Project Referral Ms. Hinman, Thank you for your comments dated February 12, 2021, regarding the Ukiah Western Hills (Hull Properties) Open Land Acquisition & Development Agreement (Is 20-5915) Project Referral. The City has found the comments very helpful in formulating an approach to this comprehensive and important project. City responses to your comments are included in Attachment 1. Additionally, in response to your comments, the Project Description has been revised and the project is being re-referred to departments and agencies with interest or jurisdiction over the project for comment. The revised Project Description and referral package are included as Attachment 2. We are happy to facilitate a follow-up conversation to work through the issues that were raised together, and the City looks forward to continuing to work with LAFCo on this project. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at (707) 463-6219 or cschlatter@cityofukiah.com Sincerely, Craig Schlatter, Director of Community Development Cc: Maya Simerson, Project Manager David Hull, Property Owner Attachments: 1. City Reponses to LAFCo Comments 2. Revised Project Description and Referral Package Page 46 of 414 ATTACHMENT 1 Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCo) Comments and City Responses LAFCo Comment Regarding Long-term Open Space Protection: The proposed annexation area is located within the Grazing Farmland Classification and appears to primarily contain undeveloped forest hillside and stream habitat and a smaller area with permitted improvements including vegetation removal and grading for fire protection and future pads for water storage and residential building sites. In general, LAFCo supports open space conservation and the current efforts by the City to restore and protect a significant contiguous area of natural land currently zoned for large acreage residential use. The proposed prezoning of the annexation area to Single- Family Residential-Hillside Overlay District (R1-H) appears suitable for the low density residential clustered development area; however, this zoning classification may reasonably be expected to induce, facilitate, or lead to the conversion of open space uses to other uses for the remainder of the open space conservation area. In the absence of an Open Space Zoning District, R1-H may be appropriate for the open space conservation area in combination with another mechanism to ensure long-term protection of the open space resources from development, such as a permanent conservation easement. City Response: The City has a vision, and is working towards a goal, of promoting the protection of Ukiah’s western urban interface to restore and conserve forest and stream ecosystems, provide large-scale wildfire mitigation and to protect the Upper Russian River Watershed to benefit fish, wildlife and the greater Ukiah community. To achieve that goal, the City will enter a Property Exchange and Development Agreement (“Exchange Agreement” or “Development Agreement”) with the current owner of the property subject to the annexation application (“Annexation Parcels”). Under the Agreement, the current owner will convey the Annexation Parcels to the City in exchange for real property owned by the City and a payment from the City of an amount to make up the difference between the fair market value of the exchanged properties. As additional necessary consideration the Development Agreement provides the current owner with the opportunity to develop seven single family units and potentially associated accessory dwelling units (“ADUs”) on a 55-acre portion of the parcels proposed for annexation (the “Development Parcels”) with the balance of 639 acres preserved as open space and a resource conservation area (“Conservation Parcels”). Because the Annexation Parcels will be under City ownership, the City will be able to ensure that the parcels will be preserved as open space. However, the City agrees that prezoning the open space parcels Single-Family Residential-Hillside Overlay District (R1-H) may not be the most appropriate. Although the City does not currently have a standalone Open Space zoning designation, the City’s existing Public Facilities (PF) zoning designation encompasses lands within the City that contain open space and parks, as well as other public facilities. Accordingly, the parcels within the current SOI intended for open space are proposed to be prezoned PF which specifically identifies public or quasi-public uses, including, but not limited to natural resource conservation areas and parks and recreation. In addition, the City can utilize its parks ordinance (Division 1, Chapter 12 of the Ukiah City Code) to provide rules governing City and public use of PF zoned property. For the Conservation Parcels located outside of the SOI (“Outside Conservation Parcels,” consisting of approximately 296 acres), the Page 47 of 414 City will ensure that they remain preserved as open space through a conservation easement (or other means), rather than prezoning them PF. Accordingly, the Project Description has been revised to reflect the changes in the prezoning being proposed for the Conservation Parcels, excluding the Outside Conservation Parcels. As described in the original Project Description, the Development Parcels (all located within the current SOI) would be prezoned to R1-H, consistent with adjacent City zoning and development patterns in the Western Hills. The Hillside Overlay District (-H) is intended to encourage the planning, design, and development while preserving natural physical features and minimizing potential safety, water runoff and soil erosion concerns associated with the natural terrain. The aforementioned approach will allow the City to adequately preserve and protect the Conservation Parcels (639 acres), while allowing orderly and clustered low density residential development within the Development Parcels (55 acres). LAFCo Comment Regarding Irregular Boundaries: The proposed annexation area is not coterminous with the existing City limits; therefore, annexation would result in an irregular or illogical boundary or service area and create unincorporated island areas, which are not consistent with LAFCo policy. The proposed annexation boundary should be modified to include intervening parcels and ensure that the boundary change does not result in islands, corridors, or peninsulas of incorporated or unincorporated territory or otherwise cause or further the distortion of existing boundaries. City Response: The proposed parcels for annexation would be contiguous to existing City limits, because APN 001-040-63 and 003-190-03 are contiguous to City limits and they are contiguous to the remaining parcels proposed for annexation. In addition, all of the properties will be City owned prior to filing the annexation application. The boundaries of these territories do create islands of unincorporated territory, as a small undevelopable fragment in the middle of the northern boundary of APN 100-104-083 and a larger area bordering the east boundary of that parcel. It would also create an l-shaped peninsula of City territory within the unincorporated area by annexing APNs 157-060-02 and 157-050-003. Under Government Code Section 56375 creating an island is permitted, where, as in this case, the application of the prohibition on the creation of islands would be detrimental to the orderly development of the community and the islands cannot reasonably be annexed to another city. Here, the creation of the islands and the irregular boundaries are necessary to facilitate not only the housing development but also the Property Exchange under the Property Exchange and Development Agreement which makes the creation of the permanent open space possible. Moreover, the creation of these islands would not adversely affect the use of the fragment on the north boundary of APN 100-104-083, since it is too small for development with or without annexation. The larger parcel to the east also would not be disadvantaged by being surrounded by the City. The property owner could apply for annexation in the future, if they wanted to obtain urban services to develop the property. The island properties cannot be annexed to any other city. LAFCo's boundary criteria in MPP 9.12.2 generally favors annexations with logical boundaries and Government Code Section 56744, except as provided in Government Page 48 of 414 Code Section 56375(m), prevents an annexation if it would result in unincorporated territory that is completely surrounded by a city. The boundaries of the territory proposed for annexation do not violate the LAFCo policy and are subject to the exception to the prohibition of annexations that create urban islands. The purpose of this annexation is to incorporate two distinct areas into the City limits: 1) the Development Parcels which are east and north of APN 157-005-011 for development of no more than seven single family homes and up to seven ADUs; and 2) the Conservation Parcels west and south to be zoned for open space only use. The boundaries of the Conservation Parcels are determined by their current boundaries and cannot logically or practically be expanded, unless the owners of adjacent properties were willing to dedicate these properties as permanent open space. The parcels in the vicinity that would remain in unincorporated County territory would not be disadvantaged. In fact, they would be enhanced because the area annexed to the City would never be developed. Moreover, the peninsula resulting from the annexation of APNs 157-060-02 and 157-050- 003 is not subject to the rules preferring regular boundaries because it is and will remain City owned. The only reason Outside Conservation Parcels are included in the annexation application is to avoid requiring the City to pay property taxes on these parcels. As City owned property in the unincorporated area they would not be subject to County land use jurisdiction. (See Cal. Ops. A.G. 14-403 (December 6, 2018); Gov. Code §§ 53090, 53091.) LAFCo Comment Regarding the City’s Sphere of Influence: The proposed annexation area extends approximately 0.75-miles west of the City’s most recently adopted (1980’s) Sphere of Influence boundary line, which would need to be addressed in the upcoming Municipal Service Review (MSR) and Sphere of Influence (SOI) Update process to achieve SOI consistency. Please note that the MSR/SOI Update process must be completed prior to Commission consideration of the proposed annexation. City Response: The annexation of the Outside Conservation Parcels (approximately 296 acres) outside the City’s SOI is owned by the City and will solely be utilized for open space conservation. Under Government Code Section 56742, parcels for annexation are not required to be located within the City's SOI. Parcels can be located anywhere in the County, as long as they are less than 300 acres, owned by the City, and used for municipal purposes at the time of the annexation application. In response to the note that the City’s MSR and SOI must be updated before LAFCO will consider the proposed annexation, the City respectfully disagrees that it cannot proceed with annexations of property within its currently approved SOI adopted in 1984. Neither LAFCo’s adopted policies nor the CKH Act authorize LAFCo or its Executive Officer to prohibit annexations within an approved SOI solely because LAFCo has not reviewed an MSR or an SOI that is more than five years old. While LAFCO has a statutory obligation to conduct those reviews every five years, no provision in the CKH Act or under generally applicable principles of administrative law authorize LAFCo to disregard an existing SOI established in compliance with the law applicable when the SOI was adopted. In the City’s opinion the Executive Officer must issue a Certificate of Filing when the “application for a change of organization or reorganization meets submission requirements, including reliance on a currently approved SOI. (Gov. Code, § 56020.6.) If the LAFCo Executive Officer were to refuse issuing such a certificate until the City’s 2012 MSR and 1984 SOI Page 49 of 414 are reviewed or revised, in the City’s opinion that would constitute a prejudicial abuse of discretion. LAFCo Comment Regarding Premature Extension of Urban Services: In general, LAFCo encourages boundary changes that promote urban development that is timely, compact in form, and contiguous to existing urbanized areas and discourages boundary changes that can reasonably be expected to result in sprawl and with the potential for premature conversion of open space uses to urban uses. Further information is necessary to determine the need for extending public water and wastewater services, usually associated with urban-scale development, to the future low density residential clustered development area in the eastern portion of the proposed annexation area. City Response: The residential component of the proposed Development Agreement would be located within 55 acres of the total 695 acres proposed for annexation. Development would be restricted to a total of 14 units (seven single family homes and the potential for an ADU to each home) compact and clustered in order to maximize the preservation of open space. This housing cluster will be contiguous and similar to existing urbanized areas within the Western Hills under City jurisdiction. If the property were to remain unincorporated housing units could be developed throughout the almost 700-acre area albeit in a more widely disbursed configuration. These proposed jurisdictional changes would not engender ‘Sprawl’. On the contrary, viewed as a whole, the proposed annexation will reduce potential sprawl and concentrate urban services (water, sewer, electricity, solid waste collection and public and private roads) in the area already developed for single family housing and receiving urban services. The contiguous properties to the northeast are already under City jurisdiction and zoned R1-H. Services would only be extended to the residential sites and would not induce growth throughout the larger Western Hills. An extension of services is appropriate to ensure conformance with State and local building code requirements. For instance, the California Residential Code section R313.2 requires the installation of automatic fire sprinkler systems in newly constructed single-family dwellings. In most instances, a sprinkler system should be designed so that water flow is between 15-40 gallons per minute (gpm). When public water is not available, a well or a tank and pump can be used for emergency water supply, but given the limitations it is not preferred. Additionally, in 2018, the City was assigned a significant increase in required housing production for its 6th Cycle Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA). This project presents an appropriate and timely opportunity to facilitate construction of new residential units to serve the additional 32 ‘Above Moderate Income Households’ required in the 2019-2027 housing cycle. LAFCo Comment Regarding Efficient Delivery of Municipal Services: There is a gap between the proposed annexation area and the existing City limits which is within the Ukiah Valley Sanitation District boundary. The proposed low density residential clustered development area is within approximately 0.5-miles of the existing City limits. More information is needed to determine the ability of the City to effectively and efficiently deliver adequate, reliable, and sustainable services to the future residential development area, and should be addressed in the project’s CEQA document. Page 50 of 414 City Response: Similar to the sewer service system developed for the Janix Drive residential development, the intent is to utilize an onsite community septic system with a sewer line, rather than a leach field, discharging wastewater (effluent only) to a City sewer main at the end of Redwood Avenue. Proposed Development Parcels 1-3 are located within the Ukiah Valley Sanitation District (UVSD) service area, while Proposed Development Parcels 4-7 are not. However, sewer service would be provided to the Development Parcels by the City for parcels located both within and outside of the UVSD. A comprehensive plan for services will be included in the application for annexation, and utilities and service systems will be adequately analyzed and addressed in the Initial Study. LAFCo Comment Regarding Disadvantaged Unincorporated Communities (DUCs): There are no DUCs currently identified within proximity of the proposed annexation area. City Response: Comment noted. Page 51 of 414 From:Vandy Vandewater To:Michelle Irace Subject:Re: Revised Referral Package_Western Hills Acquisition Open Land & Dev Agreement Project_Rev031621 Date:Tuesday, March 16, 2021 3:33:52 PM Attachments:IMAGE.png MCAC_Response_WesternHillsAcquisition.pdf MCAC_Response_WesternHillsAcquisition_Signed.pdf [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know thecontent is safe. Hi Michelle, Please find attached the referral response for the Mendocino County Archaeological Commission. The responsefor Planning & Building Services should follow later this week. Best, Vandy SAM 'VANDY' VANDEWATER, MCRPInterim Senior PlannerCounty of Mendocino Planning & Building Services860 North Bush St.Ukiah, CA 95482tel.(707) 234-6650 fax. (707) 463-5709 Office Hours: Tuesday - Friday 6am-5pm6am-8am calls by appointment onlyvandewaters@mendocinocounty.org http://www.mendocinocounty.org/pbs >>> Michelle Irace <mirace@cityofukiah.com> 3/16/2021 3:10 PM >>> Good Afternoon, The City of Ukiah is soliciting comments for the Western Hills Acquisition Open Land & Development Agreement Project from departments and agencies with interest or jurisdiction over the project. The initial referral was sent on January 29, 2021 for review and comment. In response to comments received, the Project Description has been revised and the project is being referred for the second time. The referral package, including the revised Project Description, is attached. Your comments are appreciated by March 29, 2021. Thank you, Michelle Irace , Planning Manager Department of Community Development 300 Seminary Avenue, Ukiah, CA 95482 www.cityofukiah.com/community-development Page 52 of 414 County of Mendocino Page 53 of 414 Page 54 of 414 City Police Department Page 55 of 414 From:Cindy Sauers To:Michelle Irace Cc:Mel Grandi; Jimmy Lozano; Scott Bozzoli Subject:FW: Western Hills (Hull Properties) Acquisition Open Land & Development Agreement Project Referral Date:Thursday, February 11, 2021 4:32:56 PM Attachments:image002.png Hi Michelle, Electric Utility requirements: 1)A 10' utility easement is required along both sides of roadway. 2)Upon individual parcel development, additional easements may be required to provide electric service. 3)Future site improvements shall be submitted to the Electric Utility Department for review and comment. Construction requirements and associated developer costs will be determined to provide electric service. 4)Developer will incur all costs to provide electric service including labor, materials, equipment. Please let us know if you have questions. Thanks, Cindy Sauers, P.E. Assistant Electric Utility Director City of Ukiah 411 W. Clay St. Ukiah, CA 95482 (707) 463-6286 From: Michelle Irace <mirace@cityofukiah.com> Sent: Friday, January 29, 2021 10:51 AM To: Michelle Irace <mirace@cityofukiah.com> Subject: Western Hills (Hull Properties) Acquisition Open Land & Development Agreement Project Referral Hello, The City of Ukiah is proposing to acquire and annex approximately 695 acres within unincorporated Mendocino County into the City limits for open space conservation. In addition, the project includes a Lot Line Adjustment, site improvements and a Development Agreement for potential future development of up to seven single family homes on the easternmost project parcels (totaling City Electric Utility Dept. Page 56 of 414 approximately 55 acres). The City is soliciting comments and input from departments and agencies with jurisdiction or interest over the project; your comments are appreciated by February 12th, 2021. Please find the referral package that includes the Project Description, and associated maps and figures for more information. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions. Thank you, Michelle Irace , Planning Manager Department of Community Development 300 Seminary Avenue, Ukiah, CA 95482 www.cityofukiah.com/community-development Page 57 of 414 Providing shared management of fire protection services for the City of Ukiah and Ukiah Valley Fire District UKIAH VALLEY FIRE AUTHORITY 1500 SOUTH STATE STREET UKIAH, CA 95482-6709 Phone: (707)462-7921 ♦ Fax: (707)462-2938 ♦ Email: uvfd@sonic.net MEMORANDUM Date: 27 May 2021 To: Michelle Irace, Community Development Manager From: Doug Hutchison, Fire Chief Subject: Western Hills Annexation, aka “the Hull Properties” This memo is in regards to fire safety concerns that have been raised regarding the potential annexation of the Hull Properties in the Western Hills are of Ukiah. The largest issue for the Fire Authority will be the administration and oversight of the project area for fire prevention once it is annexed. Per State law, once the area is annexed into the city it will be re-designated from “State Responsibility Area” (SRA) to “Local Responsibility Area” (LRA), but will retain its classification as a Very High Fire Hazard Zone. As such, the city, through the Fire Authority, will be required to enforce the State’s fire safety standards on those lands. It is our understanding that the proposal includes the possibility of very limited future development of seven (7) parcels in the lower, mid-slope portion of the property. I performed a site visit with the property owner and went over the proposed development plans and believe that with the widening and paving of the road, and the installation of the water tank and fire hydrants we will be able to comply with the State’s fire safety regulations in that area. This is not to say that the area does not present challenges, but they are no different than many other areas that we currently protect, and in many cases the conditions currently present and proposed would be better than those other areas. In regards to the recently re-established shaded fuel break in the area, the addition of the small amount of structures would have minimal if any impact on its effectiveness. The Page 58 of 414 Providing shared management of fire protection services for the City of Ukiah and Ukiah Valley Fire District defensible spaces created by the home sites could even enhance its effectiveness in that limited area. Please do not hesitate to reach out if you need more information or have other questions or concerns. Page 59 of 414 Page 60 of 414 Page 61 of 414 CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT FINAL DRAFT INITIAL STUDY AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR UKIAH WESTERN HILLS OPEN LAND ACQUISITION AND LIMITED DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT June 2, 2021 Revised August 16, 2021 SCH No: 2021040428 Prepared by: City of Ukiah Community Development Department Planning Division 300 Seminary Avenue, Ukiah, CA 95482 Page 62 of 414 Table of Contents I. PROJECT INFORMATION 1 II.PROJECT DESCRIPTION 2 1.Project Location 2 2.Environmental Setting 2 3.Background 3 4.Project Components 3 ACQUISITION & ANNEXATION 4 PREZONE 4 LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT 6 DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT & ASSUMPTIONS 7 INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENTS 8 CONSTRUCTION 9 III.ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED 14 IV.DETERMINATION 16 V. EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS 17 1.Aesthetics 17 2.Agriculture and Forestry Resources 20 3.Air Quality 21 4.Biological Resources 25 5.Cultural Resources 29 6.Energy 33 7.Geology and Soils 34 8.Greenhouse Gas Emissions 37 9.Hazards and Hazardous Materials 38 10.Hydrology and Water Quality 42 11.Land Use and Planning 44 12.Mineral Resources 48 13.Noise 48 14.Population and Housing 51 15.Public Services 53 16.Recreation 54 17.Transportation 55 18.Tribal Cultural Resources 58 19.Utilities and Service Systems 59 20.Wildfire 62 21.Mandatory Findings of Significance 64 VI.REFERENCES 66 VII.MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM 69 ATTACHMENTS A. Existing Site Photographs B. Biological Resource Assessment B1 Addendum for Rare Plant Assessment and Botanical Survey C. List if Tribes Contacted for AB52 D. Reponses to Written Comments Received on the Draft Initial Study & Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 63 of 414 1 Ukiah Western Hills Open Land Acquisition and Limited Development Agreement Final Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Ukiah I. PROJECT INFORMATION Project Title: Ukiah Western Hills Open Land Acquisition and Limited Development Agreement Lead Agency Address and Phone Number: City of Ukiah 300 Seminary Avenue Ukiah, California 95482 (707) 463-6200 Responsible Agency Mendocino County Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCo) Contact: Uma Hinman, Executive Officer eo@mendolafco.org 200 S. School Street, Ukiah, CA 95482 Project Contact Person and Phone Number: Maya Simerson, Project Administrator City of Ukiah City Manager’s Office (707) 467-5714 msimerson@cityofukiah.com CEQA Contact Person and Phone Number: Michelle Irace, Planning Manager City of Ukiah Community Development Department (707) 463-6268 mirace@cityofukiah.com Project Location: Unincorporated Ukiah Western Hills, “Hull Properties” (APNs 001-040-83, 157-070-01, 157-070- 02, 003-190-01, 157-050-09, 157-060-02, 157-050-02, 157-050-04, 157-050-01, 157-030-02, 157-030-03, 157-050-11 & 157-050-12); and the City-owned “Donation Parcel” (APNs 157-050- 03,157-060-003) In addition, the “Noguera Properties” (APNs 003-190-09 & 003-110-90) are included in the annexation proposal for access only. Current County of Mendocino General Plan Designation: Mendocino County General Plan (Ukiah Valley Area Plan), Remote Residential, 40 Acre Minimum (“RMR40”) Proposed City of Ukiah General Plan Designation: Low Density Residential (LDR) and Public (P) Current County of Mendocino Zoning District: Upland Residential, 40 acre minimum (“UR:40”) Proposed City of Ukiah Zoning District: Single-Family Residential-Hillside Overlay District (R1-H) and Public Facilities (PF) Page 64 of 414 2 Ukiah Western Hills Open Land Acquisition and Limited Development Agreement Final Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Ukiah II.PROJECT DESCRIPTION 1.Project Location The Project parcels are currently located within unincorporated Mendocino County within the Ukiah Western Hills. As a part of the Project, the City of Ukiah is proposing to acquire and annex approximately 693 acres, known as the “Hull Properties” (APNs 001-040-83, 157-070-01, 157-070- 02, 003-190-01, 157-050-09, 157-060-02, 157-050-02, 157-050-04, 157-050-01, 157-030-02, 157- 030-03, 157-050-11 & 157-050-12) and the City-owned “Donation Parcel” (APNs 157-050-03,157- 060-003) into the City of Ukiah’s city limits, as shown in Table 1. In addition, the “Noguera Properties” (APNs 003-190-09 & 003-110-90), totaling approximately 14 acres, will be included in the annexation proposal for access only. All of the parcels are currently located within the City’s adopted Sphere of Influence (SOI), with the exception of APNs 157-030-03, 157-030-02, 157-050-01, and a portion of APNs 157-050-02, 157-050-04, 157-060-02, 157-060-03 and 157-050-03 (totaling approximately 296 acres). See Figure 1, Project Location Map. As a part of the Project, the City of Ukiah is proposing to acquire (with the exception of the Noguera Properties which will remain privately-owned) and annex all of the aforementioned properties into the City of Ukiah’s city limits. 2.Environmental Setting The Project area is situated within the Coast Range geologic province. The North Coast Range is comprised of a geologic feature unique to California, the Franciscan Formation, which dictates the vegetative communities. The Franciscan Formation is comprised of serpentine, sandstone, and other sedimentary rocks. This area is characterized by a Mediterranean climate; the winters are cool and wet, and the summers are hot and dry. Annual temperatures for this region range from about 30 to 100 degrees Fahrenheit. The Project is located within the Ukiah Valley, west of the City of Ukiah, in central Mendocino County, with elevations varying from approximately 600-feet above mean sea level up to approximately 3,000 feet in the hills surrounding the city, including the Western Hills. The Ukiah valley is located approximately 30 miles east and inland from the Pacific Ocean. It runs north-south for approximately nine miles, with a maximum width of three miles. The Russian River enters the valley at the north end and runs south along the valley floor. Ukiah is located along the Highway 101 corridor and near the east/west intersection of Highway 20, two hours north of the Golden Gate Bridge (see Figure 1). Incorporated in 1876, Ukiah is the county seat and largest city in Mendocino County. Soils in the Project area are characterized as both Hopland, which consists of very deep, well drained soils formed in colluvium and residuum weathered from sandstone or shale on steep hills and slopes, and Maymen soils that are shallow, somewhat excessively drained soils that formed in residuum weathered from shale, schist, greenstone, sandstone and conglomerate. These soils have a shallow depth to bedrock. The Project site(s) consists of mostly undeveloped parcels with firebreaks and private access roads. The parcels are currently accessed through existing dirt and gravel roads that traverse the Noguera Page 65 of 414 3 Ukiah Western Hills Open Land Acquisition and Limited Development Agreement Final Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Ukiah Properties and connect to Redwood Avenue. The access road width ranges from 18 ft to 35 ft, with the majority of it being a minimum of 20 ft wide. The sections that are 18 ft wide are approximately 100 ft long and have wider turn-outs immediately before or after them. In 2003, a shaded fuel break was constructed (North to South) along the base of the western hills along the entire length of the City to reduce fuel loads and protect the community from wildfire risk. Maintenance was performed on the 100-ft wide, 2.6-mile fuel break in late 2018 and early 2019. The parcels have been subject to vegetation management and grading practices, including clearing areas for potential water tank pad sites and house sites, over the last several years through the County’s permitting process. Vegetation on the Project parcels includes native and nonnative annual and perennial grasses, with dense chaparral and mixed hardwood forest throughout. Native trees in the area primarily consist of California bay laurel (Umbellularia californica) and California black oak (Quercus kelloggii). Undergrowth consists largely of poison oak (Toxicodendron diversilobum) and Western bracken fern (Pteridium aquilinium). The terrain is very rugged and steep (greater than 50% slope in many areas). The Russian River runs north to south, one mile east of the Project area. Two unnamed creek drainages flow through two of the parcels at the bottom of steep canyons. In addition, two perennial streams flow approximately 2,000-feet to the north and south—Gibson Creek and Doolan Creek, respectively. 3.Background Certificates of Compliance and Lot Line Adjustments were recorded over the last several years, resulting in the current parcel configuration (see Figure 2). The existing road was installed in the 1960’s, and road improvements were completed throughout 2015-2017; in 2018 the road was extended further west. In addition, a water tank pad site was cleared and developed in 2018. Vegetation management was also performed on the property throughout 2017-2020 and included site prep (vegetation removal only, no grading) of the seven potential house sites (proposed “Development Parcels”). The City has a vision, and is working towards a goal, of promoting the protection of Ukiah’s western urban interface to restore and conserve forest and stream ecosystems, provide large-scale wildfire mitigation and to protect the Upper Russian River Watershed to benefit fish, wildlife, scenic resources, and the greater Ukiah community. In order to achieve this goal, the City proposes to acquire and annex approximately 693 acres (“Hull Properties”) in the Western Hills for open space preservation, while allowing the potential for future low-density residential development on the approximately 54 easternmost acres, consistent with existing development in the Western Hills within the City of Ukiah limits. In addition, the “Noguera Properties”, totaling approximately 14 acres, are included in the annexation proposal for access only, but will remain under private ownership. 4.Project Components Section 15378 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) defines a “Project” as an activity that (1) is a discretionary action by a governmental agency; and (2) will either have a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect impact on the environment. (Pub. Res. Code, § 21065). “Project” means the whole of an action, which has a potential for resulting in either a direct physical change in the environment, or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment, and that is any of the following: An activity directly undertaken by any public agency including but not limited to public works construction and related activities, clearing or grading of land, improvements to existing Page 66 of 414 4 Ukiah Western Hills Open Land Acquisition and Limited Development Agreement Final Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Ukiah public structures, enactment and amendment of zoning ordinances, and the adoption and amendment of local General Plans or elements thereof pursuant to Government Code Sections 65100–65700. Accordingly, for this CEQA analysis, the “Proposed Project” includes the following: 1) Acquisition and annexation of the parcels; 2) Prezoning the parcels to PF and R1-H (and associated Zoning Map and General Plan Map Amendments upon approval of the annexation application); 3) Sequential Lot Line Adjustments to reconfigure the existing parcels into seven lots (“Development Parcels”) for future potential development; 4) Development Agreement between Hull Properties and the City allowing up to one single-family home and one accessory dwelling unit on each Development Parcel (14 units total); and 5) site improvements including extension of utilities, road improvements, and construction of the water tanks. Each of these components are described further in detail below. ACQUISITION & ANNEXATION The Project proposes to annex the parcels listed below in Table 1, totaling approximately 707 acres (“Annexation Parcels”) and within the County of Mendocino’s jurisdiction, into the City of Ukiah. One approximately 188-acre parcel (APNs 157-050-03 & 157-060-003) was donated to the City in December, 2020. The City is currently actively pursuing the purchase and acquisition of the remaining parcels (“Hull Properties”), with the exception of the “Noguera Properties” (APNs 003-190-09 & 003- 110-90) which will be utilized for access only and remain under private ownership. In order to complete the acquisition, the City will enter into a Property Exchange and Development Agreement (“Development Agreement”) with the current owner of the Hull Properties subject to the annexation application. Under the Development Agreement, the current owner will convey the Annexation Parcels to the City in exchange for real property owned by the City and a payment from the City of an amount to make up the difference between the fair market value of the exchanged properties. Under the Development Agreement, the City is required to submit its annexation application to the Mendocino County Local Agency Formation (LAFCo), after it acquires title to the Annexation Parcels. The proposed parcels for annexation would be contiguous to existing City of Ukiah incorporated limits, in accordance with LAFCo policies and the Government Code. Also in accordance with LAFCo- adopted procedures, and as required under the Development Agreement, the City will submit its annexation application to LAFCo after it acquires title to the Annexation Parcels, and upon City Council approval of the Proposed Project. This Initial Study is intended to meet both the LAFCo and CEQA requirements for annexation and the Proposed Project. Under CEQA, the term “responsible agency” includes all public agencies other than the lead agency that have discretionary power over the Proposed Project. Accordingly, the City of Ukiah is the lead agency and LAFCo is the responsible agency. PREZONE The Annexation Parcels will be prezoned prior to their annexation into the City of Ukiah. Government Code Section 65859 allows the City of Ukiah to adopt (i.e., prezone) a zoning district for land outside of the city limits in anticipation of annexation and development. Under Government Code Section 56742, City-owned parcels proposed for annexation are not required to be located within the City's SOI. City-owned parcels can be located anywhere in the County as long as they are less than 300 acres, owned by the City, and used for municipal purposes at the time of the annexation application.1 Under the provisions of the Government Code, the zoning district adopted by the City does not become Under Section 56742, if the City conveys any such City-owned parcels after they were annexed, they automatically become detached from the City, unless they have become contiguous to the City limits. Page 67 of 414 5 Ukiah Western Hills Open Land Acquisition and Limited Development Agreement Final Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Ukiah effective unless and until the land is annexed into the City. With the exception of Development Parcels 1-3, which Hull Properties is choosing to retain the right to sell and develop prior to annexation, and which will be included in the annexation application (see Development Agreement and Assumptions section below for more information), once the parcels are annexed into the City, the site(s) would not be developed until an applicant applies for a use permit and submits a project site plan for development on the Development Parcels and a use permit is approved by the Planning Commission. Until the property is annexed, it is subject to existing zoning under Mendocino County’s Zoning Ordinance. After the City acquires title to the Annexation Parcels prior to their annexation into the City, those parcels used for municipal purposes are not subject to County zoning or building codes. Prezoning of the parcels will require a Zoning Map and General Plan Map Amendment upon approval of the annexation application. The City proposes to annex approximately 640 acres total, collectively referred to as the “Conservation Parcels, for open space and conservation. Although the City does not currently have a standalone Open Space zoning designation, the City’s existing Public Facilities (PF) zoning designation encompasses lands within the City that contain open space and parks, as well as other public facilities. Accordingly, the Conservation Parcels (including approximately 296 acres located outside of the current SOI) are proposed to be prezoned PF (with a “Public” General Plan land use designation) which specifically identifies public or quasi-public uses, including, but not limited to, natural resource conservation areas and parks and recreation. In addition, the City can utilize its parks ordinance (Division 1, Chapter 12 of the Ukiah City Code) to provide rules governing City and public use of PF zoned property. See Figure 3, Proposed Parcel Configuration & Prezoning. The proposed Development Parcels (all located within the current SOI, totaling approximately 54 acres) will be prezoned to Single-Family Residential-Hillside Overlay District (R1-H) with a General Plan Designation of Low Density Residential (LDR), consistent with adjacent City zoning and development patterns in the Western Hills. In addition, the Noguera Properties (APNs 003-190-09 & 003-110-90) will be prezoned R1-H for consistency with surrounding zoning and land uses, but are not included as Development Parcels, as they will continue to be utilized for access only. The –H Overlay District is intended to encourage planning, design, and development while preserving natural physical features and minimizing potential safety, water runoff and soil erosion concerns associated with the natural terrain.2 This approach will allow the City to adequately preserve and protect the collective Conservation Parcels (640 acres total), while allowing orderly and clustered low-density residential development within the Development Parcels (54 acres). 2 The Hillside Overlay District Regulations can be found online at: https://www.codepublishing.com/CA/Ukiah/#!/Ukiah09/Ukiah0902-1100.html#art11 Page 68 of 414 6 Ukiah Western Hills Open Land Acquisition and Limited Development Agreement Final Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Ukiah LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT To achieve the resulting proposed parcel configuration of up to seven Development Parcels, the Project also includes sequential Lot Line Adjustments in both the City and County jurisdictions, in accordance with the Subdivision Map Act.3 Hull Properties recently recorded sequential Lot Line Adjustments through the County’s ministerial procedures and will submit sequential Lot Line Adjustments through the City’s procedures to achieve configuration of the Development Parcels. Hull Properties intends to sell the Development Parcels (ranging in sizes from 5 to 10 acres each, in accordance with the R1-H regulations) for individual development. Although Development Parcels 1- 3 may be developed prior to annexation, they will be developed in accordance with R1-H regulations through Declaration of Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs). Review of the Lot Line Adjustments will be conducted by the City Engineer prior to recordation of the final maps to ensure that all development standards contained within the R1-H zoning district are met. Table 1 identifies the existing parcels to be reconfigured and Figure 1, Project Location Map, identifies the Development Parcel area in yellow. Figure 2 shows the existing parcel configuration and Figure 3 shows the preliminary resulting parcel configuration and proposed prezoning. Although the final configuration of the Development Parcels may vary slightly, the footprint of the resulting configuration for the Development Parcels (54 acres) and number of parcels will remain the same In accordance with Ukiah City Code Section 8296(f), which states “Concurrent Permit Processing: when a lot line adjustment is part of a project that requires one or more discretionary planning entitlements and the applicant does not want the lot line adjustment unless the entire project is approved, then the lot line adjustment shall be reviewed as part of the discretionary planning application. In that event, all permits and approvals, including the lot line adjustment, shall be combined into one application, processed concurrently, and acted upon by the highest review authority required by this code based on the entitlements included in the application. (Ord. 1138, §2 (Exh. A), adopted 2012).” Hull properties has indicated that they wish to record the Lot Line Adjustments, regardless of whether or not the overall Project gets approved. As such, the Lot Line Adjustments remain ministerial and do not require approval by the highest review authority (City Council, in this case). 3 The Subdivision Map Act excludes from its requirements lot line adjustments “between four or fewer existing adjoining parcels” if there is no resulting increase in the number of parcels. Government Code § 66412(d) Page 69 of 414 7 Ukiah Western Hills Open Land Acquisition and Limited Development Agreement Final Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Ukiah Table 1. Annexation Parcels, Proposed Lot Line Adjustment and Prezoning Assessor’s Parcel Number (APN) Existing Size (+/acres) Proposed Size (+/-acres) through Lot Line Adjustments 4 Resulting Parcel Configuration, Intended Use and Proposed Prezoning 001-040-83 77.6 9.8 Parcel 1 will become a Development Parcel intended for single family housing and prezoned R1-H. 157-070 01, 157-070-02, 003-190-01 & 157-050-09 148.2 5.1 Parcel 2 on Existing Conditions Tentative Map, contains several APNs but is one legal parcel (149 acres total). This parcel will become a Development Parcel intended for single-family housing and prezoned R1-H. 157-050-11 40.0 9.9 Parcel 3 will become a Development Parcel intended for single-family housing and prezoned R1-H. 157-050-02 40.5 9.0 Parcel 4 will become a Development Parcel intended for single-family housing and prezoned R1-H. 157-050-01 40.3 5.0 Parcel 5 will become a Development Parcel intended for single-family housing and prezoned R1-H. 157-030-02 20.0 9.7 Parcel 6 will become a Development Parcel intended for single-family housing and prezoned R1-H. 157-050-12 40.0 5.0 Parcel 7 will become a Development Parcel intended for single-family housing and prezoned R1-H. 157-050-04 & 157-060-02 38.7 391.5 Parcel 8 will become a Conservation Parcel and be prezoned PF. The proposed water tanks will be placed on this parcel within the existing water tank pad site (on existing Parcel 2). 157-030-03 60.0 60.0 Parcel 9 is an Outside Conservation Parcel and will not be prezoned. 157-030-03 & 157-060-03 188.5 188.5 Parcel 10 (City-owned “Donation Parcel”) will become a Conservation Parcel and will be prezoned PF. “Noguera Properties” 003-190-09 & 003-110-90 10.20 4.14 10.20 4.14 These parcels contain the existing access road that will be improved but remain under private ownership. It will be included in the annexation proposal and prezoned R1-H, consistent with surrounding zoning and land uses, but no development is proposed; this parcel is not included in the Lot Line Adjustment. TOTAL +/- 707 acres DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT & ASSUMPTIONS As previously noted, the total acreage to be potentially developed is approximately 54 acres. The remaining acreage of 640 acres, and the majority of the total acreage proposed for annexation, is intended for open space conservation. The proposed Development Agreement between Hull Properties and the City limits development to one single-family dwelling and one accessory dwelling unit (ADU) per parcel (14 units total). Hull Properties is choosing to retain the right to sell and develop Development Parcels 1-3 prior to annexation. The Development Parcels are located within the County of Mendocino’s jurisdiction within the Upland Residential, 40-acre minimum (UR:40) zoning district. Construction of the single-family homes within the County’s jurisdiction would be by-right and not require discretionary approval, environmental review, nor the development standards contained within 4 Resulting parcel configuration is subject to change but the Development Parcel area footprint will remain the same. Page 70 of 414 8 Ukiah Western Hills Open Land Acquisition and Limited Development Agreement Final Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Ukiah the City’s R1-H zoning district. However, Hull Properties is choosing to require the single-family homes to be constructed to R1-H standards by including them in the Declaration of Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) for Development Parcels 1-3. In addition, although not required, the mitigation measures contained within the ISMND for residential development will also be included in the CC&Rs. Development Parcels 1-3 will still be included in the application for annexation and prezoned to R1-H. After the Annexation Parcels are successfully annexed into the City, the remaining Development Parcels (4-7) would not be developed until an applicant submits a project site plan for development, subject to discretionary review and received Planning Commission approval, as required by the City’s Hillside Overlay Zoning District. However, no purchasers have been identified, and the timing of the sale and development of the properties is unknown. The Noguera Properties that will be annexed and utilized for access are not included in the Hull Properties Development Agreement. While the R1 zoning district does not identify a maximum lot size, it typically contains single-family residential subdivision lots ranging in size from six thousand (6,000) to ten thousand (10,000) square feet. The –H Overlay District requires a minimum 10,000 square foot lot, and increases with the slope of the site. The –H Overlay District allows for single-family residential development and development of an ADU in areas with less than 50% slope (subject to approval of a discretionary Use Permit and Site Development Permit). The City of Ukiah General Plan allows for six dwelling units per acre for the Low-Density Residential designation. However, because the proposed Development Agreement would limit development to one primary dwelling unit per parcel, for this analysis it is assumed that up to seven single-family homes will be developed. In addition, one ADU may be developed per lot, for a total of 14 units. While this “maximum buildout” scenario may not come to fruition based on site topography and building constraints, the above-described assumptions ensure that the Development Agreement portion of the Project is adequately analyzed under CEQA. All future development on Parcels 4-7 would be analyzed on a project level basis for consistency with land use policies; and would be subject to discretionary and environmental review of their individual and cumulative environmental impacts, as applicable. Although Development Parcels 1-3 may be developed within the County’s jurisdiction prior to annexation by-right, they will be required to be developed to R1-H standards through CC&Rs. In addition, all mitigation measures identified for residential development in the ISMND will be applied to Development Parcels 1-3. General construction information for single-family homes on all of the Development Parcels has been included in the analysis. Although the Noguera Properties will be prezoned R1-H for consistency with surrounding zoning and land uses, no development is proposed and the parcels will continue to be used for access only. For these reasons, development of these properties is not included in the development assumptions. INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENTS Approximately one-half mile of the existing 18 to 35ft wide gravel private access road beginning at the access point at the terminus of on Redwood Avenue (traversing the Noguera Properties), to the house sites, would be paved to serve the future housing development sites. The road improvements will include developing a cul-de-sac on Proposed Parcel 4 to serve the Development Parcels. All improvements will be in accordance with applicable fire and building codes. The property owner/developer will complete the road improvements; the road will remain under private ownership and be maintained by a Homeowner’s Association (HOA) through a road maintenance and access agreement. The agreement will also allow the City to maintain access to public utilities and city-owned properties. Page 71 of 414 9 Ukiah Western Hills Open Land Acquisition and Limited Development Agreement Final Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Ukiah Sewer, water and electric utilities would be provided to the Development Parcels. Sewer and water will be developed by the property owner, while electric infrastructure will be developed by the property owner and/or the City. All utilities will be undergrounded and located within or adjacent to existing access roads, on private parcels and previously disturbed areas. A detailed Plan for Services will be included in the application for annexation. Easements will be required for all utility facilities in roadway and on parcels as necessary. An onsite community sewer system with a holding tank and sewer line, rather than a leach field, will be constructed for discharging wastewater (effluent only) to a sewer main at the end of Redwood Avenue. Proposed Development Parcels 1-3 are located within the Ukiah Valley Sanitation District (UVSD) service area, while Proposed Development Parcels 4-7 are not. However, sewer service would be provided to the Development Parcels by the City for parcels located both within and outside of the UVSD. Water utilities will be developed by the property owner on-site to support the Development Parcels; approximately 130,000 gallons of storage will be provided by two 65,000 gallon tanks (34ft in diameter and 10.5ft high) that will be placed within the existing water tank pad site (identified by a blue dot on Figure 1 in Attachment 3). Ultimately the home owners association will own the tank and provide all maintenance on the tank and its associated equipment. Fire hydrants are also required to be installed with residential development. Electric utilities would be extended from Helen/Redwood Ave to provide electric service. Easements will be required for all utility facilities in the roadway and on parcels as necessary to provide electric service. The electric system will be in accordance with State and Federal requirements. Upon annexation, the City will own and maintain electric utility infrastructure through a utility easement. CONSTRUCTION Proposed road improvements, the underground extension of utilities, as well as the water tanks and hydrant systems would be completed by the property owner (or its contractors). Road improvements and utility extension is anticipated to take approximately 1-2 months during the dry season. Water tank construction would occur over 5-10 days. All construction will take place between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m., per the City’s Noise Ordinance, and will require the use of typical construction equipment including, but not limited to: hand tools, power tools, heavy equipment, manlift, small crane, backhoe, dozer, excavator, forklift, paver, roller, tractor, water truck, grader, etc. Construction equipment and staging will be located within existing disturbed areas and roadways. It is anticipated that approximately 8-10 construction workers will be needed for the road and water system improvements, and extension of utilities Extension of utilities would require 2-24" wide trenches to be dug within the access road or other disturbed areas for approximately one-half-mile from the connection point within Redwood Avenue to the Development Parcels. Because the road and water tank pad site are pre-existing, minimal vegetation removal and grading will be required; no trees are proposed for removal. Additional grading may be required to extend driveways to the cul-de-sac and access road. Standard Best Management Practices including, but not limited to, the placement of straw, mulch, seeding, straw wattles, silt fencing, etc. will be implemented during construction, as appropriate. With the exception of Development Parcels 1-3 which may be developed by-right prior to annexation in the County’s jurisdiction, the construction of single-family homes would not begin until a buyer Page 72 of 414 10 Ukiah Western Hills Open Land Acquisition and Limited Development Agreement Final Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Ukiah purchases one of the proposed Development Parcels and obtains an approved Use Permit by the Planning Commission for development of their home. Typically, construction of a single-family dwelling takes approximately 6-10 months to complete and would require the use of the aforementioned standard construction equipment. Page 73 of 414 APN:00104083 APN:00319001 APN:15707002 APN:15707001 APN:15705009 APN:15705011 APN:15705012 APN:15705002 APN:15706003 & 157050003 APN:157030003 APN:15703002 APN:15705001 APN:15705004 APN:15706002 Sphere of Influence APNs:003-190-09 & 003-110-90 Ukiah Western Hills Open Land Acquisition & Limited Development Project Annexation Parcels (+/-707ac) Parcel Donation to City Development Parcels (+/-54ac) Proposed Water Tanks Sphere of Influence City Limits Existing Access Road This map is a guide. Every reasonable effort has been made to ensure accuracy of the map and data provided. Parcel lines are not intended to represent surveyed data.Document Path: S:\Public Works\Stricklin, Andrew\GIS\Projects\Planning\Western Hills Project Figure 1Location MapPage 74 of 414 : k, E E;I.fitHN-SE;r$;iTs:tq..EB€E '.,6E!9ofEq\$oRIIEo*)EqI\0'ii*)h'lx.x r{ I I ------------------t I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I *t* r.YE fibi o-\ f N s € f{dq:Br d$E't$ o :*B etr .t) $ tNse$ b"ES8 frE&ts $ tB t^. bI r.S a-oBs so{q o0bEo b u=$Hn ii$-* 5 a'".€*\ RSNrtf, $ti$ n fc$* N $ EsSR Figure 2Existing Parcel Configuraton Page 75 of 414 Proposed Parcel Configuration & Prezoning for Western Hills (Hull Properties) Open Land Acquisition & Limited Development Agreement Project Sphere of Influence Conservation Parcels” (640ac) with Public Facilities (PF) Prezoning “Development Parcels (54ac) with Single-Family Residential- Hillside Overlay District (R1-H) Prezoning Last revised June 2, 2021 Figure 3 Proposed Parcel Configuration & PrezoningPage 76 of 414 14 Ukiah Western Hills Open Land Acquisition and Limited Development Agreement Final Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Ukiah III.ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED Purpose of the Initial Environmental Study: This Initial Study has been prepared consistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15063, to determine if the Project, as proposed, would have a significant impact upon the environment. The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this Project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. Aesthetics Agriculture & Forestry Air Quality Biological Resources Cultural Resources Energy Geology / Soils Greenhouse Gas Emissions Hazards & Hazardous Materials Hydrology/Water Quality Land Use / Planning Mineral Resources Noise Population / Housing Public Services Recreation Transportation Tribal Cultural Resources Utilities/Service Systems Wildfire Mandatory Findings of Significance Summary of Findings: The City proposes to acquire and annex approximately 693 acres (“Hull Properties” and the City’s “Donation Parcel”) in the Western Hills for open space preservation, while allowing the potential for future seven single-family homes on the approximately 54 easternmost acres, consistent with existing development in the Western Hills within the City of Ukiah limits. In addition, the “Noguera Properties”, totaling approximately 14 acres, will be included in the annexation proposal for access only, but will remain under private ownership. Project components including the acquisition, annexation, and prezoning of parcels (and associated Zoning Map and General Plan Map Amendments), in addition to the Lot Line Adjustment, would not directly result in impacts to the physical environment. Therefore, they are not discussed in detail throughout the resource sections related to physical environmental impacts. However, under the Development Agreement, infrastructure improvements and the potential construction of up to seven single-family homes and associated ADUs, could result in a total of 14 units within the easternmost 54 acres of the Project area. It is unknown whether all of the single family homes, and ADUs in particular, would be developed, but physical impacts would vary depending on location, intensity, and other siting factors. However, the Proposed Project does not include specific development designs or proposals, nor does it grant any entitlements for development. Once the parcels are annexed into the City, the site(s) would not be developed until an applicant submits a project site plan for development and receives Planning Commission approval to develop a home on the Development Parcels (4-7). Hull Properties is choosing to retain the right to sell and develop Development Parcels 1-3 prior to annexation. The Development Parcels are located within the County of Mendocino’s jurisdiction within the Upland Residential, 40-acre minimum (UR:40) zoning district. Construction of the single-family homes within the County’s jurisdiction would be by-right and not require discretionary approval, environmental review, nor the development standards contained within Page 77 of 414 15 Ukiah Western Hills Open Land Acquisition and Limited Development Agreement Final Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Ukiah the City’s R1-H zoning district. However, Hull Properties is choosing to require the single-family homes to be constructed to R1-H standards by including them in the Declaration of Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) for Development Parcels 1-3. In addition, although not required, the mitigation measures contained within the ISMND for residential development will also be included in the CC&Rs. Regardless, for the purposes of this CEQA analysis, it is assumed that the development of all Development Parcels will occur. Although the Noguera Properties will be prezoned R1-H for consistency with surrounding zoning and land uses, they are not included in the Development Agreement and no development is proposed; the parcels will continue to be used for access only. For these reasons, these parcels are not included as Development Parcels and have not been included in the development assumptions. As described throughout the Initial Study, construction and ground disturbing activities associated with these components could result in direct significant impacts to Air Quality, Biological Resources, Cultural /Tribal Cultural Resources, Geology and Soils, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, Hydrology and Water Quality, Noise, Utilities and Service Systems, and Wildfire. However, mitigation measures identified within the aforementioned sections would reduce impacts to less than significant. Mitigation measures identified within the Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration related to ground disturbing activities and construction for road and utility improvements, as well as residential development, will be included in the Development Agreement and Conditions of Approval to ensure that they are implemented accordingly. A Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program is provided in Section VII of this Initial Study. All future residential development would be analyzed on a project level basis for consistency with land use policies; and would be subject to discretionary and environmental review of their individual and cumulative environmental impacts, as applicable (with the exception of by-right development). Based upon the analysis contained within this Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration, all potential impacts resulting from the Proposed Project would be less than significant with incorporation of mitigation. Page 78 of 414 16 Ukiah Western Hills Open Land Acquisition and Limited Development Agreement Final Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Ukiah IV. DETERMINATION On the basis of the initial evaluation that follows: ____ I find that the proposed Project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. __X__ I find that although the proposed Project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because mitigation measures and project revisions have been identified that would reduce all impacts to a less than significant level. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. _____ I find that the proposed Project MAY have a significant effect on the environment. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. _____ I find that the proposed Project MAY have a “potentially significant impact” or “potentially significant unless mitigated” impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. _____ I find that although the proposed Project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed Project, nothing further is required. Signature Date Michelle Irace, Planning Manager Planning & Community Development Department City of Ukiah mirace@cityofukiah.com August 16, 2021 Page 79 of 414 17 Ukiah Western Hills Open Land Acquisition and Limited Development Agreement Final Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Ukiah V. EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS The purpose of this Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (ISMND) is to provide an analysis of the potential environmental consequences as a result of the proposed Project. The environmental evaluation relied on the following categories of impacts, noted as column headings in the IS checklist, in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Appendix G. “Potentially Significant Impact” is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect may be significant. If there are one or more “Potentially Significant Impact” entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required. Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated” applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from “Potentially Significant Impact” to a “Less Than Significant Impact.” “Less Than Significant Impact” applies where the Project would not result in a significant effect (i.e., the Project impact would be less than significant without the need to incorporate mitigation). “No Impact” applies where the Project would not result in any impact in the category or the category does not apply. This may be because the impact category does not apply to the proposed Project (for instance, the Project Site is not within a surface fault rupture hazard zone), or because of other project- specific factors. 1. Aesthetics AESTHETICS. Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a)Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? b)Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? c)In nonurbanized areas, substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings? (Public views are those that are experienced from publicly accessible vantage point). If the project is in an urbanized area, would the project conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality? d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? Significance Criteria: Aesthetic impacts would be significant if the Project resulted in the obstruction of any scenic vista open to the public, damage to significant scenic resources within a designated Page 80 of 414 18 Ukiah Western Hills Open Land Acquisition and Limited Development Agreement Final Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Ukiah State scenic highway, substantial degradation to the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings from public views, or generate new sources of light or glare that would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area, including that which would directly illuminate or reflect upon adjacent property or could be directly seen by motorists or persons residing, working or otherwise situated within sight of the Project. Environmental Setting: The City of Ukiah is located within the Ukiah Valley, and scenic resources include not only the natural environment, but the built environment as well. One of the most notable scenic resources in the City limits is the Western Hills. Views of expansive hillsides to the north, east and south, within the County jurisdiction, also surround the City. Some hillsides are densely forested with evergreen trees, while others are relatively open in comparison, dominated by mature oak trees set amid scrub and grasslands. Some residential development is visible within the Western Hills from the valley floor. Water in the form of creeks, streams, and rivers is often a prominent feature in the landscape as well. Protecting the natural scenic features has been a priority for the City. The Mendocino County General Plan identifies the Mendocino Coast, Redwood groves and the pygmy forests are scenic resources in the County. Many open space and scenic areas in Mendocino County are protected under easements managed by land trusts, none of which are located within the vicinity of the Proposed Project. According to the Ukiah Valley Area Plan (UVAP), development in the inland portion of Mendocino County is generally concentrated into nodes surrounded by open space and agriculture. This development pattern contributes to the rural “small town” character of the Ukiah valley. Preserving this character is essential to the community vision for the future. The western and eastern hills frame the valley, creating an aesthetic resource for residents and visitors. Many developed portions of the valley enjoy sweeping views of open space and the hillsides, adding character and economic value to property throughout the valley. The Project site(s) consists of mostly undeveloped parcels with firebreaks and private access roads. The parcels have been subject to vegetation management and grading practices, including clearing areas for potential water tank pad sites and house sites, over the last several years through the County’s permitting process. Vegetation on the Project parcels includes native and nonnative annual and perennial grasses, with dense chaparral and mixed hardwood forest throughout. Discussion: (a & c) Less than significant impact. Scenic vistas are typically described as areas of natural beauty with features such as topography, watercourses, rock outcrops, and natural vegetation that contribute to the landscape’s quality. The Western Hills, including the Project site are considered a scenic vista. Generally speaking, public views of the Western Hills are available from roadways, and adjacent residential areas within the valley floor. Some residential development is visible within the Western Hills from the valley floor. The Project proposes to acquire and preserve open space for several reasons, including sourcewater preservation, fire mitigation, scenic resources, and biological preservation. Approximately 640 acres would remain open space, while 54 acres would be potentially developed with up to 14 units (one single-family dwelling and one ADU per lot). Although the Project does not include specific development proposals for construction of the homes, the Development Agreement allows the potential for the homes to be built at some point in the future. Future development of these homes, in addition to construction of the water tank and infrastructure improvements, could have the potential to impact scenic vistas and the visual character of the area, depending on location, height, siting, design, proximity to scenic resources, etc. However, the potential homes are all proposed in the lowest elevation of the Project area, therefore limiting visual impact from the valley floor. In addition, as Page 81 of 414 19 Ukiah Western Hills Open Land Acquisition and Limited Development Agreement Final Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Ukiah outlined in the City’s Zoning Ordinance (UCC Section 9018), R1 zoning contains development standards including a 30-foot height limitation for single-family home. This scale of potential development would be similar to residential development in the area east of the site. While the easternmost portion of the Project that could be developed with homes, development of these homes would not substantially degrade a scenic vista or the visual character of the area, as it is assumed they would be constructed within the existing house sites and not require a substantial amount of vegetation removal. In addition, one of the intentions of the –H District is to preserve outstanding natural physical features, such as the highest crest of a hill, natural rock outcroppings, major tree belts, etc. Allowing the development of homes on the easternmost portion of the site, while preventing residential development on the remaining 640 acres, will ensure orderly development patterns to prevent sprawl and visual degradation within the Western Hills. The assumed low-density development pattern is consistent and contributes to the rural “small town” character of the Ukiah Valley and consistent with proposed City zoning for the sites. In addition, future residential development (on Parcels 4-7) would be subject to discretionary and environmental review, and be required to comply with City regulations for height, setbacks, and other development standards established to protect natural features and scenic resources within the Western Hills. Although Development Parcels 1-3 may be developed within the County’s jurisdiction prior to annexation by- right, they will be required to be developed to R1-H standards through CC&Rs. In addition, all mitigation measures identified for residential development in the ISMND will be applied to Development Parcels 1-3. Therefore, the potential residential development associated with the Project would not conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality. Sewer and electric utilities would be extended from Redwood Avenue to the house sites, but would be located underground within the existing roadway to avoid visual impacts. The two proposed water tanks (34 ft x 34 ft, 10.5 ft high) would be colored a shade of green to blend in with the landscape. The water tank site has already been cleared of vegetation and is surrounded by trees, making it less visible to the public. Due to the location and topography of the site, and distance from public views, such as those in adjacent residential areas or views from the valley floor, the proposed water tank would not significantly impact scenic resources on the site or in the area. For the aforementioned reasons, the Project would not result in a significant impact to scenic vistas, nor the visual character of the site or area. Impacts would be less than significant. (b) No impact. According to the California Department of Transportation’s (Caltrans) State Scenic Highway System Map, there are no designated state scenic highways within the vicinity of the project. In addition, there are no highways identified as eligible for state designation. Therefore, the Project would not substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway. Lastly, the City’s General Plan, the County General Plan and the Ukiah Valley Area Plan do not designate any local scenic roads in the Project area; no impact to scenic resources within a designated scenic corridor would occur. (d) Less than significant impact. New sources of light and glare associated with future residential development could include building-mounted outdoor lighting, indoor residential lighting, and new sources of glare from windows and cars. All lighting would be required to be downshielded and comply with the Dark Skies Ordinance to protect nighttime views. These sources of light and glare would be typical of those associated with low-density residential development and would not be considered “substantial”. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. Page 82 of 414 20 Ukiah Western Hills Open Land Acquisition and Limited Development Agreement Final Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Ukiah 2. Agriculture and Forestry Resources AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES. In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. In determining whether impacts to forest resources, including timberland, are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to information compiled by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection regarding the state’s inventory of forest land, including the Forest and Range Assessment Project and the Forest Legacy Assessment project; and forest carbon measurement methodology provided in Forest Protocols adopted by the California Air Resources Board. Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non- agricultural use? b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section 51104(g))? d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? e) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? Significance Criteria: The Proposed Project would have a potentially significant impact on agricultural resources if it would convert prime farmland to a non-agricultural use, conflict with a Williamson Act contract, or disrupt a viable and locally important agricultural use. The Project would have a potentially significant impact on forestry resources if it would result in the loss, rezoning or conversion of forestland to a non-forest use. Environmental Setting: According to the UVAP, early agricultural efforts in the Ukiah Valley included the raising of livestock, and the growing of various grains, hay, alfalfa, and hops. When the Northwestern Pacific Railroad was completed in 1889; prunes, potatoes, pears, and hops could be grown and sent to San Francisco and other regional markets. Wine grapes were planted, and irrigation was practiced on a small scale. Through the 1950’s, hops, pears, prunes and grapes were the most widely planted crops in the Ukiah Valley. After the railroad was completed, lumber mills sprang up in the Ukiah Valley and became the major industry in Mendocino County as trains took redwood logs and processed boards south to the San Francisco region. Today, much of the active agricultural land in the UVAP planning area is located on the valley floor and lower elevations along the Russian River system. Only a limited percentage of the valley’s agricultural lands are currently protected under Williamson Act Agricultural Preserve contracts. The Page 83 of 414 21 Ukiah Western Hills Open Land Acquisition and Limited Development Agreement Final Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Ukiah County of Mendocino contains three zoning districts for agricultural uses: Agricultural (A-G), Rangeland (R-L), or Forestland (F-L). However, there are some active agricultural lands in unincorporated Mendocino County that currently in production that are not zoned for agricultural or rangeland uses. According to the County’s Public GIS system, there are no Williamson Act contracts within the Project site. There are no zoning districts within the City limits for Agriculture or Timber Preserve. While there is an overlay for agriculture in the zoning ordinance, it is not applied over any parcel within the City limits. According to the California Department of Conservation Farmland Mapping & Monitoring Program, California Important Farmland Finder, the majority of lands within the City of Ukiah are identified as “Urban Built-Up Land”. There are two parcels within the City limits that are identified as “Prime Farmland”: APNs 00102063 and 18012004. APN 00102063 is located at 940 Low Gap Road and is part of the Russian River Cemetery that is partially developed with agricultural uses, as well as a roadway and parking area. APN 18012004 is a vacant parcel with some agricultural uses, located adjacent to 1825 Airport Road within the Airport Industrial Business Park. Discussion: (a-e) Less than significant. According to the California Department of Conservation Farmland Mapping & Monitoring Program, California Important Farmland Finder, the Project area does not contain Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance. However, the site is designated as Grazing Land, which is defined as land on which the existing vegetation is suited to the grazing of livestock but has not been used for grazing. There are no agricultural uses or Williamson Act contracts on-site or in the immediate vicinity. The Project would not convert Farmland, conflict with existing zoning for agriculture or forest land, and would not involve changes to the environment that would result in the conversion of agricultural resources to non-agriculture uses. Therefore, impacts to agricultural resources would be less than significant. 3. Air Quality AIR QUALITY. Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management district or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? b) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard? c) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? d) Result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people? Page 84 of 414 22 Ukiah Western Hills Open Land Acquisition and Limited Development Agreement Final Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Ukiah Significance Criteria: The Proposed Project would have a significant impact to air quality if it would conflict with an air quality plan, result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of criteria pollutant which the Mendocino County Air Quality Management District (MCAQMD) has designated as non- attainment, expose sensitive receptors to substantial concentrations of air pollutants, or result in emissions that create objectionable odors or otherwise adversely affect a substantial number of people. Environmental Setting: The Project is located within the North Coast Air Basin (NCAB), which includes Del Norte, Humboldt, Trinity, Mendocino, and northern Sonoma Counties, and is under the jurisdiction of the Mendocino County Air Quality Management District (MCAQMD). The area’s climate is considered Mediterranean, with warm, dry summers and cooler, wet winters. Summer high temperatures average in the 90’s with high temperatures on very warm days exceeding 105 degrees. Summer low temperatures range between 50-60 degrees. Winter high temperatures generally range in the 50’s and 60’s. The average annual temperature is 58 degrees. Winter cold-air inversions are common in the valley from November to February. Prevailing winds are generally from the north. Prevailing strong summer winds come from the northwest; however, winds can come from the south and east under certain short-lived conditions. In early autumn, strong, dry offshore winds may occur for several days in a row, which may cause air pollution created in the Sacramento Valley, Santa Rosa Plain, or even San Francisco Bay Area to move into the Ukiah Valley. The MCAQMD, which includes the City of Ukiah and surrounding areas, is designated as non- attainment for the State Standard for airborne particulate matter less than 10 microns in size (PM10). Particulate matter (PM) has significant documented health effects. The California Clean Air Act requires that any district that does not meet the PM10 standard make continuing progress to attain the standard at the earliest practicable date. The primary sources of PM10 are wood combustion emissions, fugitive dust from construction projects, automobile emissions and industry. Non- attainment of PM10 is most likely to occur during inversions in the winter. Regulation 1 of the MCAQMD contains three rules related to the control of fugitive dust: • Rule 1-400(a) prohibits activities that "cause injury, detriment, nuisance or annoyance to a considerable number of persons...or which endanger the...health or safety of...the public…" • Rule 1-430(a) prohibits activities which "...may allow unnecessary amounts of particulate matter to become airborne..." • Rule 1-430(b) requires that "...reasonable precautions shall be taken to prevent particulate matter from becoming airborne…" The MCAQMD provides the following significance thresholds for construction emissions: 1. 54 pounds per day of ROG  (reactive organic gas) 2. 54 pounds per day of NOx  (oxides of nitrogen as nitrogen dioxide) 3. 82 pounds per day of PM10 (particulate matter less than 10 microns in size) 4. 54 pounds per day of PM2.5 (airborne particulate matter with a diameter of 2.5 microns or less) 5. Best Management Practices for Fugitive Dust – PM10 and PM2.5 Page 85 of 414 23 Ukiah Western Hills Open Land Acquisition and Limited Development Agreement Final Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Ukiah Discussion: (a-d) Less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated. Improvement of roadways, installation of utilities, and construction of the water tank s, as well as future potential construction of single-family homes could result in impacts to air quality. Short-term construction related impacts (emissions and dust) would result from grading, vegetation removal, trenching, paving, operation of construction equipment, and vehicle trips associated with construction workers. The nearest sensitive receptor is the residence located at 680 Redwood Avenue, adjacent to the access point and approximately 700 ft away from proposed Development Parcel 1 (and further from the existing “house site” on this parcel). MCAQMD has a set of standard Best Management Practices (BMPs) and mitigation measures for construction projects that are intended to reduce air quality impacts and ensure that projects remain in attainment with air quality thresholds. In addition, in accordance with the City’s Hillside Overlay District, each individual housing project will require discretionary and environmental review and may require additional mitigation and air quality permits. By-rig ht development of Parcels 1-3 will also be subject to the mitigation measures below and air quality regulations through the County’s Building Permit process. With incorporation of the mitigation measures identified below, air quality impacts associated with short-term construction would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated. Long-term air quality impacts associated with single-family residential development is typically minimal and generally associated with vehicle trips, wood burning stoves, landscape and maintenance activities, etc. However, existing building codes requiring energy efficient and low emitting equipment and features for new residential development (see Section 6, Energy, Section 8, Greenhouse Gas Emission, and Section 17, Transportation of this Initial Study for more information). With adherence to the aforementioned regulations, and others intended to reduce emissions and impacts to air quality, impacts from operation of the Project would be less than significant. The MCAQMD has not established separate significance thresholds for cumulative operational emissions. The nature of air emissions is largely a cumulative impact. As a result, no single project is sufficient in size to, by itself, result in nonattainment of ambient air quality standards. Instead, a project’s individual emissions contribute to existing cumulatively significant adverse air quality impacts. The MCAQMD developed the operational thresholds of significance based on the level above which a project’s individual emissions would result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to the North Coast Air Basin’s existing air quality conditions. Therefore, a project that exceeds the MCAQMD operational thresholds would also be a cumulatively considerable contribution to a significant cumulative impact. Because each individual construction project (including development of the single- family homes) is required to be in attainment with the established MCAQMD thresholds, it is not likely that cumulative impacts would be significant. Mitigation Measures: AQ -1: Diesel Engines – Stationary and Portable Equipment and Mobile Vehicles: a.Any stationary onsite diesel IC engines 50 horsepower or greater (i.e. large power generators or pumps) or any propane or natural gas engines 250 horsepower or greater may require a permit from the District. b.Portable diesel powered equipment that may be used during the proposed project are required to be registered with the state Portable Equipment Registration Program (PERP) or obtain permits from the District. Page 86 of 414 24 Ukiah Western Hills Open Land Acquisition and Limited Development Agreement Final Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Ukiah c. Projects located adjacent to sensitive receptors (schools, child care facilities, health care facilities, senior facilities, businesses, and residences, etc.) during the construction phase of this project have the potential for exposure to diesel particulate. d. Heavy duty truck idling and off-road diesel equipment or other diesel engine idling is limited to less than 5 minutes. AQ-2: Grading Projects- During Construction-All grading activities must comply with the following fugitive dust mitigation measures in accordance with District Regulation 1, Rule 1-430: a. All visibly dry disturbed soil road surfaces shall be watered to minimize fugitive dust emissions. b. All unpaved surfaces, unless otherwise treated with suitable chemicals or oils, shall have a posted speed limit of 10 mph. c. Earth or other material that has been transported by trucking or earth moving equipment, erosion by water, or other means onto paved streets shall be promptly removed. d. Asphalt, oil, water, or suitable chemicals shall be applied on materials stockpiles, and other surfaces that can give rise airborne dusts. e. All earthmoving activities shall cease when sustained winds exceed 15 mph. f. The operator shall take reasonable precautions to prevent the entry of unauthorized vehicles onto the site during non-work hours. g. The operator shall keep a daily log of activities to control fugitive dust. h. For projects greater than one acre or one mile of road not located within a Naturally Occurring Asbestos Area, prior to starting any construction the applicant is required to: 1. Submit a Large Area Grading permit application to the District. 2. Obtain a final determination from the Air Quality Management District as to the need for an Asbestos Dust Mitigation Plan and/or Geologic Survey to comply with CCR sections 93106 and 93105 relating to Naturally Occurring Asbestos. 3. Obtain written verification from the District stating that the project is in compliance with State and Local regulations relating to Naturally Occurring Asbestos. 4. If the project is located within a Naturally Occurring Asbestos Area, additional mitigations shall be required. AQ-3: Property Development-Prior to starting any construction, the applicant is required to: a. Obtain a Property Development Permit from the District for any open outdoor burning. b. Obtain a Grading Permit, if applicable. c. Confirm whether the project is in a Naturally Occurring Asbestos Area, and follow additional MCAQMD recommendations, if applicable. d. Consider alternate means of disposal other than open burning, such as cutting the majority of the larger material up as firewood, and chipping smaller material, if feasible to mitigate impacts from open outdoor burning. e. Obtain written verification from the MCAQMD stating that the project is in compliance with State and Local regulations. Page 87 of 414 25 Ukiah Western Hills Open Land Acquisition and Limited Development Agreement Final Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Ukiah 4. Biological Resources BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 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 the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? 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 the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? c) Have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? 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? e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? Significance Criteria: Project impacts upon biological resources would be significant if any of the following resulted: substantial direct or indirect effect on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local/regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) or any species protected under provisions of the Migratory Bird treaty Act (e.g. burrowing owls); substantial effect upon riparian habitat or other sensitive natural communities identified in local/regional plans, policies, or regulations or by the agencies listed above; substantial effect (e.g., fill, removal, hydrologic interruption) upon state or federally protected wetlands; substantially interfere with movement of native resident or migratory wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors; conflict with any local policies/ordinances that protect biological resources or conflict with a habitat conservation plan. Environmental Setting: Regionally, the Project area has historically been used primarily for timber and firewood production, recreation, homesite development, and wildlife habitat. The Project area is comprised of five non-sensitive biological communities: Cismontane Woodland, Valley and foothill grassland, and Broadleaved upland forest habitat. According to USDA Forest Service CALVEG mapping delineation, the regionally dominant vegetation type within the Project area is comprised of Page 88 of 414 26 Ukiah Western Hills Open Land Acquisition and Limited Development Agreement Final Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Ukiah Black oak, Oregon white oak, Pacific Douglas-fir, Douglas-fir-Ponderosa pine, Interior live oak and Interior mixed hardwood. A Biological Assessment Report (BRA) was prepared for the Project by Jacobszoon & Associates, Inc. (Jacobszoon) in March, 2021 and updated in April, 2021 (Attachment B). The BRA is designed to identify sensitive communities within the study area and determine the existence or potential occurrence for special-status species. The “study area” referred to within the report and this analysis comprises approximately 55 acres and includes existing dirt and gravel roads, fire breaks, water tank pad sites, and areas cleared for potential house sites. In addition, surveys extended out 100 feet from the roadway. The BRA includes the analysis and comparison of existing habitat conditions within the study area and the documented range and habitat requirements of sensitive plant and wildlife species described in CDFW’s California Wildlife Habitat Relationships System (CWHR). Jacobszoon conducted a field survey of the Project area on February 5, 2021, to document: (1) the on-site plant communities, (2) existing conditions and their ability to provide suitable habitat for any special-status plant or wildlife species, and (3) if sensitive biological communities (e.g. wetlands, vernal pools) are present. Prior to the field survey, biological information databases were accessed to determine whether sensitive biological communities, special-status species or other sensitive areas were documented within the vicinity of the study area. Existing vegetative communities were reviewed using the CDFW Vegetation Classification and Mapping Program (VegCAMP). Databases queried for the occurrence of special-status species include the USFWS Information for Planning and Consultation (IPaC), California Native Plant Society (CNPS) Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants, and the CDFW’s California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) Spotted Owl Data Viewer, RareFind and Quick Viewer, which consist of mapped overlays of all known populations of sensitive plants and wildlife. In addition, a USFWS protocol-level botanical survey was completed on March 30, 2021, May 17, 2021, and July 9, 2021. Discussion: (a) Less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated. Based on the database research mentioned above, the study area does not contain and is not adjacent to critical habitat for any Federal or State listed Species. However, based on existing vegetation and known habitat range, seventeen (17) special-status plant species and thirteen (13) special-status wildlife species have a moderate or high potential to occur within the study area. However, during the field survey, none were observed on-site. Because no special status plant species were observed during the field survey, the Project is not anticipated to result in significant impacts to them. However, this does not preclude the possibility of wildlife species being present at the time of construction or being impacted from vegetation removal, grading, and other ground disturbing activities for utility extension, road improvements, water tank construction, and future residential development. In addition, two sensitive woodland tree habitats were identified in the Project Area. As described below, the Project does not propose removal of trees but if future residential development does, preconstruction surveys and coordination with the California Department of Fish and Wildlife will be required. Therefore, as summarized below, Mitigation Measures BIO-1 through BIO-5 are proposed to ensure impacts to sensitive species are reduced to less than significant. Therefore, impacts to special status species would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated. Please refer to the complete BRA in Attachment B for more information, including a complete analysis of impacts to each of these species. Plants. Seventeen (17) special-status plant species have a moderate to high potential to occur within the study area based on habitat requirements. These include: mountain lady’s slipper, Koch’s cord moss, stinkbells, Roderick’s fritillary, Mendocino tarplant, congested-headed hayfield tarplant, Contra Costa goldsfields, bristly leptosiphon, broad-lobed leptosiphon, redwood lily, green monardella, white- Page 89 of 414 27 Ukiah Western Hills Open Land Acquisition and Limited Development Agreement Final Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Ukiah flowered rein orchid, mayacamas popcornflower, beaked tracyina, showy Indian clover, Methuselah’s beard lichen, and oval-leaved vibunum. However, as described in the BRA (Section 5.2), no special- status plant species were observed within the study area during the field survey. Because no special status plant species were observed during the field survey, the Project is not anticipated to result in significant impacts to them. Botanical surveys were completed per USFWS protocols on March 30, 2021, May 17, 2021 and July 9, 2021, and found no sensitive plant species. Therefore, the Project would not impact sensitive plants. The Biological Resources Assessment Addendum for the Rare Plant Assessment and Botanical Survey are included as Attachment B1. Trees. The BRA identifies the following two sensitive tree communities in the Study Area: Quercus garryana Forest & Woodland Alliance: Oregon white oak forest and woodland and Umbellularia californica Forest & Woodland Alliance: California bay forest and woodland. Both communities are classified as having a California Department of Wildlife State Rarity Rank of S3 (Vulnerable). No trees are proposed for removal. However, if future development proposes removal of trees, Mitigation Measure BIO-1 requires pre-construction surveys to be completed in order to identify species and ensure that removal of them is done in accordance with the California Department of Fish and Wildlife regulations. Amphibians. One special-status amphibian, red-bellied newt (Taricha rivularis), has a moderate or high potential to occur within the study area. While none were observed during the field survey, implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-2, requiring pre-construction surveys, and a Biologist to be present during any dewatering activities (if proposed in the future), would reduce potential impacts to special status amphibian species to less than significant. Fish. The Study Area does not contain any special-status fish species or fish bearing watercourses or waterbodies. No special-status fish were observed during the biological site assessment. Future development within the study area does not have the potential to impact special-status fish species; no impact. Birds. Although none were observed during the field survey, five special-status avian species have moderate or high potential to occur within the study area: northern goshawk (Accipiter gentilis), golden eagle (Aquila chrysaetos), osprey (Pandion haliaetus), yellow warbler (Setophaga petechia), and northern spotted owl (Strix occidentalis caurina). Additionally, most non-game bird species in California are protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA), which prohibits the deliberate destruction of active nests belonging to protected species. While none were observed in the field survey, groundbreaking activities, specifically vegetation removal, within the study area during avian breeding periods have the potential to significantly impact nesting migratory bird species. Therefore, Mitigation Measure BIO-3, requiring pre-construction surveys and protection of nests (if found) would be implemented to reduce any potential impacts to less than significant. Insects. Although none were observed during the field survey, two special-status insect species have moderate or high potential to occur within the study area: the obscure bumble bee (Bombus caliginosus) and western bumble bee (Bombus occidentalis). Implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-4, requiring pre-construction surveys and protection of nests (if found), would reduce potential impacts to less than significant. Mammals. Five special-status mammal species have moderate or high potential to occur within the study area: Sonoma tree vole (Arborimus pomo), North American porcupine (Erethizon dorsatum), western red bat (Lasiurus blossevillii), hoary bat (Lasiurus cinereus), and fisher [West Coast DPS] Page 90 of 414 28 Ukiah Western Hills Open Land Acquisition and Limited Development Agreement Final Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Ukiah (Pekania pennanti). While none were observed during the field survey, implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-5, requiring pre-construction surveys, would reduce potential impacts to less than significant. (b-c) Less than significant impact. No sensitive biological communities, including riparian habitat are proposed for removal. See Discussion (a) above for more information. No wetlands, were observed within or immediately adjacent to the study area. The study area does not contain any special-status fish species or fish bearing watercourses or waterbodies. The Study Area contains two (2) Class II watercourses and four (4) Class III watercourses that were observed and mapped on-site. The closest watercourse is a Class II watercourse located on APN 001-040-83 (existing Parcel 1 and proposed Parcel 8) of the study area. This Class II watercourse is mapped on the USFWS National Wetland Inventory as a riverine habitat classified as R4SBC. R4SBC is a riverine intermittent system with a streambed and is seasonally flooded. Riverine systems are considered watercourses for the purposes of this assessment. The Proposed Project will not impact this watercourse, as it would be included in proposed Parcel 8, which will be preserved as open space. For the reasons discussed above, the Project would not result in a significant impact to sensitive biological communities or wetlands. If future work in or adjacent to any of the other watercourses are proposed, the Developer is required to obtain necessary regulatory permits from the California Department of Fish and Wildlife and the Regional Water Quality Control Board, as necessary. Impacts would be less than significant. (d) Less than significant impact. There are no established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or native wildlife nursery sites within the Project area. Because the Project includes preservation of approximately 640 acres, the Project will preserve existing habitat for wildlife species. The potential for low-density residential development may include some minor vegetation removal, but it would not substantially change foraging or wintering habitat for migratory birds. Additionally, no significant impacts to migratory corridors for amphibian, aquatic, avian, mammalian, or reptilian species is expected as a result of the Proposed Project. Impacts would be less than significant. (e-f) Less than significant impact. There are no adopted Habitat Conservation Plans for the City of Ukiah, nor the larger Ukiah Valley that apply to the site. The Project proposes approximately 640 acres of open space for wildlife habitat. Impacts would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures: BIO-1: Sensitive Trees. If trees are proposed for removal, preconstruction surveys shall be conducted by a qualified biologist to identify Oregon white oak forest and woodland, as well as California bay forest and woodland habitat; removal of sensitive habitat shall be conducted in accordance with California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) regulations. BIO-2: Sensitive Amphibian Species. A qualified biologist shall survey the area prior to any groundbreaking activities to determine the presence of Red-belly newt, or other sensitive amphibian species, and identify additional avoidance measures, if needed. A qualified biologist shall be on-site for any dewatering event to address the potential for the presence of sensitive amphibian species such as foothill yellow-legged frog (Rana boylii). BIO-3: Nesting Birds. Pre-construction surveys shall be conducted prior to any vegetation removal or ground disturbing activities occurring between March 1 and August 31 of any year. All active bird Page 91 of 414 29 Ukiah Western Hills Open Land Acquisition and Limited Development Agreement Final Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Ukiah nests shall not be removed, relocated, or otherwise disturbed for any purpose until all fledglings have left the nest. BIO-4: Special-Status Insects. A qualified biologist shall survey the area prior to any groundbreaking activities to determine the presence of special-status insect species and identify additional avoidance measures if needed. If a special-status insect nests are observed, active nests shall not be removed, relocated, or otherwise disturbed until the nest becomes inactive. BIO-5: Special-Status Mammals. Pre-construction surveys shall be conducted prior to any vegetation removal or ground disturbing activities. If evidence of bat roosts is observed (i.e. bat guano, ammonia odor, grease stained cavities) around trees or structures, pre-construction bat surveys shall be conducted by a qualified biologist for activities that may affect bat roosting habitat and den sites. 5. Cultural Resources CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in §15064.5? b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5? c) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of dedicated cemeteries? Significance Criteria: The proposed Project would significantly impact cultural resources if the significance of a historical or archaeological resource were substantially changed, or if human remains were disturbed. Under CEQA, cultural resources must be evaluated to determine their eligibility for listing in the California Register of Historic Resources (CRHR). If a cultural resource is determined ineligible for listing on the CRHR the resource is released from management responsibilities and a project can proceed without further cultural resource considerations. As set forth in Section 5024.1(c) of the Public Resources Code for a cultural resource to be deemed “important” under CEQA and thus eligible for listing on the California Register of Historic Resources (CRHR), it must meet at least one of the following criteria: 1) Is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of California History and cultural heritage; or 2) Is associated with the lives of persons important to our past; or 3) Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction, or represents the work of an important creative individual, or possess high artistic value; or 4) Has yielded or is likely to yield, information important to prehistory or history. Archaeological resources are commonly evaluated with regard to Criteria 4 (research potential). Historic-era structures older than 50 years are most commonly evaluated in reference to Criteria 1 (important events), Criteria 2 (important persons) or Criteria 3 (architectural value). To be considered Page 92 of 414 30 Ukiah Western Hills Open Land Acquisition and Limited Development Agreement Final Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Ukiah eligible under these criteria the property must retain sufficient integrity to convey its important qualities. Integrity is judged in relation to seven aspects including: location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association. Guidelines for the implementation of CEQA define procedures, types of activities, persons, and public agencies required to comply with CEQA. Section 15064.5(b) prescribes that project effects that would “cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an historical resource” are significant effects on the environment. Substantial adverse changes include both physical changes to the historical resource, or to its immediate surroundings. Public Resources Code Section 21083.2 also defines “unique archaeological resources” as “any archaeological artifact, object, or site about which it can be clearly demonstrated that, without merely adding to the current body of knowledge, there is a high probability that it meets any of the following criteria: • Contains information needed to answer important scientific research questions and show that there is a demonstrable public interest in that information. • Has a special and particular quality, such as being the oldest of its type or the best available example of its type. • Is directly associated with a scientifically recognized important prehistoric or historic event or person." This definition is equally applicable to recognizing “a unique paleontological resource or site.” CEQA Section 15064.5 (a)(3)(D), which indicates “generally, a resource shall be considered historically significant if it has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history,” provides additional guidance. Assembly Bill 52 (effective on July 1, 2015) requires that before a negative declaration, mitigated negative declaration, or environmental impact report for a project is prepared, the lead agency for the project must seek consultation with tribes associated with the location of the project. To receive referrals, each tribe must have previously made a written request to the lead agency in order to be consulted on projects occurring in their geographic areas of interest. For all projects necessitating referral, staff also extends review opportunity of any discretionary project to relevant or nearby entities identified by the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC). Environmental Setting: The Ukiah Township lies in a valley of the Russian River, bounded on the north by Calpella Township, on the east by Lake County, on the south by Sanel Township, and on the west by Anderson Township. The City of Ukiah was first settled in 1856 by Samuel Lowry. Initially incorporated into Sonoma County, an independent Mendocino County government was established in 1859 with Ukiah as the chosen county seat. Logging, cattle, and agricultural ventures contributed to the early settlement and growth of Ukiah throughout the remainder of the 19th century and early 20th century. 1889 is the date recorded for the first arrival of the train to Ukiah, quickly resulting in increased settlement of the City and its environs. The City of Ukiah is within the territory of the Northern Pomo. Permanent villages were often established in areas with access to staple foods, often times along eco- tones (transitions between varying environments), with access to good water, and generally flat land (Environmental Science Associates, 2013). Areas that are most typically culturally sensitive include those adjacent to streams, springs, and mid-slope benches above watercourses because Native Americans and settlers favored easy access to potable water. Page 93 of 414 31 Ukiah Western Hills Open Land Acquisition and Limited Development Agreement Final Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Ukiah The name Ukiah is a modification of the Indian word YO-KIA or YO-KAYO, which signified “deep valley”. Distributed over the lands of Mendocino, Lake, and Sonoma Counties are many independent bands of Pomo Indians. Seven distinct and mutually unintelligible languages are recognized under the rubric of Pomo. These languages are delineated by geographic divisions, which include: Northern, Central, Southern, Eastern, Southeastern, Northeastern, and Southwestern. The land that contains the project area is ethnographically attributed to speakers of the Central Pomo language. Early settlers in Mendocino County found the interior coast valleys ideal for farming and ranching. Problems quickly developed between Anglo setters and local Native Americans involving struggles over territory and competition over food between livestock and people. In 1855 two Indian reservations were established in Mendocino County for the purpose of “collecting, removing and subsisting” local tribes. The Mendocino Reservation was established on the coast near Fort Bragg and the Nome Cult Farm in Round Valley. After some years on the Nome Cult Farm, Captain Jack and a group of Potter Valley Indians left the reservation and returned home. In 1879, they purchased land near Ukiah, which later became known as Pinoleville and is the Pinoleville Rancheria today, located north of the City limits. Two unnamed creek drainages flow through two of the parcels at the bottom of steep canyons. The terrain is very rugged and steep; very few areas of flat terrain are present. Two perennial streams flow about 2,000-feet to the north and south—Gibson Creek and Doolan Creek, respectively. The soils are characterized as both Hopland, which consist of f very deep, well drained soils formed in colluvium and residuum weathered from sandstone or shale on steep hills and slopes, and Maymen soils that are shallow, somewhat excessively drained soils that formed in residuum weathered from shale, schist, greenstone, sandstone and conglomerate. These soils have a shallow depth to bedrock. Discussion: (a-c) Less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated. An Archeological Survey Report (ASR; omitted for confidentiality) was prepared by Alta Archeological Consulting (Alta) in March 2021. The purpose of the ASR is to identify any archaeological, historical, or cultural resources located within the 55 acres (APNs 001-040-83, 157-070-01, 157-070-02, 003-190-01, 157- 050-09) included in the Development Agreement to be developed with single family homes at some point in the future. On January 20, 2020, Alta requested a records search at the Northwest Information Center (NWIC) located on the campus of Sonoma State University (File No. 20-1364). The NWIC, an affiliate of the State of California Office of Historic Preservation is the official state repository of archaeological and historical records and reports for an 18-county area that includes Mendocino County. The records search included a review of all study reports on file within a one-half mile radius of the Project Area. A search of cultural resources included a one-quarter-mile radius. Sources consulted include archaeological site and survey base maps, survey reports, site records, and historic General Land Office (GLO) maps; the National Register of Historic Places, California Historical Landmarks, California Register of Historical Resources, and the California Points of Historical Interest as updated by the Office of Historic Preservation (OHP) History Property Directory (OHP 07-2012). The OHP Built Environment Resource Directory (BERD) was also reviewed for the City of Ukiah. A review of historic registers and inventories indicate that no historical landmarks or points of interest are present in the Project area. No National Register listed or eligible properties are located within the 0.5-mile visual area of the Project area. A review of archaeological site and survey maps revealed that three cultural resource studies have been previously performed within a one-half mile radius of the current Project area and one study has been conducted within the Project area; the studies found that no cultural resources are documented within quarter-mile radius of the Project area, nor within the Project are itself. A field survey was conducted by Alta on February 5, 2021. Due to very steep terrain (some areas contain slopes greater than 50%) and vegetation cover, the field survey was conducted on Page 94 of 414 32 Ukiah Western Hills Open Land Acquisition and Limited Development Agreement Final Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Ukiah approximately 28-acres (areas with less than or approximately 30% slope), including areas along roadways and walkable slopes and flat areas with exposed soils to investigate for evidence of cultural materials. Survey areas included potential house sites, the proposed water tank site, and areas to be improved with utilities and pavement along the access road. These areas were surveyed using intensive survey coverage with transects no greater than 20-meter intervals. As described in the ASR, areas containing steep slopes that were not able to be surveyed are not considered high probability areas for yielding archaeological resources. However, these areas were observed using a cursory inspection of the terrain and landscape. No cultural resources were identified within the Project area as a result of the records search, literature review, or archaeological field survey. In addition, given the steep terrain, the potential for substantial prehistoric or historic settlement is considered low. Therefore, the Project activities are not anticipated to cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in §15064.5. Although no tribes have contacted the City of Ukiah to request notification under AB 52, tribal notifications offering the opportunity to request formal consultation were sent to local tribes on December 15, 2020. In addition, a request seeking a list of tribes that should be contacted was sent to the NAHC. Notices were sent to the additional tribes identified by the NAHC on January 14, 2021. On January 28, 2021, a request for formal consultation by the Pinoleville Pomo Nation was received; AB52 consultation was concluded with the tribe on May 3, 2021. Correspondence with Pinoleville Pomo Nation has been omitted for confidentiality. The list of tribes contacted are included in Attachment C. Despite the negative findings and the low potential for buried deposits in the area, it is possible unanticipated discoveries of cultural and archaeological resources can occur during ground disturbing activities in areas considered to be of low sensitivity. Therefore, the following mitigation measures (that will be incorporated as Conditions of Approval for future development) are proposed to ensure that unknown cultural resources are not adversely affected by the Proposed Project. Impacts to cultural, archeological and historical resources would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated. Mitigation Measures: CUL-1: Unanticipated Discovery. If previously unidentified cultural, historic, palentologic or archeologic resources are encountered during project implementation, altering the materials and their stratigraphic context shall be avoided and work shall halt immediately. A qualified professional archaeologist shall be contacted to evaluate the resource and methods necessary to protect it. Project personnel shall not collect, move, or disturb cultural resources. Prehistoric resources include, but are not limited to, chert or obsidian flakes, projectile points, mortars, pestles, and dark friable soil containing shell and bone dietary debris, heat-affected rock, or human burials. Historic resources include stone or abode foundations or walls; structures and remains with square nails; and refuse deposits or bottle dumps, often located in old wells or privies. CUL-2: Encountering Native American Remains. If human remains are encountered during ground disturbing activities, all work shall stop in the immediate vicinity of the discovered remains and the County Coroner and a qualified archaeologist shall be notified immediately so that an evaluation can be performed. If the remains are deemed to be Native American and prehistoric, the Native American Heritage Commission must be contacted by the Coroner so that a “Most Likely Descendant” can be designated and further recommendations regarding treatment of the remains will be provided. Page 95 of 414 33 Ukiah Western Hills Open Land Acquisition and Limited Development Agreement Final Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Ukiah 6. Energy ENERGY. Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation? b) Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency? Significance Criteria: The Proposed Project would significantly impact energy if construction or operation of the Project would result in wasteful, inefficient or unnecessary consumption of energy resources or if the Project would conflict with a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency. Environmental Setting: Current building codes require energy efficiency systems to be included in their plans for permit review. These building codes are regularly updated, statewide through California Building Energy Efficiency Standards for Residential and Nonresidential Buildings (California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 6), commonly referred to as “Title 24”. In general, Title 24 requires the design of building shells and building components to conserve energy, with standards to promote better windows, insulation, lighting, ventilation systems, and other features that reduce energy consumption in homes and businesses. The standards are updated periodically to allow consideration and possible incorporation of new energy efficiency technologies and methods. The current Title 24 regulations and Building Energy Efficiency Standards promote photovoltaic systems in newly constructed residential buildings. The City’s Electric Utility Department has a solar rebate program for residents and business owners to encouraged local consumers to increasingly rely on renewable resources for their direct power needs. Discussion: (a-b) Less than significant impact. The Proposed Project, including the Development Agreement, does not include specific development designs or proposals, nor does it grant any entitlements for development. Future housing projects will be analyzed on a project level basis subject to the County’s and City’s building and safety codes, as well as Title 24 regulations (and others) to promote energy efficiency. Generally speaking, future project construction would consume energy in two general forms: (1) the fuel energy consumed by construction vehicles and equipment; and (2) bound energy in construction materials, such as asphalt, steel, concrete, pipes, and manufactured or processed materials such as lumber and glass. Fossil fuels for construction vehicles and other energy-consuming equipment would be used during site clearing, grading, and construction. Fuel energy consumed during construction would be temporary and would not represent a significant demand on energy resources. Project construction equipment would also be required to comply with the latest California Air Resources Board (CARB) and Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) engine emissions standards which require highly efficient combustion systems that maximize fuel efficiency and reduce unnecessary fuel consumption. Once constructed, future residential uses would consume energy for interior and exterior lighting, HVAC systems, refrigeration, electronics systems, appliances, and security systems, among other Page 96 of 414 34 Ukiah Western Hills Open Land Acquisition and Limited Development Agreement Final Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Ukiah common household features. However, each residence would be required to comply with Title 24 Building Energy Efficiency Standards, which provide minimum efficiency standards related to various building features, including appliances, water and space heating and cooling equipment, building insulation and roofing, and lighting. Implementation of the Title 24 standards significantly reduces energy usage. In addition, residents would have access to the City’s solar rebate program to incentivize the use of renewal energy. With adherence to the aforementioned regulations, and others intended to reduce energy consumption, impacts from the Proposed Project related to energy consumption would be less than significant. 7. Geology and Soils GEOLOGY AND SOILS. Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42? ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? iv) Landslides? b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property? e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? f) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? Significance Criteria: The Proposed Project would result in a significant impact to geological or soil resources if it exposed people or structures to seismic risk; ruptured a known fault; produced strong Page 97 of 414 35 Ukiah Western Hills Open Land Acquisition and Limited Development Agreement Final Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Ukiah seismic ground shaking, ground failure, liquefaction, landslides or substantial soil erosion; is located on expansive soil or unstable ground, or would create unstable ground; or destroyed a unique paleontological resource or geologic feature. Environmental Setting: The Ukiah Valley is part of an active seismic region that contains the Mayacama Fault, which traverses the valley in a generally northwest-southeast direction east of the Project area. Based on California Geological Survey maps and the Background Report for the County of Mendocino General Plan Update (prepared by P.M.C., 2003), lands within the Western Hills are identified as being located on a somewhat unstable geologic formation but are not located within the Alquist Priolo Fault Zone, or in a landslide or liquefaction zone. However, due to steep slopes (50% in many areas) in the Western Hills, there is some risk of hazards related to slope instability, depending on the location, intensity and design of development. The Project area is situated within the Coast Range geologic province. The North Coast Range is comprised of a geologic feature unique to California, the Franciscan Formation, which dictates the vegetative communities. The Franciscan Formation is comprised of serpentine, sandstone, and other sedimentary rocks. The soils within the Project site are characterized as both Hopland, which consist of consists of very deep, well drained soils formed in colluvium and residuum weathered from sandstone or shale on steep hills and slopes, and Maymen soils that are shallow, somewhat excessively drained soils that formed in residuum weathered from shale, schist, greenstone, sandstone and conglomerate. These soils have a shallow depth to bedrock. Discussion: (a i-iii) Less than significant impact. As noted above, the Project site is not in a California Earthquake Fault Zone and is not susceptible to liquefaction or strong seismic ground shaking. All future development will be required to adhere to safety and seismic regulations. The Project does not include approval of any entitlements for development of homes. After the parcels are annexed into the City, Development Parcels 4-7 would not be developed until an applicant submits a project-specific site plan with a Use Permit application and receives Planning Commission approval for development of a home, in accordance with the Hillside Overlay Zoning District regulations. As outlined in the Hillside Overlay District regulations (UCC §9139 (c)), a soils engineering report completed by a professional engineer registered in the state of California is required to be submitted during the discretionary review period for development, including future single family residential, within the Hillside Overlay District. Although Development Parcels 1-3 may be developed within the County’s jurisdiction prior to annexation by-right, they will be required to be developed to R1-H standards through CC&Rs. In addition, all mitigation measures identified for residential development in the ISMND will be applied to Development Parcels 1-3. As such, impacts to geology and soils related to these issues would be less than significant. (a iv & b-c) Less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated. Improvement of roadways, installation of utilities, and construction of the water tanks would be within previously disturbed areas, but may include additional grading, trenching and vegetation removal. Future potential construction of single family homes could also require vegetation removal and grading; these activities could result in impacts associated with erosion, the loss of topsoil and landslides if not properly designed. However, the aforementioned activities must be completed in accordance with applicable safety codes and the below standard mitigation measure requires sediment and erosion plans identifying BMPs to reduce soil erosion and water runoff to reduce or avoid impacts to geology and soils to be submitted prior to any ground disturbance, in accordance with Ukiah City Code (“UCC”) Division 9, Chapter 7, Erosion and Sediment Control. In addition, R1-H development standards (which will be applied to all Page 98 of 414 36 Ukiah Western Hills Open Land Acquisition and Limited Development Agreement Final Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Ukiah Development Parcels) require submittal of Geotechnical Reports, Grading Plans, Hydrology Reports, etc. to ensure development is being properly designed, and will include a set of site/project specific recommended Best Management Practices and Mitigation Measures (if needed) for future development projects to avoid impacts to geology and soils. Lastly, the City’s Hillside Overlay District requires discretionary and environmental review for new construction and grading activities within the Western Hills (Development Parcels 4-7). Specifically, any parcel of land or subdivision having an average ground gradient across any portion of the property in excess of fifteen percent (15%) requires a Use Permit issuable by the Planning Commission with a right of appeal to the City Council. The review process will include review of site plans by internal and external departments and agencies to ensure compliance with all applicable local, state and federal safety standards. Development Parcels 1-3 would be required to adhere to R1-H development standards (and the below mitigation measures) and would be reviewed for seismic safety during the County’s Building Permit process. For the above reasons, impacts to geology from the loss of topsoil, erosion and landslides would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated. (d-e) Less than significant impact. An onsite community sewer system (holding tank) with a sewer line, rather than a leach field, will be constructed for discharging wastewater (effluent only) to a sewer main at the end of Redwood Avenue. The soils at the Project site are not identified as being expansive and could adequately support the sewer system. In addition, building code, Mendocino County of Environmental Health, and Public Works’ requirements will ensure that the sewer system is adequately installed in accordance with all standards related to safety. Impacts would be less than significant. (f) Less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated. As described in Section 5, Cultural Resources, of this Initial Study, although not anticipated, the potential exists for unique paleontological resources or site or unique geological features to be encountered within the Project area during ground-disturbing construction activities. However, in the event that resources are discovered during construction, Mitigation Measure CUL-1 requires the protection of the resources. Impacts would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated. Mitigation Measures: Implementation of CUL-1. GEO-1: The Project shall comply with the erosion and design standards outlined in Chapter 7 of the Ukiah City Code. Prior to any ground disturbance, erosion and sediment control plans shall be submitted to the Public Works and Community Development Departments for review and approval. Said plans shall protect against soil erosion and runoff through the implementation of appropriate Best Management Practices (BMPs). Typical BMPs include the placement of straw, mulch, seeding, straw wattles, silt fencing, etc. No silt, sediment or other materials shall be allowed to flow from the project area. Page 99 of 414 37 Ukiah Western Hills Open Land Acquisition and Limited Development Agreement Final Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Ukiah 8. Greenhouse Gas Emissions GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS. Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment? b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? Significance Criteria: The Project would have a significant effect on greenhouse gas emissions if it would generate greenhouse gas emissions (GHG), either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment; or conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of GHGs. Environmental Setting: Climate change is caused by greenhouse gases (GHGs) emitted into the atmosphere around the world from a variety of sources, including the combustion of fuel for energy and transportation, cement manufacturing, and refrigerant emissions. GHGs are those gases that have the ability to trap heat in the atmosphere, a process that is analogous to the way a greenhouse traps heat. GHGs may be emitted a result of human activities, as well as through natural processes. Increasing GHG concentrations in the atmosphere are leading to global climate change. Carbon dioxide (CO 2 ) is the most important anthropogenic GHG because it comprises the majority of total GHG emissions emitted per year and it is very long-lived in the atmosphere. Typically, when evaluating GHG emissions they are expressed as carbon dioxide equivalents, or CO 2 e, which is a means of weighting the global warming potential (GWP) of the different gases relative to the global warming effect of CO 2 , which has a GWP value of one. In the United States, CO 2 emissions account for about 85 percent of the CO 2 e emissions, followed by methane at about eight percent, and nitrous oxide at about five percent. The state of California has adopted various administrative initiatives and legislation relating to climate change, much of which set aggressive goals for GHG emissions reductions statewide. Although lead agencies must evaluate climate change and GHG emissions of projects subject to CEQA, the CEQA Guidelines do not require or suggest specific methodologies for performing an assessment or specific thresholds of significance and do not specify GHG reduction mitigation measures. No state agency has developed binding regulations for analyzing GHG emissions, determining their significance, or mitigating significant effects in CEQA documents. Thus, lead agencies exercise their discretion in determining how to analyze GHGs. Because there are no adopted GHG thresholds applicable to the Project, and the proposed development is considered “small scale”, the below qualitative analysis is appropriate. Discussion: (a-b) Less than significant impact. Activities at the site would be subject to regulations of the Mendocino County Air Quality Management District (MCAQMD), which is responsible for enforcing the state and federal Clean Air Acts as well as local air quality protection regulations. As noted in Chapter 4 (Resource Management Element) of the Mendocino County General Plan (2009), because Mendocino County is primarily rural, the amount of GHG generated by human activities (primarily the burning of fossil fuels for vehicles, heating, and other uses) is small in total compared to Page 100 of 414 38 Ukiah Western Hills Open Land Acquisition and Limited Development Agreement Final Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Ukiah other, more urban counties (although higher per capita due to the distances involved in traveling around the county) and miniscule in statewide or global terms. Construction activities associated with the Project and future housing development could result in direct and indirect emissions of GHG emissions. Direct project-related GHG emissions generally include emissions from construction activities, area sources, and mobile sources, while indirect sources include emissions from electricity consumption, water demand, and solid waste generation. Operational GHG emissions would result from energy emissions from natural gas usage and automobile emissions. As discussed in Section 3, Air Quality, of this Initial Study, the Project (both construction and operation) would not result in a significant negative impact to air quality. Similarly, as discussed in Section 17, Transportation, the Project would not produce significant amounts of traffic or vehicle miles traveled that would in turn result in a significant increase in GHG emissions. Individual residential development projects constructed under the Development Agreement will be reviewed on a project by project basis to analyze GHG emissions and will be required to follow all building codes and policies including those intended to reduce emissions. Specifically, future residential uses constructed on all Development Parcels would be required to adhere to all federal, state, and local requirements for energy efficiency, including the Title 24 standards. Compliance with Title 24 Building Energy Efficiency Standards would provide minimum efficiency standards related to various building features, including appliances, water and space heating and cooling equipment, building insulation and roofing, and lighting. Implementation of the Title 24 standards significantly reduces energy usage, as well as GHG emissions. Lastly, the Project includes annexation and conservation of approximately 640 acres, which will have no impact (or a beneficial impact) on GHG, given that the Project is located within a non-attainment area, the rural nature of the site, and small development footprint, the Project, including infrastructure improvements and other temporary construction activities, is not expected to significantly increase GHG in the area. With implementation of the aforementioned regulations, impacts to GHG emissions would be less than significant. 9. Hazards and Hazardous Materials HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? Page 101 of 414 39 Ukiah Western Hills Open Land Acquisition and Limited Development Agreement Final Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Ukiah HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area? f) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? g) Expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires? Significance Criteria: The Project would result in significant hazards or hazardous materials impacts if it exposed people to hazardous materials or placed them into hazardous situations; if it released hazardous materials or emissions into the environment or within 0.25 miles of a school; if it is located on a listed hazardous materials site; if it would create a hazard due to its proximity to a public airport or private airstrip; if it would create excessive noise for people in the area; if it would interfere with an emergency response or evacuation plan; or if it would expose people or structures to significant risks due to wildland fire. Environmental Setting: Mendocino County has adopted numerous plans related to hazard management and mitigation including, but not limited to: Community Wildfire Protection Plan, Hazardous Waste Management Plan, Operational Area Emergency Plan, etc. The most recent plan, the Mendocino County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan (MJHMP) was adopted by the County in December, 2020. The MJHMP provides an explanation of prevalent hazards within the County, identifies risks to vulnerable assets, both people and property, and provides a mitigation strategy to achieve the greatest risk reduction based upon available resources. The four cities within Mendocino County, including the City of Ukiah, participated in preparation of the MJHMP to individually assess hazards, explore hazard vulnerability, develop mitigation strategies, and create their own plan for each respective city (referred to as a “jurisdictional annex” to the MJHMP). The City of Ukiah adopted its jurisdictional annex chapter of the MJHMP on November 18, 2020. Hazards identified for the City if Ukiah include earthquakes, wildfire, dam failure, flood and pandemic. Table 1-13 of the City’s jurisdictional annex lists each hazard and mitigation action for City of Ukiah. The Ukiah Municipal Airport is located within the City of Ukiah jurisdictional limits. The Ukiah Municipal Airport Master Plan and the Mendocino County Airport Comprehensive Land Use Plan (ACLUP; 1996) has been the plan identifying areas with potential hazards and impacts to persons residing or working within the Airport Master Plan area for the last several decades. However, in February 2019, the City of Ukiah, in coordination with the County of Mendocino and the Mendocino County Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) initiated a planning effort to prepare an updated compatibility plan for the Ukiah Municipal Airport, titled the Ukiah Municipal Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (UKIALUCP). The Page 102 of 414 40 Ukiah Western Hills Open Land Acquisition and Limited Development Agreement Final Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Ukiah UKIALUCP was adopted by the ALUC on May 20, 2021 and adopted by the Ukiah City Council on June 16, 2021. The site does not include any known hazardous waste sites, as mapped by the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) or the California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) on the GeoTracker and EnviroStor databases, respectively, nor are there any listed sites within the vicinity of the site. All lands within the City of Ukiah are within the jurisdiction of the Ukiah Valley Fire Authority. None of the lands within the City of Ukiah are located within a California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (Cal Fire) State Responsibility Area (SRA). However, the City of Ukiah (UCC §5200) has adopted the SRA regulations relating to residential construction and access for lands within the City located in High or Very High fire areas. County lands immediately west of the City (including the majority of the Project site(s)) are located within the SRA and are classified as having a “Very High” fire hazard severity. Discussion: (a-b) Less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated. Construction activities and future residential uses associated with the Project would require the routine transport, use, storage, and disposal of small quantities of hazardous materials common for equipment and property maintenance and operation, such as gasoline, diesel fuel, hydraulic fluids, oils, lubricants, cleaning solvents and supplies, pesticides, fertilizers, paint, etc. However, the types and quantities of materials to be used are not expected to pose a significant risk to the public and/or environment and would be managed in accordance with federal, state, and local regulations. In addition, Mitigation Measure HAZ-1 would ensure that materials would be transported and stored in a manner to reduce potential impacts to less than significant. Impacts would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated. (c) Less than significant impact: Nokomis Elementary School is approximately 0.25-mile from the access point (680 Redwood Avenue) for the Project. However, construction activities would be required to transport and use routine hazardous materials in accordance with all applicable regulations. Adherence to these regulations would ensure that impacts to the elementary school are less than significant. (d) No impact: As previously noted, under Government Code Section 65962.5, both the State Water Resources Control Board and the California Department of Toxic Substances Control are required to maintain databases of sites known to have hazardous substances present in the environment. Both agencies maintain such databases on their websites, known as GeoTracker and EnviroStor. According to these databases, the Project site(s) do not contain any listed hazardous sites; no impact would occur. (e) Less than significant impact. Under the new UKIALUCP, the Project is located within the Other Airport Environs (OAE) Compatibility Zone. Within this airport influenced area, no limits are prescribed with regard to intensity of use, density of dwelling units, nor are there any open land requirements specific to airport safety considerations. Noise and overflight factors are considered minimal, but there may be occasional overflights which may be intrusive to some outdoor activities. In general, the risk level for this zone is low, and no specific safety or airspace protection factors are identified. According to Table 3A of the UKIALUCP, most land-use categories would be considered normally compatible. When uses are identified as conditionally compatible for the OAE, concerns are typically Page 103 of 414 41 Ukiah Western Hills Open Land Acquisition and Limited Development Agreement Final Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Ukiah associated with potential flight hazards such as land uses that may attract birds, generate dust, produce smoke or steam plumes, create electronic interference, or otherwise be considered hazardous. The project area is located within an Airspace High Terrain Zone, which would require that any proposed structures or objects having a height of more than 35 feet be referred to the ALUC for review. Per section 1.4.5 of the UKIALUCP, however, referral of the proposed pre-zoning associated with annexation does not require review of the ALUC, as only land use actions occurring within Compatibility Zones 1-6 require review (pg. 2-9). As described, the proposed project would not engender airport safety concerns under the UKIALUCP, and a review of associated residential uses are indicated as ‘Normally Compatible.’ Based on this information, the Project would not result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the Project area. Impacts would be less than significant. (f) Less than significant impact. There are no components of the Project that would impair or interfere with emergency response or evacuation. Since the Project, specifically access improvements and residential development, would be required to be designed in accordance with state and local standards, including safety and emergency access requirements, there are no components of the Project that would impair implementation of, or physically interfere with, the adopted MJHMP or other emergency response plan or evacuation plan. Impacts would be less than significant. (g) Less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated. As previously noted, none of the lands within the City of Ukiah are located within a California Department of Forestry (Cal Fire) State Responsibility Area (SRA). However, County lands immediately west of the City (including the majority of the Project site(s)) are located within the SRA and are classified as having a “Very High” fire hazard severity. The Project site is developed with Cal Fire fuel breaks and has been subject to vegetation management practices in order to reduce fire risk in the Western Hills. Additionally, the Project includes installation of an approximately 130,000-gallon water tank to add new water storage and fire protection facilities in the Western Hills. The access road and future residential development are required to adhere to all fire safety standards. Regardless of the aforementioned, construction activities involving the use of gasoline-powered tools and equipment could introduce new temporary sources of ignition that could increase fire risk. However, with implementation of Mitigation Measure HAZ-2, impacts would be reduced to less than significant. For the reasons stated, the Project would not expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires. See Section 20, Wildfire, for more information. Impacts would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated. Mitigation Measures: HAZ-1: The developer shall establish and implement construction site management practices that will prevent toxic materials and other debris from entering the City’s storm drainage and waterway systems, including: a. There shall be no storage of hazardous materials at the Project Site; b. The developer shall provide adequate materials management, including covering, securing, and segregating potentially toxic materials (grease, oils, fuel, solvents, etc.); and c. The developer shall maintain supplies on-hand to contain spills of oil and any other hazardous materials used on-site. Page 104 of 414 42 Ukiah Western Hills Open Land Acquisition and Limited Development Agreement Final Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Ukiah c. Fuel the equipment in a safe place where spills can be contained and a fire extinguisher is nearby. Use the recommended gas/oil mixture and do not top off. Use a funnel or spout for pouring. Wipe off any spills. d. Do not refuel running or hot equipment. Dispense fuel at least 10 feet from sources of ignition. e. Do not use equipment in areas of dry vegetation. Keep leaves and dry materials away from a hot muffler. f. No smoking or open flame allowed near gasoline-powered equipment. 10. Hydrology and Water Quality HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY: Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality? b) Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin? c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would: i) result in a substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site; ii) substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or offsite; iii) create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff; or d) In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to project inundation? e) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan? Significance Criteria: The Project would significantly impact hydrology and water quality if it violated water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or substantially degraded surface or groundwater quality; substantially decreased groundwater supplies or impeded sustainable groundwater management; altered drainage patterns in a manner that would cause substantial on- or HAZ-2: Should portable gasoline-powered equipment be used on site, the following firesafe precautions shall be taken: a. Spark arresters are required on all portable gasoline-powered equipment. b. Equipment shall be maintained in good working condition, with exhaust systems and spark arresters in proper working order and free of carbon buildup. Page 105 of 414 43 Ukiah Western Hills Open Land Acquisition and Limited Development Agreement Final Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Ukiah off-site erosion, polluted runoff or excessive runoff that caused flooding; impeded or redirected flood flows; risked a release of pollutants due to inundation if in a flood hazard, tsunami or seiche zone; or conflicted with a water quality plan or sustainable groundwater management plan. Environmental Setting: Average rainfall in Ukiah is slightly less than 35 inches. Most of the precipitation falls during the winter. Rainfall is often from brief, intense storms, which move in from the northwest. Virtually no rainfall occurs during the summer months. The Project area includes the Russian River Hydrologic Unit, Upper Russian River Hydrologic Area, Ukiah Hydrologic Subarea. The Russian River is on the State Water Resources Control Board’s (SWRCB) 303(d) list of impaired water bodies for water temperature and sedimentation/siltation. Sediment impairments in tributaries led to listing the entire Russian River Watershed for sediment. Surface water supplies for the Ukiah Valley include the Eel River, from which water is diverted into the Russian River watershed through the Potter Valley Project, Lake Mendocino, and the Russian River. Groundwater is drawn from the Ukiah Valley groundwater basin. The Ukiah Valley groundwater basin is the northernmost basin in the Russian River water system and underlies an area of approximately 60 square miles. Water enters the groundwater system via percolation of surface waters and through the soil. The creeks and streams in the Ukiah Valley provide drainage channels for groundwater recharge, as well as domestic and agricultural water supply The City of Ukiah 2020 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) was adopted by City Council on June 2, 2021. The UWMP considers several growth scenarios including an additional 2,500 and 5,000 new hookup scenarios and determined that there is capacity through the 2045 planning horizon to serve these growth projections. Two unnamed creek drainages flow through two of the parcels at the bottom of steep canyons. The terrain is very rugged and steep; very few areas of flat terrain are present. Two perennial streams flow about 2,000-feet to the north and south—Gibson Creek and Doolan Creek, respectively. As described in Section 4, Biological Resources, the Study Area contains two (2) Class II watercourses and four (4) Class III watercourses that were observed and mapped on-site. The closest watercourse is a Class II watercourse located on APN 001-040-83 (existing Parcel 1 and proposed Parcel 8) of the study area. The Project site is not located within a tsunami hazard zone, nor is it located within a flood zone. Discussion: (a-b & e) Less than significant impact. Future development would adhere to all applicable waste discharge requirements. Therefore, the Project would not violate any water quality standards. Water utilities will be developed by the property owner on-site to support the Development Parcels; approximately 130,000-gallons of storage will be provided by two 65,000 gallon tanks (34ft in diameter and 10.5ft high) that will be placed within the existing water tank pad site (identified by a blue dot on Figure 1). According to the water tank planning study memorandum, prepared by GHD (December 10, 2020), the existing wells produce approximately 50,000 gallons per day and are located adjacent to the proposed tank. As a result, the developer proposes to supply the tanks with water from the wells rather than constructing new booster pump stations to pump water up to the tanks from the City’s existing wells. Therefore, the Project would not substantially deplete groundwater resources and impacts would be less than significant. (ci-iii) Less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated. As discussed in Section 4, Biological Resources, the Study Area contains two (2) Class II watercourses and four (4) Class III watercourses that were observed and mapped on-site. The Project does not propose any modifications to existing culverts or watercourses. However, the project, including improvement of the access road and future residential construction (on all Development Parcels), would result in impervious surfaces that could result in an impact to water quality. However, as noted in Mitigation Page 106 of 414 44 Ukiah Western Hills Open Land Acquisition and Limited Development Agreement Final Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Ukiah Measures GEO-1 and HAZ-1, prior to any ground disturbance, erosion and sediment control plans shall be submitted to the Public Works and Community Development Departments for review and approval and shall include BMPs to address soil erosion and stormwater runoff. Additionally, construction projects that would disturb more than one acre of land, would be subject to the requirements of General Construction Activity Stormwater Permit (Construction General Permit Order 2009-0009-DWQ, also known as the CGP), which requires operators of such construction sites to implement stormwater controls and develop a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) identifying specific BMPs to be implemented to reduce the amount of sediment and other pollutants associated with construction sites from being discharged in stormwater runoff. The proposed Development Agreement does not include specific development designs or proposals, nor does it grant any entitlements for development. Future housing projects will be subject to County and City’s development standards, building and safety codes, including review of stormwater management practices, where applicable. If future work in or adjacent to any of the other watercourses or culverts are proposed, the Developer is required to obtain necessary regulatory permits form the California Department of Fish and Wildlife and the Regional Water Quality Control Board, as necessary. Impacts associated with erosion and stromwater runoff would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated. (d) No impact. As described above, the Project is not located within a tsunami hazard zone, nor a flood zone, as identified by the Federal Emergency Management Agency. No impact would occur. Mitigation Measures: Implementation of GEO-1 and HAZ-1. 11. Land Use and Planning LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Physically divide an established community? b) Cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? Significance Criteria: The Project would significantly impact land use if it physically divided an established community or conflicted with a land use plan, policy or regulation intended to avoid or mitigate an environmental impact, such as the general plan or zoning code. Environmental Setting: The City of Ukiah includes approximately 4.72 square miles. It serves as the County Seat of Mendocino County, as well as the county’s commercial hub. Predominant land uses in the City include single family residential, multi-family residential, and commercial uses ranging from local commercial to service commercial, as well manufacturing, industrial and public facilities. The City’s first General Plan was originally adopted in 1974, updated in 1995, and was last amended in 2019, with adoption of the 2019-2027 Housing Element. The General Plan serves as a blueprint for future development and growth of the community. The City is currently in the process of completing a General Plan Update (the “2040 General Plan”) that will map out the vision for community development through 2040; until the new General Plan is adopted, the 1995 General Plan (as amended in 2019) is Page 107 of 414 45 Ukiah Western Hills Open Land Acquisition and Limited Development Agreement Final Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Ukiah considered the applicable plan. Zoning and land use are governed by the City’s Zoning Ordinance, as outlined in Division 9, Chapter 2 of the Ukiah City Code. The purpose of the Ukiah Zoning Code is to promote the growth of the City in an orderly manner and to promote and protect the public health, safety, peace, comfort and general welfare. Housing development of varying intensity is allowed in all zoning districts of the Ukiah Zoning Code with the exception of the Manufacturing and Industrial Zoning Districts. Further west (including the Project site) is undeveloped open space, and steep, densely vegetated areas interspersed with rural residential lots within County jurisdiction. The City of Ukiah is governed by the City’s General Plan (adopted in 1995, last revised in 2019) and Ukiah City Code (UCC). The larger Ukiah Valley is governed by the Ukiah Valley Area Plan (UVAP; 2011), which is a comprehensive and long range inter-jurisdictional planning document that represents the vision and foresight of the people who live and work in the Ukiah Valley. This plan governs land use and development on the unincorporated lands in the Ukiah Valley. The current Ukiah Valley Area Plan land use designation is Remote Residential, 40 Acre Minimum (“RMR40”) and the existing zoning is Upland Residential, 40-acre minimum (“UR:40”). The County’s current RMR classification is intended to be applied to lands having constraints for commercial agriculture, timber production or grazing, which are well suited for small scale farming and low density agricultural/residential uses by the absence of such limitations as inadequate access, unacceptable hazard exposure or incompatibility with adjoining resource land uses. The RMR land use designation allows a density of one dwelling unit per 40 acres. The UR zoning district is intended to create and enhance farming and low-density agricultural/residential uses. Typically, the UR zoning district would be applied to nonprime production lands which have constraints to commercial agriculture, timber production or grazing but which are absent of such limitations as inadequate access, unacceptable hazard exposure or incompatibility with adjoining resource lands. The UR zoning district allows for one dwelling unit per 40 acres. In addition, an ADU is permitted on each parcel. Both the existing RMR-40 land use designation and UR-40 zoning designation allow for one dwelling unit per 40 acres. Discussion: (a) Less than significant impact. Physical division of an existing community would typically be associated with construction of a new highway, railroad, park or other linear feature. The Project area is undeveloped with the exception of an existing access road, firebreaks and previous land improvements for potential future housing development. While the Project would improve the existing access road and allow for potential future low-density residential development, it does not propose new linear features that would result in the division of an established community. Impacts would be less than significant. (b) Less than significant impact. The Project includes acquisition and annexation of approximately 693 acres into the City’s jurisdiction. In addition, the Noguera Properties (APNs 003-190-09 & 003- 110-90), totaling approximately 14 acres, will be included in the annexation proposal for access only. The Annexation parcels would be prezoned into the City of Ukiah prior to annexation, in accordance with UCC Section 9267, Government Code Section 65859 and LAFCo policies. Under the provisions of the Government Code, the zoning district adopted by the City does not become effective unless and until the land is annexed into the City. Once the parcels are annexed into the City, the site(s) would not be developed until an applicant submits a project site plan for development on the Development Parcels (4-7) and obtains Planning Commission approval of a Use Permit to construct their home. Until the property is annexed, it is subject to existing zoning under Mendocino County’s Zoning Ordinance. However, Hull Properties is choosing to retain the right to sell and develop Development Parcels 1-3 prior to annexation. The Development Parcels are located within the County Page 108 of 414 46 Ukiah Western Hills Open Land Acquisition and Limited Development Agreement Final Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Ukiah of Mendocino’s jurisdiction within the Upland Residential, 40-acre minimum (UR:40) zoning district. Construction of the single-family homes within the County’s jurisdiction would be by-right and not require discretionary approval, environmental review, nor the development standards contained within the City’s R1-H zoning district. However, Hull Properties is choosing to require the single-family homes to be constructed to R1-H standards by including them in the Declaration of Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) for Development Parcels 1-3. In addition, although not required, the mitigation measures contained within the ISMND for residential development will also be included in the CC&Rs. The City proposes to annex approximately 640 acres total, collectively referred to as the “Conservation Parcels”, for open space and conservation. Although the City does not currently have a standalone Open Space zoning designation, the City’s existing Public Facilities (PF) zoning designation encompasses lands within the City that contain open space and parks, as well as other public facilities. Accordingly, the Conservation Parcels (including approximately 296 acres located outside of the SOI) are proposed to be prezoned PF (with a “Public” General Plan land use designation) which specifically identifies public or quasi-public uses, including, but not limited to natural resource conservation areas and parks and recreation. The Land Use Element of the 1995 City of Ukiah General Plan states that the Public (P) land use designation is intended for public facilities as well as open space and conservation areas and may be applied to lands within the City, the SOI, rural communities (identified as Calpella, Talmage and the Forks), master plan areas, and areas within the General Plan’s Unincorporated Planning Area (currently the same boundary as the UVAP and the City’s adopted SOI). Because the parcels intended for open space (within the City’s current SOI) as a part of the Proposed Project are within the 95’ General Plan’s Unincorporated Planning Area, the proposed annexation and prezoning of the parcels to PF (with a P General Plan land use designation) are consistent with the intent and land uses identified within the 95’ General Plan. In addition, the City can utilize its parks ordinance (Division 1, Chapter 12 of the Ukiah City Code) to provide rules governing City and public use of PF zoned property. Under Government Code Section 56742, city-owned parcels are not required to be located within the City's SOI. Parcels can be located anywhere in the County, as long as they are less than 300 acres, owned by the City, and used for municipal purposes at the time of the annexation application. Because the portion of the Conservation Parcels proposed for annexation totals approximately 296 acres, and will be under city ownership for open space, this portion of the Project is consistent with the Government Code. All Development Parcels (totaling approximately 54 acres) would be prezoned to Single-Family Residential-Hillside Overlay District (R1-H) with a General Plan Designation of Low Density Residential (LDR), consistent with adjacent City zoning and development patterns in the Western Hills. These parcels are located within the 95’ General Plan’s Unincorporated Planning Area, as well as the current UVAP/SOI boundary, and are consistent with the density and intent of the LDR land use designation and R1-H zoning. Although the Noguera Properties will be prezoned R1-H for consistency with surrounding zoning and land uses, they are not included in the Development Agreement and no development is proposed; the parcels will continue to be used for access only. For these reasons, these parcels are not included as Development Parcels and have not been included in the development assumptions. The –H Overlay District is intended to encourage planning, design, and development while preserving natural physical features and minimizing potential safety, water runoff and soil erosion concerns associated with the natural terrain. The City of Ukiah’s General Plan land use designation of Low Density Residential (LDR) allows for a density of six dwelling units per acre. Under these regulations, the 54 acres for residential development could conceivably be developed with up to 330 units. Page 109 of 414 47 Ukiah Western Hills Open Land Acquisition and Limited Development Agreement Final Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Ukiah However, the proposed Development Agreement would restrict development to one single family dwelling per parcel and one ADU (except for in cases were the slope exceeds 50 percent, per the City’s Hillside Overlay Ordinance), for a total of up to14 units. R1-H zoning requires a minimum lot size of 10,000 sf (0.23 acre) for parcels with a slope up to 20%; minimum lot size increases as the slope of the parcel increases, as outlined in UCC Section 9139, Hillside Development Standards. Consistent with these standards, the resulting parcel configuration proposes 5-10 acre Development Parcels that would be prezoned “R1-H”. Hull Properties recently recorded sequential Lot Line Adjustments through the County’s ministerial procedures and will submit sequential Lot Line Adjustments through the City’s procedures upon approval of the annexation application to achieve the resulting proposed parcel configuration for the Development Parcels. A copy of the final recorded Lot Line Adjustments, depicted the “proposed configuration” shown in Figure 3 will be submitted to the Community Development Department prior to submittal of a Use Permit for single family housing within Development Parcels 4-7. Review of the Lot Line Adjustments will be conducted by the City Engineer prior to recordation of the final maps to ensure that all development standards contained within the R1-H zoning district are met. Further, through the Use Permit process (for Parcels 4-7) and CC&R regulations (for Parcels 1-3) each proposed home would be subject to all R-1H development regulations (including slope, density, setbacks, height, fire safety and water requirements, access requirements, etc.) contained within the Hillside Overlay District. Development within the Hillside Overlay District includes submittal of the following: soil and geological reports, subsurface investigations, grading plans, vegetation reports, grading plans, hydrology reports, and structure elevations. Each home would require approval of a Building Permit, which includes additional review and approval by County and City departments. Prezoning of the parcels will require a Zoning Map and General Plan Map Amendment upon approval of the annexation application. Although the City’s General Plan and County’s UVAP do not contain specific policies related to prezoning, they do contain goals and policies that strive for orderly, clustered development, supporting the City and County’s RHNA, and conservation of open space. The City’s 2019-2027 Housing Element includes Goal H-5 and Policy 5-1 which seek to support future housing needs through annexation efforts that lead to orderly expansion of growth. Similarly, the County’s 2019-2027 Housing Element includes Policy 1.3 and Actions 1.3a through 1.3d that strive to work cooperatively with cities within the County on regional housing, support annexation applications to the Mendocino LAFCo from incorporated cities for annexations of contiguous lands etc. Consistent with these goals and policies, the Proposed Project will allow the City to adequately preserve and protect the collective Conservation Parcels (640 acres total), while allowing orderly and clustered low- density residential development within the Development Parcels (54 acres), consistent with land use patterns within the Western Hills. Additionally, the 14 units that could be developed under the Development Agreement would fulfil a portion of the above moderate income units of housing required by the City’s Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) for the 2019-2027 Housing Element Planning Cycle (see Section 14, Population and Housing, of this Initial Study for more information). For the reasons mentioned above, the Project would be consistent with the City’s General Plan and zoning code, the County’s UVAP and Housing Element, as well as the Government Code and LAFCo policies related to annexation. Page 110 of 414 48 Ukiah Western Hills Open Land Acquisition and Limited Development Agreement Final Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Ukiah 12. Mineral Resources MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? Significance Criteria: Impacts to mineral resources would be considered significant if the proposed Project were to result in the loss of a known mineral resource that has value to the region and state or is otherwise locally important as designated on a local land use plan. Environmental Setting: The most predominant of the minerals found in Mendocino County are aggregate resource minerals, primarily sand and gravel, found along many rivers and streams. The Ford Gravel Bars are located in Ukiah, along the Russian River. Discussion: (a-b) No impact. There are no identified mineral resources within the Project area. No impact would occur. 13. Noise NOISE. Would the project result in: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? b) Generation of excessive ground borne vibration or ground borne noise levels? c) For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels Significance Criteria: The Project would have a significant impact if it temporarily or permanently exceeded local noise standards in the vicinity of the Project, generated excessive ground borne noise or vibration; or would expose people residing or working in the area to excessive noise levels from public airports or private airstrips. Page 111 of 414 49 Ukiah Western Hills Open Land Acquisition and Limited Development Agreement Final Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Ukiah Environmental Setting: The Ukiah City Code contains a Noise Ordinance (Division 7, Chapter 1, Article 6) that establishes ambient base noise level standards that apply to specific zoning districts within the City of Ukiah. “Ambient noise" is the all-encompassing noise associated with a given environment, being usually a composite of sounds from many sources near and far. For the purpose of the Noise Ordinance, ambient noise level is the level obtained when the noise level is averaged over a period of fifteen (15) minutes without inclusion of noise from isolated identifiable sources, at the location and time of day near that at which a comparison is to be made. Land uses exceeding these standards for long periods of time are considered to be significant. In addition, UCC §6054, Construction of Buildings and Projects, states that it shall be unlawful for any person within a residential zone, or within a radius of five hundred feet (500’) therefrom, to operate equipment or perform any outside construction or repair work on buildings, structures or projects or to operate any pile driver, power shovel, pneumatic hammer, derrick, power hoist or any other construction type device (between the hours of 7:00 p.m. of one day and 7:00 a.m. of the next day) in such a manner that a reasonable person of normal sensitiveness residing in the area is caused discomfort or annoyance unless beforehand a permit therefor has been duly obtained from the Director of Public works. Table 2. City of Ukiah Ambient Base Noise Levels Zoning Districts Time Period Noise Level Standards (dBA) R1 and R2 10:00 PM - 7:00 AM 7:00 PM - 10:00 PM 7:00 AM-7:00 PM 40 45 50 R3 10:00 PM - 7:00 AM 7:00 AM - 10:00 PM 45 50 Commercial 10:00 PM - 7:00 AM 7:00 AM - 10:00 PM 60 65 Industrial & Manufacturing Any time 70 Source: Ukiah City Code §6048 Discussion: (a) Less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated. Construction activities are generally temporary, resulting in periodic increases in the ambient noise environment. However, these phases of construction have the potential to create the highest levels of noise. Typical noise levels generated by construction equipment are shown in Table 3 It should be noted that the noise levels identified in the table below are maximum sound levels (Lmax) at 15 ft from the source, which are the highest individual sound occurring at an individual time period. The level of noise varies based on varying durations of construction equipment in use and with distance from the noise source. Typically, noise decreases as distance increases. Construction noise impacts generally occur when construction activities occur in areas immediately adjoining noise-sensitive land uses, during noise- sensitive times of the day, or when construction activity occurs at the same precise location over an extended period of time (e.g., pile driving in one location for 8-10 hours in a day, or over a duration of several successive days). Page 112 of 414 50 Ukiah Western Hills Open Land Acquisition and Limited Development Agreement Final Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Ukiah Table 3. Maximum Noise Levels Associated with Typical Construction Equipment Type of Equipment Lmax at 15 Feet (dBA) Concrete Saw 100 Crane 91 Concrete Mixer Truck 89 Backhoe 88 Dozer 92 Excavator 91 Forklift 88 Paver 87 Roller 90 Tractor 94 Water Truck 90 Grader 95 General Industrial Equipment 95 Source: Federal Highway Administration. 2006. Roadway Construction Noise Model (FHWA-HEP- Certain land uses are particularly sensitive to noise, including schools, hospitals, rest homes, long- term medical and mental care facilities, and parks and recreation areas. Residential areas are also considered noise sensitive, especially during the nighttime hours. The nearest existing sensitive receptors are residential uses adjoining the Project site to the east and south along Redwood Avenue; the closest residence being more than 700 ft away from the potential house site on proposed Parcel 1. However, construction related noise would be considered temporary. In addition, to reduce potential noise impacts to nearby sensitive receptors, Mitigation Measure NOI-1 would require compliance with the City’s allowed hours of construction (7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m.), include Best Management Practices (BMPs) for reducing construction noise, and require construction equipment to be equipped with properly operating and maintained mufflers and other state-required noise attenuation devices. Noise impacts associated with construction would be the Project would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated. Operation of the Proposed Project would result in stationary noise sources associated with typical residential land uses (e.g., mechanical equipment, dogs/pets, landscaping activities, cars parking, etc.). These noise sources are typically intermittent and short in duration, and would be comparable to existing sources of noise experienced at surrounding residential uses. As such, impacts from operation of the Project would be less than significant. (b) Less than significant impact. Project construction can generate varying degrees of ground borne vibration, depending on the construction procedure and the construction equipment used. Operation of construction equipment generates vibrations that spread through the ground and diminish in amplitude with distance from the source. The results from vibration can range from no perceptible effects at the lowest vibration levels, to low rumbling sounds and perceptible vibration at moderate levels, to slight damage at the highest levels. The Project is anticipated to use typical construction equipment for temporary periods of time that would not be considered excessive. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. Page 113 of 414 51 Ukiah Western Hills Open Land Acquisition and Limited Development Agreement Final Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Ukiah (c) Less than significant impact. The nearest airport to the Project site is the Ukiah Municipal Airport, located approximately 0.79-mile east of the Project site. As discussed in Section 9(e) of this Initial Study, a portion of the Project (all of proposed Parcel 1, and a portion of proposed Parcels 2 and 3) are located within the “D- Other Airport Environs” compatibility zone of the ACLUP, which is described as having negligible risk with the potential for periodic annoyance from overhead flights. However, single-family homes are listed as a normally acceptable use in this airport compatibility zone. The remainder of the Project sire is not located within the ACLUP. Based on this information, the Project would not expose people residing or working in the Project area to excessive noise levels associated with aircraft. Impacts would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures: NOI-1: Prior to building permit or grading permit issuance, the developer shall comply with the following: a. Construction contracts shall specify that all construction equipment, fixed or mobile, shall be equipped with properly operating and maintained mufflers and other state-required noise attenuation devices. b. Construction haul routes shall be designed to avoid or lessen impacts to noise-sensitive uses (e.g., residences, schools, convalescent homes), to the extent feasible. c. During construction, stationary construction equipment shall be placed such that emitted noise is directed away from sensitive noise receivers. d. Per the City’s Noise Ordinance, construction shall not take place outside of the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. 14. Population and Housing POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? b) Displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? Significance Criteria: The proposed Project would result in significant impacts to the local population or housing stock if it directly or indirectly induced substantial unplanned population growth or displaced a substantial number of people or housing such that the construction of replacement housing would be required. Environmental Setting: The City of Ukiah comprises of approximately 4.72 square miles within Mendocino County. According to the California Department of Finance, the population in the County of Mendocino was 59,985 in 2018 and 16,226 in the City of Ukiah. The City’s annual growth rate between 1990 and 2018 averaged approximately 0.3%. Between 2000 and 2010, the City added 545 residents, or 3.7%, to its population. Overall, the City of Ukiah’s population has increased moderately Page 114 of 414 52 Ukiah Western Hills Open Land Acquisition and Limited Development Agreement Final Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Ukiah over the past nearly 30 years, with a more accelerated increase in the last four years. Projections from the California State University Chico Center for Economic Development- Mendocino County Economic/Demographic Profile show this trend continuing. As described in the City’s 2019-2027 Housing Element (2019), under California law, every city and county has a legal obligation to respond to its fair share of the projected future housing needs in the region in which it is located. For Ukiah and other Mendocino County jurisdictions, the regional housing need allocation (RHNA) is determined by the Mendocino Council of Governments (MCOG), based upon an overall regional need number established by the State. The fair share numbers establish goals to guide local planning and development decision making. MCOG identified the City’s RHNA as accommodating 239 additional units within the 2019-2027 Planning Cycle. Specifically, the City of Ukiah is responsible for identifying adequate sites, with appropriate zoning, to support 86 very low- income housing units and 72 low-income housing units, for a total of 158 lower income housing units, and 49 moderate-income and 32 above moderate-income housing units, for a total of 81 moderate and above moderate housing units. Discussion: (a) Less than significant impact. As previously discussed in the Project Description and Land Use Section (11) of this Initial Study, the Proposed Project would annex approximately 707 acres into the City. Once annexed, 54 acres could be developed with up to 14 residential units (seven single family homes and one associated ADU per lot) through the proposed Development Agreement. Although no development is proposed at this time, for this analysis it is assumed that future development of all Development Parcels would result in construction and development of residential uses on the site. Under the County’s General Plan and Zoning Ordinance, the entirety of the 707 acres has the potential to be developed with up to one dwelling per 40 acres, for a total of 17 primary dwellings. In addition, an ADU may be constructed as of right on each parcel, resulting in the potential for up to 34 total units to be developed. The City of Ukiah’s General Plan land use designation of Low Density Residential (LDR) allows for a density of six dwelling units per acre. Under these regulations, the 54 acres for residential development could conceivably be developed with up to 330 units. However, the proposed Development Agreement would restrict development to one single family dwelling per parcel and one ADU (except in cases where the slope exceeds 50 percent, per the City’s Hillside Overlay Ordinance), for a total of up to14 units. Although Development Parcels 1-3 may be developed within the County’s jurisdiction prior to annexation by-right, they will be required to be developed to R1-H standards through CC&Rs. All Development Parcels would be prezoned to R1-H (with a Low Density Residential General Plan land use designation) and are located within the 95’ General Plan’s Unincorporated Planning Area, as well as the current UVAP/SOI boundary. The proposed Development Parcels are consistent with the density and intent of the LDR land use designation and R1H zoning. Additionally, the 14 units that could be developed under the Development Agreement would fulfil a portion of the moderate to above moderate income units required by the City’s RHNA for the 2019-2027 Planning Cycle. As a part of the Project, utilities would be extended to the area. However, because the extension of utilities would be limited to the seven Development Parcels that are currently zoned for rural residential development, the Project, including development of up to 14 units, would not directly induce substantial unplanned development and population growth in the area. The remaining 640 acres that would be preserved as open space would not be developed with residential uses that could result in an increase in population. For the aforementioned reasons, the Proposed Project would not induce Page 115 of 414 53 Ukiah Western Hills Open Land Acquisition and Limited Development Agreement Final Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Ukiah substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly or indirectly. Impacts would be less than significant. (b) Less than significant impact. The Project site is vacant and does not include any housing that would be displaced as a result of the Project. Impacts would be less than significant. 15. Public Services PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: Fire protection? Police protection? Schools? Parks? Other public facilities? Significance Criteria: The Project would result in a significant impact to public services if it resulted in a requirement for increased or expanded public service facilities or staffing, including fire or police protection, schools and parks. Environmental Setting: Police protection services for the entire City limits is provided by the Ukiah Police Department, while the Mendocino County Sherriff’s Department provides police services for areas outside of the City limits. Fire protection services in the Ukiah Valley are provided by the Ukiah Valley Fire Authority and California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (Cal Fire). Educational facilities in the Ukiah Valley area are provided by the Ukiah Unified School District (UUSD), County Office of Education, and the Mendocino-Lake Community College District. There are also several private and charter schools serving residents within the City of Ukiah, as well as the unincorporated portions of Mendocino County. As mentioned below in Section 16, Recreation, of this Initial Study, there are 13 City parks, a municipal golf course, and a skate park managed by the City of Ukiah, as well as other recreational facilities in the area. Discussion: (a) Less than significant impact. Although no development is proposed at this time, it is assumed that future development would result in construction and development of residential uses (up to 14 units) on the site. New homes in the City’s jurisdiction would be served by the City’s Police Department and the Ukiah Valley Fire authority. This minimal increase in service area would not be Page 116 of 414 54 Ukiah Western Hills Open Land Acquisition and Limited Development Agreement Final Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Ukiah considered significant, as fire and police impact fees are collected for new construction to offset the financial burden that new development can potentially create for the fire department. Similarly, it is not anticipated that the additional residential units, currently already being served by existing school districts, would result in a significant impact to school services. Lastly, as discussed in Section 16, Recreation, the increase in residential units would not be considered significant and future development would be required to pay park impact fees, which are used to assist in the development and maintenance of parks and recreation facilities. Future residential development would be assessed, and impact fees for all aforementioned public services would be collected during the Building Permit process. As such, the Project would have a less than significant impact on public services. 16. Recreation RECREATION. Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? Significance Criteria: Impacts to recreation would be significant if the Project resulted in increased use of existing parks or recreational facilities to the extent that substantial deterioration was accelerated or if the Project involved the development or expansion of recreational facilities that would have an adverse effect on the physical environment. Environmental Setting: The Ukiah Valley offers a wide variety of recreational opportunities. These include more than 13 City parks, a municipal golf course, and a skate park managed by the City of Ukiah; two regional parks managed by the County; Cow Mountain Recreation Area managed by the Bureau of Land Management; and Lake Mendocino managed by the US Army Corps of Engineers. In addition, there are approximately 30 miles of trails located throughout the Ukiah Valley. Discussion: (a-b) Less than significant impact. The Project does not propose any recreational facilities at this time. However, the City does have aspirations to develop trails and recreational open space areas at some point in the future. Potential development of up to 14 new residential units would increase population, and in turn, increase the use of existing recreation facilities. However, the increase in population would not be considered significant and future development would be required to pay all park impact fees, which are used to assist in the development and maintenance of parks and recreation facilities. As such, impacts would be less than significant on park facilities. Page 117 of 414 55 Ukiah Western Hills Open Land Acquisition and Limited Development Agreement Final Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Ukiah 17. Transportation TRANSPORTATION. Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Conflict with a program, plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities? b) Conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines § 15064.3, subdivision (b), Criteria for Analyzing Traffic Impacts? c) Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? d) Result in inadequate emergency access? Significance Criteria: Impacts to transportation and traffic would be significant if the Project conflicted with a local plan, ordinance or policy addressing transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities; conflicted with CEQA Guidelines Sec. 15064.3(b), which contains criteria for analyzing transportation impacts; substantially increased hazards due to geometric design features; or resulted in inadequate emergency access. Traditionally, transportation impacts had been evaluated by using Level of Service (LOS) analysis to measure the level of congestion on local roadways. However, on September 27, 2013, Governor Jerry Brown signed Senate Bill (SB) 743 into law, initiating an update to the CEQA Guidelines to change how lead agencies evaluate transportation impacts under CEQA, with the goal to better measure the actual transportation-related environmental impacts of a given project. Starting July 1, 2020, lead agencies are required to analyze the transportation impacts of new projects using vehicle miles traveled (VMT), instead of LOS. VMT measures the amount of additional miles produced by the project. If the project increases car travel onto the roads excessively, the project may cause a significant transportation impact. VMT analysis is intended to promote the state’s goals of reducing greenhouse gas emissions and traffic-related air pollution, promoting the development of a multimodal transportation system, and providing clean, efficient access to destinations. In 2018, the Office of Planning and Research (OPR) published a Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA (2018) which is intended to provide advice and recommendations for evaluating VMT, which agencies and other entities may use at their discretion. As discussed further below, the Technical Advisory offers that screening thresholds may be used to identify when land use projects, such as small scale residential projects, should be expected to cause a less-than-significant impact without conducting a detailed traffic study. On behalf of the Mendocino Council of Governments (MCOG), Fehr & Peers, prepared a Senate Bill 743 Vehicle Miles Traveled Regional Baseline Study (Baseline Study; May, 2020) to provide an overview of SB 743, summarize VMT data available for Mendocino County, discuss alternatives for and recommend VMT measurement methods and thresholds for lead agencies in Mendocino County, and recommend transportation demand management (TDM) strategies for reducing VMT on projects in Mendocino County. Page 118 of 414 56 Ukiah Western Hills Open Land Acquisition and Limited Development Agreement Final Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Ukiah The following local plans have historically address transportation within the City of Ukiah: 2017 Ukiah Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan, City of Ukiah Safe Routes to School Plan (2014), Mendocino County Rail Trail Plan (2012), Ukiah Downtown Streetscape Improvement Plan (2009), and the City of Ukiah General Plan (Circulation and Transportation Element amended in 2004). MCOG’s Regional Transportation Plan (2017) and Section 5, Circulation and Transportation, of the Ukiah Valley Area Plan (2011) addresses transportation within the larger Ukiah Valley. The Baseline Study incorporated applicable goals and policies from each of these documents into the methodology and analysis when formulating its screening tools. As noted in the Baseline Study, per CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3, vehicle miles traveled for land use projects exceeding an applicable threshold of significance may indicate a significant impact. Generally, projects within one-half mile of either an existing major transit stop or a stop along an existing high quality transit corridor should be presumed to cause a less than significant transportation impact. In addition, projects that decrease vehicle miles traveled in the project area compared to existing conditions should be presumed to have a less than significant transportation impact. If existing models or methods are not available to estimate the vehicle miles traveled for the particular project being considered, a lead agency may analyze the project’s vehicle miles traveled qualitatively. Such a qualitative analysis would evaluate factors such as the availability of transit, proximity to other destinations, etc. For many projects, a qualitative analysis of construction traffic may be appropriate. A lead agency has discretion to choose the most appropriate methodology to evaluate a project’s vehicle miles traveled, including whether to express the change in absolute terms, per capita, per household or in any other measure. A lead agency may use models to estimate a project’s vehicle miles traveled, and may revise those estimates to reflect professional judgment based on substantial evidence. Any assumptions used to estimate vehicle miles traveled and any revisions to model outputs should be documented and explained in the environmental document prepared for the project. Environmental Setting: The City of Ukiah generally lies west of U.S. 101 between the U.S. 101/North State Street interchange, and the U.S. 101 / South State Street interchange. Three major interchanges along U.S. 101, Talmage Road, Gobbi Street, and Perkins Street (from south to north), provide access to southern and central Ukiah. The City of Ukiah is developed in a typical grid pattern with streets generally oriented north to south and east to west. Bicycle lanes are located throughout the City and public transit is provided by the Mendocino Transit Authority (MTA). The Project parcels are currently accessed through existing private dirt and gravel roads that connect to Redwood Avenue, a City owned and maintained road, through an existing access point controlled by a private gate. However, the access road width ranges from 18 ft to 35 ft, with the majority of it being a minimum of 20 ft wide. The sections that are 18 ft wide are approximately 100 ft long and have wider turn-outs immediately before or after them. The Nearest MTA bus stop is located at Washington Avenue and South Dora Street, approximately 0.45-mile southeast of the access point on Redwood Avenue. Portions of Redwood Avenue are improved with sidewalks; Redwood Avenue ultimately connects via Helen Avenue and either Observatory or Washington Streets to Dora Street and the larger western Ukiah area, which contain local bike and pedestrian facilities. Discussion: (a-b) Less than significant impact. The OPR Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts Under CEQA suggests that a home based trip approach is one of the best methods for assessing VMT from residential projects. As noted in the Technical Advisory, many agencies use “screening thresholds” to quickly identify when a project should be expected or assumed Page 119 of 414 57 Ukiah Western Hills Open Land Acquisition and Limited Development Agreement Final Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Ukiah to cause a less-than-significant impact without conducting a detailed study. As noted in the Fehr & Peers Baseline Study, the specific VMT estimate relies on the vehicle trip generation rate contained in the OPR Technical Advisory for small project screening and average vehicle trip lengths for Mendocino County based on the 2012 California Household Travel Survey (CHTS). Converting this value to an equivalent number of residential households would indicate that residential projects up to 22 units in Mendocino County could be screened out of analysis. Because the Project would ultimately allow a max buildout of seven single family residential units and the possibility of associated ADUs, the Project may be screened out of further VMT analysis. Nonetheless, a qualitative analysis of VMT is provided below. Since the Project site is currently undeveloped, any development with related vehicle use would increase VMT. In this case, there would be an increase in traffic to and from the site during both construction and operation of the Project. It is expected that construction of the Project would result in a temporary increase in traffic to and from the site, as construction workers arrive and leave each work day. In addition, minor increases to traffic on adjacent streets (specifically Redwood Avenue and Helen Avenue) could occur when heavy equipment required for construction is traveling to and from the site. However, once construction is complete, workers would no longer be traveling to the site, and the source of VMT would result from permanent residents. Four households would generate approximately 108 VMT per day in Mendocino County based on the 2012 California Household Travel Survey (CHTS) noted in the VMT Baseline Study. This results in each residence producing 27 VMT per day. Accordingly, it is anticipated that the seven single-family homes would produce a total of 189 VMT per day. If the associated seven ADUs were constructed, this would generate more VMT, but is not anticipated to result in the same number of VMT as the primary residences. Nonetheless, VMT generated from the Project would be similar to that of existing low-density residential development, and would be considered less than significant. The VMT impacts of the residential development would not conflict with the 2017 Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) adopted by the MCOG, Mendocino County’s Regional Transportation Planning Agency. Per the 2017 Regional Transportation Plan (RTP), new development is expected to produce rather localized impacts. As cited below in footnote 2, “Land use policies [in Mendocino County] tend to protect open-spaced lands such as agriculture and forestlands.”5 The Proposed Project would not conflict with identified Major Improvements, Goals, Policies or Objectives identified in the 2017 RTP. Additionally, the Ukiah Valley Area Plan (2011) identifies future conceptual roadway improvements for the plan area. The Proposed Project does not conflict with the UVAP’s recommendations and conceptual road improvements, because these recommendations address gaps in the street system expand capacity where future congestion levels are anticipated, and development of parallel north/south facilities. For the reasons stated above, the Project would not conflict with CEQA Guidelines § 15064.3, nor would it conflict with a regional plan or policy related to traffic. Impacts would be less than significant. (c-d) Less than significant impact. Approximately one-half mile of the existing 18 to 35ft wide gravel private access road, beginning at the access point at the terminus of on Redwood Avenue to the house sites, would be paved to serve the future housing development sites. The road improvements will include developing a cul-de-sac and possibly extending driveways to Development Parcels. The Developer will complete the road improvements but the road will remain under private ownership that will be maintained by a Homeowner’s Association (HOA) for future residential development. Both the 5 https://www.mendocinocog.org/files/742330750/2017+RTP+As+Adopted%28web+format%29.pdf (pg. 11) Page 120 of 414 58 Ukiah Western Hills Open Land Acquisition and Limited Development Agreement Final Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Ukiah California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (Cal Fire) and the Ukiah Valley Fire Authority (UVFA) have reviewed the Project and conducted a site visit. All road improvements would be developed in accordance with Fire and Building codes related to emergency access and safety. Therefore, proposed access improvements would not increase traffic hazards, nor would they result in inadequate emergency access. Impacts would be less than significant. 18. Tribal Cultural Resources TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code section 5020.1(k), or b) A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resource Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe. Significance Criteria: An impact to tribal cultural resources would be significant if the Project were to substantially reduce the significance of a tribal cultural resource, a listed or eligible historic resource, or a resource considered significant by a California Native American tribe. Tribal cultural resources include “sites, features, places, cultural landscapes, sacred places, and objects with cultural value to a California Native American Tribe” that are eligible for inclusion in the California Register of Historical Resources (California Register) or included in a local register of historical resources. Lead agencies are required to “begin consultation with a California Native American tribe that is traditionally and culturally affiliated with the geographic area of the Proposed Project.” The consultation process must be completed before a CEQA document can be certified. Environmental Setting: As discussed in Section 5, Cultural Resources, areas that are most typically culturally sensitive include those adjacent to streams, springs, and mid-slope benches above watercourses because Native Americans and settlers favored easy access to potable water. Tribes known to be present within the Ukiah area include (but are not limited to) the following: • Coyote Valley Band of Pomo Indians • Guidiville Indian Rancheria of Pomo Indians • Hopland Band of Pomo Indians • Pinoleville Pomo Nation • Potter Valley Rancheria • Redwood Valley Little River Band of Pomo Indians • Scotts Valley Band of Pomo Indians • Yokayo Tribe, not federally recognized Page 121 of 414 59 Ukiah Western Hills Open Land Acquisition and Limited Development Agreement Final Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Ukiah Discussion: (a-b) Less than significant impact. As described in Section 5, Cultural Resources, of this Initial Study, no cultural resources were identified within the Project area as a result of the records search, literature review, or archaeological field survey. In addition, due to its topography, the site is considered to have a “low potential” for cultural, archeological, and historic resources. Although no tribes have contacted the City of Ukiah to request notification under AB 52, tribal notifications offering the opportunity to request formal consultation were sent to local tribes on December 15, 2020. In addition, a request seeking a list of tribes that should be contacted was sent to the NAHC. Notices were sent to the additional tribes identified by the NAHC on January 14, 2021. On January 28, 2021, a request for formal consultation by the Pinoleville Pomo Nation was received; AB52 consultation was concluded with the tribe on May 3, 2021. Correspondence with Pinoleville Pomo Nation has been omitted for confidentiality. The list of tribes contacted are included in Attachment C. Despite the negative findings and the low potential for resources to occur on-site, there is potential for resources to be inadvertently discovered during ground disturbing activities. Therefore, Mitigation Measures CUL-1 and CUL-2 would be implemented. Impacts to would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated. Mitigation Measures: Implementation of CUL-1 and CUL-2. 19. Utilities and Service Systems UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or storm water drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects? b) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry and multiple dry years? c) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider, which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments? d) Generate solid waste in excess of state or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals? e) Comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste? Significance Criteria: Impacts to utility and service systems would be significant if the Project resulted in the construction or expansion of utilities that could cause significant environmental effects; have Page 122 of 414 60 Ukiah Western Hills Open Land Acquisition and Limited Development Agreement Final Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Ukiah insufficient water supplies available to the Project during normal to extremely dry years; resulted in inadequate capacity of the wastewater treatment plant; generated solid waste exceeding the capacity of local infrastructure or impairing the achievement of solid waste reduction goals; or failed to comply with any management and reduction statutes or regulations related to solid waste. Environmental Setting: The majority of City properties are served by City water, sewer, electricity and trash collection. However, some properties within the Western Hills, including the Proposed Project sites, do not currently have access to City utilities. For property outside of the City limits, services are provided by private service providers and special districts, as summarized below. Electric. The City of Ukiah’s Electric Utility Department provides electric services to properties within the City limits, while Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E) provides services to properties outside of the City. Water. There are five major providers of community water services in the Ukiah Valley. The City of Ukiah serves customers within the City, while Rogina Water Company and Millview, Calpella, and Willow County Water Districts serve the unincorporated areas. All suppliers are regulated by the California Department of Health Services, and Rogina Water Company is additionally regulated by the California Public Utilities Commission. The Project parcels are not located within an existing water district’s boundary. According to the UVAP, the primary water source for water providers in the Ukiah Valley is the Russian River and diversion of Eel River water with storage in Lake Mendocino. Property owners without access to the City or community systems obtain water from individual wells, springs or direct diversions of Russian River water. The City of Ukiah 2020 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) was adopted by City Council on June 2, 2021. The UWMP considers several growth scenarios including an additional 2,500 and 5,000 hookup scenarios and determined that there is capacity through the 2045 planning horizon to serve these growth projections. Sewer and Wastewater. The Ukiah Valley Sanitation District (UVSD) and the City of Ukiah provide public sewer services to customers within their boundaries under the purview of the State Water Quality Control Board. The City’s sewage treatment plant and Waste Water Treatment Plant (WWTP), operational since 1958, serves the City of Ukiah and the Ukiah Valley Sanitation District. The WWTP was upgraded in 2008. This upgrade included the addition of 2,400 equivalent sanitary sewer units (ESSUs). An ESSU is approximately what is used by a single-family dwelling unit. It has a current treatment capacity of 2.8 million gallons per day (MGD) of dry weather flow and 20 MGD of peak wet weather flow. Primary treatment removes floating material, oils and greases, sand and silt and organic solids heavy enough to settle in water. Secondary treatment biologically removes most of the suspended and dissolved organic material. Proposed Parcels 1-3 are located within the Ukiah Valley Sanitation District (UVSD) service area, while Parcels 4-7 are not included within a provider’s current service area. Solid Waste. The Ukiah landfill, outside City limits on Vichy Springs Road, stopped receiving municipal solid waste in 2001 and the City is working on capping the landfill. No new waste generated will be processed through the landfill. Solid waste generated in the Ukiah Valley is exported for disposal to the Potrero Hills Landfill in Solano County. The Valley’s solid waste disposal system consists of a large volume transfer station, Ukiah Transfer Station, which receives waste for export. Discussion: (a) Less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated. Sewer, water and electric utilities would be provided to the Development Parcels. Sewer and water will be developed by Page 123 of 414 61 Ukiah Western Hills Open Land Acquisition and Limited Development Agreement Final Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Ukiah the property owner, while electric infrastructure will be developed by the property owner and/or the City. All utitlies would be owned and maintained by the HOA, with the exception of electric, which will be ultimately maintained by the City. Development of utilities could result in physical impacts to the environment. However, all utilities will be undergrounded and located within or adjacent to existing access roads, on private parcels and previously disturbed areas. In addition to serving the proposed residential developments, two water tanks will be installed to add new water storage and fire protection facilities in the Western Hills (identified by a blue dot on the Project Map in Figure 1). No other development is proposed at this time. With incorporation of mitigation measures listed below and described in Biological Resources, Geology and Soils, and Hydrology and Water Quality, impacts related to expansion of utilities would not result in a significant impact to the environment. Impacts would be less than significant with mitigation measures incorporated. (b) Less than significant impact. Water will be provided by the property owner/developer on-site via two (2) 65,000 gallon water tanks. The water tanks will be owned and maintained by the HOA. According to the water tank planning study memorandum, prepared by GHD (December 10, 2020), the existing wells produce approximately 50,000 gallons per day and are located adjacent to the proposed tank. As a result, the developer proposes to supply the tanks with water from the wells rather than constructing new booster pump stations to pump water up to the tanks from the City’s existing wells. As noted in the GHD memorandum, the potential development in this area could be served with adequate pressure by a tank at the proposed location. Accordingly, impacts would be less than significant. (c) Less than significant impact. Wastewater from the properties will be treated at the City’s Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP) through a new effluent line that will be constructed in existing roadways. The WWTP was upgraded in 2008. This upgrade included the addition of 2,400 equivalent sanitary sewer units (ESSUs). This project has seven building sites that could have seven additional Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs). The Project would use a community septic tank, which would have to be pumped as needed, and sludge would be disposed of at the WWTP. With this design, discharges through the sewer line would have less Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD) and Total Dissolved Solids (TDS) than from other residential developments. This project is anticipated to use 14 ESSUs. The WWTP currently has available, between the City of Ukiah and the Ukiah Valley Sanitation District (UVSD), 1,571 ESSUs. The WWTP has capacity to serve this development and impacts would be less than significant. (d-e) Less than significant impact. A significant amount of solid waste is not anticipated to be generated from the Project and all solid waste would be disposed of in accordance with all federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste including state and local waste diversion requirements. Solid waste collected from construction and future development will be delivered to the Ukiah Transfer Station, which is owned by the City of Ukiah and operated by Solid Wastes Systems, Inc., and any materials not recycled, will be exported for disposal to the Potrero Hills Landfill in Solano County. Based on information provided on CalRecycle’s website, the Potrero Hills Landfill has a maximum permitted throughput of 4,330 tons per day and a remaining capacity of 13.872 million cubic yards, and is estimated to remain in operation until February 2048. As such, the proposed would not negatively impact the provision of solid waste services or impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals. A less than significant impact would occur. All development would be required to comply with all regulations pertaining to wastewater, solid waste, and other service systems. Page 124 of 414 62 Ukiah Western Hills Open Land Acquisition and Limited Development Agreement Final Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Ukiah Mitigation Measures: Implementation of BIO-1 through BIO-5, and GEO-1. 20. Wildfire WILDFIRE. If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? b) Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose project occupants to pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire? c) Require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment? d) Expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes? Significance Criteria: Impacts to wildfire would be significant if the Project were located in or near a State Responsibility Area (SRA) or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones and substantially impaired an emergency response plan; exposed Project occupants to wildfire pollutants or uncontrolled spread of wildfire due to site conditions such as slope and prevailing winds; require the installation or maintenance of infrastructure that could exacerbate fire risk; or expose people or structures to significant risks as a result of post-fire runoff, slope instability or drainage changes. Environmental Setting: None of the lands within the City of Ukiah are located within a California Department of Forestry (Cal Fire) State Responsibility Area (SRA). However, County lands immediately west of the City (including the majority of the Project site(s)) are located within the SRA and are classified as having a “Very High” fire hazard severity. Although not located within an SRA, the City of Ukiah (UCC §5200) has adopted the SRA regulations for lands within the City limits located in High or Very High fire areas. The Project site is developed with Cal Fire fuel breaks and has been subject to vegetation management practices in order to reduce fire risk in the Western Hills. A shaded fuel break was constructed (North to South) along the base of the western hills along the entire length of the City to reduce fuel loads and protect the community from wildfire risk in 2003. Maintenance was performed on the 100-ft wide, 2.6-mile fuel break in late 2018 and early 2019, with ongoing annual maintenance performed by the property owner/developer. As discussed in Section 9, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, the County’s EOP plan and MJHMP address emergency operations, natural disasters (including wildfire), as well as mitigation strategies to reduce potential risks. The City of Ukiah adopted its “jurisdictional annex” chapter of the MJHMP Page 125 of 414 63 Ukiah Western Hills Open Land Acquisition and Limited Development Agreement Final Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Ukiah on November 18, 2020. Hazards identified for the City of Ukiah include earthquakes, wildfire, dam failure, flood and pandemic. Table 1-13 of the City’s jurisdictional annex lists each hazard and mitigation action for City of Ukiah. Discussion: (a, b & d) Less than significant impact. As described above the Project area is developed with fuel breaks and has been subject to vegetation management practices in order to reduce fuel load within the Western Hills. The Project site is developed with an existing access road that varies from 18 ft to 35 ft, wide with the majority of it being a minimum of 20 ft wide. The sections that are 18 ft wide are short in length (approximately 100 ft long) and have wide turn-outs immediately before or after them. Both the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (Cal Fire) and the Ukiah Valley Fire Authority (UVFA) have reviewed the Project and conducted a site visit. The existing gravel access road will be improved with asphalt and a cul-de-sac, in accordance with all current fire and safety codes applicable to the Project. The proposed improvements would increase the level of fire protection to the Project area. The Project also includes installation of water tanks and fire hydrants to add new water storage and fire protection facilities in the Western Hills. Per the California Fire Code, a portion of the water (varies based on size and number of homes) will be required to be allotted for fire protection services and cannot be used for residential use; this will be accomplished by a float switch that will be installed in the tanks. In addition, Public Resources Code Sections 4290 and 4291 contain additional requirements for lands within Very High Fire Severity Zones that would apply to the Project. These include, but are not limited to, the following which are designed to provide defensible space and fire protection for new construction and ensure adequate emergency access: increased property line setbacks for all applicable construction; on-site water storage for fire protection, driveway/roadway types and specifications based on designated usage; all weather driveway/roadway surfaces being engineered for 75,000lb vehicles; maximum slope of 16%; turnout requirements; gate requirements and setbacks, parking standards, fuels reduction regulations, etc. All future residential development would be reviewed by the fire department and be required to adhere to all fire safety standards, including those etc. There are no components of the Project that would conflict with, or impair the adopted MJHMP, EOP, or other adopted emergency response plan or emergency evaluation plan. For the reasons stated, the Project would not expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, and would not impair emergency access. Impacts would be less than significant. (C) Less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated. As described in Section 9, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, of this Initial Study, installation of infrastructure and construction of the Project may involve the use of gasoline-powered tools and equipment potentially introducing new temporary sources of ignition that could increase fire risk. However, implementation of Mitigation Measure HAZ-2 will reduce impacts to less than significant. Less than significant with mitigation incorporated. Mitigation Measures: Implementation of HAZ-2 Page 126 of 414 64 Ukiah Western Hills Open Land Acquisition and Limited Development Agreement Final Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Ukiah 21. Mandatory Findings of Significance MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, substantially reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? Discussion: (a) Less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated. Project components including the acquisition, annexation, and prezoning of parcels, in addition to the Lot Line Adjustments, would not directly result in physical impacts to the physical environment. However, infrastructure improvements and the potential construction of up to seven single-family homes and seven associated ADUs, for a total of 14 units within the easternmost 54 acres of the Project area, could occur under the Development Agreement. Hull Properties is choosing to require the single-family homes to be constructed to R1-H standards by including them in the Declaration of Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) for Development Parcels 1-3. In addition, although not required, the mitigation measures contained within the ISMND for residential development will also be included in the CC&Rs. Development Parcels 1-3 will still be included in the application for annexation and prezoned to R1-H. Although residential development is not proposed at this time and the Project would not grant any entitlements, this analysis assumes that the development will occur on all Development Parcels, both under the County and City’s jurisdiction. As described throughout the Initial Study, construction and ground disturbing activities associated with these components could result in direct significant impacts to Air Quality, Biological Resources, Cultural /Tribal Cultural Resources, Geology and Soils, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, Hydrology and Water Quality, Noise, Utilities and Service Systems, and Wildfire. However, mitigation measures identified within the aforementioned sections would reduce impacts to less than significant with mitigation incorporated. (b) Less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated. Cumulative impacts are generally considered in analyses of Air Quality, Biological Resources, Cultural Resources, Noise, and Traffic. As discussed throughout the Initial Study, the Proposed Project would have less than significant impacts on these resources with implementation of mitigation measures described herein. As discussed in Section 14, Population and Housing, as well as Section 11, Land Use and Planning, the potential development of up to 14 units would not induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly or indirectly. Individual impacts from the Project would not significantly contribute to cumulative impacts in the area as there are no known past projects nor current projects Page 127 of 414 65 Ukiah Western Hills Open Land Acquisition and Limited Development Agreement Final Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Ukiah within the vicinity of the site. However, all future housing development would be analyzed on a project level basis for direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts, as necessary. Mitigation measures identified within the Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration related to ground disturbing activities and construction for road and utility improvements, as well as residential development, will be included in the Development Agreement and Conditions of Approval to ensure that they are implemented accordingly. Based on the findings and conclusions contained in the Initial Study, cumulative impacts related to the Proposed Project would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated. (c) Less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated. Based on the findings and conclusions contained in the Initial Study, the Proposed Project would not have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly. Impacts would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated. Page 128 of 414 66 Ukiah Western Hills Open Land Acquisition and Limited Development Agreement Final Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Ukiah VI. REFERENCES 1. Alta Archeological Consulting (Alta). Archeological Survey Report (ASR). City of Ukiah Western Hills Annex Ukiah, Mendocino County, California, APNs 001-040-83, 157-070- 01, 157-070-02, 003-190-01, 157-050-09. March, 2021. 2. Cal Fire State Responsibility Area Viewer http://www.fire.ca.gov/firepreventionfee/sraviewer_launch 3. Cal Fire, California Fire Hazard Severity Zone Map Web Viewer. http://egis.fire.ca.gov/FHSZ/ 4. California Department of Conservation. California Geological Survey. Earthquake Fault Map, Ukiah. Zones of Required Investigation. http://gmw.conservation.ca.gov/SHP/EZRIM/Maps/UKIAH.PDF . 5. California Department of Conservation. California Geological Survey. U.S. Landslide Inventory Web Application. https://usgs.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=ae120962f459434b8c9 04b456c82669d 6. California Department of Conservation. Farmland Mapping & Monitoring Program, California Important Farmland Finder. https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/DLRP/CIFF/ 7. California Department of Finance. American Community Survey. http://www.dof.ca.gov/Reports/Demographic_Reports/American_Community_Survey 8. California Department of Toxic Substance Control. EnviroStor database https://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/ 9. California Department of Transportation California State Scenic Highway System map. https://www.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=2e921695c43643b1aaf7000d fcc19983 10. California Governor’s Office of Planning and Research. Discussion Draft Technical Advisory: AB 52 and Tribal Cultural Resources in CEQA, May 2015. 11. City of Ukiah General Plan. Last amended 2019. 12. City of Ukiah Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan. Prepared by Alta Planning + Design, W-Trans and Walk Bike Mendocino. August 2015. 13. City of Ukiah Code. Last amended 2021. https://www.codepublishing.com/CA/Ukiah 14. City of Ukiah. Housing Element Update 2019-2027. Adopted October 23, 2019 and Certified by HCD December 5, 2019.http://www.cityofukiah.com/projects/housing- element-update/ 15. Federal Highway Administration. 2006. Roadway Construction Noise Model (FHWA- HEP-05-054). Page 129 of 414 67 Ukiah Western Hills Open Land Acquisition and Limited Development Agreement Final Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Ukiah 16. Federal Transit Administration, 2018. Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual. FTA Report No. 0123. Prepared by John A. Volpe National Transportation Systems Center. September, 2018. https://www.transit.dot.gov/sites/fta.dot.gov/files/docs/research- innovation/118131/transit-noise-and-vibration-impact-assessment-manual-fta-report-no- 0123_0.pdf 17. Fehr & Peers, on behalf of the Mendocino Council of Governments (MCOG), Senate Bill 743 Vehicle Miles Traveled Regional Baseline Study. May 20, 2020. https://www.mendocinocog.org/vehicle-miles-traveled-vmt-regional-baseline-study- completed 18. GHD. Water Tank Planning Study Memorandum, prepared by GHD. December 10, 2020. 19. Jacobszoon and Associates, Inc. Biological Assessment for APNs 001-040-83, 157-070- 01, 157-070-02, and 003-190-01. March 11, 2021. 20. Jacobszoon and Associates, Inc. Biological Assessment Addendum for Rare Plant Assessment and Botanical Survey for APNs 001-040-83, 157-070-01, 157-070-02, and 003-190-01. July 9, 2021. 21. Landslide Inventory (Beta). California Department of Conservation. California Geological Survey. https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/lsi/ 22. Mendocino Council of Governments (MCOG). 2017 Mendocino County Regional Transportation Plan. Prepared by Davey Bates Consulting. Adopted February 5, 2018. https://www.mendocinocog.org/files/742330750/2017+RTP+As+Adopted%28web+forma t%29.pdf 23. Mendocino County Air Quality Management District of the California North Coast Air Basin. Particulate Matter Attainment Plan. January 2005. https://www.co.mendocino.ca.us/aqmd/pm-attainment.html 24. Mendocino County Air Quality Management District website. http://www.co.mendocino.ca.us/aqmd/diesel-engine-information.html. 25. Mendocino County Airport Land Use Commission. Mendocino County Airport Comprehensive Land Use Plan. Revised June 6, 1996. 26. Mendocino County Fire Hazard Severity Map. November 7, 2007. 27. Mendocino County Important Farmland Map, undated. 28. Mendocino County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan (MJHMP). Adopted December, 2020. Vol 2, Chapter 1, City of Ukiah Jurisdictional Annex, adopted by the City of Ukiah November 18, 2020. 29. Mendocino County Office of Education. Schools & Districts. https://www.mcoe.us/schools-districts/ 30. Mendocino County Property Search (eTRAKiT). http://etrackit.co.mendocino.ca.usetrakit3/Search/parcel.aspx 31. Mendocino County Water Agency. Water Supply Assessment for the Ukiah Valley Area Plan. October 20, 2010. https://www.mendocinocounty.org/home/showpublisheddocument?id=5486 Page 130 of 414 68 Ukiah Western Hills Open Land Acquisition and Limited Development Agreement Final Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Ukiah 32. Mendocino County Wildland-Urban Interface (WUI) Zones Map, undated. https://www.mendocinocounty.org/home/showdocument?id=18425 33. Mendocino County General Plan, adopted in 2009 and last revised 2015. https://www.mendocinocounty.org/government/planning-building- services/plans/mendocino-county-general-plan 34. Mendocino County 2019-2027 Housing Element (6th Cycle). August, 2020. https://www.mendocinocounty.org/government/planning-building- services/plans/housingelement 35. Mendocino County Public GIS Portal https://gis.mendocinocounty.org/portal/home/ 36. Mendocino County Inland Zoning Code https://www.mendocinocounty.org/government/planning-building- services/regulations/zoning-code 37. P.M.C. Background Report for the County of Mendocino General Plan Update. Prepared January 2003. 38. State Water Resources Control Board. GeoTracker. https://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov. 39. Office of Planning and Research (OPR) Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts In CEQA. December 2018. https://www.opr.ca.gov/docs/20190122- 743_Technical_Advisory.pdf 40. U.S. Department of Agriculture - Soil Conservation Service. Web Soil Survey. https://websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/App/HomePage.htm 41. U.S. Department of Fish and Wildlife. Environmental Conservation Online System. https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp0/reports/species-listed-by-state-report?state=CA&status=listed 42. Ukiah Valley Area Plan, adopted August 2, 2011. https://www.mendocinocounty.org/government/planning-building-services/plans/ukiah- valley-area-plan Page 131 of 414 Ukiah Western Hills Open Land Acquisition and Limited Development Agreement Final Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Ukiah VII. MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM UKIAH WESTERN HILLS OPEN LAND & LIMITED DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT PROJECT Potential Impact Mitigation Measure Implementation Responsibility Monitoring & Reporting Responsibility Timing Date Implemented Construction and ground disturbing activities could result in short- term impacts to air quality. AQ -1: Diesel Engines – Stationary and Portable Equipment and Mobile Vehicles: 1.Any stationary onsite diesel IC engines 50 horsepower or greater (i.e. large power generators or pumps) or any propane or natural gas engines 250 horsepower or greater may require a permit from the District. 2.Portable diesel powered equipment that may be used during the proposed project are required to be registered with the state Portable Equipment Registration Program (PERP) or obtain permits from the District. 3.Projects located adjacent to sensitive receptors (schools, child care facilities, health care facilities, senior facilities, businesses, and residences, etc.) during the construction phase of this project have the potential for exposure to diesel particulate. 4.Heavy duty truck idling and off-road diesel equipment or other diesel engine idling is limited to less than 5 minutes. Developer Developer During construction and ground disturbing activities AQ -2: Grading Projects- During Construction-All grading activities must comply with the following fugitive dust mitigation measures in accordance with District Regulation 1, Rule 1-430: 1.All visibly dry disturbed soil road surfaces shall be watered to minimize fugitive dust emissions. Developer Developer During construction and ground disturbing activities 69 Page 132 of 414 Ukiah Western Hills Open Land Acquisition and Limited Development Agreement Final Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Ukiah 2.All unpaved surfaces, unless otherwise treated with suitable chemicals or oils, shall have a posted speed limit of 10 mph. 3.Earth or other material that has been transported by trucking or earth moving equipment, erosion by water, or other means onto paved streets shall be promptly removed. 4.Asphalt, oil, water, or suitable chemicals shall be applied on materials stockpiles, and other surfaces that can give rise airborne dusts. 5.All earthmoving activities shall cease when sustained winds exceed 15 mph. 6.The operator shall take reasonable precautions to prevent the entry of unauthorized vehicles onto the site during non-work hours. 7.The operator shall keep a daily log of activities to control fugitive dust. 8. For projects greater than one acre or one mile of road not located within a Naturally Occurring Asbestos Area, prior to starting any construction the applicant is required to: 1.Submit a Large Area Grading permit application to the District. 2.Obtain a final determination from the Air Quality Management District as to the need for an Asbestos Dust Mitigation Plan and/or Geologic Survey to comply with CCR sections 93106 and 93105 relating to Naturally Occurring Asbestos. 3.Obtain written verification from the District stating that the project is in compliance with State and Local regulations relating to Naturally Occurring Asbestos. 4.If the project is located within a Naturally Occurring Asbestos Area, additional mitigations shall be required. 70 Page 133 of 414 Ukiah Western Hills Open Land Acquisition and Limited Development Agreement Final Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Ukiah AQ -3: Property Development-Prior to starting any construction, the applicant is required to: a.Obtain a Property Development Permit from the District for any open outdoor burning. b.Obtain a Grading Permit, if applicable. c.Confirm whether the project is in a Naturally Occurring Asbestos Area, and follow additional MCAQMD recommendations, if applicable. d.Consider alternate means of disposal other than open burning, such as cutting the majority of the larger material up as firewood, and chipping smaller material, if feasible to mitigate impacts from open outdoor burning. e.Obtain written verification from the MCAQMD stating that the project is in compliance with State and Local regulations. Developer Developer Prior to construction Biological Resources Construction and ground disturbing activities could result in impacts to sensitive plant species and sensitive woodland tree habiat BIO-1: Sensitive Trees. If trees are proposed for removal, preconstruction surveys shall be conducted by a qualified biologist to identify Oregon white oak forest and woodland, as well as California bay forest and woodland habitat; removal of sensitive habitat shall be conducted in accordance with California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) regulations. Qualified Biologist Developer Prior to ground disturbing activities Construction and ground disturbing activities could impact Red-belly newt, and other special status amphibians and their habitat BIO-2: Sensitive Amphibian Species. A qualified biologist shall survey the area prior to any groundbreaking activities to determine the presence of Red-belly newt, or other sensitive amphibian species, and identify additional avoidance measures, if needed. A qualified biologist shall be on-site for any dewatering event to address the potential for the presence of sensitive amphibian Qualified Biologist Developer Prior to ground disturbing activities 71 Page 134 of 414 Ukiah Western Hills Open Land Acquisition and Limited Development Agreement Final Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Ukiah species such as foothill yellow-legged frog (Rana boylii). Construction, vegetation removal, and ground disturbing activities could impact nesting birds and their habitat BIO-3: Nesting Birds. Pre-construction surveys shall be conducted prior to any vegetation removal or ground disturbing activities occurring between March 1 and August 31 of any year. All active bird nests shall not be removed, relocated, or otherwise disturbed for any purpose until all fledglings have left the nest. Qualified Biologist Developer Prior to vegetation removal or ground disturbing activities between March 1 and August 31 Construction and ground disturbing activities could impact special- status insects and their habitat BIO-4: Special-Status Insects. A qualified biologist shall survey the area prior to any groundbreaking activities to determine the presence of special-status insect species and identify additional avoidance measures if needed. If a special-status insect nests are observed, active nests shall not be removed, relocated, or otherwise disturbed until the nest becomes inactive. Qualified Biologist Developer Prior to ground disturbing activities Construction and ground disturbing activities could impact special- status mammals and their habitat BIO-5: Special-Status Mammals. Pre-construction surveys shall be conducted prior to any vegetation removal or ground disturbing activities. If evidence of bat roosts is observed (i.e. bat guano, ammonia odor, grease stained cavities) around trees or structures, pre-construction bat surveys shall be conducted by a qualified biologist for activities that may affect bat roosting habitat and den sites. Qualified Biologist Developer Prior to ground disturbing activities Cultural Resources and Tribal Cultural Resources 72 Page 135 of 414 Ukiah Western Hills Open Land Acquisition and Limited Development Agreement Final Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Ukiah Ground disturbing activities have the potential for accidental discovery of unknown, undiscovered cultural resources and tribal cultural resources CUL-1: Unanticipated Discovery. If previously unidentified cultural, historic, palentologic or archeologic resources are encountered during project implementation, altering the materials and their stratigraphic context shall be avoided and work shall halt immediately. A qualified professional archaeologist shall be contacted to evaluate the resource and methods necessary to protect it. Project personnel shall not collect, move, or disturb cultural resources. Prehistoric resources include, but are not limited to, chert or obsidian flakes, projectile points, mortars, pestles, and dark friable soil containing shell and bone dietary debris, heat- affected rock, or human burials. Historic resources include stone or abode foundations or walls; structures and remains with square nails; and refuse deposits or bottle dumps, often located in old wells or privies. Qualified archaeologist Developer During ground disturbing activities Ground disturbing activities have the potential for accidental discovery of unknown Native American remains CUL-2: Encountering Native American Remains. If human remains are encountered during ground disturbing activities, all work shall stop in the immediate vicinity of the discovered remains and the County Coroner and a qualified archaeologist shall be notified immediately so that an evaluation can be performed. If the remains are deemed to be Native American and prehistoric, the Native American Heritage Commission must be contacted by the Coroner so that a “Most Likely Descendant” can be designated and further recommendations regarding treatment of the remains will be provided. Qualified archaeologist Developer During ground disturbing activities Geology and Soils Ground disturbing activities could Incorporation of Mitigation Measure CUL-1 Qualified archaeologist Developer During ground 73 Page 136 of 414 Ukiah Western Hills Open Land Acquisition and Limited Development Agreement Final Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Ukiah result in impacts associated with erosion, the loss of topsoil and landslides if not properly designed disturbing activities GEO-1: The Project shall comply with the erosion and design standards outlined in Chapter 7 of the Ukiah City Code. Prior to any ground disturbance, erosion and sediment control plans shall be submitted to the Public Works and Community Development Departments for review and approval. Said plans shall protect against soil erosion and runoff through the implementation of appropriate Best Management Practices (BMPs). Typical BMPs include the placement of straw, mulch, seeding, straw wattles, silt fencing, etc. No silt, sediment or other materials shall be allowed to flow from the project area. Developer Developer Prior to any ground disturbance and throughout construction activities; ongoing as needed to control erosion Hazards and Hazardous Materials Project construction could result in a hazard to the public or the environment if the incidental use of petroleum hydrocarbons (fuel, oil) in tools used during construction were to lead to accidental leaks or spills in or around the work area HAZ-1: The developer shall establish and implement construction site management practices that will prevent toxic materials and other debris from entering the City’s storm drainage and waterway systems, including: a)There shall be no storage of hazardous materials at the Project Site; b)The developer shall provide adequate materials management, including covering, securing, and segregating potentially toxic materials (grease, oils, fuel, solvents, etc.); and c)The developer shall maintain supplies on-hand to contain spills of oil and any other hazardous materials used on-site. Developer Developer During construction Construction of the Project may involve the use HAZ-2: Should portable gasoline-powered equipment be used on site, the following firesafe precautions shall be taken: Developer Developer During construction 74 Page 137 of 414 Ukiah Western Hills Open Land Acquisition and Limited Development Agreement Final Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Ukiah of gasoline- powered tools and equipment potentially introducing new temporary sources of ignition that could increase fire risk. a)Spark arresters are required on all portable gasoline-powered equipment. b)Equipment shall be maintained in good working condition, with exhaust systems and spark arresters in proper working order and free of carbon buildup. c)Fuel the equipment in a safe place where spills can be contained and a fire extinguisher is nearby. Use the recommended gas/oil mixture and do not top off. Use a funnel or spout for pouring. Wipe off any spills. d)Do not refuel running or hot equipment. Dispense fuel at least 10 feet from sources of ignition. e)Do not use equipment in areas of dry vegetation. Keep leaves and dry materials away from a hot muffler. f)No smoking or open flame allowed near gasoline-powered equipment. Hydrology and Water Quality Ground disturbing activities and construction of the project would result in impervious surfaces that could impact water quality Implementation of Mitigation Measures GEO-1 and HAZ-1 Developer Developer Prior to and during construction ; ongoing as needed to control erosion Noise Ground disturbing activities and construction of the project would NOI-1: Prior to building permit or grading permit issuance, the developer shall comply with the following: Developer Developer Prior to issuance of building or grading permits, 75 Page 138 of 414 Ukiah Western Hills Open Land Acquisition and Limited Development Agreement Final Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Ukiah result in temporary noise impacts a.Construction contracts shall specify that all construction equipment, fixed or mobile, shall be equipped with properly operating and maintained mufflers and other state-required noise attenuation devices. b.Construction haul routes shall be designed to avoid or lessen impacts to noise-sensitive uses (e.g., residences, schools, convalescent homes), to the extent feasible. c.During construction, stationary construction equipment shall be placed such that emitted noise is directed away from sensitive noise receivers. d.Per the City’s Noise Ordinance, construction shall not take place outside of the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. and during construction Utilities and Service Systems City sewer, water and electric utilities would be extended to the area which could result in physical impacts to the environment Implementation of BIO-1 through BIO-5, and GEO- 1. See BIO-1 through BIO-5 and GEO-1 See BIO-1 through BIO-5 and GEO-1 See BIO-1 through BIO-5 and GEO-1 Wildfire Construction of the Project may involve the use of gasoline- powered equipment and machinery, potentially introducing new Implementation of Mitigation Measure HAZ-2 Developer Developer During construction 76 Page 139 of 414 Ukiah Western Hills Open Land Acquisition and Limited Development Agreement Final Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Ukiah sources of ignition that could increase fire risk 77 Page 140 of 414 FINAL DRAFT ISMND ATTACHMENTS Page 141 of 414 Existing Site Photographs ATTACHMENT A Existing access road Page 142 of 414 Existing water tank site Page 143 of 414 Existing "house site" on one of the proposed Development Parcels Page 144 of 414 Biological Assessment Report Prepared For: Michelle Irace, Planning Manager Department of Community Development 300 Seminary Avenue, Ukiah, CA 95482 APNs: 001-040-83, 157- 070-01, 157-070-02, and 003-190-01 Prepared by Jacobszoon & Associates, Inc. Alicia Ives Ringstad Senior Wildlife Biologist alicia@jaforestry.com Date: March 11, 2021 Updated: April 8, 2021 ATTACHMENT B Page 145 of 414 Page 1 of 101 Table of Contents Section 1.0: Introduction .................................................................................................................................................................. 2 Section 2.0: Regulations and Descriptions ....................................................................................................................................... 2 2.1 Regulatory Setting ................................................................................................................................................................. 2 2.2 Natural Communities and Sensitive Natural Communities .................................................................................................... 3 2.3 Special-Status Species............................................................................................................................................................ 3 Section 3.0: Field Survey Methodology ........................................................................................................................................... 3 3.1 Assessment Methods .............................................................................................................................................................. 3 3.2 Database and Resource Descriptions ..................................................................................................................................... 4 3.3 Database Resource Assessment ............................................................................................................................................. 5 3.4 Biological Communities ........................................................................................................................................................ 6 3.4.1 Non-sensitive Biological Communities ........................................................................................................................... 7 3.4.2 Sensitive Biological Communities .................................................................................................................................. 7 3.5 Special-status Species ............................................................................................................................................................ 8 Section 4.0: Study Area Setting ....................................................................................................................................................... 9 4.1 Climate and Hydrology .......................................................................................................................................................... 9 4.2 Topography and Soils ............................................................................................................................................................ 9 4.3 Biota and Land Use .............................................................................................................................................................. 10 Section 5.0: Field Survey Results................................................................................................................................................... 10 5.1 Biological Communities ...................................................................................................................................................... 10 5.1.1 Non-sensitive Biological Communities ......................................................................................................................... 15 5.1.2 Sensitive Biological Communities ................................................................................................................................ 16 5.2 Special-status Species .......................................................................................................................................................... 16 5.2.1 Special-status Plant Species ......................................................................................................................................... 16 Section 6.0: Assessment Summary and Recommendations ........................................................................................................... 26 6.1 Biological Communities ...................................................................................................................................................... 26 6.2 Special-status Species .......................................................................................................................................................... 28 6.2.1 Special-status Plant Species ......................................................................................................................................... 28 6.2.2 Special-status Wildlife Species ..................................................................................................................................... 29 6.3 Wildlife Corridors ................................................................................................................................................................ 30 6.4 Critical Habitat ..................................................................................................................................................................... 30 Section 7.0: References .................................................................................................................................................................. 31 Appendix A: Table of Potential for Special-Status Plants and Wildlife within the Study Area ....................................................... 0 Appendix B: List of Species Observed .......................................................................................................................................... 34 Appendix C: Photographs .............................................................................................................................................................. 39 Appendix D: Maps ......................................................................................................................................................................... 63 Appendix E: Supporting Documents ............................................................................................................................................. 64 Page 146 of 414 Page 2 of 101 Section 1.0: Introduction This biological assessment was prepared by Jacobszoon and Associates Inc. for the City of Ukiah for the purpose a lot line adjustment to reconfigure parcels for future single-family residential development on approximately 55 acres. The project site is located just west of Ukiah, CA within Sections 19 and 30, Township 15N, Range 12W, Mount Diablo Base and Meridian, in the Ukiah USGS 7.5-minute quadrangle, APNs: 001-040-83, 157-070-01, 157-070-02, and 003- 190-01 (Appendix D: Map 1, Study Area- Topographic Map). A site visit was conducted on February 5, 2021. A botanical survey was conducted on March 30, 2021. Additional botanical survey results will be amended in once completed. The purpose of this study was to identify and map areas within the parcel that are potential sensitive natural communities and to locate special-status plants and special-status animal habitats to determine if they would be directly or potentially impacted by the proposed project. The Study Area referred to within this report comprises approximately 55 acres and includes existing dirt and gravel roads, fire breaks, water tank pad sites, and areas cleared for potential house sites (Appendix D: Map 2, Study Area-Aerial Map). This report includes the following: •Regulations and Project Description (Section 2) •Field Survey Methodology (Section 3) •Study Area Setting (Section 4) •Field Survey Results (Section 5) •Assessment Summary and Recommendations (Section 6) •Tables of Special-Status Plants and Wildlife within CNDDB nine quads (Appendix A) •List of Species Observed (Appendix B) •Representative Photographs of Study Area (Appendix C) •Supporting Maps (Appendix D) •Supporting Documents (Appendix E) Section 2.0: Regulations and Descriptions 2.1 Regulatory Setting In addition to the requirements of Mendocino County’s permitting process, the project shall comply with Federal, State, and local regulations designed to protect sensitive natural resources. The following natural resources are protected under one or more of several Federal and/or State regulations and should be considered when designing and/or implementing the proposed project within the Study Area: Essential Fish Habitat: protected through changes to the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act to maintain sustainable fisheries in the United States, administered by National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS): •Includes habitats (rivers, creeks, estuaries) that may support anadromous fish (fish migrating from ocean habitat into freshwater river habitat), as well as commercially and/or ecologically valuable fishes. Page 147 of 414 Page 3 of 101 Streams, Lakes, and Riparian Habitat: protected under the California Fish and Game Code (CFGC), administered by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW): •Includes creeks and rivers (bodies where water flows at least periodically or intermittently through a bed or channel having banks and supports fish or other aquatic life), and vegetation adjacent to and associated with (riparian habitat). Waters of the State: protected under the State Water Resources Control Board Waters of the U.S.: protected under the Clean Water Act (CWA), administered by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps): •Includes wetlands, streams, rivers, and other aquatic habitats meeting the guidance issued by the Corps. 2.2 Natural Communities and Sensitive Natural Communities Sensitive Natural Communities: protected under the California Fish and Game Code (CFGC), administered by California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW 2020): •Includes terrestrial vegetation or plant communities that are ranked by NatureServe and considered “threatened” or “endangered” by CDFW, lists of such are included in List of Vegetation Alliances and Associations (CDFW 2020). 2.3 Special-Status Species Special-status Plant and Wildlife Species including Critical Habitat: protected under one or more of the Federal Endangered Species Act (ESA), California Endangered Species Act (CESA), California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), administered by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), and/or CDFW: •Includes plants listed under the ESA and/or CESA, or those plants ranked by the California Native Plant Society (CNPS) as Rank 1, 2, 3 and 4. •Includes wildlife listed under the ESA and/or CESA, and wildlife listed by CDFW as Species of Special Concern, Fully Protected Species, and/or Special status including Invertebrates, Birds of Conservation Concern listed by USFWS, Species of Concern listed by National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), Western Bat Working Group (WBWG). Section 3.0: Field Survey Methodology 3.1 Assessment Methods The biological resource assessment is designed to identify sensitive communities within the Study Area and determine the existence or potential occurrence for special-status species. The assessment is also designed to address the potential for cumulative impacts to biological resources that may occur as a result of the project and to make recommendations to reduce or mitigate potential impacts. Page 148 of 414 Page 4 of 101 The biological resource assessment includes the analysis and comparison of existing habitat conditions within the Study Area and the documented range and habitat requirements of sensitive plant and wildlife species described in CDFW’s California Wildlife Habitat Relationships System (CWHR). Jacobszoon & Associates Inc. senior biologist Alicia Ives Ringstad conducted a biological resource assessment of the Study Area on February 5, 2021, consisting of approximately six (6) hours. The Study Area was assessed to document: (1) the on-site plant communities, (2) existing conditions and their ability to provide suitable habitat for any special-status plant or wildlife species, and (3) if sensitive biological communities (e.g. wetlands, vernal pools) are present. Plant species observed during the site assessment were recorded and are listed in Appendix B. Plants listed in Appendix B were identified using The Jepson Manual: Vascular Plants of California 2nd Edition (Baldwin et al. 2012) to the taxonomic level necessary to determine rarity. The names provided in this biological assessment report follow The Jepson Flora Project (JFP 2021). 3.2 Database and Resource Descriptions Prior to conducting field surveys, available reference materials were reviewed, including the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) Web Soil Survey, the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) National Wetlands Inventory (NWI), the Ukiah 7.5'-minute USGS quadrangle topographic map, and the most recent available aerial imagery. The 100-year flood zone was assessed using the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s (FEMA) National Flood Hazard Layer (NFHL) (Appendix D, Map 8: FEMA National Flood Hazard Layer Map). The location of streams and watercourses within the project vicinity were reviewed using datasets from California Streams and the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE). Existing vegetative communities were reviewed using CDFW’s Vegetation Classification and Mapping Program (VegCAMP) data for the potential existence and location of sensitive biological communities including Mendocino Cypress (Hesperocyparis pygmaea) and related vegetation. Where VegCAMP data was not available, existing vegetative communities were reviewed using USDA Forest Service Classification and Assessment with Landsat of Visible Ecological Groupings (CALVEG) data. Databases queried for the occurrence of special-status species include the USFWS Information for Planning and Consultation (IPaC), California Native Plant Society (CNPS) Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants (online edition, v8-03 0.39), and the California Department of Fish and Wildlife California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) Spotted Owl Data Viewer, RareFind and Quick Viewer processed and unprocessed data (online edition, v5.94.01). The CNDDB consists of mapped overlays of all known populations of sensitive plants and wildlife. The database is continually updated with new sensitive species population data. Page 149 of 414 Page 5 of 101 The CNPS database produces a list of sensitive plants that have population occurrences registered within the scoping range. Various habitat characteristics are included with each listed species, including location of the Study Area with regard to the geographic range of sensitive plant species, location(s) of known populations of sensitive plant species as mapped in the CNDDB, soils of the Study Area, elevation, presence/absence of special habitat features (vernal pools, serpentine/volcanic soils, etc.) and plant communities existing within the Study Area. While use of the CNPS inventory does not eliminate the need for an in-season botanical survey, it can, when used in conjunction with other information, provide a very good indication of the suitability of a site as habitat for sensitive plant species. The CNDDB consists of mapped overlays of all known populations of sensitive plants and wildlife (Appendix D, Map 3: CNDDB Vicinity Map). The database is continually updated with new sensitive species population data. California Wildlife Habitat Relationships (CWHR) Predicted Habitat Suitability is a dataset accessed through CNDDB BIOS Commercial/Spotted Owl Viewer that represents areas of suitable habitat within species’ documented ranges. Examination of the CWHR dataset was applied when: 1) the data is available for the species of concern, and 2) when there is a moderate to high potential for an animal to occur on or within 100 feet of the Study Area. CWHR examines whether the areas being examined in the biological assessment is habitat which may support a species of special concern. Habitat suitability ranks of Low (less than 0.34), Medium (0.34-0.66) and High (greater than 0.66) suitability are based on the mean expert opinion suitability value for each habitat type for breeding, foraging, and cover (CDFW 2021). 3.3 Database Resource Assessment A scoping of the CNDDB and CNPS Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants was performed to identify existing and historical occurrences of special status species and sensitive terrestrial communities within the project vicinity. The scoping extended to twelve quads surrounding and including the Ukiah 7.5-minute USGS Quadrangles and included the Boonville, Cow Mountain, Elledge Peak, Laughlin Range, Orrs Springs, Potter Valley, Purdy’s Gardens, Redwood Valley, and Ukiah 7.5-minute USGS Quadrangles. In addition, a 0.25-mile radius scoping area was completed for the identification of northern spotted owl (Strix occidentalis caurina, NSO) Activity Centers. No spotted owl territories (Activity Centers) are located within the 0.25-mile buffer. Prior to the site visit, the databases listed above were accessed to determine whether sensitive biological communities, special-status species or other sensitive areas were documented within the vicinity of the Study Area (Appendix D: Map 3, CNDDB Vicinity Map). During the site visit, existing habitat conditions were evaluated and used to assess the potential for presence of special-status species. The potential for each special-status species to occur in the Study Area was then evaluated according to the following criteria: •No Potential: Habitat on and adjacent to the Study Area is clearly unsuitable for the species requirements (foraging, breeding, cover, substrate, elevation, hydrology, plant community, site history, disturbance regime). Page 150 of 414 Page 6 of 101 •Unlikely: Few of the habitat components meeting the species requirements are present, and/or the majority of habitat on and adjacent to the Study Area is unsuitable or of very poor quality. The species is not likely to be found on-site. •Moderate Potential: Some of the habitat components meeting the species requirements are present, and/or only some of the habitat on or adjacent to the Study Area is suitable. The species has a moderate probability of being found on-site. •High Potential: All the habitat components meeting the species requirements are present and/or most of the habitat on or adjacent to the Study Area is highly suitable. The species has a high probability of being found on-site. •Present: Species is observed on the site or has been recorded (i.e. CNDDB) on-site recently. A complete list of all special-status species and communities listed in the nine-quad scoping of the CNDDB and CNPS as well as those listed in an official USFWS IPaC search of the project area is included in Appendix A: Scoping Table of Special-Status Species and Communities and Potential to occur within the Study Area, and in supporting documents within Appendix E. 3.4 Biological Communities Biological communities present within the Study Area were classified based on existing plant community descriptions described by Preliminary Descriptions of the Terrestrial Natural Communities of California (Holland 1986), USDA Forest Service Classification and Assessment with Landsat of Visible Ecological Groupings (CALVEG) system, and the Manual of California Vegetation Online Edition (MCV2 Alliances, CNPS 2021b). However, in some cases it may be necessary to identify variants of community types or to describe non-vegetated areas that are not described in the literature. Biological communities were classified as sensitive or non-sensitive as defined by CEQA and other applicable laws and regulations. The currently accepted vegetation classification system for the state that is standardly used by CDFW, CNPS, and other state and federal agencies, organizations, and consultants for survey and planning purposes is the Manual of California Vegetation (MCV; Sawyer, Keeler-Wolf, and Evans 2009). Unlike Holland, this vegetation classification system is based on the standard National Vegetation Classification System (NVCS) and includes alliances (a floristically defined vegetation unit identified by its dominant and/or characteristic species) and associations (the finer level of classification beneath alliance). Although the CNDDB still maintains records of some of the old Holland vegetation types, these types are no longer the accepted standard, and the CDFW Vegetation Classification and Mapping Program (VegCAMP) has published more recent vegetation lists for the state based on a standardized vegetation classification system that is currently being developed for California and which is consistent with the MCV classification system. Global and state rarity rankings have been assigned for various types on the recent VegCAMP lists. Page 151 of 414 Page 7 of 101 3.4.1 Non-sensitive Biological Communities Non-sensitive biological communities are those communities that are not afforded special protection under CEQA, and other Federal, State, and local laws, regulations, and ordinances. These communities may, however, provide suitable habitat for some special-status plant or wildlife species, and are described in Section 5.1. 3.4.2 Sensitive Biological Communities Sensitive biological communities include those that are listed in CNDDB as well as MCV2 alliances or associations with state ranks of S1-S3. Aquatic resources (e.g. watercourses, ponds, wetlands, vernal pools, etc.) are also considered sensitive biological communities and are afforded special protections under CEQA and other Federal, State, and local laws, regulations, and ordinances. Sources for assessing sensitive terrestrial or aquatic natural communities include Preliminary Descriptions of the Terrestrial Natural Communities of California (Holland 1986), List of Vegetation Alliances (CDFW, 2020), A Manual of California Vegetation (CNPS 2021b), California Streams, and USFWS National Wetlands Inventory (NWI). Sensitive Natural Communities CDFW considers any MCV2 alliance or association with a state rank of S1-S3 a sensitive natural community. Global and state rankings are defined below. Global Ranking: •G1-Critically Imperiled: At very high risk of extinction due to extreme rarity (often 5 or fewer populations), very steep declines, or other factors. •G2-Imperiled: At high risk of extinction due to very restricted range, very few populations (often 20 or fewer), steep declines, or other factors. •G3-Vulnerable: At moderate risk of extinction due to a restricted range, relatively few populations (often 80 or fewer), recent and widespread declines, or other factors. •G4-Apparently Secure: Uncommon but not rare; some cause for long-term concern due to declines or other factors. •G5-Secure: Common; widespread and abundant. State Ranking: •S1-Critically Imperiled: Critically imperiled in the state because of extreme rarity (often 5 or fewer populations) or because of factor(s) such as very steep declines making it especially vulnerable to extirpation from the state. •S2-Imperiled: Imperiled in the state because of rarity due to very restricted range, very few populations (often 20 or fewer), steep declines, or other factors making it very vulnerable to extirpation from the state. •S3-Vulnerable: Vulnerable in the state due to a restricted range, relatively few populations (often 80 or fewer), recent and widespread declines, or other factors making it vulnerable to extirpation from the state. •S4-Apparently Secure: Uncommon but not rare in the state; some cause for long-term concern due to declines or other factors. •S5-Secure: Common, widespread, and abundant in the state. Page 152 of 414 Page 8 of 101 Critical Habitat Critical habitat is a term defined by the ESA as a specific geographic area that contains features essential for the conservation of a threatened or endangered species and that may require special management and protection. The ESA requires federal agencies to consult with the USFWS to conserve listed species on their lands and to ensure that any activities or projects they fund, authorize, or carry out will not jeopardize the survival of a threatened or endangered species. Federal agencies must also ensure that their activities or projects do not adversely modify critical habitat to the point that it will no longer aid in the species’ recovery. In many cases, this level of protection is similar to that already provided to species by the ESA jeopardy standard. However, areas that are currently unoccupied by the species, but which are needed for the species’ recovery, are protected by the prohibition against adverse modification of critical habitat. Aquatic Resources Watercourses and other waterbodies were classified using guidance from the California Forest Practice Rules 2020 (FPR). Wetlands are determined using the USFWS National Wetland Inventory (NWI) database and are defined in the 1987 USACE Wetlands Delineation Manual as “Those areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or ground water at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions.” Wetlands generally include swamps, marshes, bogs, and similar areas. Wet areas are areas with observed hydrophytic vegetation and/or other hydrologic indicators that suggest the area is influenced by ponding or flooding for a significant amount of time throughout the growing season. Wet areas should be given the same protections as wetlands for the purposes of this assessment until a wetland delineation is conducted to confirm the presence and extent of wetlands. 3.5 Special-status Species Special-status plants (native, vascular and non-vascular) and animals assessed are of limited abundance in California, with known occurrence or distribution in Mendocino County, and were derived from the following lists: •Federal listed or threatened or endangered plants or species of concern (FT, FE, FSC) •California State listed or rare, threatened or endangered plants or species of concern (SR, ST, SE, SP, SSC) •Board of Forestry Sensitive (BFS) •California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) Status animals: Fully Protected, Species of Special Concern and Watch List (FP, SSC, WL) •California Native Plant Society Rare Plant Rank (CRPR) list 1A species (plants presumed extirpated in California, and either rare or extinct elsewhere) •California Native Plant Society Rare Plant Rank (CRPR) list 1B species (plants rare, threatened or endangered in California and elsewhere) •California Native Plant Society Rare Plant Rank (CRPR) list 2A species (plants presumed extirpated in California but more common elsewhere) •California Native Plant Society Rare Plant Rank (CRPR) list 2B species (plants rare, threatened, or endangered in California but more common elsewhere) •California Native Plant Society Rare Plant Rank (CRPR) list 3 (plants which more information is needed- a review list) Page 153 of 414 Page 9 of 101 • California Native Plant Society Rare Plant Rank (CRPR) list 4 (plants of limited distribution – a watch list) Rare, threatened, and endangered plants are not necessarily limited to those species which have been “listed” by state and federal agencies but should include any species that, based on all available data, is rare, threatened, and/or endangered under the following definitions: A species, subspecies, or variety of plant is “endangered” when the prospects of its survival and reproduction are in immediate jeopardy from one or more causes, including loss of habitat, change in habitat, over-exploitation, predation, competition, or disease. A plant is “threatened” when it is likely to become endangered in the foreseeable future in the absence of protection measures. A plant is “rare” when, although not presently threatened with extinction, the species, subspecies, or variety is found in such small numbers throughout its range that it may be endangered if its habitat continues to deteriorate. The site assessment is intended to identify the presence or absence of suitable habitat for special- status species known to occur within the Study Area. The site visit does not constitute a full season protocol-level survey and is not intended to determine the actual presence or absence of a species. If a special-status species is observed during the site visit, its presence will be recorded and discussed. All plant and wildlife species observed were recorded and are included in Appendix B. Section 4.0: Study Area Setting 4.1 Climate and Hydrology The project site is located west of Ukiah, CA within Sections 19 and 30, Township 15N, Range 12W, Mount Diablo Base and Meridian, in the Ukiah USGS 7.5-minute quadrangle (Appendix D: Map 1, Study Area). The Study Area is located along a ridgetop that divides the Orrs Creek – Russian River watershed (HUC-12, 180101100403). The average annual precipitation is 41 to 63 inches, the average annual air temperature is 55-60 degrees F, and the average frost-free period is 240 to 340 days. 4.2 Topography and Soils The Study Area is located at approximately 840-1,600 feet in elevation and is underlain by two (2) soil mapping units, according to the United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service’s Web Soil Survey: Map Unit Symbol 141, Hopland loam, 30 to 50 percent slopes; and Map Unit Symbol 151, Hopland-Wohly loams, 50 to 75 percent slopes (Appendix D: Map 4, Soil Map). A description of the soil series are as follows: Hopland loam, 30 to 50 percent slopes (Map Unit Symbol 141): This map unit is located on mountains and hills. Included in this unit are small areas of Squawrock, Hellman, Witherell and Cummiskey soils. California black oak and Pacific madrone are the main tree species. Among the trees of limited extent are Douglas-fir, Oregon white oak, interior live oak and blue oak. The elevation range is 490 to 2,400 feet. Page 154 of 414 Page 10 of 101 • Hopland loam is moderately deep, well drained soils formed in material weathered from sandstone and shale. Redvine soils are on dissected stream terraces and have slopes of 2 to 30 percent. Hopland-Wohly loams, 50 to 75 percent slopes (Map Unit Symbol 151): This map unit is on hills and mountains. Included in this unit are small areas of Bearwallow, Cassabonne, Hellman and Squawrock soils. The native vegetation is mainly oaks and scattered pockets of Douglas-fir. The elevation range is 500 to 2,500 feet. • Hopland soil is moderately deep, well drained soils formed in material weathered from sandstone and shale. • Wholy soil is moderately deep, well drained soils formed in material weathered from sandstone and shale. 4.3 Biota and Land Use Regionally, the Study Area has historically been used primarily for timber and firewood production, recreation, homesite development, and wildlife habitat (USDA Web Soil Survey, 2021). Section 5 provides a detailed account of the biological communities found on-site, including sensitive and non-sensitive biological communities and additionally the special-status flora and fauna with potential to occur within the Study Area. Section 5.0: Field Survey Results 5.1 Biological Communities The Study Area and immediate surroundings were assessed prior to a site a visit on February 5, 2021 to determine local biological communities present and develop a comprehensive list of all plant and wildlife species that may be present. Natural communities referred to in this report include Holland 1986 descriptions, USFS CALVEG classifications, and the Manual of California Vegetation (MCV2) alliance descriptions. Holland Descriptions: The Study Area is within Cismontane woodland, Valley and foothill grassland and Broadleaved upland forest habitat as best classified by the habitat classification system described by Holland 1986. Descriptions of these habitat types are as follows: • Valley and Foothill Grassland: Introduced, annual Mediterranean grasses and native herbs. On most sites the native bunch grass species, such as needle grass, have been largely or entirely supplanted by introductions. Stands rich in natives usually found on unusual substrates, such as serpentinite or somewhat alkaline soils. • Cismontane Woodland: Trees deciduous, evergreen, or both, with open canopies. Broadleaved trees, especially oaks, dominate, although conifers may be present in or emergent through the canopy. Understories may be open and herbaceous or closed and shrubby. This type occurs on a variety of sites below the conifer forests in Mediterranean California. Page 155 of 414 Page 11 of 101 • Broadleaved Upland Forest: Stands of evergreen or deciduous, broadleaved trees 5 meters or more tall, forming closed canopies. Many, but not all, with very poorly developed understories. Several are seral to montane conifer forests. It includes the "mixed evergreen forest" of the Coast Ranges. USFS CALVEG Classifications: According to USDA Forest Service CALVEG mapping delineation, the regionally dominant vegetation type within the Study Area is comprised of Black oak, Oregon white oak, Pacific Douglas-fir, Douglas-fir-Ponderosa pine, Interior live oak and Interior mixed hardwood (Appendix D: Map 5, CALVEG Classification Map). Descriptions of these vegetation types are as follows: • California Black oak: California Black Oak (Quercus kelloggii) occurs extensively in this zone at elevations up to about 6000 feet (1830 m). It has been mapped abundantly as a dominant hardwood in the Eastern Klamath Mountains and Oregon Mountain Subsections (Mountains Section) and in the Eastern and Central Franciscan and Konocti Flows Subsections (Ranges Section) and scattered 13 among twenty-five other subsections in the three sections. It may develop into relatively pure stands on moderately steep slopes or may associate with Oregon White Oak (Q. garryana var. garryana) and/or Canyon Live Oak (Q. chrysolepis) on drier or harsher sites. These stands are commonly found within or below the Douglas-fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii), Mixed Conifer - Pine and Ponderosa Pine (Pinus ponderosa) types, often as a result of fire or other disturbance, especially in Douglas-fir areas. Black Oak commonly is a major understory hardwood in those conifer types and also typically grows on better soils than those of the Canyon Live Oak-dominant type. Commonly associated shrubs include both upper and lower montane species such as various Manzanitas (Arctostaphylos spp.), shrub Oaks (Quercus spp.), Deerbrush (Ceanothus intergerrimus), Brewer Oak (Q. garryana var. breweri), Wedgeleaf Ceanothus (C. cuneatus), etc. • Pacific Douglas-Fir: Douglas-fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii) is the dominant overstory conifer over a large area in the Mountains, Coast, and Ranges Sections. This alliance has been mapped at various densities in most subsections of this zone at elevations usually below 5600 feet (1708 m). Tanoak (Lithocarpus densiflorus var. densiflorus) is the most common hardwood associate on mesic sites towards the west. Along western edges of the Mountains Section, a scattered overstory of Douglas-fir often exists over a continuous Tanoak understory with occasional Madrones (Arbutus menziesii). Canyon Live Oak (Quercus chrysolepis) becomes an important hardwood associate on steeper or drier slopes and those underlain by shallow soils. Black Oak (Q. kelloggii) may often associate with this conifer but usually is not abundant. In addition, any of the following tree species may be sparsely present in Douglas-fir stands: Redwood (Sequoia sempervirens), Ponderosa Pine (Pinus ponderosa), Incense Cedar (Calocedrus decurrens), White Fir (Abies concolor), Oregon White Oak (Q. garryana) and Bigleaf Maple (Acer macrophyllum), among others. The shrub understory may also be quite diverse and includes a wide range of shrubs and forbs. Page 156 of 414 Page 12 of 101 • Interior Mixed Hardwood: No single species is dominant in the Interior Mixed Hardwood Alliance, a mixture that has been mapped most extensively in the Central Franciscan and Ultrabasic Complex Subsections of the Mountains Section and the Mount St. Helena Flows and Valleys, Coast Franciscan and Marin Hills and Valleys Subsections of the Coast Section. It also occurs with less abundance in thirteen other subsections in all three sections. The mixture in this area includes diverse proportions of Oregon White (Quercus garryana), Canyon Live (Q. chrysolepis) and Blue (Q. douglasii) Oaks, with lesser amounts of California Bay (Umbellifera californica) and Coast Live Oak (Q. agrifolia). Conifer associates are mainly Douglas-fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii) and in western areas, Redwood (Sequoia sempervirens). This alliance has been mapped at elevations generally below about 4000 feet (1220 m). Annual grasses and forbs typically occur in these open sites. • Oregon White Oak: Oregon White Oak (Quercus garryana) is widely distributed from British Columbia to this zone, with outlying scattered populations further east and south to the Sierra Nevada Mountains and southern California. The tree form (Q. g. var. garryana) becomes a local canopy dominant in woodlands of the three sections of this zone across thirty-one subsections, becoming especially prominent in seven of them. Mapped elevations of this type are usually below about 5800 feet (1768 m). Often developing on poor, exposed or droughty soils in inland valleys, foothills or rocky ridges, the Oregon White Oak type also is found in poorly drained areas having occasional standing water or next to stream terraces. On better sites, it is usually out-competed by species such as Douglas-fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii) and California Black Oak (Q. kelloggii), often becoming a minor element in mixed hardwood types. Other associated species include other conifers such as Ponderosa Pine (Pinus ponderosa), Gray Pine (P. sabiniana) and various Oaks (Quercus spp.). Open sites often have a grass understory. • Douglas-fir-Pine: Douglas-fir (Psuedotsuga menziesii) shares canopy dominance with Ponderosa Pine (Pinus ponderosa) at elevations below about 6000 feet (1830 m) in drier sites of the Mountains and Ranges Sections, and more rarely in the eastern sectors of the Coast Section. The type has been mapped within twenty-nine subsections, having greater spatial frequency towards the east and south sections of the zone. Knobcone Pine (P. attenuata) may occasionally be present as a minor component of the conifer overstory. Pacific Madrone (Arbutus menziesii), California Black Oak (Quercus kelloggii), Canyon Live Oak (Q. chrysolepis) and Bigleaf Maple (Acer macrophyllum) are often present in the understory, while Tanoak (Lithocarpus densiflorus var. densiflorus) is usually absent. This type may grade into the Mixed Conifer - Pine type in the Coast Ranges as site conditions become more mesic or disturbance factors less significant in the landscape. It is less prominent in the moister, outermost Klamath Mountains area where it intermixes with Pacific Douglas-fir forests. Page 157 of 414 Page 13 of 101 • Interior Live Oak: The Interior Live Oak (Quercus wislizenii) Alliance occurs mainly in southern areas of the Coast and Mountains Sections as mapped in eight subsections. It is often found to the north and east of the Coast Live Oak (Q. agrifolia) Alliance distribution and topographically above Blue Oak (Q. douglasii) dominated stands towards the east. This type often indicates xeric or rocky sites when associated with other hardwood types and has been mapped at elevations up to about 4400 feet (1342 m). The shrubby form (Q. wislizenii var. frutescens) may also dominate a site, especially in areas of frequent fires. Occasional trees and shrubs such as Douglas-fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii), Gray Pine (Pinus sabiniana), Blue Oak (Q. douglasii), Oregon White Oak (Q. garryana) and Chamise (Adenostoma fasciculatum) may be associated with this pure hardwood alliance. Interior Live Oak is known to hybidize with California Black Oak (Q. kelloggii) and Coast Live Oak (Q. agrifolia), occasionally making field identification more difficult. MCV2 Alliances: Biological communities observed were classified using data collected in the field and the Manual of California Vegetation Online Edition (MCV2 Alliances, CNPS 2020b). Five (5) MCV2 Alliance communities (Appendix D: Map 6: MCV2 Classification Map) were observed on site: • Quercus garryana Forest & Woodland Alliance: Oregon white oak forest and woodland • Pseudotsuga menziesii Forest & Woodland Alliance: Douglas-fir forest and woodland • Quercus kelloggii Forest and Woodland Alliance: California black oak forest and woodland • Umbellularia californica Forest & Woodland Alliance: California bay forest and woodland • Pinus attenuata Forest & Woodland Alliance: Knobcone pine forest and woodland Detailed descriptions of these communities are as follows: Quercus garryana Forest & Woodland Alliance: Oregon white oak forest and woodland: • Characteristics Species: Quercus garryana var. garryana is dominant or co-dominant in the tree canopy with Juniperous occidentalis, Pinus jeffreyi, Pinus ponderosa, Pinus sabiniana, Pseudotsuga menziesii, Quercus chrysolepis, Quercus kelloggii and Umbellularia californica. • Vegetation Layers: Trees < 30 m; canopy is open to continuous. Shrub layer is usually open. Herbaceous layer is open to intermittent and mostly grassy. • Membership Rules: o Quercus garryana > 30% relative cover in the tree canopy; > 25% absolute cover, and lacking an appreciable conifer cover. o Quercus garryana > 30% relative cover in the tree canopy often with other oaks such as Q. kelloggii. • Habitats: Raised stream benches, terraces, slopes. and ridges of all aspects. • State Rarity Rank: S3 • Global Rarity Rank: G4 Page 158 of 414 Page 14 of 101 Pseudotsuga menziesii Forest & Woodland Alliance; Douglas-fir forest and woodland: • Characteristic Species: Pseudotsuga menziesii is dominant or co-dominant with hardwoods in the tree canopy with Abies concolor, Acer macrophyllum, Alnus rhombifolia, Arbutus menziesii, Calocedrus decurrens, Chamaecyparis lawsoniana, Cornus nuttali, Pinus contorta, Pinus lambertianana, Quercus agrifolia., Quercus chrysolepis, Quercus garryana, Quercus kelloggii, and Sequoia sempervirens. • Vegetation Layer: Trees <75m; canopy intermittent to continuous, and it may be two- tiered. Shrubs are infrequent or common. Herbaceous layer is sparse or abundant. • Membership rules: o Pseudotsuga menziesii > 50% relative cover in the tree canopy and reproducing successfully, though hardwoods may dominate or co-dominate in the subcanopy and regeneration layer; Abies concolor, Chamaecyparis lawsoniana, Pinus contorta, P. ponderosa, and Sequoia sempervirens <20% relative cover; and Notholithocarpus densiflorus <10% relative cover in the tree canopy. • Habitats: All topographic positions and aspects. Substrates various, including serpentine. • State Rarity Rank: S4 • Global Rarity Rank: G5 Quercus kelloggii Forest and Woodland Alliance: California black oak forest and woodland: • Characteristics Species: Quercus kelloggii is dominant or co-dominant in the tree camopy with Abies concolor, Arbutus menziesii, Calocedrus decurrens, Pinus attenuata, Pinus ponderosa, Pseudotsuga menziesii, Quercus agrofolia, Quercus chrysolepis, Quercus garryana, Quercus lobata and Umbellularia californica. • Vegetation Layers: Trees < 40 m; canopy is open to continuous. Shrub layer is open to intermittent. Herbaceous layer is sparse or grassy. • Membership Rules: o Quercus kelloggii > 50% relative cover in overstory, and conifers are not conspicuous; or Q. kelloggii > 30% relative cover in the overstory and Pinus ponderosa may co-dominate. o Quercus kelloggii > 50% relative cover in the tree canopy; emergent conifers <10% relative cover. o Quercus kelloggii and Pinus ponderosa 30-60% relative cover in the overstory. • Habitats: All topographic positions and aspects. Soils are moderately to excessively drained. • State Rarity Rank: S4 • Global Rarity Rank: G4 Pinus attenuata Forest & Woodland Alliance: Knobcone pine forest and woodland: • Characteristic Species: Pinus attenuata is dominant or co-dominant in the tree canopy with Arbutus menziesii, Juniperus occidentalis, Notholithocarpus densiflorus, Pinus contorta, Pinus coulteri, Pinus monticola, Pinus radiata, Pinus sabiniana, Pseudotsuga menziesii, Quercus chrysolepis and Quercus wislizeni. • Vegetation Layers: Trees < 25 m; canopy is open to continuous and one or two tiered. Shrub layer is sparse to continuous. Herbaceous layer is sparse. Page 159 of 414 Page 15 of 101 • Membership Rules o Pinus attenuata > 50% relative cover in the tree layer; if co-dominant, > 30% relative cover. • Habitats: Slopes of all aspects, ridges. Soils are derived notably from ultramafic, granitic, sedimentary, and volcanic substrates. • State Rarity S4 • Global Rarity G4 Umbellularia californica Forest & Woodland Alliance: California bay forest and woodland: • Characteristic Species: Umbellularia californica is dominant or co-dominant in the tree or tall shrub canopy with Acer macrophyllum, Aesculus californica, Alnus rhombifolia, Alnus rubra, Arbutus menziesii, Corylus cornuta, Juglans californica, Notholithocarpus densiflorus, Pinus sabiniana, Platanus racemosa, Pseudotsuga menziesii, Quercus agrifolia, Quercus chrysolepis, Quercus wislizeni and Sequoia sempervirens. • Vegetation Layers: Trees < 25 (30) m; canopy is intermittent to continuous. Shrub layer open to intermittent. Herbaceous layer is sparse to abundant. • Membership Rules o Conifers < 30% relative cover in canopy, Umbellularia californica > 30% relative cover in the tree canopy. o Umbellularia californica usually > 50% relative cover in the overstory as a tree or tall shrub; when with Alnus rhombifolia or Quercus wislizeni, > 30% relative cover. • Habitats: Alluvial benches, streamsides, valley bottoms, coastal bluffs, inland ridges, steep north-facing slopes, rocky outcrops. Soils are shallow to deep, sandy to clay loams. The USFWS Wetland Inventory (1996 national list) recognizes Umbellularia californica as a FAC plant. • State Rarity: S3 • Global Rarity: G4 5.1.1 Non-sensitive Biological Communities Non-sensitive biological communities are those communities that are not afforded special protection under CEQA, and other Federal, State, and local laws, regulations, and ordinances. The Study Area is comprised of three (3) non-sensitive biological communities, as classified under the MCV2 system: Pseudotsuga menziesii Forest & Woodland Alliance: Douglas-fir forest and woodland CDFW State Rarity Rank: S4 (Apparently Secure) Quercus kelloggii Forest and Woodland Alliance: California black oak forest and woodland CDFW State Rarity Rank: S4 (Apparently Secure) Pinus attenuata Forest & Woodland Alliance: Knobcone pine forest and woodland CDFW State Rarity Rank: S4 (Apparently Secure) Descriptions of these communities are listed above in section 5.1, Biological Communities, and include the Manual of California Vegetation (MCV2) alliance descriptions. Page 160 of 414 Page 16 of 101 5.1.2 Sensitive Biological Communities Sensitive biological communities include those that are listed in CNDDB as well as observed MCV2 alliances or associations with state ranks of S1-S3 and are listed on CDFW’s List of California Sensitive Natural Communities (CDFW 2020). The Study Area is comprised of two (2) non-sensitive biological communities, as classified under the MCV2 system: Quercus garryana Forest & Woodland Alliance: Oregon white oak forest and woodland CDFW State Rarity Rank: S3 (Vulnerable). Umbellularia californica Forest & Woodland Alliance: California bay forest and woodland CDFW State Rarity Rank: S3 (Vulnerable). Recommendations to avoid or mitigate potential impacts to sensitive natural communities are discussed in Section 6.0, Assessment Summary and Recommendations. Sensitive Aquatic Resources: The Study Area contains two (2) Class II watercourses and four (4) Class III watercourses that were observed and mapped on-site. Recommendations to avoid or mitigate potential impacts to aquatic resources are discussed in Section 6.0, Assessment Summary and Recommendations. 5.2 Special-status Species 5.2.1 Special-status Plant Species Upon review of the resource databases (Appendix E: listed in Section 3.2, forty-six (46) special- status plant species have been documented within the vicinity of the Study Area. Please refer to Appendix A for a table of all special-status plant species which occur within a nine-quad search surrounding the Study Area and additional discussion of the potential for each species to occur within the Study Area. Special-status species documented within five miles of the Study Area are depicted in the CNDDB Vicinity map (Appendix D: Map 3, CNDDB Vicinity Map). Of the forty-six (46) special-status plant species within the vicinity of the Study Area, seventeen (17) special-status plant species have a moderate to high potential to occur within the Study Area. The remaining twenty-nine (29) special-status plant species documented within the vicinity of the Study Area are unlikely to occur or do not have the potential to occur due to one or more of the following reasons: • Hydrologic conditions (e.g., vernal pools, riverine) necessary to support the special-status plant species are not present within the Study Area. • Edaphic conditions (soils, e.g., rocky outcrops, serpentinite) necessary to support the special-status plant species are not present within the Study Area. • Topographic conditions (e.g., montane) necessary to support the special-status plant species are not present within the Study Area. • Unique pH conditions (e.g., alkali scalds, acidic bogs) necessary to support the special- status plant species are not present within the Study Area. Page 161 of 414 Page 17 of 101 •Associated vegetation communities (e.g., interior chaparral, tidal marsh) necessary to support the special-status plant species are not present within the Study Area. •The Study Area is geographically isolated (e.g., outside of required elevations, coastal environment) from the documented range of the special-status plant species. •Ecological conditions (last recorded observations, human-made or natural disturbance) have encroached on species to a point to cause presumed extinction. The habitat requirements for the seventeen (17) special-status plant species with moderate or high potential to occur within the Study Area is described in the table below: SPECIES HABITAT REQUIREMENTS POTENTIAL TO OCCUR IN THE STUDY AREA RECOMMENDATIONS Plants mountain lady’s-slipper Cypripedium montanum Rank 4.2 Lower montane coniferous forest, broadleaved upland forest, cismontane woodland, north coast coniferous forest, often on dry, undisturbed slopes. Elevation ranges from 607 to 7300 feet (185 to 2225 meters). A perennial herb (rhizomatous), the blooming period is from Mar-Aug. Moderate Potential. Cismontane woodland and broadleaved upland forest are present within Study Area and may provide suitable habitat for this species. Not Observed. This species was not observed during the biological assessment or during the botanical survey conducted on March 30. There are no recommendations for this species. Koch’s cord moss Entosthodon kochii Rank 1B.3 Cismontane woodland, often growing on soil over riverbanks. Elevation ranges from 607 to 1198 feet (185 to 365 meters). A moss, there is no distinct blooming period. Moderate Potential. Cismontane woodland is present within the Study Area and may provide suitable habitat for this species. Not Observed. This species was not observed during the biological assessment and there are no recommendations for this species. stinkbells Fritillaria agrestis Rank 4.2 Cismontane woodland, chaparral, valley and foothill grassland, pinyon and juniper woodland, sometimes on serpentine soil, mostly found in non-native grassland or in grassy openings in clay soil. This species has a serpentine affinity of 2.7 (strong indicator). Elevation ranges from 33 to 5102 feet (10 to 1555 meters). A perennial bulbiferous herb, the blooming period is from Mar-Jun. Moderate Potential. The Study Area contains chapparal habitat that may be suitable for this species. Not Observed. This species was not observed during the biological assessment or during the botanical survey conducted on March 30. There are no recommendations for this species. Roderick’s fritillary Fritillaria roderickii Rank 1B.1 Coastal bluff scrub, coastal prairie, valley and foothill grassland, often on grassy slopes, mesas. Elevation ranges from 66 to 2002 feet (20 to 610 meters). A perennial herb (bulb), the blooming period is from Mar-May. Moderate Potential. Grassland habitat is present within the Study Area and may provide suitable habitat for this species. Not Observed. This species was not observed during the biological assessment or during the botanical survey conducted on March 30. There are no recommendations for this species. Page 162 of 414 Page 18 of 101 SPECIES HABITAT REQUIREMENTS POTENTIAL TO OCCUR IN THE STUDY AREA RECOMMENDATIONS Mendocino tarplant Hemizonia congesta ssp. calyculata Rank 4.3 Cismontane woodland, valley and foothill grassland, open woods and forests, sometimes on serpentine. H. congesta ssp. calyculata has a serpentine affinity of 1.5 (weak indicator). Elevation ranges from 738 to 4593 feet (225 to 1400 meters). An annual herb, the blooming period is from Jul-Nov. Moderate Potential. Cismontane woodland and grassland habitat are present within the Study Area. This species is sometimes found in serpentine soil, but not always; therefore, the Study Area may provide suitable habitat for this species. Not Observed. This species was not observed during the biological assessment; however, the biological assessment was not conducted during the blooming period. It is recommended to survey for this species during the appropriate blooming period (Jul- Nov). congested- headed hayfield tarplant Hemizonia congesta ssp. congesta Rank 1B.2 Valley and foothill grassland, often in fallow fields, sometimes along roadsides. H. congesta ssp. congesta has a serpentine affinity (1.3, weak indicator/indifferent). Elevation ranges from 17 to 1706 feet (5 to 520 meters). An annual herb, the blooming period is from Apr-Nov. Moderate Potential. Grassland habitat is present within the Study Area. This species is sometimes found in serpentine soil, but not always; therefore, the Study Area may provide suitable habitat for this species. Not Observed. This species was not observed during the biological assessment; however, the biological assessment was not conducted during the blooming period. It is recommended to survey for this species during the appropriate blooming period (Apr-Nov). Contra Costa goldfields Lasthenia conjugens FE Rank 1B.1 Valley and foothill grassland, vernal pools, alkaline playas, cismontane woodlands, often found in swales and low depressions in open grassy areas. Elevation ranges from 4 to 1477 feet (1 to 450 meters). An annual herb, the blooming period is from Mar-Jun. Moderate Potential. The Study Area contains the required habitat (cismontane woodland and grassland habitat) and may provide suitable habitat for this species. Not Observed. This species was not observed during the biological assessment; however, the biological assessment or during the botanical survey conducted on March 30.There are no recommendations for this species. bristly leptosiphon Leptosiphon acicularis Rank 4.2 Chaparral, cismontane woodland, coastal prairie, valley and foothill grassland. Elevation ranges from 181 to 4922 feet (55 to 1500 meters). An annual herb, the blooming period is from Apr-Jul. Moderate Potential. The Study Area contains the required habitat (cismontane woodland) and may provide suitable habitat for this species. Not Observed. This species was not observed during the biological assessment; however, the biological assessment was not conducted during the blooming period for this species. It is recommended to survey for this species during the appropriate blooming period (Apr- Jul). Page 163 of 414 Page 19 of 101 SPECIES HABITAT REQUIREMENTS POTENTIAL TO OCCUR IN THE STUDY AREA RECOMMENDATIONS broad-lobed leptosiphon Leptosiphon latisectus Rank 4.3 Broadleaved upland forest, cismontane woodland. L. latisectus has a serpentine affinity of 2.0 (weak indicator). Elevation ranges from 558 to 4922 feet (170 to 1500 meters). An annual herb, the blooming period is from Apr- Jun. Moderate Potential. Cismontane woodland and broadleaved upland forest are present within the Study Area. This species is sometimes found in serpentine soil, but not always; therefore, the Study Area may provide suitable habitat for this species. Not Observed. This species was not observed during the biological assessment; however, the biological assessment was not conducted during the blooming period. It is recommended to survey for this species during the appropriate blooming period (Apr- Jun). redwood lily Lilium rubescens Rank 4.2 Chaparral, lower montane coniferous forest, broadleaved upland forest, upper montane coniferous forest, north coast coniferous forest, sometimes on serpentine. L. rubescens has a serpentine affinity of 2 (weak indicator). Elevation ranges from 99 to 6267 feet (30 to 1910 meters). A perennial herb (bulb), the blooming period is from Apr- Aug. Moderate Potential. Broadleaved upland forest is present within the Study Area. This species is sometimes found in serpentine soil, but not always; therefore, the Study Area may provide suitable habitat for this species. Not Observed. This species was not observed during the biological assessment; however, the biological assessment was not conducted during the blooming period. It is recommended to survey for this species during the appropriate blooming period (Apr- Aug). green monardella Monardella viridis Rank 4.3 Broadleaved upland forest, chaparral, cismontane woodland. Elevation ranges from 328 to 3314 feet (100 to 1010 meters). A perennial herb, the blooming period is from Jun-Sep. Moderate Potential. Cismontane woodland and broadleaved upland forest are present within the Study Area. This species is sometimes found in serpentine soil, but not always; therefore, the Study Area may provide suitable habitat for this species. Not Observed. This species was not observed during the biological assessment; however, the biological assessment was not conducted during the blooming period. It is recommended to survey for this species during the appropriate blooming period (Apr- Jun). white- flowered rein orchid Piperia candida Rank 1B.2 North Coast coniferous forest, lower montane coniferous forest, broadleaved upland forest, sometimes on serpentine. Often found in forest duff, mossy banks, ultramafic (serpentine) rock outcrops and muskeg. P. candida has a serpentine affinity of 1.2 (weak indicator/indifferent). Elevation ranges from 66 to 5299 feet (20 to 1615 meters). A perennial herb, the blooming period is from May-Sep. Moderate Potential. Cismontane woodland and broadleaved upland forest are present within the Study Area. This species is sometimes found in serpentine soil, but not always; therefore, the Study Area may provide suitable habitat for this species. Not Observed. This species was not observed during the biological assessment; however, the biological assessment was not conducted during the blooming period. It is recommended to survey for this species during the appropriate blooming period (May-Sep). Page 164 of 414 Page 20 of 101 SPECIES HABITAT REQUIREMENTS POTENTIAL TO OCCUR IN THE STUDY AREA RECOMMENDATIONS Mayacamas popcornflower Plagiobothrys lithocaryus Rank 1A Chaparral, cismontane woodland, valley and foothill grassland, moist sites. Elevation ranges from 985 to 1477 feet (300 to 450 meters). An annual herb, the blooming period is from Apr- May. Moderate Potential. Cismontane woodland and grassland habitat are present within the Study Area and may provide suitable habitat for this species. Not Observed. This species was not observed during the biological assessment; however, the biological assessment was not conducted during the blooming period. It is recommended to survey for this species during the appropriate blooming period (Apr-May). beaked tracyina Tracyina rostrata Rank 1B.2 USFS: S Cismontane woodland, valley and foothill grassland, chaparral, often observed in open grassy meadows commonly within oak woodland and grassland habitats. Elevation ranges from 492 to 2609 feet (150 to 795 meters). An annual herb, the blooming period is from May-Jun. Moderate Potential. Cismontane woodland and grassland habitat are present within the Study Area and may provide suitable habitat for this species. Not Observed. This species was not observed during the biological assessment; however, the biological assessment was not conducted during the blooming period. It is recommended to survey for this species during the appropriate blooming period (May-Jun). showy Indian clover Trifolium amoenum FE Rank 1B.1 Valley and foothill grassland, coastal bluff scrub, sometimes on serpentine soils (ultramafic), open sunny sites, swales, along roadsides and eroding cliff faces. T. amoenum has an ultramafic affinity (1.3, weak indicator, indifferent). Elevation ranges from 17 to 1017 feet (5 to 310 meters). An annual herb, the blooming period is from Apr-Jun. Moderate Potential. Grassland habitat is present within the Study Area and this species is sometimes found in serpentine soil, but not always. The Study Area may provide suitable habitat for this species. Not Observed. This species was not observed during the biological assessment; however, the biological assessment was not conducted during the blooming period. It is recommended to survey for this species during the appropriate blooming period (Apr- Jun). Methuselah’s beard lichen Usnea longissima Rank 4.2 North coast coniferous forest, broadleaved upland forest. Often grows in the “redwood zone” on tree branches of a variety of trees, including bigleaf maple (Acer macrophyllum), various oaks (Quercus spp.), ash (Fraxinus spp.), Douglas-fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii) and California bay (Umbellularia californica). Elevation ranges from 148 to 4807 feet (45 to 1465 meters). Moderate Potential. Broadleaved upland forest is present within the Study Area; therefore, the Study Area may provide suitable habitat for this species. Not Observed. This species was not observed during the biological assessment. Trees are not proposed for removal; therefore, there are no recommendations for this species. Page 165 of 414 Page 21 of 101 SPECIES HABITAT REQUIREMENTS POTENTIAL TO OCCUR IN THE STUDY AREA RECOMMENDATIONS oval-leaved viburnum Viburnum ellipticum Rank 2B.3 Chaparral, cismontane woodland, lower montane coniferous forest. Elevation ranges from 706 to 4593 feet (215 to 1400 meters). A shrub, the blooming period is from May-Jun. Moderate Potential. Cismontane woodland is present within the Study Area and may provide suitable habitat for this species. Not Observed. This species was not observed during the biological assessment; however, the biological assessment was not conducted during the blooming period. It is recommended to survey for this species during the appropriate blooming period (May-Jun). No special-status plant species were observed within the Study Area during the Biological Assessment. A complete list of all plant and wildlife species observed within the Study Area was compiled during the site visit on February 5, 2021. A botanical survey was conducted on March 30, 2021. Further botanical surveys will be conducted in May and July of 2021 and results will be amended to this report. 5.2.2 Special-status Animal Species A total of forty-four (44) special-status wildlife species have been documented within the vicinity of the Study Area. Please refer to Appendix A for a table of all special-status wildlife species which occur within the vicinity of the Study Area and discussion of the potential for each species to occur within the Study Area. Special-status species documented within five miles of the Study Area are depicted in the CNDDB Vicinity map (Appendix D: Map 3, CNDDB Vicinity Map). Of the forty-four (44) special-status wildlife species within the vicinity of the Study Area, thirteen (13) special-status wildlife species recorded have a moderate to high potential to occur within the Study Area. The remaining thirty-one (31) special-status wildlife species documented within the vicinity of the Study Area are unlikely to occur or do not have the potential to occur due to one or more of the following reasons: • Aquatic Habitats (e.g., streams, rivers, vernal pools) necessary to support special-status wildlife species are not present within the Study Area. • Vegetation Habitats (e.g., forested area, riparian, grassland) that provide nesting and/or foraging resources necessary to support special-status wildlife species are not present within the Study Area. • Physical Structures and Vegetation (e.g., caves, old-growth trees) that provide nesting, cover, and/or foraging habitat necessary to support special-status wildlife species are not present within the Study Area. • Host Plants (e.g., Cirsium sp.) that provide larval and nectar resources necessary to support special-status wildlife species are not present within the Study Area. • Historic and Contemporary Disturbance (e.g., cattle grazing, agriculture) deter the presence of the special-status wildlife species from occupying the Study Area. Page 166 of 414 Page 22 of 101 • The Study Area is outside the documented nesting range of special-status wildlife species. The thirteen (13) special-status wildlife species with moderate or high potential to occur within the Study Area are described in the table below. SPECIES HABITAT REQUIREMENTS POTENTIAL TO OCCUR IN THE STUDY AREA RECOMMENDATIONS Amphibians red-bellied newt Taricha rivularis CDFW: SSC IUCN: LC T. rivularis inhabits coastal forests, typically in redwood (Sequoia sempervirens) forest habitat although also found in other forest types (hardwood etc.). Adults are terrestrial and fossorial. Transformed juveniles leave aquatic environments and go into hiding in underground shelters, often until ready to reproduce. Breeding occurs in streams often with relatively strong flows. High Potential. Habitat within the Study Area is ranked High (1.00) in suitability according to the CWHR Predicted Habitat Suitability Map. Aquatic habitat is not present within the Study Area; however, the Study Area may be used for migration and refugia. There is a known occurrence of this species approximately 0.7 miles northwest from the Study Area along Gibson Creek according to CNDDB. Not Observed. This species was not observed during the biological assessment. It is recommended to survey for this species prior to ground disturbance. Avifauna northern goshawk Accipiter gentilis BLM: S CDF: S CDFW: SSC IUCN: LC USFS: S A. gentilis are often found in dense, mature and old growth stands of conifer and deciduous habitats. Younger seral stands that include larger residual or defective trees are also used. Nest often on cooler (northerly or easterly) moderate slopes in dense vegetation or within riparian zones, but close to openings. Nest sites are often located next to water, which may provide a break in canopy for easy access to the nest stand or may influence microclimate or prey distribution. High Potential. Habitat within the Study Area is ranked Medium (0.44) and High (1.00) in suitability according to the CWHR Predicted Habitat Suitability Map. There are no stands of dense, mature and old growth conifer or deciduous forest in the immediate vicinity of the Study Area; however, areas withing the Study Area does contain conifer and deciduous forest stands. Not Observed. This species or nests were not observed during the biological assessment. No trees are proposed for removal; however, it is recommended to survey for this species within 500 feet of ground disturbance activities. Page 167 of 414 Page 23 of 101 SPECIES HABITAT REQUIREMENTS POTENTIAL TO OCCUR IN THE STUDY AREA RECOMMENDATIONS golden eagle Aquila chrysaetos BLM: S CDF: S CDFW: FP, WL IUCN: LC USFWS: BCC A. chrysaetos is an uncommon permanent resident in northern California. This species ranges from sea level up to 11,500 feet inhabiting rolling foothills, mountain areas, sage-juniper flats and desert. This species frequently nests in secluded cliffs of all heights with overhanging ledges and in large trees in open areas. High Potential. Habitat within the Study Area is ranked Moderate (0.44) and High (1.00) in suitability according to the CWHR Predicted Habitat Suitability Map. There are no stands of dense, mature and old growth conifer or deciduous forest in the immediate vicinity of the Study Area; however, areas withing the Study Area does contain conifer and deciduous forest stands. Not Observed. This species or nests were not observed during the biological assessment. No trees are proposed for removal; however, it is recommended to survey for this species within 500 feet of ground disturbance activities. osprey Pandion haliaetus CDF: S CDFW: WL IUCN: LC P. haliaetus are strictly associated with large, fish- bearing waters, primarily in ponderosa pine and mixed conifer stands. Foraging habitat consists of open, clear waters, rivers, lakes, reservoirs, estuaries, lagoons, swamps, marshes, and bays. Diet consists almost exclusively live fish. Large trees, snags, and blown- out treetops are used for cover and nesting. Nests are located on or near the tops of trees, snags, cliffs, or human-made structures. High Potential. Habitat within the Study Area is ranked Moderate (0.44) and High (0.77) in suitability according to the CWHR Predicted Habitat Suitability Map. There are no stands of dense, mature and old growth conifer or deciduous forest in the immediate vicinity of the Study Area; however, areas withing the Study Area does contain conifer and deciduous forest stands. Not Observed. This species or nests were not observed during the biological assessment. No trees are proposed for removal; however, it is recommended to survey for this species within 500 feet of ground disturbance activities. yellow warbler Setophaga petechia CDFW: SSC USFWS: BCC S. petechia often inhabits riparian deciduous habitats in summer: willows, alders, cottonwoods, and other small trees and shrubs typical of low, open canopy riparian woodland. This species will also breed in montane shrubbery in open conifer forest. S. petechia migrates through woodland, forest and shrub habitats. Nests above ground in a deciduous dappling or shrub. Moderate Potential. Habitat within the Study Area is ranked Low (0.22) to Moderate (0.44) in suitability according to the CWHR Predicted Habitat Suitability Map. The Study Area contains does contain montane shrubs in open conifer and deciduous forest that may be potential habitat for this species. Not Observed. This species was not observed during the biological assessment. It is recommended that nesting bird surveys be conducted prior to vegetation removal. Page 168 of 414 Page 24 of 101 SPECIES HABITAT REQUIREMENTS POTENTIAL TO OCCUR IN THE STUDY AREA RECOMMENDATIONS northern spotted owl Strix occidentalis caurina FT, ST CDF: S IUCN: NT NABCI: YWL S. occidentalis caurina are year- round residents in dense, structurally complex forests, primarily with old-growth conifers. Nests on snags and within tree cavities, and often is associated with existing structures (old raptor nests, squirrel nests and A. pomo nests). Moderate Potential. The Study Area is approximately 4.3 miles southeast from the closest NSO Activity Center and 4.5 miles northeast from the nearest critical habitat as identified by the USFWS. The Study Area is located within suitable habitat according to the CWHR Predicted Habitat Suitability Map. The Study Area does not contain large conifers for nesting but may provide suitable foraging habitat for this species. Not Observed. This species or evidence of this species was not observed during the biological assessment. Trees are not proposed for removal; therefore, there are no recommendations for this species. Insects obscure bumble bee Bombus caliginosus CDFW: SSC IUCN: VU B. caliginosus are often found in coastal areas from Santa Barbara county north to Washington state. Food plant genera includes Baccharis, Cirisum, Lupinus, Lotus, Grindelia, and Phacelia. Moderate Potential. The Study Area contains suitable habitat and food plant genera for this species. Not Observed. This species was not observed during the biological assessment. Brush and grassland are proposed for removal; however, there is adequate potential habitat surrounding the Study Area. There are no recommendations for this species. western bumble bee Bombus occidentalis State: CE USFS: S Xerces: IM B. occidentalis are formerly common throughout much of western North America; however, populations from southern British Columbia to central California have nearly disappeared. They occur in a variety of habitat types and are generalist pollinators. B. occidentalis are commonly encountered along stream banks, meadows, disturbed areas, or on flowers by roadsides. Moderate Potential. The Study Area contains suitable habitat and food plant genera for this species. Not Observed. This species was not observed during the biological assessment. Brush and grassland are proposed for removal; however, there is adequate potential habitat surrounding the Study Area. There are no recommendations for this species. Page 169 of 414 Page 25 of 101 SPECIES HABITAT REQUIREMENTS POTENTIAL TO OCCUR IN THE STUDY AREA RECOMMENDATIONS Mammals Sonoma tree vole Arborimus pomo CDFW: SSC IUCN: NT A. pomo lives in humid coastal forests consisting of Douglas-fir, grand fir, western hemlock, and/or Sitka spruce. This species requires Douglas-fir and grand fir needles as a food source and nesting materials. Nests are frequently found in trees along the bole, in branch crotches, or in the top of snags. Nests are most often found along roads, skid trails, or forest edges; however, they could exist further in the forest with dense canopies making nest identification difficult. This species is distributed along the North Coast from Sonoma County north to the Oregon border, being practically restricted to the fog belt. Moderate Potential. Habitat within the Study Area is not suitable in some areas, ranks Low (0.33) withing Montane Hardwood- Conifer habitat and High (1) within Conifer Forest habitat according to the CWHR Predicted Habitat Suitability Map. The Study Area does contain Douglas-fir trees and map provide suitable habitat for this species. Not Observed. This species or evidence of this species was not observed during the biological assessment. Trees are not proposed for removal, but if trees were to be removed, it is recommended to survey those trees for this species. North American porcupine Erethizon dorsatum IUCN: LC E. dorsatum are commonly found in coniferous and mixed forested areas, and can also inhabit shrublands, tundra and deserts, albeit less frequently as this species tends to spend much of its time in trees. This species makes its dens in hollow trees, decaying logs and caves in rocky areas. Recognized as primarily solitary and nocturnal, E. dorsatum may be seen foraging during daytime. Moderate Potential. Habitat within the Study Area is ranked Low (0.33) within the Montane Hardwood habitat to Moderate (0.55) within the Hardwood-Montane Conifer habitat in suitability according to the CWHR Predicted Habitat Suitability Map. The Study Area may contain suitable habitat for this species. Not Observed. This species or evidence of this species was not observed during the biological assessment. It is recommended to survey for this survey prior to ground disturbance. western red bat Lasiurus blossevillii CDFW: SSC IUCN: LC WBWG: H L. blossevillii roosts primarily in trees, often 2-40ft above the ground from sea level through mixed conifer forests. Typical habitats include cismontane woodland, lower montane coniferous forest, riparian forests and woodlands. This species prefers habitat edges and mosaics with trees that are protected from above and open below with open areas for foraging. Moderate Potential. Habitat within the Study Area is ranked Moderate (0.66) within the Hardwood- Montane Conifer habitat in suitability according to the CWHR Predicted Habitat Suitability Map. The Study Area may contain suitable habitat for this species. Not Observed. This species or evidence of this species was not observed during the biological assessment. There are no further recommendations for this species. Page 170 of 414 Page 26 of 101 SPECIES HABITAT REQUIREMENTS POTENTIAL TO OCCUR IN THE STUDY AREA RECOMMENDATIONS hoary bat Lasiurus cinereus CDFW: SSC IUCN: LC WBWG: M L. cinereus are yearlong residents of Mendocino County. This bat is one of the few bats knows to both migrate south for winter and to hibernate locally. Hoary bat daytime roosts are typically dense foliage of medium to large sized trees. This bat occupies a variety of habitats including dense forest, forest edges, coniferous forests, deserts, and broadleaf forests. Moderate Potential. Habitat within the Study Area is ranked Moderate (0.55) within the Hardwood- Montane Conifer habitat in suitability according to the CWHR Predicted Habitat Suitability Map. The Study Area may contain suitable habitat for this species. Not Observed. This species was not observed during the biological assessment. It is recommended to survey for this survey prior to ground disturbance. fisher [West Coast DPS] Pekania pennanti ST CDFW: SSC USFS: S P. pennanti are primarily solitary, except during breeding season (February – April) and they inhabit forest stands with late-successional characteristics including intermediate-to-large tree stages of coniferous forest and deciduous-riparian areas with high percent canopy closure. Den site and prey availability are often associated with these characteristics. P. pennanti use cavities, snags, logs and rocky areas for cover and denning and require large areas of mature, dense forest. Moderate Potential. Habitat within the Study Area is ranked from no suitable habitat (0) to High (1) in suitability according to the CWHR Predicted Habitat Suitability Map and may provide suitable habitat for this species. Not Observed. This species was not observed during the biological assessment. Trees present within the Study Area do not exhibit late successional characteristics and none are not proposed for removal for this project. There are no further recommendations for this species. No special status animal species were observed within the Study Area during the biological site assessment. A complete list of all plant and wildlife species observed within the Study Area was compiled during the site visit on February 5, 2021 or March 30, 2021. Section 6.0: Assessment Summary and Recommendations 6.1 Biological Communities The Study Area is comprised predominantly of three (3) non-sensitive biological communities, two (2) sensitive biological communities, as well as several watercourses as determined during on-site biological assessments on February 5, 2021 and March 30, 2021 (Appendix D: Map 5, MCV2 Alliance Classifications). Non-Sensitive Communities: Under the MCV2 alliance classification system, site visits on February 5, 2021 and March 30, 2021 determined that non-sensitive communities within the Study Area are best classified as Pseudotsuga menziesii Forest & Woodland Alliance: Douglas-fir forest and woodland, Quercus kelloggii Forest and Woodland Alliance: California black oak forest and woodland and Pinus attenuata Forest & Woodland Alliance: Knobcone pine forest and woodland. Detailed descriptions of these biological communities are discussed in section 5.1. There are no recommendations for non-sensitive communities. Page 171 of 414 Page 27 of 101 Sensitive Communities: Sensitive biological communities include those that are listed in CNDDB as well as observed MCV2 alliances or associations with state rarity ranks of S1-S3 and are listed on CDFW’s List of California Sensitive Natural Communities (CDFW 2020). Two (2) sensitive communities, as classified under the MCV2 alliance classification system, exist within the Study Area and were observed on-site. More detailed descriptions of these sensitive communities are discussed in Section 5.1.2. Quercus garryana Forest & Woodland Alliance (Oregon white oak forest and woodland): This community has a Global Rarity Rank of G4 (Apparently Secure) and a State Rarity Rank of S3 (Vulnerable). It is recommended that any proposed work within or in the vicinity of this community avoid the removal of Quercus garryana. This community may also provide habitat for nesting birds protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) and it is recommended that nesting bird surveys be conducted for any activities that require vegetation removal between March 1st and August 31st of any year. Other management considerations for the preservation of this community include thinning or removal of conifer species within the stand in accordance with local laws, regulations, and ordinances. Such thinning could limit the possibility of vegetation type conversion to closed-canopy woodlands and conifer forest and inhibit the development of fuel ladders that increase the potential for stand-replacing fires. Any removal of Quercus garryana cannot be done without consultation with CDFW, and all work within this community shall adhere to CDFW recommendations. It is the understanding of Jacobszoon & Associates, Inc. that no tree removal is proposed. Umbellularia californica Forest & Woodland Alliance: California bay forest and woodland: This community has a Global Rarity Rank of G4 (Apparently Secure) and a State Rarity Rank of S3 (Vulnerable). It is recommended that any proposed work within or in the vicinity of this community avoid the removal of Umbellularia californica. This community may also provide habitat for nesting birds protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) and it is recommended that nesting bird surveys be conducted for any activities that require vegetation removal between March 1st and August 31st of any year. Other management considerations for the preservation of this community include thinning or removal of conifer species within the stand in accordance with local laws, regulations, and ordinances. Such thinning could limit the possibility of vegetation type conversion to closed-canopy woodlands and conifer forest and inhibit the development of fuel ladders that increase the potential for stand-replacing fires. Any removal of Umbellularia californica cannot be done without consultation with CDFW, and all work within this community shall adhere to CDFW recommendations. It is the understanding of Jacobszoon & Associates, Inc. that no tree removal is proposed. Aquatic resources, communities, and habitats (e.g. watercourses, ponds, wetlands, vernal pools, etc.) are considered sensitive biological communities and are afforded special protections under CEQA and other Federal, State, and local laws, regulations, and ordinances. Aquatic habitats present within the Study Area could provide suitable aquatic or riparian habitats for sensitive flora and fauna. Page 172 of 414 Page 28 of 101 Two (2) Class II watercourses and several Class III watercourses within the Study Area. Recommendations for aquatic resources are listed below: • It is recommended that all earthwork adjacent to any watercourse or other body of water adhere to standard methods of erosion and sediment control and, if possible, to complete all work while the channel is dry to reduce sediment load downstream. • It is recommended that a qualified biologist be on site for any dewatering event to address the potential for the presence of sensitive aquatic species such as foothill yellow- legged frog (Rana boylii). • It is recommended that any work within a watercourse or water body with the potential to impact aquatic resources be conducted in compliance with s CDFW’s Lake and Streambed Alteration Agreement. • It is recommended that future expansions or development associated with this project be located outside of the NFHL 100-year flood zone as well as SWRCB setbacks. A Class II watercourse located approximately 225 feet north of the Study Area is mapped on the USFWS National Wetland Inventory (Appendix D: Map 7, NWI mapped wetlands) as a riverine habitat classified as R4SBC. R4SBC is a riverine intermittent system with a streambed and is seasonally flooded. Riverine systems are considered watercourses for the purposes of this assessment. The proposed project will not impact this watercourse. 6.2 Special-status Species Seventeen (17) special-status plant species and thirteen (13) special-status wildlife species have a moderate or high potential to occur within the Study Area based on habitat present. No special status plant or wildlife species were observed within the Study Area during the biological site assessment. 6.2.1 Special-status Plant Species Seventeen (17) special status plant species have a moderate or high potential to occur within the Study Area: mountain lady’s-slipper (Cypripedium montanum), Koch’s cord moss (Entosthodon kochii), stinkbells (Fritillaria agrestis), Roderick’s fritillary (Fritillaria roderickii), Mendocino tarplant (Hemizonia congesta ssp. calyculata), congested-headed hayfield tarplant (Hemizonia congesta ssp. congesta), Contra Costa goldfields (Lasthenia conjugens), bristly leptosiphon (Leptosiphon acicularis), broad-lobed leptosiphon (Leptosiphon latisectus), redwood lily (Lilium rubescens), green monardella (Monardella viridis), white-flowered rein orchid (Piperia candida), Mayacamas popcornflower (Plagiobothrys lithocaryus), beaked tracyina (Tracyina rostrata) showy Indian clover (Trifolium amoenum), Methuselah’s beard lichen (Usnea longissimi) and oval-leaved viburnum (Viburnum ellipticum). Recommendations for special-status plant species are listed below: • It is recommended that a seasonally appropriate botanical survey be conducted for the above listed species prior to any groundbreaking 1 activities. 1 The term “groundbreaking” encompasses vegetation removal, grading, or excavation. Page 173 of 414 Page 29 of 101 No special-status plant species were observed during the biological site assessment. The biological site visit does not constitute a full season protocol-level botanical survey and is not intended to determine the actual presence or absence of a species. A botanical survey shall be conducted between March and July of 2021 and the results will be amended into this report. 6.2.2 Special-status Wildlife Species Thirteen (13) special-status wildlife species have a moderate or high potential to occur within the Study Area. These species include red-bellied newt (Taricha rivularis), northern goshawk (Accipiter gentilis), golden eagle (Aquila chrysaetos), osprey (Pandion haliaetus), yellow warbler (Setophaga petechia), northern spotted owl (Strix occidentalis caurina), obscure bumble bee (Bombus caliginosus), western bumble bee (Bombus occidentalis), pallid bat (Antrozous pallidus), Sonoma tree vole (Arborimus pomo), North American porcupine (Erethizon dorsatum), western red bat (Lasiurus blossevillii), hoary bat (Lasiurus cinereus), and fisher [West Coast DPS] (Pekania pennanti). Amphibians One (1) special-status amphibian has a moderate or high potential to occur within the Study Area; red-bellied newt (Taricha rivularis). Recommendations for this species are listed below: • It is recommended that a qualified biologist survey the area prior to any groundbreaking activities to determine the presence of special-status amphibian species. No special-status amphibian species were observed within the Study Area during the biological site assessment. Avifauna Five (5) special-status avian species have moderate or high potential to occur within the Study Area. These species include northern goshawk (Accipiter gentilis), golden eagle (Aquila chrysaetos), osprey (Pandion haliaetus), yellow warbler (Setophaga petechia), and northern spotted owl (Strix occidentalis caurina). Additionally, most non-game bird species in California are protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) which prohibits the deliberate destruction of active nests belonging to protected species. Groundbreaking activities, specifically vegetation removal, within the Study Area during avian breeding periods have the potential to significantly impact nesting migratory bird species. Recommendations for special-status avian species and migratory bird species are listed below: • It is recommended that all active bird nests not be removed, relocated, or otherwise disturbed for any purpose until all fledglings have left the nest. • It is recommended that nesting bird surveys be conducted prior to the commencement of any groundbreaking activities which occur between March 1st and August 31st of any year. No avian special-status species were observed within the Study Area during the biological assessment. Page 174 of 414 Page 30 of 101 Fish The Study Area does not contain any special-status fish species or fish bearing watercourses or waterbodies. The nearest fish-bearing watercourse is a Class II watercourse, located approximately 225 feet north of the Study Area. It is recommended that all earthwork within or adjacent to any watercourse or waterbody adhere to standard methods of erosion and sediment control. Future development within the Study Area does not have the potential to impact special- status fish species. No special-status fish were observed during the biological site assessment. Insects Two (2) special-status insect species have moderate or high potential to occur within the Study Area. These species include the obscure bumble bee (Bombus caliginosus) and western bumble bee (Bombus occidentalis). Recommendations for special-status insect species are listed below: •If a special-status insect nests are observed, it is recommended that active nests not be removed, relocated, or otherwise disturbed until the nest becomes inactive. No special-status insects or nests were observed within the Study Area during the biological site assessment. Mammals Five (5) special-status mammal species have moderate or high potential to occur within the Study Area. These species include the Sonoma tree vole (Arborimus pomo), North American porcupine (Erethizon dorsatum), western red bat (Lasiurus blossevillii), hoary bat (Lasiurus cinereus), and fisher [West Coast DPS] (Pekania pennanti). Recommendations for special-status mammal species are listed below: •If evidence of bat roosts are observed (i.e. bat guano, ammonia odor, grease stained cavities) around trees or structures, it is recommended that pre-construction bat surveys be conducted by a qualified biologist for activities that may affect bat roosting habitat. •If evidence of special-status mammal borrows or denning activity is observed, it is recommended that pre-construction surveys be conducted by a qualified biologist for activities that may affect den sites. No special-status mammals were observed during the biological site assessment. No evidence of special-status mammal species was observed during the biological site visit. 6.3 Wildlife Corridors No change to foraging or wintering habitat for migratory birds is expected as a result of the proposed project. Additionally, no significant impacts to migratory corridors for amphibian, aquatic, avian, mammalian, or reptilian species is expected as a result of the project. 6.4 Critical Habitat The Study Area does not contain and is not adjacent to critical habitat for any Federal or State- listed species (Appendix E: USFWS IPAC Official Species List). Page 175 of 414 Page 31 of 101 Section 7.0: References Baicich, P. J., Harrison, J. O. 2005. Nests, Eggs, and Nestlings of North American Birds (2nd Edition). Princeton University Press. Baldwin, B.G., D.H. Goldman, D.J. Keil, R. Patterson, T.J. Rosatti, and D.H. Wilken (eds.). 2012. The Jepson Manual: Vascular Plants of California, 2nd Edition. University of California Press, Berkeley, CA. Barbour, M., T. Keeler-Wolf, and A. A. Schoenherr (eds.). 2007. Terrestrial Vegetation of California (3rd Edition). University of California Press. Barbour, M. G. and J. Major. Terrestrial Vegetation of California. 1998. The California Native Plant Society. Behler, J. L. and F. W. King. 1979. National Audubon Society Field Guide to North American Reptiles and Amphibians. Alfred A. Knopf, Inc. New York, NY. Best, T. L., Kiser, W. M., Freeman, P. W. 1996. Eumops perotis. American Society of Mammalogists. Mammalian Species 534:1-8. Bjornn, T. C., Reiser, D. 1991. Habitat Requirements of Salmonids in Streams. American Fisheries Society Special Publication. 19. Bourque, R. 2018. Lecture: Spatial Ecology: Movement. Presented at Foothill Yellow-legged Frog: Ecology, Management, and Regulation Workshop. Presented by The Wildlife Society. Humboldt State University, Arcata, CA. California Department of Fish and Wildlife. California Interagency Wildlife Task Group. 2014. CWHR version 9.0 personal computer program. Sacramento, CA. California Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2021. California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) Quick Viewer (online edition, v5.94.01). Sacramento, CA. Accessed on February 2, 2021 from: https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Data/CNDDB/Maps-and- Data#43018410-cnddb-quickview-tool California Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2021. California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) BIOS Commercial/Spotted Owl Viewer (online edition, v5.94.01). Sacramento, CA. Accessed on February 2, 2021 from: https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Data/CNDDB/Maps-and-Data#43018408-cnddb-in-bios California Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2021. California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) BIOS Commercial/Spotted Owl Viewer (online edition, v5.94.01) California Wildlife Habitat Relationships (CWHR) 2016. Accessed on February 2, 2021 from: https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Data/CNDDB/Maps-and-Data#43018408-cnddb-in-bios Page 176 of 414 Page 32 of 101 California Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2021. California Streams v3. Last updated on November 20, 2020. Accessed on February 2, 2021 from https://data.cnra.ca.gov/dataset/california-streams California Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2021. List of Vegetation Alliances and Associations. Vegetation Classification and Mapping Program, California Department of Fish and Game, Sacramento, CA. Updated September 4, 2020. Accessed on February 2, 2021. https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=153398&inline California Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2018. Protocols for Surveying and Evaluating Impacts to Special Status Native Plant Populations and Natural Communities. Accessed on February 2, 2021 from: http://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=18959. California Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2009. Protocols for Surveying and Evaluating Impacts to Special Status Native Plant Populations and Natural Communities. California Department of Fish and Wildlife. September 2003. List of California Terrestrial Natural Communities Recognized by the California Natural Diversity Database. Biogeographic Data Branch, Vegetation Classification and Mapping Program. Sacramento, CA. California Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2000. Guidelines for Assessing the Effects of Proposed Developments on Rare, Threatened and Endangered Plants and Plant Communities. The Resources Agency, California Department of Fish and Game. Sacramento, CA. California Native Plant Society (CNPS). 2021a. Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants (online edition, v8-03 0.39). California Native Plant Society. Sacramento, CA. Accessed on February 2, 2021 from: http://www.cnps.org/inventory. California Native Plant Society (CNPS). 2021b. A Manual of California Vegetation (online edition). California Native Plant Society. Sacramento, CA. Accessed February 2, 2021 from: http://vegetation.cnps.org/. California Native Plant Society (CNPS). 2001. Botanical Survey Guidelines. California Native Plant Society. Sacramento, CA. California Native Plant Society (CNPS). 1998. Policy on Mitigation Guidelines Regarding Impacts to Rare, Threatened and Endangered Plants. California Native Plant Society. Sacramento, CA. Call, M. W. 1978. Nesting Habits and Survey Techniques for Common Western Raptors. U.S. Department of Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Portland, OR. Technical Note. No. 316. 115pp. Page 177 of 414 Page 33 of 101 CalFlora Database at www.calflora.org/ Accessed for descriptions, and habitat ranges and site suitability of rare, threatened or endangered plants found on CNPS and CNDDB queries. Accessed on February 8, 2021. CalPhoto Database at http://elib.cs.berkeley.edu/photos/flora/, for photos, descriptions, and habitat ranges of rare, threatened or endangered plants found on CNPS and CNDDB queries. Accessed on February 8, 2021. Cogswell, H. L. 1977. Water birds of California. University of California Press, Berkeley. 399pp. Consortium of California Herbaria (CCH). 2012. Data provided by the participants of the Consortium of California Herbaria. Available at: http://ucjeps.berkeley.edu/consortium. Accessed on February 8, 2021. Fellers, G. M., Pierson, E. D. 2002. Habitat Use and Foraging Behavior of Townsend’s Big- Eared Bat (Corynorhinus townsendii) in Coastal California. Journal of Mammalogy. 83, Issue 1: 167-177. Available online at: https://academic.oup.com/jmammal/article/83/1/167/2372774#38014831 Fiedler, P. L. 1996. Common Wetland Plants of Central California. Army Core of Engineers. Goulsen, D. 2003. Bumblebees: their behavior and ecology. Oxford University Press, Oxford, England. Grinnell, J., J. S. Dixon, J. M. Linsdale. 1937. Fur-bearing mammals of California. 2 Vols. University of California Press, Berkeley, CA. 777 pp. Heinrich, B. 2004. Bumblebee economics. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts. 245 pp. Holland, R. F. 1986. Preliminary Descriptions of the Terrestrial Natural Communities of California. Nongame- Heritage Program, California Department of Fish and Game. Sacramento, CA. 156 pp. Jepson Flora Project (JFP) (eds.). Last updated December 21, 2020. Jepson eFlora. Accessed on February 8, 2021 from: http://ucjeps.berkeley.edu/eflora/ Kupferberg, S. 2018. Lecture: Natural and Unnatural History. Presented at Foothill Yellow- legged Frog: Ecology, Management, and Regulation Workshop. Presented by The Wildlife Society. Humboldt State University, Arcata, CA. Little, E. L. 2000. National Audubon Society Field Guide: Trees of the Western Region. New York. Alfred A. Knopf. Page 178 of 414 Page 34 of 101 Mayer, K. E. and W. F. Laudenslayer. 1988. A Guide to Wildlife Habitats of California. State of California, Sacramento, CA. Miller, D. J. and R. N. Lea. 1972. Guide to the Coastal Marine Fishes of California, Fish Bulletin No. 157. California Department of Fish and Game, Sacramento, CA. Moyle, P. B., J. E. Williams, and E. D. Wirkamanayake. 1989. Fish species of special concern of California. Final report submitted to California Dept. of Fish and Game, Inland Fisheries Division, Rancho Cordova. 222 pp. Moyle, P. B. 1976. Inland Fishes of California. University of California Press, Berkeley, CA. National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 1996. Proposed endangered status for five ESUs of Steelhead and proposed threatened status for five ESUs of steelhead in Washington, Oregon, Idaho, and California. Federal Register 61(155):41541-61. NatureServe. 2021. NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life [web application]. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia. Updated on September 4, 2020. Accessed on February 7, 2021 from: http://explorer.natureserve.org Pierson, E. D., Rainey, W. E. 1998. Western mastiff bat, Eumops perotis. Terrestrial Mammal Species of Special Concern in California, Bolster, B. C., Ed., 1998. Peterson, R. T. 1990. A Field Guide to Western Birds. Houghton Mifflin Co., Boston, MA. Remsen, J. V. 1978. Bird species of special concern in California. California Department of Fish and Game, Sacramento. Wildlife Management Administrative Report. No. 78(1) 54 pp. Sawyer, J. O. and T. Keeler-Wolfe. 2019. A Manual of California Vegetation. Online Edition. California Native Plant Society. [Accessed on February 2, 2021]. Sawyer, J. O. and T. Keeler-Wolfe and J.M. Evans. 2009, Second Addition. A Manual of California Vegetation. California Native Plant Society. Sacramento, CA. Sawyer, J. O. and T. Keeler-Wolfe. 2008. A Manual of California Vegetation. California Native Plant Society. Sacramento, CA. Sawyer, J. O. and T. Keeler-Wolfe. 1995. A Manual of California Vegetation. California Native Plant Society. Sacramento, CA. 471 pp. Sibley, D. A. 2000. The Sibley Guide to Birds. National Audubon Society. Alfred A. Knopf, New York, NY. Page 179 of 414 Page 35 of 101 Squires, J. R., Reynolds, R. T. 1997. Northern Goshawk (Acipiter gentilis), version 2.0. The Birds of North America (A. F. Poole and F. B. Gill, Editors). Cornell Lab of Ornithology, Ithaca, NY, USA. Accessed on February 2, 2021 from: https://doi.org/10.2173/bna.298 Stebbins, Robert C, and McGinnis, Samuel M. Field Guide to Amphibians and Reptiles of California: Revised Edition. (California Natural History Guides). University of California Press. 2012. Thomson, C. R, Wright, A. N., and Shaffer, H. B. 2016. California Amphibian and Reptile Species of Special Concern. University of California Press. Oakland, CA. 390 pp. Thorne, Robert F. 1976. The vascular plant communities of California. In: Latting, June, ed. Symposium proceedings: Plant communities of southern California; 1974 May 4; Fullerton, CA. Special Publication No. 2. Berkeley, CA: California Native Plant Society: 1-31. [3289] Udvardy, M. D. F. 1994. National Audubon Society Field Guide to North America Birds. Alfred A. Knopf, Inc. New York, NY. 822pp. USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey 2021. Soil compositions for specific locations in the United States. Accessed on February 2, 2021 from: https://websoilsurvey.se.egov.usda.gov USDA. CalVeg Existing Vegetation: North Coast Mid. Last updated January 18, 2018. [February 2, 2021] US Climate Data. 2021. Version 3.0. https://www.usclimatedata.com/ Accessed February 8, 2021. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2004. Twelve month finding for a Petition to List the West Coast Distinct Population Segment of the Fisher (Martes pennant); proposed rule. Federal Register 69(68): 18769-18792. U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1991. Guidelines for Surveying Proposed Management Activities that may Impact Northern Spotted Owls. U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). Information for Planning and Consultation (IPAC System). Accessed on February 8, 2021 from https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/ U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) Wetlands Mapper. Last updated: October 1, 2020. Accessed on February 24, 2021 from https://www.fws.gov/wetlands/data/Mapper.html U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). 2012. Ukiah quadrangle. 7.5 minute topographic map. Page 180 of 414 Page 36 of 101 Waian, L. B., Stendell, R. C. 1970. The white-tailed kite in California with observations of the Santa Barbara population. California Fish and Game 56: 188-198. Western Bat Working Group (WBWG). 2020. Species Accounts. Accessed on February 2, 2021 from: http://wbwg.org/western-bat-species/ The Xerces Society for Invertebrate Conservation. 2020. Species Accounts. Accessed on February 2, 2021 from: https://xerces.org/ Zeiner, D. C., W. F. Laudenslayer Jr., and K. E. Mayer. 1988. California’s Wildlife Volume I – Amphibians and Reptiles. State of California Department of Fish and Game. 272pp. Zeiner, D. C., W. F. Laudenslayer Jr., K. E. Mayer, and M. White. 1990a. California’s Wildlife Volume II – Birds. State of California Department of Fish and Game. 732pp. Zeiner, D. C., W. F. Laudenslayer Jr., K. E. Mayer, and M. White. 1990b. California’s Wildlife Volume III – Mammals. State of California Department of Fish and Game. 407pp Report Author: Alicia Ives Ringstad Alicia Ives Ringstad received a B.S. in Wildlife Management and Conservation from Humboldt State University in 2007, with studies including plant taxonomy. She is a Consulting Senior Wildlife Biologist with over 15 years professional wildlife biology, forestry, botany and environmental planning experience. Ms. Ives Ringstad provides Botanical surveys and Biological Assessments for large and small projects requiring compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), these projects include timber harvesting, land conversion, minor and major subdivisions, and development plans/permits. Ms. Ives Ringstad’s experience includes conducting wetland delineations that met the requirements of the US Army Corps of Engineers Technical Report (Y-87-1) Page 181 of 414 Appendix A: Table of Potential for Special-Status Plants and Wildlife within the Study Area Page 182 of 414 Page 1 of 101 SPECIES STATUS* HABITAT REQUIREMENTS POTENTIAL TO OCCUR IN THE STUDY AREA RECOMMENDATIONS Amphibians California giant salamander Dicamptodon ensatus CDFW: SSC IUCN: NT California giant salamanders are year-round residents of California and were split into two species – California giant salamander (Dicamptodon ensatus) occurring south of the Mendocino County line and the coastal giant salamander (Dicamptodon tenebrosus) occurring in the north. D. ensatus are found in meadows and seeps, north coast coniferous forest and riparian forested habitats. D. ensatus occur in wet coastal forests in or near clear, cold permanent and semi-permanent streams and seepages. Adults leave terrestrial habitats to reproduce and both the reproduction and larval stages are aquatic with breeding occurring mostly in the spring. No Potential. The Study Area is outside the known distribution range for this species according to the CWHR Predicted Habitat Suitability Map. Not Present. There are no recommendations for this species. northern red-legged frog Rana aurora CDFW: SSC IUCN: LC USFS: S R. aurora are often observed within humid forests, woodlands, wetlands, grasslands and stream-sides in northwestern California, usually near dense riparian cover. This species is generally found near permanent water but can be found far from water in damp woods and meadows during the non-breeding season. Typical habitat types include Klamath/North coast flowing waters, riparian forest and woodland. No Potential. The Study Area is outside the known distribution range for this species according to the CWHR Predicted Habitat Suitability Map. Not Present. There are no recommendations for this species. Page 183 of 414 Page 2 of 101 SPECIES STATUS* HABITAT REQUIREMENTS POTENTIAL TO OCCUR IN THE STUDY AREA RECOMMENDATIONS foothill yellow-legged frog Rana boylii BLM: S CDFW: SSC IUCN: NT USFS: S R. boylii occupy a diverse range of ephemeral and permanent streams, rivers, and adjacent moist terrestrial habitats. Occupied streams are often partly shaded, low gradient, and dominated by coarse, unconsolidated rocky substrates. Adults breed and tadpoles develop in slow water velocity habitats. Dispersing juvenile and adult frogs will seek refugia in Class II streams pre-and-post breeding, opposite of salmonids. Unlikely. Habitat within the Study Area is ranked Low (0.33) in suitability according to the CWHR Predicted Habitat Suitability Map. The Study Area itself does not contain suitable habitat for this species, although potential suitable breeding habitat may be in Doolin Creek a Class I watercourse located approximately 2,230 feet south of the Study Area. A Class II watercourse located approximately 225 feet north of the Study Area may be suitable winter refugia habitat as well. Not Observed. This species was not observed during the biological assessment. There are no recommendations for this species. red-bellied newt Taricha rivularis CDFW: SSC IUCN: LC T. rivularis inhabits coastal forests, typically in redwood (Sequoia sempervirens) forest habitat although also found in other forest types (hardwood etc.). Adults are terrestrial and fossorial. Transformed juveniles leave aquatic environments and go into hiding in underground shelters, often until ready to reproduce. Breeding occurs in streams often with relatively strong flows. High Potential. Habitat within the Study Area is ranked High (1.00) in suitability according to the CWHR Predicted Habitat Suitability Map. Aquatic habitat is not present within the Study Area; however, the Study Area may be used for migration and refugia. There is a known occurrence of this species approximately 0.7 miles northwest from the Study Area along Gibson Creek according to CNDDB. Not Observed. This species was not observed during the biological assessment. It is recommended to survey for this species prior to ground disturbance. Page 184 of 414 Page 3 of 101 SPECIES STATUS* HABITAT REQUIREMENTS POTENTIAL TO OCCUR IN THE STUDY AREA RECOMMENDATIONS Avifauna northern goshawk Accipiter gentilis BLM: S CDF: S CDFW: SSC IUCN: LC USFS: S A. gentilis are often found in dense, mature and old growth stands of conifer and deciduous habitats. Younger seral stands that include larger residual or defective trees are also used. Nest often on cooler (northerly or easterly) moderate slopes in dense vegetation or within riparian zones, but close to openings. Nest sites are often located next to water, which may provide a break in canopy for easy access to the nest stand or may influence microclimate or prey distribution. High Potential. Habitat within the Study Area is ranked Medium (0.44) and High (1.00) in suitability according to the CWHR Predicted Habitat Suitability Map. There are no stands of dense, mature and old growth conifer or deciduous forest in the immediate vicinity of the Study Area; however, areas withing the Study Area does contain conifer and deciduous forest stands. Not Observed. This species or nests were not observed during the biological assessment. No trees are proposed for removal; however, it is recommended to survey for this species within 500 feet of ground disturbance activities. tricolored blackbird Agelaius tricolor SCE BLM: S CDFW: SSC IUCN: EN NABCI: RWL USFWS: BCC A. tricolor breed and forage in a variety of habitats including salt marshes, moist grasslands, freshwater marshes, bay-shore habitats, riparian forests and oak savannahs. A. tricolor use dense riparian vegetation such as Himalayan blackberry (Rubus armeniacus) for nesting and forage in cultivated fields, wetlands, and feedlots associated with dairy farms. No Potential. The Study Area is outside the known distribution range for this species according to the CWHR Predicted Habitat Suitability Map. Riparian forests with dense vegetation are not present within the Study Area. Not Present. There are no recommendations for this species. Page 185 of 414 Page 4 of 101 SPECIES STATUS* HABITAT REQUIREMENTS POTENTIAL TO OCCUR IN THE STUDY AREA RECOMMENDATIONS grasshopper sparrow Ammodramus savannarum CDFW: SSC IUCN: LC A. savannarum are an uncommon and local, summer resident in foothills and lowlands west of the Cascade- Sierra Nevada crest from Mendocino and Trinity Counties south to San Diego County. A. savannarum nests on the ground in grasslands, prairie, cultivated fields, and grassy clearings in forests; particularly in areas with a variety of grasses and tall forbs and scattered shrubs for singing perches. Nests are typically found at the base of a small clump of overhanging grass or other vegetation. No Potential. The Study Area does not have suitable habitat present according to the CWHR Predicted Habitat Suitability Map. Small patches of suitable habitat are present within the surrounding area. Not Present. There are no recommendations for this species. golden eagle Aquila chrysaetos BLM: S CDF: S CDFW: FP, WL IUCN: LC USFWS: BCC A. chrysaetos is an uncommon permanent resident in northern California. This species ranges from sea level up to 11,500 feet inhabiting rolling foothills, mountain areas, sage-juniper flats and desert. This species frequently nests in secluded cliffs of all heights with overhanging ledges and in large trees in open areas. High Potential. Habitat within the Study Area is ranked Moderate (0.44) and High (1.00) in suitability according to the CWHR Predicted Habitat Suitability Map. There are no stands of dense, mature and old growth conifer or deciduous forest in the immediate vicinity of the Study Area; however, areas withing the Study Area does contain conifer and deciduous forest stands. Not Observed. This species or nests were not observed during the biological assessment. No trees are proposed for removal; however, it is recommended to survey for this species within 500 feet of ground disturbance activities. great blue heron Ardea herodias CDF: S IUCN: LC A. herodias are commonly found in shallow estuaries and fresh and saline emergent wetlands. Foraging areas include river and creek banks, ponds, lakes, and watercourses in mountainous areas. This species often nests in colonies within a rookery tree. Unlikely. Habitat within the Study Area is ranked not suitable (0) to Low (0.22) to Moderate (0.44) in suitability according to the CWHR Predicted Habitat Suitability Map. The Study Area itself contains no nesting or foraging habitat suited for this species. Not Present. There are no recommendations for this species. Page 186 of 414 Page 5 of 101 SPECIES STATUS* HABITAT REQUIREMENTS POTENTIAL TO OCCUR IN THE STUDY AREA RECOMMENDATIONS oak titmouse Baeolophus inornatus IUCN: LC NABCI: YWL USFWS: BCC B. inornatus are cavity-nesters found within oak or oak-pine woodlands, and many will use scrub oaks or other brush with woodlands nearby. This species occurs within montane hardwood-conifer, montane hardwood, oak woodlands (Quercus agrifolia, Q. douglasii, Q. lobata). B. inornatus typically eats seeds, various plant materials, insects and other invertebrates, foraging from the ground floor up to approximately 30 ft off the ground. No Potential. The Study Area is outside the known distribution range for this species according to the CWHR Predicted Habitat Suitability Map. Not Present. There are no recommendations for this species. western snowy plover Charadrius alexandrinus nivosus FT CDFW: SSC NABCI: RWL USFWS: BCC C. alexandrinus nivosus inhabit barren to sparsely vegetated sandy beaches, salt pond levees, Great Basin standing waters, wetlands and shores of large alkali lakes. Nesting habitat consists of sandy, gravelly or friable soils usually within a natural or scraped depression on dry ground. Diet consists of terrestrial and aquatic invertebrates. No Potential. The Study Area is outside the known distribution range for this species according to the CWHR Predicted Habitat Suitability Map. Not Present. There are no recommendations for this species. northern harrier Circus hudsonius CDFW: SSC IUCN: LC C. hudsonius are year-long residents of Mendocino and Lake County. They frequent meadows, alpine meadows, grasslands, open rangelands, desert sinks, fresh and saltwater emergent wetlands and are seldom found in wooded areas. Usually hunts by flying low over fields, scanning the ground for small prey including mammals (voles, rats, other rodents), bird species ranging from songbirds to small ducks and large insects. Breeding occurs on meadows and marshland, both salt and freshwater. Nests on ground in shrubby vegetation, usually at marsh edge; nest built of a large mound of sticks in wet areas. No Potential. The Study Area does not have suitable habitat present according to the CWHR Predicted Habitat Suitability Map. Small patches of Low (0.22) suitable habitat are present within the surrounding area. Not Observed. This species or nests were not observed during the biological assessment. No trees are proposed for removal; however, it is recommended to survey for this species within 500 feet of ground disturbance activities. Page 187 of 414 Page 6 of 101 SPECIES STATUS* HABITAT REQUIREMENTS POTENTIAL TO OCCUR IN THE STUDY AREA RECOMMENDATIONS yellow-billed cuckoo Coccyzus americanus FT SE BLM: S NABCI: RWL USFS: S USFWS: BCC C. americanus use wooded habitat with dense cover and water nearby, including woodlands with low, scrubby vegetation, overgrown orchards, abandoned farmland, and dense thickets along streams and marshes. This species makes their nests along horizontal branches or the fork of a tree or large shrub, often between 3 to 90 feet (1 to 28 meters). Trees are often oak (Quercus sp.), beech, hawthorn (Crataegus sp.) and ash, often with lower story of blackberry, nettles or wild grapes. No Potential. The Study Area is outside the known distribution range for this species according to the CWHR Predicted Habitat Suitability Map. Not Present. There are no recommendations for this species. white-tailed kite Elanus leucurus BLM: S CDFW: FP IUCN: LC Often found in coastal, valley lowlands and agricultural areas, E. leucurus inhabit herbaceous and open stages of most habitats especially in cismontane California. This species’ primary diet consists of small mammals (voles and other rodents), found in undisturbed, open grasslands, meadows, farmlands, and emergent wetlands (Waian et. al. 1970). Nests are often found in isolated, dense-topped trees. No Potential. The Study Area does not have suitable habitat present according to the CWHR Predicted Habitat Suitability Map. Small patches of Low (0.32) suitable habitat are present within the surrounding area. Not Observed. This species or nests were not observed during the biological assessment. No trees are proposed for removal; however, it is recommended to survey for this species within 500 feet of ground disturbance activities. yellow-breasted chat Icteria virens CDFW: SSC IUCN: LC I. virens inhabit riparian thickets of willow and other brushy tangles near watercourses. Required habitat for this species is riparian forest, woodland, or scrub. Nests in low, dense riparian habitat often consisting of willow, blackberry, and wild grape within 10ft. of the ground. No Potential. The Study Area is outside the known distribution range for this species according to the CWHR Predicted Habitat Suitability Map. Not Present. There are no recommendations for this species. Page 188 of 414 Page 7 of 101 SPECIES STATUS* HABITAT REQUIREMENTS POTENTIAL TO OCCUR IN THE STUDY AREA RECOMMENDATIONS Lewis’ woodpecker Melanerpes lewis CDFW: SSC IUCN: LC NABCI: YWL USFWS: BCC M. lewis often inhabit oak savannahs, broken deciduous, and coniferous habitats. Nests are made at the forest edge (especially ponderosa pine) or in groves or scattered trees and requires snags for nest cavities. M. lewis’ primary diet consists of insects, nuts, and fruits. No Potential. The Study Area is outside the known distribution range for this species according to the CWHR Predicted Habitat Suitability Map. Not Present. There are no recommendations for this species. osprey Pandion haliaetus CDF: S CDFW: WL IUCN: LC P. haliaetus are strictly associated with large, fish-bearing waters, primarily in ponderosa pine and mixed conifer stands. Foraging habitat consists of open, clear waters, rivers, lakes, reservoirs, estuaries, lagoons, swamps, marshes, and bays. Diet consists almost exclusively live fish. Large trees, snags, and blown-out treetops are used for cover and nesting. Nests are located on or near the tops of trees, snags, cliffs, or human-made structures. High Potential. Habitat within the Study Area is ranked Moderate (0.44) and High (0.77) in suitability according to the CWHR Predicted Habitat Suitability Map. There are no stands of dense, mature and old growth conifer or deciduous forest in the immediate vicinity of the Study Area; however, areas withing the Study Area does contain conifer and deciduous forest stands. Not Observed. This species or nests were not observed during the biological assessment. No trees are proposed for removal; however, it is recommended to survey for this species within 500 feet of ground disturbance activities. yellow warbler Setophaga petechia CDFW: SSC USFWS: BCC S. petechia often inhabits riparian deciduous habitats in summer: willows, alders, cottonwoods, and other small trees and shrubs typical of low, open canopy riparian woodland. This species will also breed in montane shrubbery in open conifer forest. S. petechia migrates through woodland, forest and shrub habitats. Nests above ground in a deciduous dappling or shrub. Moderate Potential. Habitat within the Study Area is ranked Low (0.22) to Moderate (0.44) in suitability according to the CWHR Predicted Habitat Suitability Map. The Study Area contains does contain montane shrubs in open conifer and deciduous forest that may be potential habitat for this species. Not Observed. This species was not observed during the biological assessment. It is recommended that nesting bird surveys be conducted prior to vegetation removal. Page 189 of 414 Page 8 of 101 SPECIES STATUS* HABITAT REQUIREMENTS POTENTIAL TO OCCUR IN THE STUDY AREA RECOMMENDATIONS northern spotted owl Strix occidentalis caurina FT, ST CDF: S IUCN: NT NABCI: YWL S. occidentalis caurina are year-round residents in dense, structurally complex forests, primarily with old-growth conifers. Nests on snags and within tree cavities, and often is associated with existing structures (old raptor nests, squirrel nests and A. pomo nests). Moderate Potential. The Study Area is approximately 4.3 miles southeast from the closest NSO Activity Center and 4.5 miles northeast from the nearest critical habitat as identified by the USFWS. The Study Area is located within suitable habitat according to the CWHR Predicted Habitat Suitability Map. The Study Area does not contain large conifers for nesting but may provide suitable foraging habitat for this species. Not Observed. This species or evidence of this species was not observed during the biological assessment. Trees are not proposed for removal; therefore, there are no recommendations for this species. Fish Pacific lamprey Entosphenus tridentatus AFS: VU BLM: S CDFW: SSC USFS: S E. tridentatus are anadromous, but also with a number of permanent freshwater resident populations. This species is parasitic as adults, feeding on blood and body fluids of its prey. To breed, E. tridentatus migrate into fresh water and dig nests. Adults die post-breeding. Larvae/juveniles live 5-6 years in freshwater before returning to the ocean. No Potential. The Study Area does not contain fish bearing water bodies suitable for this species and does provide suitable habitat for this species. Not Present. There are no recommendations for this species. Clear Lake tule perch Hysterocarpus traskii lagunae CDFW: SSC H. traskii lagunae are endemic to three (3) highly altered lakes (Clear Lake, Lower Blue Lake, and Upper Blue Lake); however, it is expected that they are only commonly found in Upper Blue Lake as the other lakes have already lost a majority of their native fishes. A key habitat requirement of H. traskii lagunae is cover, especially for pregnant females and small juveniles. This species is typically found in small shoals in deep (3+ m) tule beds, among rocks (especially along steep rocky shores), or among the branches of fallen trees. No Potential. The Study Area is outside of the Clear Lake watershed and the current known distribution for this species according to the FSSC Range Map. Not Present. There are no recommendations for this species. Page 190 of 414 Page 9 of 101 SPECIES STATUS* HABITAT REQUIREMENTS POTENTIAL TO OCCUR IN THE STUDY AREA RECOMMENDATIONS Russian River tule perch Hysterocarpus traskii pomo AFS: VU CDFW: SSC H. traskii pomo inhabits clear, flowing streams and rivers, and occupy deep pools that have complex cover in the form of aquatic and overhanging vegetation. This species is endemic to the Russian River and the lower parts of its tributaries. They feed on invertebrates, plants, and zooplankton. Mating occurs in July-Sept. No Potential. The Study Area does not contain fish bearing water bodies suitable for this species and does provide suitable habitat for this species. Not Present. There are no recommendations for this species. Navarro roach Lavinia symmetricus navarroensis CDFW: SSC L. symmetricus navarroensis are generally found in small, warm intermittent streams, and dense populations are frequently found in isolated pools. They are most abundant in mid- elevation streams in the Sierra foothills and in the lower reaches of some coastal streams. Roach are tolerant of relatively high temperatures (30-35 C) and low oxygen levels (1-2 ppm). However, they are habitat generalists, also being found in cold, well- aerated clear "trout" streams, in human- modified habitats and in the main channels of rivers, such as the Russian and Tuolumne. This form appears to be abundant in both the Russian and Navarro rivers. No Potential. The Study Area is outside of the Navarro River watershed and current known distribution for this species according to the FSSC Range Map. Not Present. There are no recommendations for this species. Clear Lake – Russian River roach Lavinia symmetricus ssp. 4 CDFW: SSC L. symmetricus are generally found in small, warm intermittent streams, and dense populations are frequently found in isolated pools. Roach are tolerant of relatively high temperatures (30-35 C) and low oxygen levels (1-2 ppm). However, they are habitat generalists, also being found in cold, well- aerated clear "trout" streams, in human- modified habitats and in the main channels of rivers. Clear Lake roach are restricted to the tributaries of Clear Lake, where they are widely distributed in the basin’s seven major drainages. No Potential. The Study Area does not contain fish bearing water bodies suitable for this species and does provide suitable habitat for this species. Not Present. There are no recommendations for this species. Page 191 of 414 Page 10 of 101 SPECIES STATUS* HABITAT REQUIREMENTS POTENTIAL TO OCCUR IN THE STUDY AREA RECOMMENDATIONS coho salmon – southern Oregon / northern California ESU Oncorhynchus kisutch pop. 2 FT ST AFS: TH O. kisutch are anadromous, migrating and spawning in streams that flow directly into the ocean or tributaries of larger rivers. Migration peaks between mid-May and mid-June. Coho lay egg masses (redds), often located between a pool and a riffle. This evolutionarily significant unit, or ESU, includes naturally spawned coho salmon originating from coastal streams and rivers between Cape Blanco, Oregon, and Punta Gorda, California. No Potential. The Study Area does not contain fish bearing water bodies suitable for this species and does provide suitable habitat for this species. According to the CWHR Predicted Habitat Suitability Map, Doolin Creek (approximately 2,230 feet south) and an unnamed watercourse (approximately 225 north) do not have Intrinsic Potential to contain this species. Not Present. There are no recommendations for this species. coho salmon – central California coast ESU Oncorhynchus kisutch pop. 4 FE SE AFS EN Coho are anadromous, migrating and spawning in streams that flow directly into the ocean or tributaries of larger rivers. Migration peaks mid-May till mid-June. The fish will spend two to three years at sea before migrating back to their natal stream to spawn. Coho lay egg masses (redds), often located between a pool and a riffle. This evolutionarily significant unit, or ESU, includes naturally spawned coho salmon originating from rivers south of Punta Gorda, California, to and including Aptos Creek, as well as such coho salmon originating from tributaries to San Francisco Bay. No Potential. The Study Area does not contain fish bearing water bodies suitable for this species and does provide suitable habitat for this species. According to the CWHR Predicted Habitat Suitability Map, Doolin Creek (approximately 2,230 feet south) and an unnamed watercourse (approximately 225 north) have Intrinsic Potential to contain this species. Not Present. There are no recommendations for this species. Page 192 of 414 Page 11 of 101 SPECIES STATUS* HABITAT REQUIREMENTS POTENTIAL TO OCCUR IN THE STUDY AREA RECOMMENDATIONS steelhead – northern California DPS Oncorhynchus mykiss irideus pop. 16 FT AFS: TH O. mykiss irideus are anadromous coastal rainbow trout. As adults, this species requires high flows, with depths of at least 18cm for passage. Clean well-aerated gravel beds, typically in steep, rocky reaches of upper tributaries are needed for spawning. This distinct population segment, or DPS, includes naturally spawned anadromous steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss) originating below natural and manmade impassable barriers in California coastal river basins from Redwood Creek to and including the Gualala River. No Potential. The Study Area does not contain fish bearing water bodies suitable for this species and does provide suitable habitat for this species. According to the CWHR Predicted Habitat Suitability Map, Doolin Creek (approximately 2,230 feet south) and an unnamed watercourse (approximately 225 north) do not have Intrinsic Potential to contain this species. Not Present. There are no recommendations for this species. steelhead - central California coast DPS Oncorhynchus mykiss irideus pop. 8 FT AFS: TH O. mykiss irideus are anadromous coastal rainbow trout. As adults, this species requires high flows, with depths of at least 18cm for passage. Clean well-aerated gravel beds, typically in steep, rocky reaches of upper tributaries are needed for spawning. The central California coast DPS are found from the Russian River south to Soquel Creek and to, but not including Pajaro River. Also San Francisco and San Pablo Bay basins. This DPS does not include summer-run steelhead. No Potential. The Study Area does not contain fish bearing water bodies suitable for this species and does provide suitable habitat for this species. According to the CWHR Predicted Habitat Suitability Map, Doolin Creek (approximately 2,230 feet south) and an unnamed watercourse (approximately 225 north) have Intrinsic Potential to contain this species. Not Present. There are no recommendations for this species. Page 193 of 414 Page 12 of 101 SPECIES STATUS* HABITAT REQUIREMENTS POTENTIAL TO OCCUR IN THE STUDY AREA RECOMMENDATIONS chinook salmon – California coastal ESU Oncorhynchus tshawytscha pop. 17 FT AFS: TH The California coastal ESU includes all naturally spawned populations of Chinook salmon from the Klamath River (exclusive) to the Russian River (inclusive). Adult numbers depend on pool depth and volume, amount of cover, and proximity to gravel. Water temperatures greater than 27°C are lethal. No Potential. The Study Area does not contain fish bearing water bodies suitable for this species and does provide suitable habitat for this species. According to the CWHR Predicted Habitat Suitability Map, an unnamed watercourse (approximately 225 north) and Doolin Creek (approximately 2,230 feet south) do not have Intrinsic Potential to contain this species. Not Present. There are no recommendations for this species. Insects obscure bumble bee Bombus caliginosus IUCN: VU B. caliginosus are often found in coastal areas from Santa Barbara county north to Washington state. Food plant genera includes Baccharis, Cirisum, Lupinus, Lotus, Grindelia, and Phacelia. Moderate Potential. The Study Area contains suitable habitat and food plant genera for this species. Not Observed. This species was not observed during the biological assessment. Brush and grassland are proposed for removal; however, there is adequate potential habitat surrounding the Study Area. There are no recommendations for this species. Page 194 of 414 Page 13 of 101 SPECIES STATUS* HABITAT REQUIREMENTS POTENTIAL TO OCCUR IN THE STUDY AREA RECOMMENDATIONS western bumble bee Bombus occidentalis SCE USFS: S Xerces: IM B. occidentalis are formerly common throughout much of western North America; however, populations from southern British Columbia to central California have nearly disappeared. They occur in a variety of habitat types and are generalist pollinators. B. occidentalis are commonly encountered along stream banks, meadows, disturbed areas, or on flowers by roadsides. Moderate Potential. The Study Area contains suitable habitat and food plant genera for this species. Not Observed. This species was not observed during the biological assessment. Brush and grassland are proposed for removal; however, there is adequate potential habitat surrounding the Study Area. There are no recommendations for this species. Mollusks western ridged mussel Gonidea angulata G. angulata inhabits cold creeks and streams from low-to-mid elevations that are seasonally and not continuously turbid. G. angulata requires a host species to reproduce and disperse and can be found in diverse substrates from firm mud to coarse particles. Documented fish hosts for this species include hardhead (Mylopharodon conocephalus), pit sculpin (Cottus pitensis), and Tule perch (Hysterocarpus traski). No Potential. The Study Area does not contain fish bearing water bodies suitable for this species. The Russian River within roughly 500 feet of the Study Area does provide aquatic habitat for this species, but the Study Area contains no tributary watercourses. Not Present. There are no recommendations for this species. Mammals pallid bat Antrozous pallidus BLM: S CDFW: SSC IUCN: LC USFS: S WBWG: H A. pallidus are found in deserts, grasslands, shrublands, woodlands, and forests. Most commonly forages along open river channels. Roosting sites include crevices in rocky outcrops and cliffs, caves, mines, basal hollows in large conifers and various human structures such as bridges, barns, and buildings (including occupied buildings). Roosts must protect bats from high temperatures. Very sensitive to disturbance of roosting sites. Unlikely. Habitat within the Study Area ranks Low (0.11) in suitability according to the CWHR Predicted Habitat Suitability Map. Suitable foraging is present within grassland habitat throughout the Study Area; however, roosting habitat is limited. Not Observed. This species or evidence of this species was not observed during the biological assessment. There are no further recommendations for this species. Page 195 of 414 Page 14 of 101 SPECIES STATUS* HABITAT REQUIREMENTS POTENTIAL TO OCCUR IN THE STUDY AREA RECOMMENDATIONS Sonoma tree vole Arborimus pomo CDFW: SSC IUCN: NT A. pomo lives in humid coastal forests consisting of Douglas-fir, grand fir, western hemlock, and/or Sitka spruce. This species requires Douglas-fir and grand fir needles as a food source and nesting materials. Nests are frequently found in trees along the bole, in branch crotches, or in the top of snags. Nests are most often found along roads, skid trails, or forest edges; however, they could exist further in the forest with dense canopies making nest identification difficult. This species is distributed along the North Coast from Sonoma County north to the Oregon border, being practically restricted to the fog belt. Moderate Potential. Habitat within the Study Area is not suitable in some areas, ranks Low (0.33) withing Montane Hardwood-Conifer habitat and High (1) within Conifer Forest habitat according to the CWHR Predicted Habitat Suitability Map. The Study Area does contain Douglas-fir trees and map provide suitable habitat for this species. Not Observed. This species or evidence of this species was not observed during the biological assessment. Trees are not proposed for removal, but if trees were to be removed, it is recommended to survey those trees for this species. Townsend’s big-eared bat Corynorhinus townsendii BLM: S CDFW: SSC IUCN: LC USFS: S WBWG: H C. townsendii is associated with a wide variety of habitats from deserts to mid-elevation mixed coniferous-deciduous forest, basal hollows in large conifers. Females form maternity colonies in buildings, caves and mines and males roost singly or in small groups. Foraging occurs in open forest habitats where they glean moths from vegetation. Unlikely. Habitat within the Study Area ranks Low (0.11) in suitability according to the CWHR Predicted Habitat Suitability Map. Suitable foraging is present within grassland habitat throughout the Study Area; however, roosting habitat is limited. Not Observed. This species or evidence of this species was not observed during the biological assessment. There are no further recommendations for this species. North American porcupine Erethizon dorsatum IUCN: LC E. dorsatum are commonly found in coniferous and mixed forested areas, and can also inhabit shrublands, tundra and deserts, albeit less frequently as this species tends to spend much of its time in trees. This species makes its dens in hollow trees, decaying logs and caves in rocky areas. Recognized as primarily solitary and nocturnal, E. dorsatum may be seen foraging during daytime. Moderate Potential. Habitat within the Study Area is ranked Low (0.33) within the Montane Hardwood habitat to Moderate (0.55) within the Hardwood-Montane Conifer habitat in suitability according to the CWHR Predicted Habitat Suitability Map. The Study Area may contain suitable habitat for this species. Not Observed. This species or evidence of this species was not observed during the biological assessment. It is recommended to survey for this survey prior to ground disturbance. Page 196 of 414 Page 15 of 101 SPECIES STATUS* HABITAT REQUIREMENTS POTENTIAL TO OCCUR IN THE STUDY AREA RECOMMENDATIONS western mastiff bat Eumops perotis californicus CDFW: SSC BLM:S WBWG:H Uncommon resident in southeastern San Joaquin Valley and Coastal Ranges from Monterey Co. southward through southern California, from the coast eastward to the Colorado Desert. Occurs in many open, semi- arid to arid habitats, including conifer and deciduous woodlands, coastal scrub, annual and perennial grasslands, palm oases, chaparral, desert scrub, and urban. No Potential. The Study Area is outside the known distribution range for this species according to the CWHR Predicted Habitat Suitability Map. Not Present. There are no recommendations for this species. western red bat Lasiurus blossevillii CDFW: SSC IUCN: LC WBWG: H L. blossevillii roosts primarily in trees, often 2- 40ft above the ground from sea level through mixed conifer forests. Typical habitats include cismontane woodland, lower montane coniferous forest, riparian forests and woodlands. This species prefers habitat edges and mosaics with trees that are protected from above and open below with open areas for foraging. Moderate Potential. Habitat within the Study Area is ranked Moderate (0.66) within the Hardwood-Montane Conifer habitat in suitability according to the CWHR Predicted Habitat Suitability Map. The Study Area may contain suitable habitat for this species. Not Observed. This species or evidence of this species was not observed during the biological assessment. There are no further recommendations for this species. hoary bat Lasiurus cinereus CDFW: SSC IUCN: LC WBWG: M L. cinereus are yearlong residents of Mendocino County. This bat is one of the few bats knows to both migrate south for winter and to hibernate locally. Hoary bat daytime roosts are typically dense foliage of medium to large sized trees. This bat occupies a variety of habitats including dense forest, forest edges, coniferous forests, deserts, and broadleaf forests. Moderate Potential. Habitat within the Study Area is ranked Moderate (0.55) within the Hardwood-Montane Conifer habitat in suitability according to the CWHR Predicted Habitat Suitability Map. The Study Area may contain suitable habitat for this species. Not Observed. This species was not observed during the biological assessment. It is recommended to survey for this survey prior to ground disturbance. Page 197 of 414 Page 16 of 101 SPECIES STATUS* HABITAT REQUIREMENTS POTENTIAL TO OCCUR IN THE STUDY AREA RECOMMENDATIONS little brown bat Myotis lucifugus CDFW: SSC IUCN: LC WBWG: M M. lucifugus is found in most of the United States and Canada, except for the south central and southeastern United States and northern Alaska and Canada. M. lucifugus typically lives and feeds in forested areas near or over water. The little brown bat lives in three different roosting sites throughout the year: day roosts, night roosts, and hibernation roosts. Stable, ambient temperatures greatly influence site selection. Human-made structures are often selected, however both day and night roosts may be found in trees, under rocks, and in piles of wood. Day roosts provide excellent shelter, limited to no light, and typically have southwestern exposure. Night roosts are larger areas these bats can use when outside temperatures necessitate communal congregation for warmth. Hibernaculum habitats tend to include mines and caves and are typically warmer and more humid. Unlikely. Habitat within the Study Area is ranked Low (0.11) in suitability according to the CWHR Predicted Habitat Suitability Map. The Study Area does not contain structures, mines or caves that this species could use for breeding sites. This species may forage over the Study Area. Not Observed. This species was not observed during the biological assessment. There are no further recommendations for this species. Yuma myotis Myotis yumanensis CDFW: SSC BLM: S IUCN: LC WBWG: LM M. yumanensis commonly inhabits open forests and woodlands from British Columbia across the western U.S. and south into Baja and southern Mexico. This species will use a variety of lowland habitats from scrub to coniferous forest, always near slow-moving or standing water habitats. Foraging occurs almost exclusively over water, with distribution being closely tied to bodies of water. Typical roosting habitat are caves, mines, buildings, under bridges and in cliff and tree crevices. Maternity colonies are often in caves, mines, buildings and crevices. Unlikely. Habitat within the Study Area is ranked Low (0.22) in suitability according to the CWHR Predicted Habitat Suitability Map. The Study Area does not contain structures, mines or caves that this species could use for breeding sites. The Study Area does not contain bodies of water for foraging habitat. Not Observed. This species was not observed during the biological assessment. There are no further recommendations for this species. Page 198 of 414 Page 17 of 101 SPECIES STATUS* HABITAT REQUIREMENTS POTENTIAL TO OCCUR IN THE STUDY AREA RECOMMENDATIONS fisher [West Coast DPS] Pekania pennanti ST CDFW: SSC USFS: S P. pennanti are primarily solitary, except during breeding season (February – April) and they inhabit forest stands with late- successional characteristics including intermediate-to-large tree stages of coniferous forest and deciduous-riparian areas with high percent canopy closure. Den site and prey availability are often associated with these characteristics. P. pennanti use cavities, snags, logs and rocky areas for cover and denning and require large areas of mature, dense forest. Moderate Potential. Habitat within the Study Area is ranked from no suitable habitat (0) to High (1) in suitability according to the CWHR Predicted Habitat Suitability Map and may provide suitable habitat for this species. Not Observed. This species was not observed during the biological assessment. Trees present within the Study Area do not exhibit late successional characteristics and none are not proposed for removal for this project. There are no further recommendations for this species. American badger Taxidea taxus CDFW: SSC IUCN: LC T. taxus are most abundant in drier open stages of most shrub, forest and herbaceous habitats, with friable soils (Zeiner et al. 1990b). T. taxus dig burrows in the friable soils and frequently reuse old burrows. They prey on burrowing rodents, especially ground squirrels and pocket gophers, also on birds, insects, reptiles and carrion. Their diet shifts seasonally depending on the availability of prey. T. taxus are non- migratory and are found throughout most of California, except the northern North Coast area. No Potential. The Study Area does not have suitable habitat present according to the CWHR Predicted Habitat Suitability Map. Small patches of suitable habitat are present within the surrounding area. Not Present. There are no recommendations for this species. Reptiles western pond turtle Emys marmorata BLM: S CDFW: SSC IUCN: VU USFS: S E. marmorata are associated with permanent ponds, lakes, streams, stock ponds, marshes, seasonal wetlands, artificial areas including reservoirs or irrigation ditches, or permanent pools along intermittent streams in a wide variety of habitats. This species requires basking sites in the aquatic environment or upland, grassy openings with loose soil for nesting and overwintering. Nest sites can be found from 100-500 meters from aquatic habitat. Unlikely. Habitat within the Study Area is ranked Low (0.33) according to the CWHR Predicted Habitat Suitability Map. There are no watercourses or ponds located within the Study Area. The Study Area does not provide suitable habitat for this species. Not Observed. This species was not observed during the biological assessment. There are no further recommendations for this species. Page 199 of 414 Page 18 of 101 SPECIES STATUS* HABITAT REQUIREMENTS POTENTIAL TO OCCUR IN THE STUDY AREA RECOMMENDATIONS Plants Raiche’s manzanita Arctostaphylos stanfordiana ssp. raichei Rank 1B.1 Chaparral, lower montane coniferous forest (openings), rocky, serpentine sites, often on slopes and ridges. A. stanfordiana ssp. raichei has a serpentine affinity of 2.6 (strong indicator). Elevation ranges from 1591 to 3511 feet (485 to 1070 meters). A perennial evergreen shrub, the blooming period is from Feb-Apr. No Potential. The required habitat or soil (serpentine) for this species is not present within Study Area. The Study Area does not provide suitable habitat for this species. Not Present. There are no recommendations for this species. Brewer's milk-vetch Astragalus breweri Rank 4.2 Chaparral, cismontane woodland, meadows and seeps, valley and foothill grassland. Often in grassy flats, meadows moist in spring, and open slopes in chaparral. Commonly on or near volcanic or serpentine sites. A. breweri has a serpentine affinity of 3.2 (strong indicator). Elevation ranges from 296 to 2395 feet (90 to 730 meters). An annual herb, the blooming period is from Apr-Jun. Unlikely. The Study Area does contain open grassland and cismontane woodland; however, the area does not contain serpentine or volcanic soils and is unlikely to provide suitable habitat for this species. Not Present. There are no recommendations for this species. Sonoma sunshine Blennosperma bakeri Rank 1B.1 Vernal pools, swales (mesic areas), valley and foothill grasslands (wetlands, riparian). Elevation ranges from 33 to 952 feet (10 to 290 meters). An annual herb, the blooming period is from Mar-May. No Potential. The Study Area does not contain the required habitat (wet areas) for this species and is unlikely to provide suitable habitat for this species. Not Present. There are no recommendations for this species. watershield Brasenia schreberi Rank 2B.3 Freshwater marshes and swamps. Aquatic, known from water bodies both natural and artificial. Elevation ranges from 3 to 7152 feet (1 to 2180 meters). A perennial rhizomatous herb (aquatic), the blooming period is from Jun-Sep. No Potential. The Study Area does not contain the required habitat (wet areas) for this species and is unlikely to provide suitable habitat for this species. Not Present. There are no recommendations for this species. bristly sedge Carex comosa Rank 2B.1 Marshes and swamps, coastal prairie, valley and foothill grasslands, lake margins, wetlands. Elevation ranges from 17 to 3314 feet (5 to 1010 meters). A perennial rhizomatous herb, the blooming period is from May-Sep. Unlikely. The Study Area does contain grassland habitat; however, wet areas or wetlands are not present for this species and is unlikely to provide suitable habitat for this species. Not Present. There are no recommendations for this species. Page 200 of 414 Page 19 of 101 SPECIES STATUS* HABITAT REQUIREMENTS POTENTIAL TO OCCUR IN THE STUDY AREA RECOMMENDATIONS Rincon Ridge ceanothus Ceanothus confusus Rank 1B.1 Closed-cone coniferous forest, chaparral, cismontane woodland, known from volcanic or serpentine soils, dry shrubby slopes. C. confusus has a serpentine affinity of 1.3 (weak indicator/indifferent). Elevation ranges from 492 to 4200 feet (150 to 1280 meters). A shrub, the blooming period is from Feb-Jun. Unlikely. The Study Area does contain cismontane woodland; however, does not have volcanic or serpentine soils and does not provide suitable habitat for this species. Not Present. There are no recommendations for this species. Jepson’s dodder Cuscata jepsonii Rank 1B.2 Upper montane coniferous forest, lower montane coniferous forest, broadleaved upland forest, on primary host species (Ceanothus diversifolius and Ceanothus prostratus). Elevation ranges from 3937 to 9006 feet (1200 to 2745 meters). An annual herb or vine, the blooming period is from Jul-Sep. Unlikely. Ceanothus sp. is present within the Study Area; however, the Study Area is located outside of the elevation range of this species. Not Present. There are no recommendations for this species. California lady’s- slipper Cypripedium californicum Rank 4.2 Lower montane coniferous forest, bogs and fens, wetlands, often found in perennial seepages on serpentine substrate and in gravel along creek margins (ultramafic). This species has a serpentine affinity of 4.5 (broad endemic). Elevation ranges from 99 to 9023 feet (30 to 2750 meters). A perennial herb (rhizomatous), the blooming period is from Apr-Aug. No Potential. The Study Area does not contain serpentine soil or wet areas and does not provide suitable habitat for this species. Not Present. There are no recommendations for this species. mountain lady’s-slipper Cypripedium montanum Rank 4.2 Lower montane coniferous forest, broadleaved upland forest, cismontane woodland, north coast coniferous forest, often on dry, undisturbed slopes. Elevation ranges from 607 to 7300 feet (185 to 2225 meters). A perennial herb (rhizomatous), the blooming period is from Mar-Aug. Moderate Potential. Cismontane woodland and broadleaved upland forest are present within Study Area and may provide suitable habitat for this species. Not Observed. This species was not observed during the biological assessment; however, the biological assessment was not conducted during the blooming period for this species. It is recommended that a botanical survey is conducted for this species during the appropriate blooming period (Mar- Aug). Page 201 of 414 Page 20 of 101 SPECIES STATUS* HABITAT REQUIREMENTS POTENTIAL TO OCCUR IN THE STUDY AREA RECOMMENDATIONS Koch’s cord moss Entosthodon kochii Rank 1B.3 Cismontane woodland, often growing on soil over riverbanks. Elevation ranges from 607 to 1198 feet (185 to 365 meters). A moss, there is no distinct blooming period. Moderate Potential. Cismontane woodland is present within the Study Area and may provide suitable habitat for this species. Not Observed. This species was not observed during the biological assessment and there are no recommendations for this species. bare monkeyflower Erythranthe nudata Rank 4.3 Chaparral, cismontane woodland, moist areas, often along drainages and roadsides in serpentine seeps. This species has a serpentine affinity of 5.6 (strict endemic). Elevation ranges from 820 to 2297 feet (250 to 700 meters). An annual herb, the blooming period is from May-Jun. Unlikely. Cismontane woodland is present within the Study Area; however, serpentine soil is not present. The Study Area does not provide suitable habitat for this species. Not Present. There are no recommendations for this species. minute pocket moss Fissidens pauperculus Rank 1B.2 North coast coniferous forest, redwoods, moss growing on damp soil along the coast, sometimes in dry streambeds and along stream banks. Elevation ranges from 99 to 3363 feet (30 to 1025 meters). A moss, there is no distinct blooming period. Unlikely. Small patches of redwood trees are present within the Study Area; however, the Study Are is not located within North coast coniferous forest required for this species. Not Present. There are no recommendations for this species. stinkbells Fritillaria agrestis Rank 4.2 Cismontane woodland, chaparral, valley and foothill grassland, pinyon and juniper woodland, sometimes on serpentine soil, mostly found in non-native grassland or in grassy openings in clay soil. This species has a serpentine affinity of 2.7 (strong indicator). Elevation ranges from 33 to 5102 feet (10 to 1555 meters). A perennial bulbiferous herb, the blooming period is from Mar-Jun. Moderate Potential. Cismontane woodland is present within the Study Area. This species is sometime found in serpentine soil, but not always; therefore, the Study Area may provide suitable habitat for this species. Not Observed. This species was not observed during the biological assessment; however, the biological assessment was not conducted during the blooming period. It is recommended to survey for this species during the appropriate blooming period (Mar-Jun). Page 202 of 414 Page 21 of 101 SPECIES STATUS* HABITAT REQUIREMENTS POTENTIAL TO OCCUR IN THE STUDY AREA RECOMMENDATIONS Purdy's fritillary Fritillaria purdyi Rank 4.3 Chaparral, cismontane woodland, lower montane coniferous forest, usually on serpentine soil. F. fritillary has a serpentine affinity of 4.5 (broad endemic). Elevation ranges from 574 to 7399 feet (175 to 2255 meters). A perennial bulbiferous herb, the blooming period is from Mar-Jun. Unlikely. Cismontane woodland is present within the Study Area; however, this species has a strong affinity to serpentine soil. The Study Area does not contain serpentine soil and does not provide suitable habitat for this species. Not Present. There are no recommendations for this species. Roderick’s fritillary Fritillaria roderickii Rank 1B.1 Coastal bluff scrub, coastal prairie, valley and foothill grassland, often on grassy slopes, mesas. Elevation ranges from 66 to 2002 feet (20 to 610 meters). A perennial herb (bulb), the blooming period is from Mar-May. Moderate Potential. Grassland habitat is present within the Study Area and may provide suitable habitat for this species. Not Observed. This species was not observed during the biological assessment; however, the biological assessment was not conducted during the blooming period. It is recommended to survey for this species during the appropriate blooming period (Mar-May). Boggs Lake hedge- hyssop Gratiola heterosepala Rank 1B.2 Marshes and swamps (freshwater), vernal pools, often found in clay soils, usually in vernal pools or sometimes lake margins. Elevation ranges from 13 to 7907 feet (4 to 2410 meters). An annual herb, the blooming period is from Apr-Aug. No Potential. The Study Area does not contain the required habitat (aquatic or vernal pools) suitable for this species. Not Present. There are no recommendations for this species. Toren’s grimmia Grimmia torenii Rank 1B.3 Cismontane woodland, lower montane coniferous forest, chaparral, often found in openings, rocky, boulder and rock walls, carbonate, volcanic. Elevation ranges from 1067 to 3806 feet (325 to 1160 meters). A moss, no distinct blooming period. Unlikely. Cismontane woodland is present within the Study Area; however, does not contain carbonate or volcanic soil and does not provide suitable habitat for this species. Not Present. There are no recommendations for this species. Page 203 of 414 Page 22 of 101 SPECIES STATUS* HABITAT REQUIREMENTS POTENTIAL TO OCCUR IN THE STUDY AREA RECOMMENDATIONS Mendocino tarplant Hemizonia congesta ssp. calyculata Rank 4.3 Cismontane woodland, valley and foothill grassland, open woods and forests, sometimes on serpentine. H. congesta ssp. calyculata has a serpentine affinity of 1.5 (weak indicator). Elevation ranges from 738 to 4593 feet (225 to 1400 meters). An annual herb, the blooming period is from Jul-Nov. Moderate Potential. Cismontane woodland and grassland habitat are present within the Study Area. This species is sometimes found in serpentine soil, but not always; therefore, the Study Area may provide suitable habitat for this species. Not Observed. This species was not observed during the biological assessment; however, the biological assessment was not conducted during the blooming period. It is recommended to survey for this species during the appropriate blooming period (Jul-Nov). congested-headed hayfield tarplant Hemizonia congesta ssp. congesta Rank 1B.2 Valley and foothill grassland, often in fallow fields, sometimes along roadsides. H. congesta ssp. congesta has a serpentine affinity (1.3, weak indicator/indifferent). Elevation ranges from 17 to 1706 feet (5 to 520 meters). An annual herb, the blooming period is from Apr- Nov. Moderate Potential. Grassland habitat is present within the Study Area. This species is sometimes found in serpentine soil, but not always; therefore, the Study Area may provide suitable habitat for this species. Not Observed. This species was not observed during the biological assessment; however, the biological assessment was not conducted during the blooming period. It is recommended to survey for this species during the appropriate blooming period (Apr-Nov). Tracy’s tarplant Hemizonia congesta ssp. tracyi Rank 4.3 Coastal prairie, north coast coniferous forest, lower montane coniferous forest, often found in openings and sometimes on serpentine (ultramafic). H. congesta ssp. tracyi has a serpentine affinity of 1.8 (weak indicator). Elevation ranges from 394 to 3937 feet (120 to 1200 meters). An annual herb, the blooming period is from May-Oct. No Potential. The Study Area does not contain the required habitat (coastal prairie, North coast coniferous forest or lower montane coniferous forest) suitable for this species. Not Present. There are no recommendations for this species. glandular western flax Hesperolinon adenophyllum Rank 1B.2 Chaparral, cismontane woodland, valley and foothill grassland, serpentine soils, generally found in serpentine chaparral. H. adenophyllum has a serpentine affinity of 5.7 (strict endemic). Elevation ranges from 1395 to 4413 feet (425 to 1345 meters). An annual herb, the blooming period is from May-Aug. Unlikely. Cismontane woodland and grassland habitat is present within the Study Area; however, does not contain serpentine soil. The Study Area does not provide suitable habitat for this species. Not Present. There are no recommendations for this species. Page 204 of 414 Page 23 of 101 SPECIES STATUS* HABITAT REQUIREMENTS POTENTIAL TO OCCUR IN THE STUDY AREA RECOMMENDATIONS Bolander’s horkelia Horkelia bolanderi Rank 1B.2 Lower montane coniferous forest, chaparral, meadows and seeps, valley and foothill grassland, often found in grassy margins of vernal pools and meadows. Elevation ranges from 1493 to 2805 feet (455 to 855 meters). A perennial herb, the blooming period is from Jun-Aug. Unlikely. Grassland habitat is present within the Study Area; however, does not contain vernal pools and does not provide suitable habitat for this species. Not Present. There are no recommendations for this species. small groundcone Kopsiopsis hookeri Rank 2B.3 North coast coniferous forest, open woods, shrubby places, generally on Gaultheria shallon. Elevation ranges from 394 to 4708 feet (120 to 1435 meters). A perennial herb, the blooming period is from Apr-Aug. No Potential. The Study Area does not contain the required habitat (North coast coniferous forest along the coast) suitable for this species. Not Present. There are no recommendations for this species. Burke’s goldfields Lasthenia burkei FE Rank 1B.1 Found in vernal pools and swales, meadows and seeps. Elevation ranges from 49 to 1969 feet (15 to 600 meters). An annual herb, the blooming period is from Apr-Jun. No Potential. The Study Area does not contain the required habitat (vernal pools or wet areas) for this species. Not Present. There are no recommendations for this species. Contra Costa goldfields Lasthenia conjugens FE Rank 1B.1 Valley and foothill grassland, vernal pools, alkaline playas, cismontane woodlands, often found in swales and low depressions in open grassy areas. Elevation ranges from 4 to 1477 feet (1 to 450 meters). An annual herb, the blooming period is from Mar-Jun. Moderate Potential. The Study Area contains the required habitat (cismontane woodland and grassland habitat) and may provide suitable habitat for this species. Not Observed. This species was not observed during the biological assessment; however, the biological assessment was not conducted during the blooming period for this species. It is recommended that a botanical survey during the appropriate blooming period for this species is conducted (Mar-Jun). Page 205 of 414 Page 24 of 101 SPECIES STATUS* HABITAT REQUIREMENTS POTENTIAL TO OCCUR IN THE STUDY AREA RECOMMENDATIONS Colusa layia Layia septentrionalis Rank 1B.2 Chaparral, cismontane woodland, valley and foothill grassland, scattered colonies in fields and grassy slopes in sandy or serpentine soil. This species has a serpentine affinity of 3.2 (strong indicator). Elevation ranges from 49 to 3609 feet (15 to 1100 meters). An annual herb, the blooming period is from Apr-May. Unlikely. Cismontane woodland is present within the Study Area; however, the area does not contain serpentine soil The Study Area is unlikely to provide suitable habitat for this species. Not Present. There are no recommendations for this species. bristly leptosiphon Leptosiphon acicularis Rank 4.2 Chaparral, cismontane woodland, coastal prairie, valley and foothill grassland. Elevation ranges from 181 to 4922 feet (55 to 1500 meters). An annual herb, the blooming period is from Apr-Jul. Moderate Potential. The Study Area contains the required habitat (cismontane woodland) and may provide suitable habitat for this species. Not Observed. This species was not observed during the biological assessment; however, the biological assessment was not conducted during the blooming period for this species. It is recommended that a botanical survey during the appropriate blooming period for this species is conducted (Apr-Jul). broad-lobed leptosiphon Leptosiphon latisectus Rank 4.3 Broadleaved upland forest, cismontane woodland. L. latisectus has a serpentine affinity of 2.0 (weak indicator). Elevation ranges from 558 to 4922 feet (170 to 1500 meters). An annual herb, the blooming period is from Apr-Jun. Moderate Potential. Cismontane woodland and broadleaved upland forest are present within the Study Area. This species is sometimes found in serpentine soil, but not always; therefore, the Study Area may provide suitable habitat for this species. Not Observed. This species was not observed during the biological assessment; however, the biological assessment was not conducted during the blooming period. It is recommended to survey for this species during the appropriate blooming period (Apr-Jun). Page 206 of 414 Page 25 of 101 SPECIES STATUS* HABITAT REQUIREMENTS POTENTIAL TO OCCUR IN THE STUDY AREA RECOMMENDATIONS woolly-headed lessingia Lessingia hololeuca Rank 3 Coastal scrub, lower montane coniferous forest, valley and foothill grassland, broadleaved upland forests, often on clay or serpentine along fields and roadsides. L. hololeuca has a serpentine affinity of 2.5 (strong indicator). Elevation ranges from 49 to 1001 feet (15 to 305 meters). An annual herb, the blooming period is from Jun-Oct. Unlikely. Grassland habitat is present within the Study Area; however, does not contain serpentine soil and does not provide suitable habitat for this species. Not Present. There are no recommendations for this species. redwood lily Lilium rubescens Rank 4.2 Chaparral, lower montane coniferous forest, broadleaved upland forest, upper montane coniferous forest, north coast coniferous forest, sometimes on serpentine. L. rubescens has a serpentine affinity of 2 (weak indicator). Elevation ranges from 99 to 6267 feet (30 to 1910 meters). A perennial herb (bulb), the blooming period is from Apr-Aug. Moderate Potential. Broadleaved upland forest is present within the Study Area. This species is sometimes found in serpentine soil, but not always; therefore, the Study Area may provide suitable habitat for this species. Not Observed. This species was not observed during the biological assessment; however, the biological assessment was not conducted during the blooming period. It is recommended to survey for this species during the appropriate blooming period (Apr-Aug). Baker’s meadowfoam Limnanthes bakeri Rank 1B.1 Marshes and swamps, valley and foothill grassland, meadows and seeps, vernal pools, seasonally moist or saturated sites within grassland, also in swales, roadside ditches and margins of freshwater marshy areas. Elevation ranges from 574 to 3002 feet (175 to 915 meters). An annual herb, the blooming period is from Apr-May. Unlikely. Grassland habitat is present within the Study Area; however, does not contain wet/marshy areas and does not provide suitable habitat for this species. Not Present. There are no recommendations for this species. Mendocino bush- mallow Malacothamnus mendocinensis Rank 1A Chaparral, open roadside banks. Elevation ranges from 1395 to 1887 feet (425 to 575 meters). A shrub, the blooming period is from May-Jun. No Potential. The Study Area does not contain the required habitat (Chaparral) for this species. Not Present. There are no recommendations for this species. Page 207 of 414 Page 26 of 101 SPECIES STATUS* HABITAT REQUIREMENTS POTENTIAL TO OCCUR IN THE STUDY AREA RECOMMENDATIONS green monardella Monardella viridis Rank 4.3 Broadleaved upland forest, chaparral, cismontane woodland. Elevation ranges from 328 to 3314 feet (100 to 1010 meters). A perennial herb, the blooming period is from Jun-Sep. Moderate Potential. Cismontane woodland and broadleaved upland forest are present within the Study Area. This species is sometimes found in serpentine soil, but not always; therefore, the Study Area may provide suitable habitat for this species. Not Observed. This species was not observed during the biological assessment; however, the biological assessment was not conducted during the blooming period. It is recommended to survey for this species during the appropriate blooming period (Apr-Jun). Baker’s navarretia Navarretia leucocephala ssp. bakeri Rank 1B.1 Cismontane woodland, meadows and seeps, vernal pools and swales, valley and foothill grassland, lower montane coniferous forest, adobe or alkaline soils. Elevation ranges from 10 to 5512 feet (3 to 1680 meters). An annual herb, the blooming period is from Apr-Jul. Unlikely. Cismontane woodland and grassland habitat are present within the Study Area; however, does not contain adobe or alkaline soils and does not provide suitable habitat for this species. Not Present. There are no recommendations for this species. California Gairdner’s yampah Perideridia gairdneri ssp. gairdneri Rank 4.2 Broadleaved upland forest, chaparral, coastal prairie, valley and foothill grassland, vernal pools. Often found on adobe flats or grasslands, wet meadows and vernal pools, under Pinus radiata along the coast, mesic sites. Elevation ranges from 0 to 2002 feet (0 to 610 meters). A perennial herb, the blooming period is from Jun-Oct. Unlikely. Grassland habitat and broadleaved upland forest are present within the Study Area; however, is not located along the coast and does not provide suitable habitat for this species. Not Present. There are no recommendations for this species. white-flowered rein orchid Piperia candida Rank 1B.2 North Coast coniferous forest, lower montane coniferous forest, broadleaved upland forest, sometimes on serpentine. Often found in forest duff, mossy banks, ultramafic (serpentine) rock outcrops and muskeg. P. candida has a serpentine affinity of 1.2 (weak indicator/indifferent). Elevation ranges from 66 to 5299 feet (20 to 1615 meters). A perennial herb, the blooming period is from May-Sep. Moderate Potential. Cismontane woodland and broadleaved upland forest are present within the Study Area. This species is sometimes found in serpentine soil, but not always; therefore, the Study Area may provide suitable habitat for this species. Not Observed. This species was not observed during the biological assessment; however, the biological assessment was not conducted during the blooming period. It is recommended to survey for this species during the appropriate blooming period (May-Sep). Page 208 of 414 Page 27 of 101 SPECIES STATUS* HABITAT REQUIREMENTS POTENTIAL TO OCCUR IN THE STUDY AREA RECOMMENDATIONS Mayacamas popcornflower Plagiobothrys lithocaryus Rank 1A Chaparral, cismontane woodland, valley and foothill grassland, moist sites. Elevation ranges from 985 to 1477 feet (300 to 450 meters). An annual herb, the blooming period is from Apr- May. Moderate Potential. Cismontane woodland and grassland habitat are present within the Study Area and may provide suitable habitat for this species. Not Observed. This species was not observed during the biological assessment; however, the biological assessment was not conducted during the blooming period. It is recommended to survey for this species during the appropriate blooming period (Apr-May). North Coast semaphore grass Pleuropogon hooverianus Rank 1B.1 Broadleaved upland forest, meadows and seeps, north coast coniferous forest, often found in wet, grassy, shady areas, sometimes freshwater marsh. Often associated with forest environments (wetland-riparian areas). Elevation ranges from 148 to 3806 feet (45 to 1160 meters). A perennial rhizomatous herb, the blooming period is from Apr-Jun. Unlikely. Broadleaved upland forest and grassland habitat are present within the Study Area; however, does not contain wet areas and does not provide suitable habitat for this species. Not Present. There are no recommendations for this species. Lobb’s aquatic buttercup Ranunculus lobbii Rank 4.2 Cismontane woodland, valley and foothill grassland, vernal pools, north coast coniferous forest (mesic sites). Elevation ranges from 50 to 1542 feet (15 to 470 meters). An annual herb (aquatic), the blooming period is from Feb-May. Unlikely. Cismontane woodland and grassland habitat are present within the Study Area; however, does not contain wet areas and does not provide suitable habitat for this species. Not Present. There are no recommendations for this species. great burnet Sanguisorba officinalis Rank 2B.2 Bogs and fens, meadows and seeps, broadleaved upland forest, marshes and swamps, north coast coniferous forest, riparian forest, rocky serpentine seepage areas and along streams. Elevation ranges from 17 to 4593 feet (5 to 1400 meters). A perennial rhizomatous herb, the blooming period is from Jul-Oct. Unlikely. Cismontane woodland and broadleaved upland forest are present within the Study Area; however, does not contain wet areas or streams and does not provide suitable habitat for this species. Not Present. There are no recommendations for this species. Page 209 of 414 Page 28 of 101 SPECIES STATUS* HABITAT REQUIREMENTS POTENTIAL TO OCCUR IN THE STUDY AREA RECOMMENDATIONS Hoffman’s bristly jewelflower Streptanthus glandulosus ssp. hoffmanii Rank 1B.3 Chaparral, cismontane woodland, valley and foothill grassland, moist, steep rocky banks in serpentine and non-serpentine soils. Elevation ranges from 197 to 2510 feet (60 to 765 meters). An annual herb, the blooming period is from Mar-Jul. Unlikely. Cismontane woodland is present within the Study Area and this species is sometimes found in serpentine soil, but not always. However, moist rocky banks are not present within the Study Area and does not provide suitable habitat for this species. Not Present. There are no recommendations for this species. beaked tracyina Tracyina rostrata Rank 1B.2 USFS: S Cismontane woodland, valley and foothill grassland, chaparral, often observed in open grassy meadows commonly within oak woodland and grassland habitats. Elevation ranges from 492 to 2609 feet (150 to 795 meters). An annual herb, the blooming period is from May-Jun. Moderate Potential. Cismontane woodland and grassland habitat are present within the Study Area and may provide suitable habitat for this species. Not Observed. This species was not observed during the biological assessment; however, the biological assessment was not conducted during the blooming period. It is recommended to survey for this species during the appropriate blooming period (May-Jun). showy Indian clover Trifolium amoenum FE Rank 1B.1 Valley and foothill grassland, coastal bluff scrub, sometimes on serpentine soils (ultramafic), open sunny sites, swales, along roadsides and eroding cliff faces. T. amoenum has an ultramafic affinity (1.3, weak indicator, indifferent). Elevation ranges from 17 to 1017 feet (5 to 310 meters). An annual herb, the blooming period is from Apr-Jun. Moderate Potential. Grassland habitat is present within the Study Area and this species is sometimes found in serpentine soil, but not always. The Study Area may provide suitable habitat for this species. Not Observed. This species was not observed during the biological assessment; however, the biological assessment was not conducted during the blooming period. It is recommended to survey for this species during the appropriate blooming period (Apr-Jun). Page 210 of 414 Page 29 of 101 SPECIES STATUS* HABITAT REQUIREMENTS POTENTIAL TO OCCUR IN THE STUDY AREA RECOMMENDATIONS Santa Cruz clover Trifolium buckwestiorum Rank 1B.1 Coastal prairie, broadleaved upland forest, cismontane woodland, often found in moist grasslands along gravelly margins. Elevation ranges from 99 to 2641 feet (30 to 805 meters). An annual herb, the blooming period is from Apr-Oct. Unlikely. Cismontane woodland, grassland habitat and broadleaved upland forest are present within the Study Area; however, does not contain wet areas and does not provide suitable habitat for this species. Not Present. There are no recommendations for this species. Methuselah’s beard lichen Usnea longissima Rank 4.2 North coast coniferous forest, broadleaved upland forest. Often grows in the “redwood zone” on tree branches of a variety of trees, including bigleaf maple (Acer macrophyllum), various oaks (Quercus spp.), ash (Fraxinus spp.), Douglas-fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii) and California bay (Umbellularia californica). Elevation ranges from 148 to 4807 feet (45 to 1465 meters). Moderate Potential. Broadleaved upland forest is present within the Study Area; therefore, the Study Area may provide suitable habitat for this species. Not Observed. This species was not observed during the biological assessment. Trees are not proposed for removal; therefore, there are no recommendations for this species. oval-leaved viburnum Viburnum ellipticum Rank 2B.3 Chaparral, cismontane woodland, lower montane coniferous forest. Elevation ranges from 706 to 4593 feet (215 to 1400 meters). A shrub, the blooming period is from May-Jun. Moderate Potential. Cismontane woodland is present within the Study Area and may provide suitable habitat for this species. Not Observed. This species was not observed during the biological assessment; however, the biological assessment was not conducted during the blooming period. It is recommended to survey for this species during the appropriate blooming period (May-Jun). Page 211 of 414 Page 30 of 101 TERRESTRIAL OR AQUATIC COMMUNITY HABITAT REQUIREMENTS POTENTIAL TO OCCUR IN THE STUDY AREA AND RECOMMENDATIONS Northern Interior Cypress Forest – Terrestrial (Holland 1986) Description: An open, fire-maintained scrubby “forest” similar to Knobcone Pine Forest but dominated by one of several Cupressus species. These stands may be as much as 15m tall, but usually are lower. Site Factors: On dry, rocky, sterile, often ultramafic soils, frequently associated with Serpentine Chaparral. Intergrades on less sever sites with Upper Sonoran Mixed Chaparral, Montane Chaparral, or Knobcone Pine Forest; and on more mesic site with Mixed Evergreen Forest or Montane Coniferous Forest. Characteristic Species: Cupressus abramsiana (Santa Cruz Mountains, on sandstone), C. bakeri (Cascade and northern Sierra Nevada, on serpentine or aerated basic sites), C. macnabiana (North Coast Ranges and northern Sierra Nevada, on serpentine), C. sargentii (North and South Coast ranges, on serpentine), Pinus attenuata, Quercus durata Distribution: Scattered through the Siskiyou Mountains, North and South Coast Ranges, Cascades and northern Sierra Nevada. Combining the four species into a single element is open to question but does reflect a common pattern of occurring on serpentine or other sterile substrate and moisture status intermediate between mesic Coastal Closed Cone Conifer Forests and xeric Southern Interior Cypress Forests. Unlikely. The Study Area is located predominantly within cismontane woodland and valley and foothill grassland and does contain Knobcone pine; however, serpentine soil or chaparral habitat is not present. It is unlikely for this terrestrial community to be present within the Study Area. This community was not observed during the biological assessment. There are no further recommendations for this community. Serpentine Bunchgrass (Holland 1986) Description: An open grassland dominated by perennial bunchgrasses. Total cover typically is low but is markedly dominated by native species (usually much more so than in Valley Needlegrass Grassland or Non-native Grasslands. Site Factors: Restricted to serpentine sites. Characteristic Species: Bromus hordeaceus, Calamagrostis ophiditis, Eschscholtzia californica, Pestuca grayii, Hemizonia luzulaefolia, Lotus subpinnatus, Melica californica, Poa scabrella, Stipa cernua, S. lepida, S. pulchra, Vulpia microstachys Distribution: Scattered widely through the Coast Ranges, less common in the Sierra Nevada and southern California mountains. No Potential. The Study Area is located within cismontane woodland, broadleaved upland forest and valley and foothill grassland; however, serpentine soil is not present. It is unlikely for this terrestrial community to be present within the Study Area. This community was not observed during the biological assessment. There are no further recommendations for this community. Page 212 of 414 Page 31 of 101 Abbreviation Organization FC Federal Candidate FE Federal Endangered FT Federal Threatened FPE Federally Proposed for listing as Endangered FPT Federally Proposed for listing as Threatened FPD Federally Proposed for delisting SC State Candidate SE State Endangered ST State Threatened SCE State Candidate for listing as Endangered SCT State Candidate for listing as Threatened SCD State Candidate for delisting Rank 1A CRPR Rank 1A: Presumed extirpated in California and either rare or extinct elsewhere Rank 1B CRPR Rank 1B: Plants rare, threatened or endangered in California and elsewhere Rank 2B CRPR Rank 2B: Plants rare, threatened, or endangered in California, but more common elsewhere Rank 3 CRPR Rank 3: Plants about which CNPS needs more information (a review list) Rank 4 CRPR Rank 4: Plants of limited distribution – a watch list Potential to Occur: No Potential. Habitat on and within 100 feet adjacent to the site is clearly unsuitable for the species requirements (cover, substrate, elevation, hydrology, plant community, site history, disturbance regime). Unlikely. Few of the habitat components meeting the species requirements are present, and/or the majority of habitat on and within 100 feet adjacent to the site is unsuitable or of very poor quality. The species is not likely to be found on the site. Moderate Potential. Some of the habitat components meeting the species requirements are present, and/or only some of the habitat on or within 100 feet adjacent to the site is unsuitable. The species has a moderate probability of being found on the site. High Potential. All of the habitat components meeting the species requirements are present and/or most of the habitat on or within 100 feet adjacent to the site is highly suitable. The species has a high probability of being found on the site. Results and Recommendations: Present. Species was observed on the site or has been recorded (i.e. CNDDB, other reports) on the site recently. Not Present. Species is assumed to not be present due to a lack of key habitat components. Not Observed. Species was not observed during surveys. Page 213 of 414 Page 32 of 101 Abbreviation Organization AFS_EN American Fisheries Society - Endangered AFS_TH American Fisheries Society - Threatened AFS_VU American Fisheries Society – Vulnerable BLM_S Bureau of Land Management – Sensitive BCC USFWS Birds of Conservation Concern CDF_S Calif. Dept. of Forestry & Fire Protection – Sensitive CDFW_SSC Calif. Dept. of Fish & Wildlife – Species of Special Concern CDFW_FP Calif. Dept. of Fish & Wildlife – Fully Protected CDFW_WL Calif. Dept. of Fish & Wildlife – Watch List IUCN_CR IUCN – Critically Endangered IUCN_EN IUCN – Endangered IUCN_NT IUCN – Near Threatened IUCN_VU IUCN – Vulnerable IUCN_LC IUCN – Least Concern IUCN_DD IUCN – Data Deficient IUCN_CD IUCN – Conservation Dependent NABCI_RWL North American Bird Conservation Initiative – Red Watch List NABCI_YWL North American Bird Conservation Initiative – Yellow Watch List NMFS_SC National Marine Fisheries Service – Species of Concern USFS_S U. S. Forest Service - Sensitive USFWS_BCC U. S. Fish & Wildlife Service Birds of Conservation Concern WBWG_H Western Bat Working Group – High Priority WBWG_MH Western Bat Working Group – Medium-High Priority WBWG_M Western Bat Working Group – Medium Priority WBWG_LM Western Bat Working Group – Low-Medium Priority Xerces: CI Xerces Society – Critically Imperiled Xerces: IM Xerces Society – Imperiled Xerces: VU Xerces Society – Vulnerable Xerces: DD Xerces Society – Data Deficient Page 214 of 414 Page 33 of 101 Ultramafic (serpentine) Affinity ≥ 5.5 strict endemic taxa with 95% of their occurrences on ultramafics < 5.5 ≥ 4.5 broad endemic taxa with 85-94% of their occurrences on ultramafics < 4.5 ≥ 3.5 transition from broad endemic to strong indicator taxa with 75-84% of their occurrences on ultramafics < 3.5 ≥ 2.5 strong indicator taxa with 65-74% of their occurrences on ultramafics < 2.5 ≥ 1.5 weak indicator taxa with 55-64% of their occurrences on ultramafics < 1.5 ≥ 1.0 weak indicator / indifferent taxa with 50-54% of their occurrences on ultramafics Page 215 of 414 Page 34 of 101 Appendix B: List of Species Observed Page 216 of 414 Page 35 of 101 SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME Plants Acer macrophyllum bigleaf maple Achillea millefolium common yarrow Acmispon brachycarpus short-podded lotus Adenostoma fasciculatum chamise Adiantum jordanii maiden hair fern Anaphalis margaritacea pearly everlasting Arbutus menziesii Pacific madrone Arctostaphylos canescens ssp. canescens hoary manzanita Arctostaphylos glandulosa ssp. glandulosa Eastwood manzanita Arctostaphylos manzanita spp. manzanita common manzanita Avena barbata slender wild oat Baccharis pilularis coyote bush Cardamine californica milk maids Cardamine hirsuta hairy bittercress Cardamine oligosperma Idaho bittercress Carduus pycnocephalus Italian thistle Ceanothus cuneatus var. cuneatus buckbrush Ceanothus foliosus var. foliosus wavyleaf ceanothus Cerastium glomeratum mouseear chickweed Cercocarpus betuloides mountain mahogany Chlorogalum pomeridianum var. pomeridianum wavyleaf soap plant Claytonia perfoliata miners lettuce Cynoglossum grande Pacific houndstongue Cynosurus echinatus bristly dogtail grass Delphinium nudicaule red larkspur Dichelostemma capitatum blue dicks Diplacus aurantiacus sticky mnkey flower Dryopteris arguta California wood fern Elymus glaucus blue wild rye Eriophyllum lanatum common woolly sunflower Erodium moschatum storks bill Erodium spp. geranium Erythronium californicum California fawn lily Festuca microstachys small fescue Festuca perennis Italian rye Fritillaria affinis checker lily Galium aparine cleavers Galium bolanderi Bolander's bedstraw Gastridium phleoides nit grass Page 217 of 414 Page 36 of 101 SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME Genista monspessulana french broom Geranium molle woodland geranium Heteromeles arbutifolia toyon Hieracium spp. hawkweed Holodiscus discolor oceanspray Hordeum brachyantherum common barley Hypericum concinnum goldwire Hypochaeris glabra smooth cats ear Iris macrosiphon ground iris Lomatum dasycarpum hog fennel Lonicera spp. honeysuckle Lotus corniculatus birdsfoot trefoil Lithophragma affine common woodland star Luzula comosa hairy wood rush Lysimachia latifolia Pacific star flower Medicago polymorpha bur clover Micranthes californica Greene's saxifrage Microcarpus californicus q-tips Mimulus aurantiacus sticky monkey flower Nemophila heterophylla small baby blue eyes Notholithocarpus densiflorus tanoak Pedicularis densiflora warrior's plume Pentagramma triangularis goldenback fern Phoradendron leucarpum ssp. tomentosum mistletoe Pinus attenuata knobcone pine Plagiobothrys tenellus slender popcorn flower Plantago lancelota English plantain Polypodium californicum California polypody Polypodium glycyrrhiza licorice fern Primula hendersonii Henderson's shooitng star Pseudotsuga menziesii Douglas-fir Pteridium aquilinum var. pubescens bracken fern Quercus berberidifolia scrub oak Quercus garryana Oregon white oak Page 218 of 414 Page 37 of 101 SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME Quercus kelloggii California black oak Quercus parvula var. shrevei Shreve oak Quercus wislizeni var. wislizeni interior live oak Ranunculus occidentalis western buttercup Rosa gymnocarpa wood rose Rumex acetosa sorrel Sanicula crassicaulis Pacific sanicle Scutellaria tuberosa skullcap Sequoia sempervirens coast redwood Stachys spp. hedgenettle Stellaria media chickweed Symphoricarpos albus snowberry Torreya californica California nutmeg Toxicodendron diversilobum poison oak Trientalis latifolia western star flower Trifolium microcephalum small headed clover Umbellularia californica California bay laurel Vicia americana American vetch Whipplea modesta modesty Wyethia glabra smooth mule ears Wildlife Amphibians N/A - Avifauna Aphelocoma californica western scrub jay Buteo jamaicensis red tailed hawk Buteo lineatus red-shouldered hawk Cathartes aura turkey vulture Colaptes auratus northern flicker Corvus corax common raven Junco hyemalis dark-eyed junco Melanerpes formicivorous acorn woodpecker Page 219 of 414 Page 38 of 101 SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME Fish N/A - Insects N/A - Mammals Odocoileus hemionus mule deer Mollusks N/A - Reptiles N/A - Page 220 of 414 Page 39 of 101 Appendix C: Photographs Page 221 of 414 Page 40 of 101 Photo 1: Overview of Study Area. Photo facing North. Date: February 5, 2021 Page 222 of 414 Page 41 of 101 Photo 2: Overview of Study Area. Photo facing East. Date: February 5, 2021 Page 223 of 414 Page 42 of 101 Photo 3: Overview of Study Area. Photo facing West. Date: February 5, 2021 Page 224 of 414 Page 43 of 101 Photo 4: Overview of Study Area. Photo facing Northwest. Date: February 5, 2021 Photo 5: Overview of Study Area. Photo facing Southwest. Date: February 5, 2021 Page 225 of 414 Page 44 of 101 Photo 6: Cleared area within Study Area. Photo facing Northwest. Date: February 5, 2021 Page 226 of 414 Page 45 of 101 Photo 7: Overview of Study Area. Photo facing Northeast. Date: February 5, 2021 Page 227 of 414 Page 46 of 101 Photo 8: Overview of Study Area. Photo facing North. Date: February 5, 2021 Page 228 of 414 Page 47 of 101 Photo 9: Overview of Study Area. Photo facing East. Date: February 5, 2021 Page 229 of 414 Page 48 of 101 Photo 10: Overview of Study Area. Photo facing Southeast. Date: February 5, 2021 Page 230 of 414 Page 49 of 101 Photo 11: Overview of Study Area. Photo facing West. Date: February 5, 2021 Page 231 of 414 Page 50 of 101 Photo 12: Overview of Study Area. Photo facing West. Date: February 5, 2021 Page 232 of 414 Page 51 of 101 Photo 13: Overview of Study Area. Photo facing West. Date: February 5, 2021 Page 233 of 414 Page 52 of 101 Photo 14: Overview of Study Area. Photo facing South. Date: February 5, 2021 Page 234 of 414 Page 53 of 101 Photo 15: Overview of Study Area. Photo facing Southwest. Date: February 5, 2021 Page 235 of 414 Page 54 of 101 Photo 15: Clearing within Study Area. Photo facing North. Date: February 5, 2021 Page 236 of 414 Page 55 of 101 Photo 17: Overview of Study Area (at edge looking towards Ukiah). Photo facing East. Date: February 5, 2021 Page 237 of 414 Page 56 of 101 Photo 18: Within a clearing in Study Area (and looking past). Photo facing Northeast. Date: February 5, 2021 Page 238 of 414 Page 57 of 101 Photo 19: Overview of Study Area. Photo facing North. Date: February 5, 2021 Page 239 of 414 Page 58 of 101 Photo 20: Overview of Study Area (showing road). Photo facing West. Date: February 5, 2021 Page 240 of 414 Page 59 of 101 Photo 21: Overview of Study Area (showing cleared area). Photo facing West. Date: February 5, 2021 Page 241 of 414 Page 60 of 101 Photo 22: Overview of Study Area (showing road). Photo facing West. Date: February 5, 2021 Page 242 of 414 Page 61 of 101 Photo 23: Overview of Study Area. Photo facing East. Date: February 5, 2021 Page 243 of 414 Page 62 of 101 Photo 24: Overview of Study Area. Photo facing West. Date: February 5, 2021 Page 244 of 414 Page 63 of 101 Appendix D: Maps Page 245 of 414 !!! ! !! !! !! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!!!!!!!!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !! !! !! !!!!!! !!!! ! ! ! ! !!!!!!!! !! ! ! !!!! !! !! !!!! !! !! !! !! !!!! ! ! !! !!!! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! ! ! !!!!! ! !! ! !!! !! !!!! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !! !! !! !! !!!! ! ! ! ! !! !!!! !! ! ! !! !! ! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!15707002 0031900115707001 00104083 Sources: Esri, HERE, Garmin, Intermap, increment P Corp., GEBCO, USGS, FAO, NPS, NRCAN, GeoBase, IGN, Kadaster NL, Ordnance Survey, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), swisstopo, © OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community1 inch = 500 feet 0 500250 feet ¯Biological Resource Assessment APNs: 001-040-83, 157-01, 157-070-02 & 003-190-01 Sections 19 & 30, T15N, R12W, MDBM Ukiah USGS 7.5 Minute Quadrangle AIR 03/05/2021 Study Area Topographic Map Parcels Proposed subdivision area Existing Roads ! ! !Class III watercourse ! !! !Class II watercourse ! !Class I watercourse Page 246 of 414 !! !! !! !! !! !! !!!!!!!!!! !! !!!! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! !!!!!!!!!! !! !! !! !! !! !!!! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !!!!!!!!!!!!!! !! !! !!!! !! !! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! !! !! !! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community1 inch = 300 feet 0 300150 feet ¯Biological Resource Assessment APNs: 001-040-83, 157-01, 157-070-02 & 003-190-01 Sections 19 & 30, T15N, R12W, MDBM Ukiah USGS 7.5 Minute Quadrangle AIR 03/05/2021 Study Area Aerial Map Proposed subdivision area Existing Roads ! ! !Class III watercourse ! !! !Class II watercourse ! !Class I watercourse Page 247 of 414 Sources: Esri, HERE, Garmin, Intermap, increment P Corp., GEBCO, USGS, FAO, NPS, NRCAN, GeoBase, IGN, Kadaster NL, Ordnance Survey, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), swisstopo, © OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community1 inch = 9,000 feet 0 9,0004,500 feet ¯Biological Resource Assessment APNs: 001-040-83, 157-01, 157-070-02 & 003-190-01 Sections 19 & 30, T15N, R12W, MDBM Ukiah USGS 7.5 Minute Quadrangle AIR 03/05/2021 CNDDB Vicinity Map Proposed subdivision area 5 mile radius Plant (80m) Plant (specific) Plant (non-specific) Plant (circular) Animal (80m) Animal (specific) Animal (non-specific) Animal (circular) Terrestrial Comm. (80m) Terrestrial Comm. (specific) Terrestrial Comm. (non-specific) Terrestrial Comm. (circular) Aquatic Comm. (80m) Aquatic Comm. (specific) Aquatic Comm. (non-specific) Aquatic Comm. (circular) Multiple (80m) Multiple (specific) Multiple (non-specific) Multiple (circular) Sensitive EO's (Commercial only) Page 248 of 414 Soil Map—Mendocino County, Eastern Part and Southwestern Part of Trinity County, California (City of Ukiah-Hull Property) Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey National Cooperative Soil Survey 3/8/2021 Page 1 of 3433180043319004332000433210043322004332300433180043319004332000433210043322004332300480200480300480400480500480600480700480800480900481000481100 480200 480300 480400 480500 480600 480700 480800 480900 481000 481100 39° 8' 24'' N 123° 13' 46'' W39° 8' 24'' N123° 13' 5'' W39° 8' 4'' N 123° 13' 46'' W39° 8' 4'' N 123° 13' 5'' WN Map projection: Web Mercator Corner coordinates: WGS84 Edge tics: UTM Zone 10N WGS84 0 200 400 800 1200Feet 0 50 100 200 300Meters Map Scale: 1:4,480 if printed on A landscape (11" x 8.5") sheet. Soil Map may not be valid at this scale. Page 249 of 414 MAP LEGEND MAP INFORMATION Area of Interest (AOI) Area of Interest (AOI) Soils Soil Map Unit Polygons Soil Map Unit Lines Soil Map Unit Points Special Point Features Blowout Borrow Pit Clay Spot Closed Depression Gravel Pit Gravelly Spot Landfill Lava Flow Marsh or swamp Mine or Quarry Miscellaneous Water Perennial Water Rock Outcrop Saline Spot Sandy Spot Severely Eroded Spot Sinkhole Slide or Slip Sodic Spot Spoil Area Stony Spot Very Stony Spot Wet Spot Other Special Line Features Water Features Streams and Canals Transportation Rails Interstate Highways US Routes Major Roads Local Roads Background Aerial Photography The soil surveys that comprise your AOI were mapped at 1:24,000. Warning: Soil Map may not be valid at this scale. Enlargement of maps beyond the scale of mapping can cause misunderstanding of the detail of mapping and accuracy of soil line placement. The maps do not show the small areas of contrasting soils that could have been shown at a more detailed scale. Please rely on the bar scale on each map sheet for map measurements. Source of Map: Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey URL: Coordinate System: Web Mercator (EPSG:3857) Maps from the Web Soil Survey are based on the Web Mercator projection, which preserves direction and shape but distorts distance and area. A projection that preserves area, such as the Albers equal-area conic projection, should be used if more accurate calculations of distance or area are required. This product is generated from the USDA-NRCS certified data as of the version date(s) listed below. Soil Survey Area: Mendocino County, Eastern Part and Southwestern Part of Trinity County, California Survey Area Data: Version 15, Jun 1, 2020 Soil map units are labeled (as space allows) for map scales 1:50,000 or larger. Date(s) aerial images were photographed: May 5, 2019—Jun 3, 2019 The orthophoto or other base map on which the soil lines were compiled and digitized probably differs from the background imagery displayed on these maps. As a result, some minor shifting of map unit boundaries may be evident. Soil Map—Mendocino County, Eastern Part and Southwestern Part of Trinity County, California (City of Ukiah-Hull Property) Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey National Cooperative Soil Survey 3/8/2021 Page 2 of 3Page 250 of 414 Map Unit Legend Map Unit Symbol Map Unit Name Acres in AOI Percent of AOI 141 Hopland loam, 30 to 50 percent slopes, high ffd 18.6 31.4% 151 Hopland-Wohly loams, 50 to 75 percent slopes 40.6 68.6% Totals for Area of Interest 59.2 100.0% Soil Map—Mendocino County, Eastern Part and Southwestern Part of Trinity County, California City of Ukiah-Hull Property Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey National Cooperative Soil Survey 3/8/2021 Page 3 of 3 Page 251 of 414 !!!! !! !! !! !! !! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !! !!! ! !! !!!! !!!!!! !! !! !!!!!!!! !! !! !! !! !! !! !!!!!!!!!!!!!! !! !! !!!! !! !! !! !! !!!!!! !!!! ! ! ! ! !!!!!!!! !! ! ! !!!! !! !! !!!! !! !! !! !! !!!! ! ! !! !!!! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! ! ! !!!!! ! !! ! !!! !! !!!! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !! !! !!!!!!!!!! ! ! !! !!!! !! ! ! !! !! ! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!Sources: Esri, HERE, Garmin, Intermap, increment P Corp., GEBCO, USGS, FAO, NPS, NRCAN, GeoBase, IGN, Kadaster NL, Ordnance Survey, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), swisstopo, © OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community1 inch = 500 feet 0 500250 feet ¯Biological Resource Assessment APNs: 001-040-83, 157-01, 157-070-02 & 003-190-01 Sections 19 & 30, T15N, R12W, MDBM Ukiah USGS 7.5 Minute Quadrangle AIR 03/05/2021 Intrinsic Potential Map Proposed subdivision area Central Coast Steelhead Intrinsic Potential ! ! !Class III watercourse ! !! !Class II watercourse ! !Class I watercourse Page 252 of 414 !!!! !! !! !! !! !! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !! !!! ! !! !!!! !!!!!! !! !! !!!!!!!! !! !! !! !! !! !! !!!!!!!!!!!!!! !! !! !!!! !! !! !! !! !!!!!! !!!! ! ! ! ! !!!!!!!! !! ! ! !!!! !! !! !!!! !! !! !! !! !!!! ! ! !! !!!! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! ! ! !!!!! ! !! ! !!! !! !!!! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !! !! !!!!!!!!!! ! ! !! !!!! !! ! ! !! !! ! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!Sources: Esri, HERE, Garmin, Intermap, increment P Corp., GEBCO, USGS, FAO, NPS, NRCAN, GeoBase, IGN, Kadaster NL, Ordnance Survey, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), swisstopo, © OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community1 inch = 500 feet 0 500250 feet ¯Biological Resource Assessment APNs: 001-040-83, 157-01, 157-070-02 & 003-190-01 Sections 19 & 30, T15N, R12W, MDBM Ukiah USGS 7.5 Minute Quadrangle AIR 03/05/2021 Intrinsic Potential Map Proposed subdivision area Coho Intrinsic Potential ! ! !Class III watercourse ! !! !Class II watercourse ! !Class I watercourse Page 253 of 414 Pacific Douglas-Fir Douglas-Fir - Ponderosa Pine Interior Mixed Hardwood Interior Mixed Hardwood Interior Mixed Hardwood Interior Mixed Hardwood Interior Mixed Hardwood Interior Mixed Hardwood Interior Mixed Hardwood Interior Mixed Hardwood Interior Mixed Hardwood Interior Mixed Hardwood Interior Mixed Hardwood Interior Mixed Hardwood ChamiseChamise Chamise Chamise Chamise Chamise Chamise Chamise Chamise Chamise Pacific Douglas-Fir Pacific Douglas-Fir Pacific Douglas-Fir Pacific Douglas-Fir Pacific Douglas-Fir Pacific Douglas-Fir Pacific Douglas-Fir Douglas-Fir - Ponderosa Pine Douglas-Fir - Ponderosa Pine Pacific Douglas-Fir Oregon White Oak Oregon White Oak Oregon White Oak Oregon White Oak Oregon White Oak Oregon White Oak Oregon White Oak Oregon White Oak Oregon White Oak Black Oak Interior Live Oak Interior Live Oak Interior Live Oak Interior Live Oak Interior Live Oak Interior Mixed Hardwood Interior Mixed Hardwood Interior Mixed Hardwood Interior Mixed Hardwood Interior Mixed Hardwood Interior Mixed Hardwood Interior Mixed Hardwood Interior Mixed Hardwood Interior Mixed Hardwood Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community1 inch = 300 feet 0 300150 feet ¯Biological Resource Assessment APNs: 001-040-83, 157-01, 157-070-02 & 003-190-01 Sections 19 & 30, T15N, R12W, MDBM Ukiah USGS 7.5 Minute Quadrangle AIR 03/05/2021 CALVEG Classification Map Proposed subdivision area Black Oak Chamise Douglas-Fir - Ponderosa Pine Interior Live Oak Interior Mixed Hardwood Oregon White Oak Pacific Douglas-Fir Page 254 of 414 !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ! ! ! !!!!!!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!!!!!! ! ! ! ! !!!!!!!!!!! ! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community 0 400200 feet ¯Biological Resource Assessment APNs: 001-040-83, 157-070-01, 157-070-02 & 003-190-01 Sections 19 & 30, T15N, R12W, MDBM Ukiah USGS 7.5 Minute Q uadrangle MH 4/9/2021 MCV2 Classification Map Proposed subdivision area !!!!!!Class II watercourse !!!!!!Class III watercourse Existing Roads MCV2 Black Oak Woodland California Bay Woodland Douglas-fir Forest Knobcone Pine Forest White Oak Woodland Page 255 of 414 !!!! !! !! !! !! !! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !! !!! ! !! !!!! !!!!!! !! !! !!!!!!!! !! !! !! !! !! !! !!!!!!!!!!!!!! !! !! !!!! !! !! !! !! !!!!!! !!!! ! ! ! ! !!!!!!!! !! ! ! !!!! !! !! !!!! !! !! !! !! !!!! ! ! !! !!!! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! ! ! !!!!! ! !! ! !!! !! !!!! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !! !! !!!!!!!!!! ! ! !! !!!! !! ! ! !! !! ! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!Sources: Esri, HERE, Garmin, Intermap, increment P Corp., GEBCO, USGS, FAO, NPS, NRCAN, GeoBase, IGN, Kadaster NL, Ordnance Survey, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), swisstopo, © OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community1 inch = 500 feet 0 500250 feet ¯Biological Resource Assessment APNs: 001-040-83, 157-01, 157-070-02 & 003-190-01 Sections 19 & 30, T15N, R12W, MDBM Ukiah USGS 7.5 Minute Quadrangle AIR 03/05/2021 NWIC Wetlands Map Proposed subdivision area NWIC Wetlands Page 256 of 414 !!!! !! !! !! !! !! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !! !!! ! !! !!!! !!!!!! !! !! !!!!!!!! !! !! !! !! !! !! !!!! !!!!!!!!!! !! !! !!!! !! !! !! !! !!!!!! !!!! ! ! ! ! !!!!!!!! !! !! !!!! !! !! !!!! !! !! !! !!!!!!!!!! !!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!!!!! ! ! !!!!!! ! !!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!Sources: Esri, HERE, Garmin, Intermap, increment P Corp., GEBCO, USGS, FAO, NPS, NRCAN, GeoBase, IGN, Kadaster NL, Ordnance Survey, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), swisstopo, © OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community1 inch = 500 feet 0 500250 feet ¯Biological Resource Assessment APNs: 001-040-83, 157-01, 157-070-02 & 003-190-01 Sections 19 & 30, T15N, R12W, MDBM Ukiah USGS 7.5 Minute Quadrangle AIR 03/05/2021 FEMA National Flood Hazard Layer Map Proposed subdivision area 100 YEAR FLOOD ZONE Page 257 of 414 Page 64 of 101 Appendix E: Supporting Documents Page 258 of 414 February 23, 2021 United States Department of the Interior FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE Arcata Fish And Wildlife Office 1655 Heindon Road Arcata, CA 95521-4573 Phone: (707) 822-7201 Fax: (707) 822-8411 In Reply Refer To: Consultation Code: 08EACT00-2021-SLI-0169 Event Code: 08EACT00-2021-E-00382 Project Name: City of Ukiah Subject:List of threatened and endangered species that may occur in your proposed project location or may be affected by your proposed project To Whom It May Concern: The enclosed species list identifies threatened, endangered, proposed and candidate species, as well as proposed and final designated critical habitat, that may occur within the boundary of your proposed project and/or may be affected by your proposed project. The species list fulfills the requirements of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) under section 7(c) of the Endangered Species Act (Act) of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). New information based on updated surveys, changes in the abundance and distribution of species, changed habitat conditions, or other factors could change this list. Please feel free to contact us if you need more current information or assistance regarding the potential impacts to federally proposed, listed, and candidate species and federally designated and proposed critical habitat. Please note that under 50 CFR 402.12(e) of the regulations implementing section 7 of the Act, the accuracy of this species list should be verified after 90 days. This verification can be completed formally or informally as desired. The Service recommends that verification be completed by visiting the ECOS-IPaC website at regular intervals during project planning and implementation for updates to species lists and information. An updated list may be requested through the ECOS-IPaC system by completing the same process used to receive the enclosed list. The purpose of the Act is to provide a means whereby threatened and endangered species and the ecosystems upon which they depend may be conserved. Under sections 7(a)(1) and 7(a)(2) of the Act and its implementing regulations (50 CFR 402 et seq.), Federal agencies are required to utilize their authorities to carry out programs for the conservation of threatened and endangered species and to determine whether projects may affect threatened and endangered species and/or designated critical habitat. A Biological Assessment is required for construction projects (or other undertakings having similar physical impacts) that are major Federal actions significantly affecting the quality of the human environment as defined in the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4332(2) Page 259 of 414 02/23/2021 Event Code: 08EACT00-2021-E-00382 2 ▪ (c)). For projects other than major construction activities, the Service suggests that a biological evaluation similar to a Biological Assessment be prepared to determine whether the project may affect listed or proposed species and/or designated or proposed critical habitat. Recommended contents of a Biological Assessment are described at 50 CFR 402.12. If a Federal agency determines, based on the Biological Assessment or biological evaluation, that listed species and/or designated critical habitat may be affected by the proposed project, the agency is required to consult with the Service pursuant to 50 CFR 402. In addition, the Service recommends that candidate species, proposed species and proposed critical habitat be addressed within the consultation. More information on the regulations and procedures for section 7 consultation, including the role of permit or license applicants, can be found in the "Endangered Species Consultation Handbook" at: http://www.fws.gov/endangered/esa-library/pdf/TOC-GLOS.PDF Please be aware that bald and golden eagles are protected under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (16 U.S.C. 668 et seq.), and projects affecting these species may require development of an eagle conservation plan (http://www.fws.gov/windenergy/eagle_guidance.html). Additionally, wind energy projects should follow the wind energy guidelines (http://www.fws.gov/windenergy/) for minimizing impacts to migratory birds and bats. Guidance for minimizing impacts to migratory birds for projects including communications towers (e.g., cellular, digital television, radio, and emergency broadcast) can be found at: http://www.fws.gov/migratorybirds/CurrentBirdIssues/Hazards/towers/towers.htm; http://www.towerkill.com; and http:// www.fws.gov/migratorybirds/CurrentBirdIssues/Hazards/towers/comtow.html. We appreciate your concern for threatened and endangered species. The Service encourages Federal agencies to include conservation of threatened and endangered species into their project planning to further the purposes of the Act. Please include the Consultation Tracking Number in the header of this letter with any request for consultation or correspondence about your project that you submit to our office. Attachment(s): Official Species List Page 260 of 414 02/23/2021 Event Code: 08EACT00-2021-E-00382 1 Official Species List This list is provided pursuant to Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act, and fulfills the requirement for Federal agencies to "request of the Secretary of the Interior information whether any species which is listed or proposed to be listed may be present in the area of a proposed action". This species list is provided by: Arcata Fish And Wildlife Office 1655 Heindon Road Arcata, CA 95521-4573 (707) 822-7201 This project's location is within the jurisdiction of offices which do not participate in IPaC's automated species list delivery. Please contact the following offices directly for more information: Red Bluff Fish And Wildlife Office 10950 Tyler Road Red Bluff, CA 96080-7762 (530) 527-3043 Page 261 of 414 02/23/2021 Event Code: 08EACT00-2021-E-00382 2 Project Summary Consultation Code:08EACT00-2021-SLI-0169 Event Code:08EACT00-2021-E-00382 Project Name:City of Ukiah Project Type:LAND - ACQUISITION Project Description:Parcel line adjustment to create 7 lots within approximately 55 acres Project Location: Approximate location of the project can be viewed in Google Maps: https:// www.google.com/maps/@39.13734495,-123.22381603736494,14z Counties:Mendocino County, California Page 262 of 414 02/23/2021 Event Code: 08EACT00-2021-E-00382 3 1. Endangered Species Act Species There is a total of 7 threatened, endangered, or candidate species on this species list. Species on this list should be considered in an effects analysis for your project and could include species that exist in another geographic area. For example, certain fish may appear on the species list because a project could affect downstream species. IPaC does not display listed species or critical habitats under the sole jurisdiction of NOAA Fisheries , as USFWS does not have the authority to speak on behalf of NOAA and the Department of Commerce. See the "Critical habitats" section below for those critical habitats that lie wholly or partially within your project area under this office's jurisdiction. Please contact the designated FWS office if you have questions. NOAA Fisheries, also known as the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), is an office of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration within the Department of Commerce. Birds NAME STATUS Northern Spotted Owl Strix occidentalis caurina There is final critical habitat for this species. The location of the critical habitat is not available. Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/1123 Threatened Western Snowy Plover Charadrius nivosus nivosus Population: Pacific Coast population DPS-U.S.A. (CA, OR, WA), Mexico (within 50 miles of Pacific coast) There is final critical habitat for this species. The location of the critical habitat is not available. Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/8035 Threatened Yellow-billed Cuckoo Coccyzus americanus Population: Western U.S. DPS There is proposed critical habitat for this species. The location of the critical habitat is not available. Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/3911 Threatened Amphibians NAME STATUS California Red-legged Frog Rana draytonii There is final critical habitat for this species. The location of the critical habitat is not available. Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/2891 Threatened 1 Page 263 of 414 02/23/2021 Event Code: 08EACT00-2021-E-00382 4 Flowering Plants NAME STATUS Burke's Goldfields Lasthenia burkei No critical habitat has been designated for this species. Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/4338 Endangered Contra Costa Goldfields Lasthenia conjugens There is final critical habitat for this species. The location of the critical habitat is not available. Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/7058 Endangered Showy Indian Clover Trifolium amoenum No critical habitat has been designated for this species. Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/6459 Endangered Critical habitats THERE ARE NO CRITICAL HABITATS WITHIN YOUR PROJECT AREA UNDER THIS OFFICE'S JURISDICTION. Page 264 of 414 2/23/2021 IMAPS Print Preview https://apps.wildlife.ca.gov/bios/printTablePreview.html 1/11 CNDDB 9-Quad Species List 185 records. Element Type Scientific Name Common Name Element Code Federal Status State Status CDFW Status CA Rare Plant Rank Quad Code Quad Name Data Status Taxonomic Sort Animals - Amphibians Dicamptodon ensatus California giant salamander AAAAH01020 None None SSC -3912333 LAUGHLIN RANGE Unprocessed Animals - Amphibians - Dicamptodontidae - Dicamptodon ensatus Animals - Amphibians Rana aurora northern red-legged frog AAABH01021 None None SSC -3912333 LAUGHLIN RANGE Unprocessed Animals - Amphibians - Ranidae - Rana aurora Animals - Amphibians Rana boylii foothill yellow-legged frog AAABH01050 None Endangered SSC -3912333 LAUGHLIN RANGE Mapped and Unprocessed Animals - Amphibians - Ranidae - Rana boylii Animals - Amphibians Rana boylii foothill yellow-legged frog AAABH01050 None Endangered SSC -3912332 REDWOOD VALLEY Mapped and Unprocessed Animals - Amphibians - Ranidae - Rana boylii Animals - Amphibians Rana boylii foothill yellow-legged frog AAABH01050 None Endangered SSC -3912331 POTTER VALLEY Mapped Animals - Amphibians - Ranidae - Rana boylii Animals - Amphibians Rana boylii foothill yellow-legged frog AAABH01050 None Endangered SSC -3912323 ORRS SPRINGS Mapped and Unprocessed Animals - Amphibians - Ranidae - Rana boylii Animals - Amphibians Rana boylii foothill yellow-legged frog AAABH01050 None Endangered SSC -3912322 UKIAH Mapped and Unprocessed Animals - Amphibians - Ranidae - Rana boylii Animals - Amphibians Rana boylii foothill yellow-legged frog AAABH01050 None Endangered SSC -3912321 COW MOUNTAIN Mapped Animals - Amphibians - Ranidae - Rana boylii Animals - Amphibians Rana boylii foothill yellow-legged frog AAABH01050 None Endangered SSC -3912313 BOONVILLE Mapped Animals - Amphibians - Ranidae - Rana boylii Animals - Amphibians Rana boylii foothill yellow-legged frog AAABH01050 None Endangered SSC -3912312 ELLEDGE PEAK Mapped and Unprocessed Animals - Amphibians - Ranidae - Rana boylii Animals - Amphibians Rana boylii foothill yellow-legged frog AAABH01050 None Endangered SSC -3912311 PURDYS GARDENS Mapped Animals - Amphibians - Ranidae - Rana boylii Animals - Amphibians Taricha rivularis red-bellied newt AAAAF02020 None None SSC -3912313 BOONVILLE Mapped Animals - Amphibians - Salamandridae - Taricha rivularis Animals - Amphibians Taricha rivularis red-bellied newt AAAAF02020 None None SSC -3912312 ELLEDGE PEAK Mapped Animals - Amphibians - Salamandridae - Taricha rivularis Animals - Amphibians Taricha rivularis red-bellied newt AAAAF02020 None None SSC -3912321 COW MOUNTAIN Mapped Animals - Amphibians - Salamandridae - Taricha rivularis Animals - Amphibians Taricha rivularis red-bellied newt AAAAF02020 None None SSC -3912322 UKIAH Mapped and Unprocessed Animals - Amphibians - Salamandridae - Taricha rivularis Animals - Amphibians Taricha rivularis red-bellied newt AAAAF02020 None None SSC -3912323 ORRS SPRINGS Mapped Animals - Amphibians - Salamandridae - Taricha rivularis Animals - Amphibians Taricha rivularis red-bellied newt AAAAF02020 None None SSC -3912333 LAUGHLIN RANGE Mapped Animals - Amphibians - Salamandridae - Taricha rivularis Animals - Birds Accipiter gentilis northern goshawk ABNKC12060 None None SSC -3912331 POTTER VALLEY Mapped Animals - Birds - Accipitridae - Accipiter gentilis Page 265 of 414 2/23/2021 IMAPS Print Preview https://apps.wildlife.ca.gov/bios/printTablePreview.html 2/11 Animals - Birds Aquila chrysaetos golden eagle ABNKC22010 None None FP , WL -3912321 COW MOUNTAIN Unprocessed Animals - Birds - Accipitridae - Aquila chrysaetos Animals - Birds Aquila chrysaetos golden eagle ABNKC22010 None None FP , WL -3912311 PURDYS GARDENS Unprocessed Animals - Birds - Accipitridae - Aquila chrysaetos Animals - Birds Circus hudsonius northern harrier ABNKC11011 None None SSC -3912311 PURDYS GARDENS Unprocessed Animals - Birds - Accipitridae - Circus hudsonius Animals - Birds Elanus leucurus white-tailed kite ABNKC06010 None None FP -3912332 REDWOOD VALLEY Unprocessed Animals - Birds - Accipitridae - Elanus leucurus Animals - Birds Ardea herodias great blue heron ABNGA04010 None None --3912322 UKIAH Unprocessed Animals - Birds - Ardeidae - Ardea herodias Animals - Birds Agelaius tricolor tricolored blackbird ABPBXB0020 None Threatened SSC -3912331 POTTER VALLEY Mapped Animals - Birds - Icteridae - Agelaius tricolor Animals - Birds Icteria virens yellow-breasted chat ABPBX24010 None None SSC -3912331 POTTER VALLEY Unprocessed Animals - Birds - Icteriidae - Icteria virens Animals - Birds Icteria virens yellow-breasted chat ABPBX24010 None None SSC -3912332 REDWOOD VALLEY Unprocessed Animals - Birds - Icteriidae - Icteria virens Animals - Birds Icteria virens yellow-breasted chat ABPBX24010 None None SSC -3912322 UKIAH Unprocessed Animals - Birds - Icteriidae - Icteria virens Animals - Birds Icteria virens yellow-breasted chat ABPBX24010 None None SSC -3912321 COW MOUNTAIN Unprocessed Animals - Birds - Icteriidae - Icteria virens Animals - Birds Icteria virens yellow-breasted chat ABPBX24010 None None SSC -3912312 ELLEDGE PEAK Unprocessed Animals - Birds - Icteriidae - Icteria virens Animals - Birds Pandion haliaetus osprey ABNKC01010 None None WL -3912311 PURDYS GARDENS Mapped Animals - Birds - Pandionidae - Pandion haliaetus Animals - Birds Pandion haliaetus osprey ABNKC01010 None None WL -3912322 UKIAH Mapped Animals - Birds - Pandionidae - Pandion haliaetus Animals - Birds Pandion haliaetus osprey ABNKC01010 None None WL -3912331 POTTER VALLEY Unprocessed Animals - Birds - Pandionidae - Pandion haliaetus Animals - Birds Baeolophus inornatus oak titmouse ABPAW01100 None None --3912322 UKIAH Unprocessed Animals - Birds - Paridae - Baeolophus inornatus Animals - Birds Baeolophus inornatus oak titmouse ABPAW01100 None None --3912312 ELLEDGE PEAK Unprocessed Animals - Birds - Paridae - Baeolophus inornatus Animals - Birds Baeolophus inornatus oak titmouse ABPAW01100 None None --3912311 PURDYS GARDENS Unprocessed Animals - Birds - Paridae - Baeolophus inornatus Animals - Birds Setophaga petechia yellow warbler ABPBX03010 None None SSC -3912312 ELLEDGE PEAK Unprocessed Animals - Birds - Parulidae - Setophaga petechia Animals - Birds Setophaga petechia yellow warbler ABPBX03010 None None SSC -3912331 POTTER VALLEY Unprocessed Animals - Birds - Parulidae - Setophaga petechia Animals - Birds Ammodramus savannarum grasshopper sparrow ABPBXA0020 None None SSC -3912311 PURDYS GARDENS Mapped Animals - Birds - Passerellidae - Ammodramus savannarum Page 266 of 414 2/23/2021 IMAPS Print Preview https://apps.wildlife.ca.gov/bios/printTablePreview.html 3/11 Animals - Birds Melanerpes lewis Lewis' woodpecker ABNYF04010 None None --3912312 ELLEDGE PEAK Unprocessed Animals - Birds - Picidae - Melanerpes lewis Animals - Birds Melanerpes lewis Lewis' woodpecker ABNYF04010 None None --3912322 UKIAH Unprocessed Animals - Birds - Picidae - Melanerpes lewis Animals - Birds Strix occidentalis caurina Northern Spotted Owl ABNSB12011 Threatened Threatened --3912313 BOONVILLE Mapped Animals - Birds - Strigidae - Strix occidentalis caurina Animals - Birds Strix occidentalis caurina Northern Spotted Owl ABNSB12011 Threatened Threatened --3912323 ORRS SPRINGS Mapped Animals - Birds - Strigidae - Strix occidentalis caurina Animals - Birds Strix occidentalis caurina Northern Spotted Owl ABNSB12011 Threatened Threatened --3912331 POTTER VALLEY Mapped Animals - Birds - Strigidae - Strix occidentalis caurina Animals - Birds Strix occidentalis caurina Northern Spotted Owl ABNSB12011 Threatened Threatened --3912332 REDWOOD VALLEY Mapped Animals - Birds - Strigidae - Strix occidentalis caurina Animals - Birds Strix occidentalis caurina Northern Spotted Owl ABNSB12011 Threatened Threatened --3912333 LAUGHLIN RANGE Mapped Animals - Birds - Strigidae - Strix occidentalis caurina Animals - Fish Lavinia symmetricus navarroensis Navarro roach AFCJB19023 None None SSC -3912323 ORRS SPRINGS Unprocessed Animals - Fish - Cyprinidae - Lavinia symmetricus navarroensis Animals - Fish Lavinia symmetricus ssp. 4 Clear Lake - Russian River roach AFCJB19029 None None SSC -3912333 LAUGHLIN RANGE Unprocessed Animals - Fish - Cyprinidae - Lavinia symmetricus ssp. 4 Animals - Fish Hysterocarpus traskii lagunae Clear Lake tule perch AFCQK02013 None None SSC -3912321 COW MOUNTAIN Mapped Animals - Fish - Embiotocidae - Hysterocarpus traskii lagunae Animals - Fish Hysterocarpus traskii pomo Russian River tule perch AFCQK02011 None None SSC -3912321 COW MOUNTAIN Unprocessed Animals - Fish - Embiotocidae - Hysterocarpus traskii pomo Animals - Fish Hysterocarpus traskii pomo Russian River tule perch AFCQK02011 None None SSC -3912312 ELLEDGE PEAK Unprocessed Animals - Fish - Embiotocidae - Hysterocarpus traskii pomo Animals - Fish Hysterocarpus traskii pomo Russian River tule perch AFCQK02011 None None SSC -3912322 UKIAH Unprocessed Animals - Fish - Embiotocidae - Hysterocarpus traskii pomo Animals - Fish Hysterocarpus traskii pomo Russian River tule perch AFCQK02011 None None SSC -3912333 LAUGHLIN RANGE Unprocessed Animals - Fish - Embiotocidae - Hysterocarpus traskii pomo Animals - Fish Hysterocarpus traskii pomo Russian River tule perch AFCQK02011 None None SSC -3912323 ORRS SPRINGS Unprocessed Animals - Fish - Embiotocidae - Hysterocarpus traskii pomo Animals - Fish Hysterocarpus traskii pomo Russian River tule perch AFCQK02011 None None SSC -3912331 POTTER VALLEY Unprocessed Animals - Fish - Embiotocidae - Hysterocarpus traskii pomo Animals - Fish Hysterocarpus traskii pomo Russian River tule perch AFCQK02011 None None SSC -3912332 REDWOOD VALLEY Unprocessed Animals - Fish - Embiotocidae - Hysterocarpus traskii pomo Animals - Fish Hysterocarpus traskii pomo Russian River tule perch AFCQK02011 None None SSC -3912311 PURDYS GARDENS Unprocessed Animals - Fish - Embiotocidae - Hysterocarpus traskii pomo Page 267 of 414 2/23/2021 IMAPS Print Preview https://apps.wildlife.ca.gov/bios/printTablePreview.html 4/11 Animals - Fish Entosphenus tridentatus Pacific lamprey AFBAA02100 None None SSC -3912333 LAUGHLIN RANGE Unprocessed Animals - Fish - Petromyzontidae - Entosphenus tridentatus Animals - Fish Entosphenus tridentatus Pacific lamprey AFBAA02100 None None SSC -3912323 ORRS SPRINGS Unprocessed Animals - Fish - Petromyzontidae - Entosphenus tridentatus Animals - Fish Oncorhynchus kisutch pop. 2 coho salmon - southern Oregon / northern California ESU AFCHA02032 Threatened Threatened --3912333 LAUGHLIN RANGE Unprocessed Animals - Fish - Salmonidae - Oncorhynchus kisutch pop. 2 Animals - Fish Oncorhynchus kisutch pop. 4 coho salmon - central California coast ESU AFCHA02034 Endangered Endangered --3912322 UKIAH Unprocessed Animals - Fish - Salmonidae - Oncorhynchus kisutch pop. 4 Animals - Fish Oncorhynchus kisutch pop. 4 coho salmon - central California coast ESU AFCHA02034 Endangered Endangered --3912313 BOONVILLE Unprocessed Animals - Fish - Salmonidae - Oncorhynchus kisutch pop. 4 Animals - Fish Oncorhynchus mykiss irideus pop. 16 steelhead - northern California DPS AFCHA0209Q Threatened None --3912313 BOONVILLE Unprocessed Animals - Fish - Salmonidae - Oncorhynchus mykiss irideus pop. 16 Animals - Fish Oncorhynchus mykiss irideus pop. 16 steelhead - northern California DPS AFCHA0209Q Threatened None --3912323 ORRS SPRINGS Unprocessed Animals - Fish - Salmonidae - Oncorhynchus mykiss irideus pop. 16 Animals - Fish Oncorhynchus mykiss irideus pop. 16 steelhead - northern California DPS AFCHA0209Q Threatened None --3912333 LAUGHLIN RANGE Unprocessed Animals - Fish - Salmonidae - Oncorhynchus mykiss irideus pop. 16 Animals - Fish Oncorhynchus mykiss irideus pop. 8 steelhead - central California coast DPS AFCHA0209G Threatened None --3912333 LAUGHLIN RANGE Unprocessed Animals - Fish - Salmonidae - Oncorhynchus mykiss irideus pop. 8 Animals - Fish Oncorhynchus mykiss irideus pop. 8 steelhead - central California coast DPS AFCHA0209G Threatened None --3912332 REDWOOD VALLEY Unprocessed Animals - Fish - Salmonidae - Oncorhynchus mykiss irideus pop. 8 Animals - Fish Oncorhynchus mykiss irideus pop. 8 steelhead - central California coast DPS AFCHA0209G Threatened None --3912323 ORRS SPRINGS Unprocessed Animals - Fish - Salmonidae - Oncorhynchus mykiss irideus pop. 8 Animals - Fish Oncorhynchus mykiss irideus pop. 8 steelhead - central California coast DPS AFCHA0209G Threatened None --3912321 COW MOUNTAIN Unprocessed Animals - Fish - Salmonidae - Oncorhynchus mykiss irideus pop. 8 Animals - Fish Oncorhynchus mykiss irideus pop. 8 steelhead - central California coast DPS AFCHA0209G Threatened None --3912313 BOONVILLE Unprocessed Animals - Fish - Salmonidae - Oncorhynchus mykiss irideus pop. 8 Page 268 of 414 2/23/2021 IMAPS Print Preview https://apps.wildlife.ca.gov/bios/printTablePreview.html 5/11 Animals - Fish Oncorhynchus mykiss irideus pop. 8 steelhead - central California coast DPS AFCHA0209G Threatened None --3912322 UKIAH Unprocessed Animals - Fish - Salmonidae - Oncorhynchus mykiss irideus pop. 8 Animals - Fish Oncorhynchus mykiss irideus pop. 8 steelhead - central California coast DPS AFCHA0209G Threatened None --3912312 ELLEDGE PEAK Unprocessed Animals - Fish - Salmonidae - Oncorhynchus mykiss irideus pop. 8 Animals - Fish Oncorhynchus mykiss irideus pop. 8 steelhead - central California coast DPS AFCHA0209G Threatened None --3912311 PURDYS GARDENS Unprocessed Animals - Fish - Salmonidae - Oncorhynchus mykiss irideus pop. 8 Animals - Fish Oncorhynchus tshawytscha pop. 17 chinook salmon - California coastal ESU AFCHA0205S Threatened None --3912311 PURDYS GARDENS Unprocessed Animals - Fish - Salmonidae - Oncorhynchus tshawytscha pop. 17 Animals - Fish Oncorhynchus tshawytscha pop. 17 chinook salmon - California coastal ESU AFCHA0205S Threatened None --3912312 ELLEDGE PEAK Unprocessed Animals - Fish - Salmonidae - Oncorhynchus tshawytscha pop. 17 Animals - Fish Oncorhynchus tshawytscha pop. 17 chinook salmon - California coastal ESU AFCHA0205S Threatened None --3912322 UKIAH Unprocessed Animals - Fish - Salmonidae - Oncorhynchus tshawytscha pop. 17 Animals - Fish Oncorhynchus tshawytscha pop. 17 chinook salmon - California coastal ESU AFCHA0205S Threatened None --3912333 LAUGHLIN RANGE Unprocessed Animals - Fish - Salmonidae - Oncorhynchus tshawytscha pop. 17 Animals - Insects Bombus caliginosus obscure bumble bee IIHYM24380 None None --3912311 PURDYS GARDENS Mapped Animals - Insects - Apidae - Bombus caliginosus Animals - Insects Bombus occidentalis western bumble bee IIHYM24250 None Candidate Endangered --3912321 COW MOUNTAIN Mapped and Unprocessed Animals - Insects - Apidae - Bombus occidentalis Animals - Mammals Arborimus pomo Sonoma tree vole AMAFF23030 None None SSC -3912313 BOONVILLE Mapped and Unprocessed Animals - Mammals - Cricetidae - Arborimus pomo Animals - Mammals Arborimus pomo Sonoma tree vole AMAFF23030 None None SSC -3912333 LAUGHLIN RANGE Mapped and Unprocessed Animals - Mammals - Cricetidae - Arborimus pomo Animals - Mammals Arborimus pomo Sonoma tree vole AMAFF23030 None None SSC -3912331 POTTER VALLEY Unprocessed Animals - Mammals - Cricetidae - Arborimus pomo Animals - Mammals Erethizon dorsatum North American porcupine AMAFJ01010 None None --3912313 BOONVILLE Mapped and Unprocessed Animals - Mammals - Erethizontidae - Erethizon dorsatum Animals - Mammals Erethizon dorsatum North American porcupine AMAFJ01010 None None --3912312 ELLEDGE PEAK Mapped Animals - Mammals - Erethizontidae - Erethizon dorsatum Animals - Mammals Erethizon dorsatum North American porcupine AMAFJ01010 None None --3912322 UKIAH Mapped and Unprocessed Animals - Mammals - Erethizontidae - Erethizon dorsatum Page 269 of 414 2/23/2021 IMAPS Print Preview https://apps.wildlife.ca.gov/bios/printTablePreview.html 6/11 Animals - Mammals Erethizon dorsatum North American porcupine AMAFJ01010 None None --3912311 PURDYS GARDENS Mapped Animals - Mammals - Erethizontidae - Erethizon dorsatum Animals - Mammals Eumops perotis californicus western mastiff bat AMACD02011 None None SSC -3912332 REDWOOD VALLEY Unprocessed Animals - Mammals - Molossidae - Eumops perotis californicus Animals - Mammals Pekania pennanti Fisher AMAJF01020 None None SSC -3912332 REDWOOD VALLEY Mapped Animals - Mammals - Mustelidae - Pekania pennanti Animals - Mammals Pekania pennanti Fisher AMAJF01020 None None SSC -3912331 POTTER VALLEY Unprocessed Animals - Mammals - Mustelidae - Pekania pennanti Animals - Mammals Pekania pennanti Fisher AMAJF01020 None None SSC -3912311 PURDYS GARDENS Mapped Animals - Mammals - Mustelidae - Pekania pennanti Animals - Mammals Taxidea taxus American badger AMAJF04010 None None SSC -3912332 REDWOOD VALLEY Unprocessed Animals - Mammals - Mustelidae - Taxidea taxus Animals - Mammals Antrozous pallidus pallid bat AMACC10010 None None SSC -3912332 REDWOOD VALLEY Unprocessed Animals - Mammals - Vespertilionidae - Antrozous pallidus Animals - Mammals Antrozous pallidus pallid bat AMACC10010 None None SSC -3912331 POTTER VALLEY Unprocessed Animals - Mammals - Vespertilionidae - Antrozous pallidus Animals - Mammals Antrozous pallidus pallid bat AMACC10010 None None SSC -3912321 COW MOUNTAIN Mapped Animals - Mammals - Vespertilionidae - Antrozous pallidus Animals - Mammals Antrozous pallidus pallid bat AMACC10010 None None SSC -3912311 PURDYS GARDENS Unprocessed Animals - Mammals - Vespertilionidae - Antrozous pallidus Animals - Mammals Corynorhinus townsendii Townsend's big-eared bat AMACC08010 None None SSC -3912311 PURDYS GARDENS Mapped Animals - Mammals - Vespertilionidae - Corynorhinus townsendii Animals - Mammals Corynorhinus townsendii Townsend's big-eared bat AMACC08010 None None SSC -3912332 REDWOOD VALLEY Mapped and Unprocessed Animals - Mammals - Vespertilionidae - Corynorhinus townsendii Animals - Mammals Corynorhinus townsendii Townsend's big-eared bat AMACC08010 None None SSC -3912331 POTTER VALLEY Unprocessed Animals - Mammals - Vespertilionidae - Corynorhinus townsendii Animals - Mammals Corynorhinus townsendii Townsend's big-eared bat AMACC08010 None None SSC -3912333 LAUGHLIN RANGE Unprocessed Animals - Mammals - Vespertilionidae - Corynorhinus townsendii Animals - Mammals Lasiurus blossevillii western red bat AMACC05060 None None SSC -3912332 REDWOOD VALLEY Unprocessed Animals - Mammals - Vespertilionidae - Lasiurus blossevillii Animals - Mammals Lasiurus cinereus hoary bat AMACC05030 None None --3912331 POTTER VALLEY Unprocessed Animals - Mammals - Vespertilionidae - Lasiurus cinereus Animals - Mammals Myotis lucifugus little brown bat AMACC01010 None None --3912311 PURDYS GARDENS Unprocessed Animals - Mammals - Vespertilionidae - Myotis lucifugus Page 270 of 414 2/23/2021 IMAPS Print Preview https://apps.wildlife.ca.gov/bios/printTablePreview.html 7/11 Animals - Mammals Myotis yumanensis Yuma myotis AMACC01020 None None --3912311 PURDYS GARDENS Unprocessed Animals - Mammals - Vespertilionidae - Myotis yumanensis Animals - Mollusks Gonidea angulata western ridged mussel IMBIV19010 None None --3912321 COW MOUNTAIN Mapped Animals - Mollusks - Unionidae - Gonidea angulata Animals - Reptiles Emys marmorata western pond turtle ARAAD02030 None None SSC -3912321 COW MOUNTAIN Mapped and Unprocessed Animals - Reptiles - Emydidae - Emys marmorata Animals - Reptiles Emys marmorata western pond turtle ARAAD02030 None None SSC -3912313 BOONVILLE Unprocessed Animals - Reptiles - Emydidae - Emys marmorata Animals - Reptiles Emys marmorata western pond turtle ARAAD02030 None None SSC -3912312 ELLEDGE PEAK Mapped Animals - Reptiles - Emydidae - Emys marmorata Animals - Reptiles Emys marmorata western pond turtle ARAAD02030 None None SSC -3912322 UKIAH Mapped and Unprocessed Animals - Reptiles - Emydidae - Emys marmorata Animals - Reptiles Emys marmorata western pond turtle ARAAD02030 None None SSC -3912331 POTTER VALLEY Mapped and Unprocessed Animals - Reptiles - Emydidae - Emys marmorata Animals - Reptiles Emys marmorata western pond turtle ARAAD02030 None None SSC -3912323 ORRS SPRINGS Unprocessed Animals - Reptiles - Emydidae - Emys marmorata Animals - Reptiles Emys marmorata western pond turtle ARAAD02030 None None SSC -3912332 REDWOOD VALLEY Mapped Animals - Reptiles - Emydidae - Emys marmorata Animals - Reptiles Emys marmorata western pond turtle ARAAD02030 None None SSC -3912333 LAUGHLIN RANGE Mapped and Unprocessed Animals - Reptiles - Emydidae - Emys marmorata Animals - Reptiles Emys marmorata western pond turtle ARAAD02030 None None SSC -3912311 PURDYS GARDENS Mapped and Unprocessed Animals - Reptiles - Emydidae - Emys marmorata Community - Terrestrial Northern Interior Cypress Forest Northern Interior Cypress Forest CTT83220CA None None --3912311 PURDYS GARDENS Mapped Community - Terrestrial - Northern Interior Cypress Forest Community - Terrestrial Serpentine Bunchgrass Serpentine Bunchgrass CTT42130CA None None --3912311 PURDYS GARDENS Mapped Community - Terrestrial - Serpentine Bunchgrass Plants - Bryophytes Entosthodon kochii Koch's cord moss NBMUS2P050 None None -1B.3 3912311 PURDYS GARDENS Mapped Plants - Bryophytes - Funariaceae - Entosthodon kochii Plants - Bryophytes Grimmia torenii Toren's grimmia NBMUS32330 None None -1B.3 3912312 ELLEDGE PEAK Mapped Plants - Bryophytes - Grimmiaceae - Grimmia torenii Plants - Bryophytes Grimmia torenii Toren's grimmia NBMUS32330 None None -1B.3 3912321 COW MOUNTAIN Mapped Plants - Bryophytes - Grimmiaceae - Grimmia torenii Plants - Lichens Usnea longissima Methuselah's beard lichen NLLEC5P420 None None -4.2 3912323 ORRS SPRINGS Mapped Plants - Lichens - Parmeliaceae - Usnea longissima Page 271 of 414 2/23/2021 IMAPS Print Preview https://apps.wildlife.ca.gov/bios/printTablePreview.html 8/11 Plants - Vascular Perideridia gairdneri ssp. gairdneri California Gairdner's yampah PDAPI1N062 None None -4.2 3912311 PURDYS GARDENS Unprocessed Plants - Vascular - Apiaceae - Perideridia gairdneri ssp. gairdneri Plants - Vascular Blennosperma bakeri Sonoma sunshine PDAST1A010 Endangered Endangered -1B.1 3912333 LAUGHLIN RANGE Mapped Plants - Vascular - Asteraceae - Blennosperma bakeri Plants - Vascular Hemizonia congesta ssp. calyculata Mendocino tarplant PDAST4R063 None None -4.3 3912333 LAUGHLIN RANGE Unprocessed Plants - Vascular - Asteraceae - Hemizonia congesta ssp. calyculata Plants - Vascular Hemizonia congesta ssp. calyculata Mendocino tarplant PDAST4R063 None None -4.3 3912323 ORRS SPRINGS Unprocessed Plants - Vascular - Asteraceae - Hemizonia congesta ssp. calyculata Plants - Vascular Hemizonia congesta ssp. calyculata Mendocino tarplant PDAST4R063 None None -4.3 3912321 COW MOUNTAIN Unprocessed Plants - Vascular - Asteraceae - Hemizonia congesta ssp. calyculata Plants - Vascular Hemizonia congesta ssp. calyculata Mendocino tarplant PDAST4R063 None None -4.3 3912322 UKIAH Unprocessed Plants - Vascular - Asteraceae - Hemizonia congesta ssp. calyculata Plants - Vascular Hemizonia congesta ssp. tracyi Tracy's tarplant PDAST4R067 None None -4.3 3912313 BOONVILLE Unprocessed Plants - Vascular - Asteraceae - Hemizonia congesta ssp. tracyi Plants - Vascular Hemizonia congesta ssp. tracyi Tracy's tarplant PDAST4R067 None None -4.3 3912333 LAUGHLIN RANGE Unprocessed Plants - Vascular - Asteraceae - Hemizonia congesta ssp. tracyi Plants - Vascular Lasthenia burkei Burke's goldfields PDAST5L010 Endangered Endangered -1B.1 3912322 UKIAH Mapped Plants - Vascular - Asteraceae - Lasthenia burkei Plants - Vascular Layia septentrionalis Colusa layia PDAST5N0F0 None None -1B.2 3912311 PURDYS GARDENS Mapped Plants - Vascular - Asteraceae - Layia septentrionalis Plants - Vascular Lessingia hololeuca woolly-headed lessingia PDAST5S030 None None -3 3912313 BOONVILLE Unprocessed Plants - Vascular - Asteraceae - Lessingia hololeuca Plants - Vascular Tracyina rostrata beaked tracyina PDAST9D010 None None -1B.2 3912332 REDWOOD VALLEY Unprocessed Plants - Vascular - Asteraceae - Tracyina rostrata Plants - Vascular Tracyina rostrata beaked tracyina PDAST9D010 None None -1B.2 3912311 PURDYS GARDENS Mapped and Unprocessed Plants - Vascular - Asteraceae - Tracyina rostrata Plants - Vascular Plagiobothrys lithocaryus Mayacamas popcornflower PDBOR0V0P0 None None -1A 3912332 REDWOOD VALLEY Mapped Plants - Vascular - Boraginaceae - Plagiobothrys lithocaryus Plants - Vascular Plagiobothrys lithocaryus Mayacamas popcornflower PDBOR0V0P0 None None -1A 3912331 POTTER VALLEY Mapped Plants - Vascular - Boraginaceae - Plagiobothrys lithocaryus Plants - Vascular Streptanthus glandulosus ssp. hoffmanii Hoffman's bristly jewelflower PDBRA2G0J4 None None -1B.3 3912321 COW MOUNTAIN Mapped Plants - Vascular - Brassicaceae - Streptanthus glandulosus ssp. hoffmanii Page 272 of 414 2/23/2021 IMAPS Print Preview https://apps.wildlife.ca.gov/bios/printTablePreview.html 9/11 Plants - Vascular Brasenia schreberi watershield PDCAB01010 None None -2B.3 3912333 LAUGHLIN RANGE Mapped Plants - Vascular - Cabombaceae - Brasenia schreberi Plants - Vascular Viburnum ellipticum oval-leaved viburnum PDCPR07080 None None -2B.3 3912311 PURDYS GARDENS Mapped Plants - Vascular - Caprifoliaceae - Viburnum ellipticum Plants - Vascular Carex comosa bristly sedge PMCYP032Y0 None None -2B.1 3912321 COW MOUNTAIN Mapped Plants - Vascular - Cyperaceae - Carex comosa Plants - Vascular Arctostaphylos stanfordiana ssp. raichei Raiche's manzanita PDERI041G2 None None -1B.1 3912321 COW MOUNTAIN Mapped Plants - Vascular - Ericaceae - Arctostaphylos stanfordiana ssp. raichei Plants - Vascular Arctostaphylos stanfordiana ssp. raichei Raiche's manzanita PDERI041G2 None None -1B.1 3912312 ELLEDGE PEAK Mapped Plants - Vascular - Ericaceae - Arctostaphylos stanfordiana ssp. raichei Plants - Vascular Arctostaphylos stanfordiana ssp. raichei Raiche's manzanita PDERI041G2 None None -1B.1 3912322 UKIAH Mapped Plants - Vascular - Ericaceae - Arctostaphylos stanfordiana ssp. raichei Plants - Vascular Arctostaphylos stanfordiana ssp. raichei Raiche's manzanita PDERI041G2 None None -1B.1 3912323 ORRS SPRINGS Mapped Plants - Vascular - Ericaceae - Arctostaphylos stanfordiana ssp. raichei Plants - Vascular Arctostaphylos stanfordiana ssp. raichei Raiche's manzanita PDERI041G2 None None -1B.1 3912311 PURDYS GARDENS Mapped Plants - Vascular - Ericaceae - Arctostaphylos stanfordiana ssp. raichei Plants - Vascular Astragalus breweri Brewer's milk-vetch PDFAB0F1J0 None None -4.2 3912331 POTTER VALLEY Unprocessed Plants - Vascular - Fabaceae - Astragalus breweri Plants - Vascular Trifolium buckwestiorum Santa Cruz clover PDFAB402W0 None None -1B.1 3912333 LAUGHLIN RANGE Mapped Plants - Vascular - Fabaceae - Trifolium buckwestiorum Plants - Vascular Monardella viridis green monardella PDLAM180Q2 None None -4.3 3912311 PURDYS GARDENS Unprocessed Plants - Vascular - Lamiaceae - Monardella viridis Plants - Vascular Fritillaria agrestis stinkbells PMLIL0V010 None None -4.2 3912322 UKIAH Unprocessed Plants - Vascular - Liliaceae - Fritillaria agrestis Plants - Vascular Fritillaria purdyi Purdy's fritillary PMLIL0V0H0 None None -4.3 3912322 UKIAH Unprocessed Plants - Vascular - Liliaceae - Fritillaria purdyi Plants - Vascular Fritillaria purdyi Purdy's fritillary PMLIL0V0H0 None None -4.3 3912331 POTTER VALLEY Unprocessed Plants - Vascular - Liliaceae - Fritillaria purdyi Plants - Vascular Fritillaria purdyi Purdy's fritillary PMLIL0V0H0 None None -4.3 3912332 REDWOOD VALLEY Unprocessed Plants - Vascular - Liliaceae - Fritillaria purdyi Plants - Vascular Fritillaria roderickii Roderick's fritillary PMLIL0V0M0 None Endangered -1B.1 3912333 LAUGHLIN RANGE Mapped Plants - Vascular - Liliaceae - Fritillaria roderickii Plants - Vascular Lilium rubescens redwood lily PMLIL1A0N0 None None -4.2 3912311 PURDYS GARDENS Unprocessed Plants - Vascular - Liliaceae - Lilium rubescens Plants - Vascular Limnanthes bakeri Baker's meadowfoam PDLIM02020 None Rare -1B.1 3912322 UKIAH Mapped Plants - Vascular - Limnanthaceae - Limnanthes bakeri Page 273 of 414 2/23/2021 IMAPS Print Preview https://apps.wildlife.ca.gov/bios/printTablePreview.html 10/11 Plants - Vascular Hesperolinon adenophyllum glandular western flax PDLIN01010 None None -1B.2 3912321 COW MOUNTAIN Mapped Plants - Vascular - Linaceae - Hesperolinon adenophyllum Plants - Vascular Hesperolinon adenophyllum glandular western flax PDLIN01010 None None -1B.2 3912331 POTTER VALLEY Mapped Plants - Vascular - Linaceae - Hesperolinon adenophyllum Plants - Vascular Hesperolinon adenophyllum glandular western flax PDLIN01010 None None -1B.2 3912333 LAUGHLIN RANGE Mapped Plants - Vascular - Linaceae - Hesperolinon adenophyllum Plants - Vascular Malacothamnus mendocinensis Mendocino bush-mallow PDMAL0Q0D0 None None -1A 3912312 ELLEDGE PEAK Mapped Plants - Vascular - Malvaceae - Malacothamnus mendocinensis Plants - Vascular Cypripedium californicum California lady's-slipper PMORC0Q040 None None -4.2 3912312 ELLEDGE PEAK Unprocessed Plants - Vascular - Orchidaceae - Cypripedium californicum Plants - Vascular Cypripedium californicum California lady's-slipper PMORC0Q040 None None -4.2 3912322 UKIAH Unprocessed Plants - Vascular - Orchidaceae - Cypripedium californicum Plants - Vascular Cypripedium montanum mountain lady's-slipper PMORC0Q080 None None -4.2 3912322 UKIAH Unprocessed Plants - Vascular - Orchidaceae - Cypripedium montanum Plants - Vascular Cypripedium montanum mountain lady's-slipper PMORC0Q080 None None -4.2 3912323 ORRS SPRINGS Unprocessed Plants - Vascular - Orchidaceae - Cypripedium montanum Plants - Vascular Cypripedium montanum mountain lady's-slipper PMORC0Q080 None None -4.2 3912312 ELLEDGE PEAK Unprocessed Plants - Vascular - Orchidaceae - Cypripedium montanum Plants - Vascular Piperia candida white-flowered rein orchid PMORC1X050 None None -1B.2 3912323 ORRS SPRINGS Mapped Plants - Vascular - Orchidaceae - Piperia candida Plants - Vascular Kopsiopsis hookeri small groundcone PDORO01010 None None -2B.3 3912311 PURDYS GARDENS Mapped Plants - Vascular - Orobanchaceae - Kopsiopsis hookeri Plants - Vascular Erythranthe nudata bare monkeyflower PDSCR1B200 None None -4.3 3912333 LAUGHLIN RANGE Unprocessed Plants - Vascular - Phrymaceae - Erythranthe nudata Plants - Vascular Gratiola heterosepala Boggs Lake hedge-hyssop PDSCR0R060 None Endangered -1B.2 3912311 PURDYS GARDENS Mapped Plants - Vascular - Plantaginaceae - Gratiola heterosepala Plants - Vascular Pleuropogon hooverianus North Coast semaphore grass PMPOA4Y070 None Threatened -1B.1 3912323 ORRS SPRINGS Mapped and Unprocessed Plants - Vascular - Poaceae - Pleuropogon hooverianus Plants - Vascular Pleuropogon hooverianus North Coast semaphore grass PMPOA4Y070 None Threatened -1B.1 3912312 ELLEDGE PEAK Mapped Plants - Vascular - Poaceae - Pleuropogon hooverianus Plants - Vascular Leptosiphon acicularis bristly leptosiphon PDPLM09010 None None -4.2 3912312 ELLEDGE PEAK Unprocessed Plants - Vascular - Polemoniaceae - Leptosiphon acicularis Plants - Vascular Leptosiphon acicularis bristly leptosiphon PDPLM09010 None None -4.2 3912322 UKIAH Unprocessed Plants - Vascular - Polemoniaceae - Leptosiphon acicularis Page 274 of 414 2/23/2021 IMAPS Print Preview https://apps.wildlife.ca.gov/bios/printTablePreview.html 11/11 Plants - Vascular Leptosiphon acicularis bristly leptosiphon PDPLM09010 None None -4.2 3912331 POTTER VALLEY Unprocessed Plants - Vascular - Polemoniaceae - Leptosiphon acicularis Plants - Vascular Leptosiphon acicularis bristly leptosiphon PDPLM09010 None None -4.2 3912323 ORRS SPRINGS Unprocessed Plants - Vascular - Polemoniaceae - Leptosiphon acicularis Plants - Vascular Leptosiphon acicularis bristly leptosiphon PDPLM09010 None None -4.2 3912333 LAUGHLIN RANGE Unprocessed Plants - Vascular - Polemoniaceae - Leptosiphon acicularis Plants - Vascular Leptosiphon acicularis bristly leptosiphon PDPLM09010 None None -4.2 3912332 REDWOOD VALLEY Unprocessed Plants - Vascular - Polemoniaceae - Leptosiphon acicularis Plants - Vascular Leptosiphon acicularis bristly leptosiphon PDPLM09010 None None -4.2 3912311 PURDYS GARDENS Unprocessed Plants - Vascular - Polemoniaceae - Leptosiphon acicularis Plants - Vascular Leptosiphon latisectus broad-lobed leptosiphon PDPLM09150 None None -4.3 3912333 LAUGHLIN RANGE Unprocessed Plants - Vascular - Polemoniaceae - Leptosiphon latisectus Plants - Vascular Leptosiphon latisectus broad-lobed leptosiphon PDPLM09150 None None -4.3 3912323 ORRS SPRINGS Unprocessed Plants - Vascular - Polemoniaceae - Leptosiphon latisectus Plants - Vascular Leptosiphon latisectus broad-lobed leptosiphon PDPLM09150 None None -4.3 3912331 POTTER VALLEY Unprocessed Plants - Vascular - Polemoniaceae - Leptosiphon latisectus Plants - Vascular Leptosiphon latisectus broad-lobed leptosiphon PDPLM09150 None None -4.3 3912322 UKIAH Unprocessed Plants - Vascular - Polemoniaceae - Leptosiphon latisectus Plants - Vascular Navarretia leucocephala ssp. bakeri Baker's navarretia PDPLM0C0E1 None None -1B.1 3912322 UKIAH Mapped Plants - Vascular - Polemoniaceae - Navarretia leucocephala ssp. bakeri Plants - Vascular Navarretia leucocephala ssp. bakeri Baker's navarretia PDPLM0C0E1 None None -1B.1 3912333 LAUGHLIN RANGE Mapped Plants - Vascular - Polemoniaceae - Navarretia leucocephala ssp. bakeri Plants - Vascular Navarretia leucocephala ssp. bakeri Baker's navarretia PDPLM0C0E1 None None -1B.1 3912332 REDWOOD VALLEY Mapped Plants - Vascular - Polemoniaceae - Navarretia leucocephala ssp. bakeri Plants - Vascular Ranunculus lobbii Lobb's aquatic buttercup PDRAN0L1J0 None None -4.2 3912322 UKIAH Unprocessed Plants - Vascular - Ranunculaceae - Ranunculus lobbii Plants - Vascular Ranunculus lobbii Lobb's aquatic buttercup PDRAN0L1J0 None None -4.2 3912311 PURDYS GARDENS Unprocessed Plants - Vascular - Ranunculaceae - Ranunculus lobbii Plants - Vascular Ceanothus confusus Rincon Ridge ceanothus PDRHA04220 None None -1B.1 3912311 PURDYS GARDENS Mapped Plants - Vascular - Rhamnaceae - Ceanothus confusus Plants - Vascular Horkelia bolanderi Bolander's horkelia PDROS0W011 None None -1B.2 3912311 PURDYS GARDENS Mapped Plants - Vascular - Rosaceae - Horkelia bolanderi Page 275 of 414 2/23/2021 CNPS Inventory Results www.rareplants.cnps.org/result.html?adv=t&quad=3912333:3912332:3912331:3912323:3912322:3912321:3912313:3912312:3912311 1/3 Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants *The database used to provide updates to the Online Inventory is under construction. View updates and changes made since May 2019 here. Plant List 36 matches found. Click on scientific name for details Search Criteria Found in Quads 3912333, 3912332, 3912331, 3912323, 3912322, 3912321, 3912313 3912312 and 3912311; Modify Search Criteria Export to Excel Modify Columns Modify Sort Display Photos Scientific Name Common Name Family Lifeform Blooming Period CA Rare Plant Rank State Rank Global Rank Arctostaphylos stanfordiana ssp. raichei Raiche's manzanita Ericaceae perennial evergreen shrub Feb-Apr 1B.1 S2 G3T2 Astragalus breweri Brewer's milk-vetch Fabaceae annual herb Apr-Jun 4.2 S3 G3 Blennosperma bakeri Sonoma sunshine Asteraceae annual herb Mar-May 1B.1 S1 G1 Brasenia schreberi watershield Cabombaceae perennial rhizomatous herb (aquatic)Jun-Sep 2B.3 S3 G5 Carex comosa bristly sedge Cyperaceae perennial rhizomatous herb May-Sep 2B.1 S2 G5 Ceanothus confusus Rincon Ridge ceanothus Rhamnaceae perennial evergreen shrub Feb-Jun 1B.1 S1 G1 Cuscuta jepsonii Jepson's dodder Convolvulaceae annual vine (parasitic)(Jun)Jul-Sep 1B.2 S1 G1 Cypripedium californicum California lady's-slipper Orchidaceae perennial rhizomatous herb Apr-Aug(Sep)4.2 S4 G4 Cypripedium montanum mountain lady's-slipper Orchidaceae perennial rhizomatous herb Mar-Aug 4.2 S4 G4 Entosthodon kochii Koch's cord moss Funariaceae moss 1B.3 S1 G1 Fissidens pauperculus minute pocket moss Fissidentaceae moss 1B.2 S2 G3? Fritillaria roderickii Roderick's fritillary Liliaceae perennial bulbiferous herb Mar-May 1B.1 S1 G1Q Gratiola heterosepala Boggs Lake hedge-hyssop Plantaginaceae annual herb Apr-Aug 1B.2 S2 G2 Page 276 of 414 2/23/2021 CNPS Inventory Results www.rareplants.cnps.org/result.html?adv=t&quad=3912333:3912332:3912331:3912323:3912322:3912321:3912313:3912312:3912311 2/3 Grimmia torenii Toren's grimmia Grimmiaceae moss 1B.3 S2 G2 Hemizonia congesta ssp. congesta congested-headed hayfield tarplant Asteraceae annual herb Apr-Nov 1B.2 S2 G5T2 Hesperolinon adenophyllum glandular western flax Linaceae annual herb May-Aug 1B.2 S2S3 G2G3 Horkelia bolanderi Bolander's horkelia Rosaceae perennial herb (May)Jun- Aug 1B.2 S1 G1 Kopsiopsis hookeri small groundcone Orobanchaceae perennial rhizomatous herb (parasitic)Apr-Aug 2B.3 S1S2 G4? Lasthenia burkei Burke's goldfields Asteraceae annual herb Apr-Jun 1B.1 S1 G1 Layia septentrionalis Colusa layia Asteraceae annual herb Apr-May 1B.2 S2 G2 Lilium rubescens redwood lily Liliaceae perennial bulbiferous herb Apr-Aug(Sep)4.2 S3 G3 Limnanthes bakeri Baker's meadowfoam Limnanthaceae annual herb Apr-May 1B.1 S1 G1 Malacothamnus mendocinensis Mendocino bush-mallow Malvaceae perennial deciduous shrub May-Jun 1A SX GXQ Monardella viridis green monardella Lamiaceae perennial rhizomatous herb Jun-Sep 4.3 S3 G3 Navarretia leucocephala ssp. bakeri Baker's navarretia Polemoniaceae annual herb Apr-Jul 1B.1 S2 G4T2 Perideridia gairdneri ssp. gairdneri Gairdner's yampah Apiaceae perennial herb Jun-Oct 4.2 S3S4 G5T3T4 Piperia candida white-flowered rein orchid Orchidaceae perennial herb (Mar)May- Sep 1B.2 S3 G3 Plagiobothrys lithocaryus Mayacamas popcornflower Boraginaceae annual herb Apr-May 1A SH GH Pleuropogon hooverianus North Coast semaphore grass Poaceae perennial rhizomatous herb Apr-Jun 1B.1 S2 G2 Ranunculus lobbii Lobb's aquatic buttercup Ranunculaceae annual herb (aquatic)Feb-May 4.2 S3 G4 Sanguisorba officinalis great burnet Rosaceae perennial rhizomatous herb Jul-Oct 2B.2 S2 G5? Streptanthus glandulosus ssp. hoffmanii Hoffman's bristly jewelflower Brassicaceae annual herb Mar-Jul 1B.3 S2 G4T2 Tracyina rostrata beaked tracyina Asteraceae annual herb May-Jun 1B.2 S2 G2 Trifolium buckwestiorum Santa Cruz clover Fabaceae annual herb Apr-Oct 1B.1 S2 G2 Usnea longissima Methuselah's beard lichen Parmeliaceae fruticose lichen (epiphytic)4.2 S4 G4 Viburnum ellipticum oval-leaved viburnum Adoxaceae perennial deciduous shrub May-Jun 2B.3 S3?G4G5 Suggested Citation California Native Plant Society, Rare Plant Program. 2021. Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants of California (online edition, v8-03 0.39). Website http://www.rareplants.cnps.org [accessed 23 February 2021]. Page 277 of 414 2/23/2021 CNPS Inventory Results www.rareplants.cnps.org/result.html?adv=t&quad=3912333:3912332:3912331:3912323:3912322:3912321:3912313:3912312:3912311 3/3 Search the Inventory Simple Search Advanced Search Glossary Information About the Inventory About the Rare Plant Program CNPS Home Page About CNPS Join CNPS Contributors The Calflora Database The California Lichen Society California Natural Diversity Database The Jepson Flora Project The Consortium of California Herbaria CalPhotos Questions and Comments rareplants@cnps.org © Copyright 2010-2018 California Native Plant Society. All rights reserved. Page 278 of 414 Re: Biological Resource Assessment Addendum Rare Plant Assessment and Botanical Survey Prepared for: City of Ukiah Department of Community Development 300 Seminary Avenue Ukiah, CA 95482 APN: 001-040-83, 157-070-01, 157-070-02, 003-190-01 Prepared by: Becca Cosmero Environmental Technician Jacobszoon & Associates, Inc. 117 Cara Ave Ukiah, CA 95482 (209) 482-6311 becca@jaforestry.com 07/9/2021 ATTACHMENT B1 Page 279 of 414 Survey Objectives: Rare plant assessments and botanical surveys are conducted to maximize the likelihood of locating rare, threatened, or endangered plants and plant communities that may be present within a Study Area. Survey findings are useful in assessing the potential for significant adverse impacts on botanical resources and critical in mitigating those impacts. If special-status plant species are located during a survey, mitigation measures will be recommended to avoid or minimized damage to the species. The Rare Plant Assessment and Botanical Survey for the City of Ukiah constitutes a seasonally appropriate floristic survey and was conducted during appropriate blooming periods for all potentially occurring rare plant species within a nine-quad scoping range of the project area. Every plant taxon encountered during the survey was identified to the taxonomic level necessary to determine rarity and listing status. Habitat requirements for special-status species and their potential to occur within the Study Area are discussed in Appendix A: Table of Potential for Special-Status Plants and Wildlife within the Study Area, of the Biological Resource Assessment. The survey employs the methods and guidance outlined in the Protocols for Surveying and Evaluating Impacts to Special Status Native Plant Populations and Natural Communities (CDFW 2018). The Study Area referred to in this report includes areas shown in the Biological Resource Assessment Figure 2: Biological Assessment Map, Aerial. Botanical Survey Results: Field surveys within the Study Area were conducted on 03/30/2021 by Miles Hartnett, Staff Biologist/Botanist and Becca Cosmero, Environmental Technician. Jacobszoon and Associates Environmental Technician, Becca Cosmero conducted field surveys on 5/17/2021 and 7/9/2021. Survey protocol was based on Protocols for Surveying and Evaluating Impacts to Special Status Native Plant Populations and Natural Communities (CDFW 2018). An intuitively controlled, seasonally appropriate, floristic survey was performed, which was moderate in coverage density (60-80%) in the potential rare plant habitat areas. A complete list of all plant species observed within the Study Area during the Botanical Survey is included in Table 1: List of Observed Taxa within the Study Area. Plants listed in Table 1 were identified using The Jepson Manual: Vascular Plants of California 2nd Edition (Baldwin et al. 2012) to the taxonomic level necessary to determine rarity. The names provided in the Rare Plant Assessment and Botanical Survey follow The Jepson Flora Project. Page 280 of 414 The Rare Plant Assessment and Botanical Survey identified a total of 96 plant taxa within the Study Area including both native and introduced species. (Table 1: List of Observed Taxa). Of the 96 species observed, none were special-status, rare, threatened, or endangered species. Table 1: List of Observed Taxa within the Study Area Species name Common name Acer macrophyllum bigleaf maple Acmispon brachycarpus Short-podded lotus Adenostoma fasciculatum chamise Adiantum jordanii maiden hair fern Aesculus californica California buckeye Arbutus menziesii Pacific madrone Arctostaphylos canescens ssp. canescens hoary manzanita Arctostaphylos glandulosa Eastwood manzanita Arctostaphylos glandulosa ssp. glandulosa Eastwood manzanita Arctostaphylos glauca Bigberry manzanita Arctostaphylos manzanita ssp. manzanita common manzanita Arctostaphylos patula greenleaf manzanita Baccharis pilularis coyote bush Calochortus tolmiei pussy ears Cardamine californica milk maids Cardamine hirsuta hairy bittercress Cardamine oligosperma Idaho bittercress Ceanothus cuneatus var. cuneatus buckbrush Ceanothus foliosus var. foliosus wavyleaf ceanothus Centaurea melitensis Maltese star-thistle Cerastium glomeratum mouseear chickweed Cercocarpus betuloides mountain mahogany Chlorogalum pomeridianum Wavy leaf soaproot Claytonia perfoliata miner’s lettuce Collomia heterophylla variable leaf collomia Crocanthemum scoparium peak rushrose Cynoglossum grande Pacific houndstongue Cynosurus echinatus bristly dogtail Delphinium nudicaule red larkspur Dichelostemma capitatum blue dicks Dichelostemma ida-maia firecracker flower Diplacus aurantiacus sticky monkeyflower Dittrichia graveolens stinkwort Page 281 of 414 Species name Common name Dryopteris arguta California wood fern Elymus glaucus blue wild rye Eriophyllum lanatum common woolly sunflower Erythronium californicum California fawn lily Euphorbia oblongata eggleaf spurge Festuca arundinacea tall fescue Festuca microstachys small fescue Festuca perennis Italian rye Festuca temulenta darnel Galium aparine cleavers Galium bolanderi Bolander's bedstraw Gastridium phleoides nit grass Genista monspessulana french broom Geranium molle woodland geranium Hesperolinon dwarf-flax Heteromeles arbutifolia toyon Hieracium spp hawkweed Holodiscus discolor oceanspray Hordeum brachyantherum common barley Hypericum concinnum goldwire Iris macrosiphon ground iris Lithophragma affine common woodland star Lonicera hispidula pink honeysuckle Luzula comosa hairy wood rush Lysimachia latifolia Pacific star flower Madia gracilis grassy tarweed Marrubium vulgare white horehound Micranthes californica Greene's saxifrage Micropus californicus Q tips Nemophila heterophylla small baby blue eyes Notholithocarpus densiflorus tanoak Pedicularis densiflora warrior's plume Pentagramma triangularis goldenback fern Phacelia imbricata mountain phacelia Pinus attenuata knobcone pine Plagiobothrys tenellus slender popcorn flower Polygala californica California milkwort Polypodium glycyrrhiza licorice fern Polystichum munitum western sword fern Primula hendersonii Henderson's shooting star Pseudotsuga menziesii Douglas-fir Page 282 of 414 Species name Common name Pteridium aquilinum var. pubescens bracken fern Quercus berberidifolia scrub oak Quercus garryana Oregon white oak Quercus kelloggii California black oak Quercus parvula var. shrevei Shreve oak Quercus wislizeni var. wislizeni interior live oak Ranunculus occidentalis western buttercup Rosa gymnocarpa wood rose Sanicula crassicaulis Pacific sanicle Scutellaria tuberosa blue skullcap Sequoia sempervirens redwood Sidalcea diploscypha fringed checkerbloom Symphoricarpos albus snowberry Tauschia spp. umbrellawort Torreya californica California nutmeg Toxicodendron diversilobum poison oak Trifolium hirtum rose clover Trifolium microcephalum small headed clover Umbellularia californica bay laurel Vicia americana American vetch Whipplea modesta modesty Wyethia glabra smooth mule ears No special status plant species were observed during the Rare Plant Assessment and Botanical Survey. Recommendations: No special status plant species were observed during the Rare Plant Assessment and Botanical Survey. There are no recommendations for special status plant species at this time. Page 283 of 414 Report Author: Becca Cosmero Becca Cosmero is an environmental technician at Jacobszoon and Associates Inc. with three years of professional experience in fisheries management, biological monitoring, and ecological restoration. She received a Bachelor’s of Science in Biology with an emphasis in Ecology and Evolutionary Studies from the University of California, Merced in 2018. Prior to working with Jacobszoon and Associates Inc., Ms. Cosmero has worked with FISHBIO to monitor and study predator populations threatening salmonids within the Stanislaus and Tuolumne Rivers, Sequoia Ecological Consulting as an on-call biologist conducting compliance monitoring, and Grassroots Ecology as an AmeriCorps intern. She received a Rare Plant and Vegetation Sampling certificate from the California Native Plant Society in March 2019 and holds a Rare Plant Voucher Collecting Permit through CDFW (No. 2081 a-21-076-V). Sincerely, Becca Cosmero (she/her) Environmental Technician Jacobszoon & Associates, Inc. Page 284 of 414 ATTACHMENT C UKIAH WESTERN HILLS (HULL PROPERTIES) OPEN LAND ACQUISITION AND LIMITED DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT TRIBAL CONTACT LIST FOR AB52 Notices were sent to the following Tribes on December 15, 2020: California Native American Heritage Commission 1550 Harbor Blvd, Suite 100 West Sacramento, CA 95691 EPA Director Emily Luscombe Coyote Valley Band of Pomo PO Box 39 Redwood Valley, CA 95470 Tribal Chair Michael Hunter Coyote Valley Band of Pomo PO Box 39 Redwood Valley, CA 95470 EPA Director Meyo Marrufo Guidiville Indian Rancheria of Pomo Indians PO BOX 339 Talmage, CA 95481 Tribal Chair Merlene Sanchez Guidiville Indian Reservation of Pomo Indians PO Box 339 Talmage, CA 95481 EPA Director Zack Sampsel Pinoleville Pomo Nation 500 B Pinoleville Dr. Ukiah, CA 95482 THPO Angela James Pinoleville Pomo Nation 500 B Pinoleville Dr Ukiah, CA 95482 Tribal Chair Leona Williams Pinoleville Pomo Nation 500 B Pinoleville Dr Ukiah, CA 95482 Tribal Chair Romaine Daniels Yokaya Tribe PO Box 362 Page 285 of 414 Talmage, CA 95481 Tribal Chair Debra Ramirez Redwood Valley Little River Band of Pomo Indians 3250 Road I Redwood Valley, CA95470-9526 THPO Ramon Billy, Jr. Hopland Band of Pomo Indians 3000 Shanel Road Hopland, CA 95449-9809 Tribal Chair Salvador Rosales Potter Valley Rancheria 2251 S. State Street Ukiah, CA 95482-6723 Tribal Chair Shawn Davis Scotts Valley Band of Pomo Indians 1005 Parallel Dr. Lakeport, CA 95453 Habemetolel Pomo of Upper Lake Sherry Treppa, Chair Person Po Box 516 Upper Lake, Ca 95485 On January 14, 2021, notices were sent to the following additional tribes per NAHC's recommendation: Manchester Band of Pomo Indians of the Manchester Rancheria Jaime Cobarrubia, Chairperson P.O. Box 623 Point Arena, CA, 95468 Phone: (707) 882 - 2788 Fax: (707) 882-3417 Linda.lawson@mpatribaloffice.com Noyo River Indian Community P. O. Box 91 Fort Bragg, CA, 95437 Yokayo Tribe Chairperson P.O. Box 362 Talmage, CA, 95481 Round Valley Reservation/ Covelo Indian Community James Russ, President 77826 Covelo Road Covelo, CA, 95428 tribalcouncil@rvit.org Page 286 of 414 ATTACHMENT D Response to Comments Received on the Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration (ISMND) for the Ukiah Western Hills Open Land Acquisition and Limited Development Project Public Review. CEQA Guidelines Sections 15201 and 15204 discuss public participation regarding the review and evaluation of Environmental Impact Reports (EIRs) and Negative Declarations. Specifically, Section 15204 states the following: “(a) In reviewing draft EIRs, persons and public agencies should focus on the sufficiency of the document in identifying and analyzing the possible impacts on the environment and ways in which the significant effects of the project might be avoided or mitigated. Comments are most helpful when they suggest additional specific alternatives or mitigation measures that would provide better ways to avoid or mitigate the significant environmental effects. At the same time, reviewers should be aware that the adequacy of an EIR is determined in terms of what is reasonably feasible, in light of factors such as the magnitude of the project at issue, the severity of its likely environmental impacts, and the geographic scope of the project. CEQA does not require a lead agency to conduct every test or perform all research, study, and experimentation recommended or demanded by commentors. When responding to comments, lead agencies need only respond to significant environmental issues and do not need to provide all information requested by reviewers, as long as a good faith effort at full disclosure is made in the EIR. (b) In reviewing negative declarations, persons and public agencies should focus on the proposed finding that the project will not have a significant effect on the environment. If persons and public agencies believe that the project may have a significant effect, they should: (1) Identify the specific effect, (2) Explain why they believe the effect would occur, and (3) Explain why they believe the effect would be significant. (c) Reviewers should explain the basis for their comments, and should submit data or references offering facts, reasonable assumptions based on facts, or expert opinion supported by facts in support of the comments. Pursuant to Section 15064, an effect shall not be considered significant in the absence of substantial evidence.” Notice of Intent. The Notice of Intent to adopt the ISMND and conduct a public hearing was provided in the following manner, in accordance with Ukiah City Code (UCC) §9267 and California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15073: •Provided to property owners within 300 feet of the project parcels, as well as agencies and departments with jurisdiction or interest over the project on April 16, 2021, June 1, 2021 and August 13, 2021; •Provided to members of the public, agencies, and interested parties who submitted written comments on the Draft ISMND during the public review period on August 13, 2021; •Published in the Ukiah Daily Journal on April 24, 2021, June 5, 2021 and August 14, 2021; •Posted on the Project site on May 3, 2021, June 1, 2021, and August 11; •Posted at the Civic Center (glass case) 72 hours prior to the public hearing; Page 287 of 414 • Noticed for continuance at the May 26, 2021 Planning Commission hearing to a date certain of June 9, 2021; and • Notice for continuance at the June 9, 2021 Planning Commission to a date uncertain. In addition, based on the amount of interest in the Project and to receive as much public input as possible, additional public noticing was conducted in the following manner: • Posted on the City of Ukiah website on April 16, 2021 and August 16, 2021; • Emailed to Planning Commissioners and City Councilmembers on April 16, 2021 and August 13, 2021; • Hand-delivered to all residences (in addition to and beyond the 300-foot requirement) on Redwood Avenue on May 13, 2021 and mailed to all residences on Redwood Avenue on August 11, 2021. Revisions and Clarifications. The below list includes a summary of changes and/or clarifications that have been made to the Project since the Draft ISMND was circulated for public review. These revisions have been made either by the developer, in response to comments, or are corrections and clarifications identified by staff. The below list is meant to highlight the larger changes and does not include all minor changes such as grammatical errors or minor clarifications. Information provided in the Response to Comments section below has also been incorporated into the Final Draft ISMND as appropriate. Development Parcels- The original Project Description included a Development Agreement to allow Hull Properties to individually sell seven Development Parcels for development of one single-family home (and the possibility for one Accessory Dwelling Unit) per parcel upon annexation and Planning Commission approval of a Use Permit to construct individual homes within the Single-Family Residential-Hillside (R1-H) Overlay District. However, Hull Properties is choosing to retain the right to sell and develop Development Parcels 1-3 prior to annexation. The Development Parcels are located within the County of Mendocino’s jurisdiction within the Upland Residential, 40-acre minimum (UR:40) zoning district. Construction of the single-family homes within the County’s jurisdiction would be by-right and not require discretionary approval, environmental review, nor the development standards contained within the City’s R1-H zoning district. However, Hull Properties is choosing to require the single-family homes to be constructed to R1-H standards by including them in the Declaration of Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) for Development Parcels 1-3. In addition, although not required, the mitigation measures contained within the ISMND for residential development will also be included in the CC&Rs. Development Parcels 1-3 will still be included in the application for annexation and prezoned to R1-H. As described in the original Project Description, the remaining Development Parcels (4-7) will not be developed until annexation is complete and each home receives Planning Commission approval of a Use Permit for construction within the City’s R1-H zoning district. Lot Line Adjustment- The original Project Description proposed a lot line adjustment to reconfigure the existing parcels into seven Development Parcels, ranging from 5 to 10 acres in size, in accordance with the R1-H zoning district. Draft ISMND Table 1 identified the existing and proposed parcels, while Figure 2 showed the existing parcel configuration and Figure 3 showed the proposed configuration. Hull Properties will complete sequential lot line adjustments in both the City’s and County’s jurisdiction in accordance with the Page 288 of 414 Subdivision Map Act to ultimately reach the proposed configuration identified in Figure 3. Although the final configuration of the Development Parcels may vary slightly, the footprint of the resulting configuration for the Development Parcels (54 acres) and number of parcels will remain the same (identified in yellow on Figure 1, Location Map). A copy of the final recorded Lot Line Adjustments will be submitted to the Community Development Department prior to submittal of a Use Permit for single family housing within the Development Parcels. In accordance with Ukiah City Code Section 8296(f), which states “Concurrent Permit Processing: when a lot line adjustment is part of a project that requires one or more discretionary planning entitlements and the applicant does not want the lot line adjustment unless the entire project is approved, then the lot line adjustment shall be reviewed as part of the discretionary planning application. In that event, all permits and approvals, including the lot line adjustment, shall be combined into one application, processed concurrently, and acted upon by the highest review authority required by this code based on the entitlements included in the application. (Ord. 1138, §2 (Exh. A), adopted 2012).” Hull properties has indicated that they wish to record the Lot Line Adjustments, regardless of whether or not the overall Project gets approved. As such, the Lot Line Adjustments remain ministerial and do not require approval by the highest review authority (City Council, in this case). Prezoning- Previously lands intended for open space that are located outside of the City’s current Sphere of Influence (SOI) were not proposed for prezoning. However, based on comments received from the Mendocino County Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCo) these open space lands are proposed to be prezoned Public Facilities, consistent with the remaining open space land (see Master Response 2 below for more information). Access Road- The existing access road width was previously generally described as being 18 ft wide. However, the access road width ranges from 18 ft to 35 ft, with the majority of it being a minimum of 20 ft wide. The sections that are 18 ft wide are approximately 100 ft long and have wider turn-outs immediately before or after them. Both the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (Cal Fire) and the Ukiah Valley Fire Authority (UVFA) have reviewed the Project and conducted a site visit. Proposed road improvements will be in accordance with all applicable fire codes and access standards. See Master Response 1 below for more information. Utilities- Previously City water utilities were proposed to be extended to the Development Parcels. In addition, one (1) 150,000-gallon tank was proposed for additional water storage and fire protection. However, water will now be provided on-site by the land owner/developer and water will be stored in two (2) 65,000-gallon water tanks. The tanks will be located in the same location as the previously proposed single 150,000-gallon tank. The developer proposes to supply the tanks with water from the on-site wells rather than constructing new booster pump stations to pump water up to the tanks from the City’s existing wells. The tanks will be maintained by the future Homeowner’s Association. The plan for an on-site community septic system remains as originally proposed. Previously the City was proposing to extend electric utilities to the Development Parcels, but now electric utilities will be extended by both the City and/or the property owner/developer. Ultimately, upon annexation, the City will own and maintain the electric infrastructure. All utilities would be located within the same footprint as previously proposed. Page 289 of 414 Biological Resources- As noted in ISMND Section 5.4, Biological Resources, botanical surveys are required to be conducted in accordance with U.S. Fish and Wildlife (USFWS) survey protocols, which requires several surveys through different times of the year, in relation to different species’ blooming periods. At the time of circulation of the Draft ISMND, the two of three required surveys completed had resulted in negative findings. Per USFWS protocols one additional survey was required during the blooming period (March-July); and as noted in Draft ISMND Mitigation Measure BIO-1, this survey would occur prior to any ground disturbing activities at the recommendation of the Biologist. However, since the circulation of the Draft ISMND, the final botanical survey was completed on July 9, 2021. The survey did not result in the identification of any sensitive botanical species (see the Biological Resources Assessment Addendum for Rare Plant Assessment and Botanical Survey included as Attachment B1 of the Final Draft ISMND). As such, no further botanical surveys are required. However, if trees are proposed for removal, preconstruction surveys and coordination with California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW ) shall be required. Mitigation Measure BIO-1 has been revised as follows. In addition, Mitigation Measure BIO-2 has been clarified as follows to encompass all sensitive amphibian species, consistent with findings in the Biological Resources Assessment. Deleted text is shown in strikethrough font, while added text is shown in underline font. BIO-1: Special-Status Plants Sensitive Trees. Full USFWS protocol-level sensitive plant species surveys for Mendocino tarplant, congested headed hayfield tarplant, bristly leptosiphon, broad- lobed leptosiphon, redwood lily, green monardella, white-flowered rein orchid, Mayacamas popcornflower, beaked tracyina, showy Indian clover, and oval-leaved viburnum within the blooming period (generally March-August) shall be conducted prior to any ground disturbing activities to verify the presence of special status plants and identify additional mitigation if needed, to ensure that the Project will not result in a significant impact. If trees are proposed for removal, preconstruction surveys shall be conducted by a qualified biologist to identify Oregon white oak forest and woodland, as well as California bay forest and woodland habitat; removal of sensitive habitat shall be conducted in accordance with California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) regulations. BIO-2: Red-belly newt Sensitive Amphibian Species. A qualified biologist shall survey the area prior to any groundbreaking activities to determine the presence of Red-belly newt, or other sensitive amphibian species, and identify additional avoidance measures, if needed. A qualified biologist shall be on-site for any dewatering event to address the potential for the presence of sensitive amphibian species such as foothill yellow-legged frog (Rana boylii). Per CEQA Guidelines Section 15073.5(a), “a lead agency is required to recirculate a negative declaration when the document must be substantially revised after public notice of its availability has previously been given pursuant to Section 15072, but prior to its adoption. Notice of recirculation shall comply with Sections 15072 and 15073. (b) A “substantial revision” of the negative declaration shall mean: (1) A new, avoidable significant effect is identified and mitigation measures or project revisions must be added in order to reduce the effect to insignificance, or (2) The lead agency determines that the proposed mitigation measures or project revisions will not reduce potential effects to less than significance and new measures or revisions must be required. Page 290 of 414 (c) Recirculation is not required under the following circumstances: (1) Mitigation measures are replaced with equal or more effective measures pursuant to Section 15074.1. (2) New project revisions are added in response to written or verbal comments on the project’s effects identified in the proposed negative declaration which are not new avoidable significant effects. (3) Measures or conditions of project approval are added after circulation of the negative declaration which are not required by CEQA, which do not create new significant environmental effects and are not necessary to mitigate an avoidable significant effect. (4) New information is added to the negative declaration which merely clarifies, amplifies, or makes insignificant modifications to the negative declaration.” Because the changes described above, and others made in response to public comments (as discussed below) are for clarification purposes and/or do not result in a new significant effect that was previously not analyzed within the Draft ISMND, recirculation of the ISMND is not required. Response to Comments. The City of Ukiah received comments on the Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration (ISMND) from the individuals and entities listed in Table 1 below during the public comment period (April 16, 2021-May 20, 2021). Individual comments can be found in Attachment 6 of the Staff Report. CEQA Guidelines Section 15073 (Public Review of a Proposed Negative Declaration or Mitigated Negative Declaration) does not require a Lead Agency to provide written responses to public comment, with the exception of those raised by a Responsible or public agency. However, the City of Ukiah has chosen to review and respond to all written public comments received on the Draft ISMND. Table 1, Comments Received on the Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Comment Letter # Commenter Date Received 1 Margo Frank May 3, 2021 2 Crispin B. Hollinshead May 6, 2021 3 Ulla Brunnberg Rand May 12, 2021 4 Allie Duggan May 13, 2021 5 Western Hills Fire Safe Council May 14, 2021 6 Chris Watt May 18, 2021 7 Jeanne Wetzel Chinn May 19, 2021 8 Andrea Vachon May 19, 2021 9 Michael Maynard May 19, 2021 10 Sharron Thomas (via email from Emily Thomas) May 19, 2021 11 Andrea Davis May 20, 2021 Page 291 of 414 12 Margo Frank May 20, 2021 13 Heather Seggel May 20, 2021 14 Thomas Hunt (via email from Chris Watt) May 20, 2021 15 Steve and Jean Lincoln May 20, 2021 16 North Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board May 20, 2021 17 John and Delynne Rogers, May 20, 2021 18 Pinky Kushner May 20, 2021 19 Mendocino County Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCo) May 20, 2021 20 Helen Sizemore May 20, 2021 The majority of the comments received expressed concerns regarding wildfire risk. In addition, many commenters appear to be of the opinion that the Project includes a public park with planned public access within the open space area, which is not a part of this project. Because of the nature of these repeated topics of comment, responses to these comments have been addressed through Master Responses as identified below. Responses to individual comment letters regarding other issues are provided below according to the numbering system identified above in Table 1. Other comments expressed general opposition of the project but do not raise issues related to the analysis or adequacy of the Initial Study that require a formal response under CEQA. Information contained within the below response to comments has been incorporated into the ISMND for clarification purposes, as applicable. Supporting information, including a topographical map letters submitted by Mendocino Cal Fire Unit Fire Captain Vallerga and Ukiah Valley Fire Authority (UVFA) Chief Hutchison, and Jacobszoon and Associates, Inc. in response to comments received, can be found in Response to Comments Attachment A. Master Responses 1. Wildfire. The majority of the commenters concerns are largely associated with existing conditions and concerns regarding construction of future single-family homes within the Western Hills, which is identified by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (Cal Fire) as a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone. Zone. Commenters also express concerns regarding the existing shaded fuel break and emergency access. Response: Geographical areas are designated and classified by Cal Fire through their Fire Hazard Severity Zone Mapping program as Very High, High, or Moderate in State Responsibility Areas. These zones are based on factors such as fuel, slope, fire weather, etc. Consistent with other lands designated Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones within Mendocino County’s jurisdiction, the Project area is currently located within a Cal Fire State Responsibility Area (SRA). Once annexed into the City, the responsibility will be transferred to the Ukiah Valley Fire Authority (UVFA) and become a Local Responsibility Area. The UVFA has indicated it has capacity to serve the Project area and will ensure that all applicable regulations are met. Page 292 of 414 Construction and Access. Requirements for construction are directly related to Fire Hazard Severity Zone Mapping and heavily regulated, pursuant to California Public Resources Code and the California Building Code. Specifically, construction methods, access standards, and hazardous vegetation and fuels management requirements intended to mitigate wildfire exposure are contained within the following: • California Building Code, Chapter 7A (Materials and Construction Methods for Exterior Wildfire Exposure, including Wildland Urban Interface regulations); • California Residential Code, Section R337 (Materials and Construction Methods for Exterior Wildlife Exposure); • California Referenced Standards Code, Chapter 12-7A (Fire Resistive Standards); • California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Division 1.5, Chapter 7, Subchapter 3 (Fire Hazard Reduction Around Buildings and Structures); and • California Government Code, Section 51182 (Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones). Although not located within an SRA, the City of Ukiah (UCC §5200) has adopted the SRA regulations for lands within the City limits located in High or Very High fire areas. In addition, Public Resources Code Sections 4290 and 4291 contain additional requirements for lands within Very High Fire Severity Zones. These include, but are not limited to, the following which are designed to provide defensible space and fire protection for new construction and ensure adequate emergency access: increased property line setbacks for all applicable construction; on-site water storage for fire protection, driveway/roadway types and specifications based on designated usage; all weather driveway/roadway surfaces being engineered for 75,000lb vehicles; maximum slope of 16%; turnout requirements; gate requirements and setbacks, parking standards, fuels reduction regulations, etc. The existing gravel access road will be improved with asphalt and a cul-de-sac, in accordance with all current fire and safety codes applicable to the Project. The Project also includes installation of water tanks and fire hydrants to add new water storage and fire protection facilities in the Western Hills. Per the California Fire Code, a portion of the water (varies based on size and number of homes) will be required to be allotted for fire protection services and cannot be used for residential use; this will be accomplished by a float switch inside the tank. Both Cal Fire and the UVFA have reviewed the Project and conducted a site visit to ensure the access road and proposed improvements are adequate. This information has been incorporated into the Final Draft ISMND. Comments submitted by Mendocino Cal Fire Unit Fire Captain Vallerga and UVFA Fire Chief Hutchison are included in Response to Comment Attachment A. Similarly, all future construction and roadways associated with the Project (including future residential construction in both the City’s and County’s jurisdiction) must adhere to the aforementioned regulations, in addition to all other local, state and federal regulations relating to access and safety. All construction requiring a Building Permit Page 293 of 414 will be reviewed by the Building Official and Fire Marshall, as well as other City and County departments and agencies, as applicable, for consistency with life safety and access requirements. However, prior to obtaining Building Permits, all future residential construction within the proposed Single-Family Residential-Hillside Overlay District will require discretionary review. Specifically, once the parcels are annexed into the City, the Development Parcels would not be developed until an applicant submits a project- specific site plan with a Use Permit application and receives Planning Commission approval for development of a home, in accordance with the Hillside Overlay Zoning District regulations.1 The Hillside Overlay District includes strict development standards relating to fire hazards including increased setbacks, minimum required natural areas, restrictions on the use of combustible roof materials, water and fire hydrant requirements and slope requirements. The Use Permit process for construction within the Hillside Overlay District will provide another layer of review for safety standards related to wildfire that may not otherwise be required for “by-right” housing- i.e. construction of housing requiring a ministerial building permit- within the Western Hills. As noted above, Development Parcels 1-3 may be developed within the County’s jurisdiction prior to annexation by-right, but will be required to be developed to R1-H standards. The City’s ultimate acquisition of the property will enable the preservation and maintenance of 640 acres of land for open space and enhanced fire mitigation assets, while limiting development to seven single- family homes (with the possibility of seven accessory dwelling units) within 54 acres. Fuel Break. The fuel break, also known as a shaded fuel break, is a fire prevention and mitigation measure implemented in the Ukiah Valley for the Western Hills bordering City limits. A shaded fuel break is a forest management strategy used for mitigating the threat of wildfire. The goal of a shaded fuel break is to thin the surface vegetation, conduct selective thinning, remove dead and downed woody material, and remove ladder fuels to prevent a catastrophic fire and loss of structures. As supported by Comment Letter 9 submitted by Cal Fire’s former Battalion Chief Michael Maynard (2010 to 2020), who was responsible for fuel reduction efforts in the State Responsibility Area of the Ukiah Valley and surrounding areas, the Proposed Project parcels are among “the most critical” properties from a firefighter perspective. The parcels are located in the middle of the Western Hills and represent the key that holds all three elements of the fire prevention work done by Cal Fire together, including fire breaks, fuel breaks and prescribed burning. The Project location provides access to the top of the Western Hills for fire resources that did not exist prior to 2018 and is one of the few bisecting fire breaks, natural or man-made, on the western side of Ukiah Although the Proposed Project may result in a limited number of single-family homes to the west of the shaded fuel break, these new homes would not take away from the validity of the fuel break, as the break still provides a layer of protection to the urban interface and a defensible space for firefighting staging if needed. As noted by Mr. Maynard, “The consolidation of the parcels under City guidance will allow for a single 1 The Hillside Overlay District Regulations can be found online at: https://www.codepublishing.com/CA/Ukiah/#!/Ukiah09/Ukiah0902-1100.html#art11 Page 294 of 414 entity to manage the fuel reduction work, manage the watershed and reduce risk to the community.” Having the majority of the lands under City ownership will also allow for cohesive planned maintenance of the fuel break. Future homeowners will be required to maintain their property to fire standards as part of their membership in the Homeowners Association. In the memorandum provided by UVFA Chief Hutchison (Response to Comments Attachment A), Chief Hutchison states that the limited number of structures resulting from the Project would have minimal, if any, impacts on the fuel break’s effectiveness. The Chief also states that fire hazards in the Project area are not greater than other areas similar to the Project location, and that the defensible spaces created by the home sites could even enhance its effectiveness in that limited area. The water storage tanks will serve the Development Parcels and for fire protection. The future Homeowner’s Association will own the tanks and provide all maintenance on the tanks and its associated equipment. Per the California Fire Code, a portion of the water (varies based on size and number of homes) will be required to be allotted for fire protection services and cannot be used for residential use. Fire hydrants are also required to be installed with the residential development. 2. Prezoning and Open Space. Some commenters erroneously stated that the open space parcels will be a public park. Some commenters expressed concern regarding public access to the open space area. Lastly, there were several questions related to the prezoning approach for parcels within and outside of the City’s Sphere of Influence. Response: There are many different ways to preserve land as open space. The Project Description within the Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration proposes two methods: i. The portion of the proposed parcels within the current Sphere of Influence (a portion of Parcels 8 and 10, totaling approximately 343 acres, referred to as the “Inside Conservation Parcels”) will be preserved as open space and is proposed to be prezoned “PF” (Public Facilities) which specifically identifies public or quasi- public uses, including, but not limited to, natural resource conservation areas and parks and recreation. ii. The City will preserve the portion of the Conservation Parcels located outside of the Sphere of Influence (“Outside Conservation Parcels,” consisting of approximately 296 acres), as open space through City Council resolution or other means, rather than prezoning them “PF”. Proposed Parcels 8 and 10 would effectively be “split zoned”; i.e., the portion within the SOI would be prezoned PF, while the remaining portion outside of the SOI would not be prezoned, but would be made subject to a conservation easement or other City Council action prohibiting development and preserving it as open space. The Mendocino County Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCo), which is the Responsible Agency under CEQA and will ultimately consider the City’s annexation and prezoning application, submitted comments (see Comment Letter 19) stating that the “Outside Conservation Parcels” must be included in the prezoning application, per Page 295 of 414 Government Code Section 56375(a)(7) which states “the decision of the commission with regard to a proposal to annex territory to a city shall be based upon the general plan and prezoning of the city. When the development purposes are not made known to the annexing city, the annexation shall be reviewed on the basis of the adopted plans and policies of the annexing city or county. A commission shall require, as a condition to annexation, that a city prezone the territory to be annexed or present evidence satisfactory to the commission that the existing development entitlements on the territory are vested or are already at build-out, and are consistent with the city’s general plan. However, the commission shall not specify how, or in what manner, the territory shall be prezoned.” Accordingly, and to incorporate LAFCo’s comments the City of Ukiah proposes to prezone the entirety of the “Conservation Parcels” (approximately 640 acres) as PF. See revised Figure 3, Proposed Parcel Configurations and Prezoning and revised Table 1 of the Staff Report, which contains a summary of parcel and prezoning information associated with the Proposed Project. In response to comments received regarding public access to the open space areas, the Project site(s) is accessed via a gated private road and no public parking is proposed. The Project does not propose a public park, nor does it propose to allow public access to the open space lands. Although the City does not currently have a stand-alone Open Space zoning designation, the City’s existing Public Facilities (PF) zoning designation encompasses lands within the City that contain open space and natural areas, parks, as well as other public facilities. The proposed Development Parcels (approximately 54 acres) will remain prezoned for Single-Family Residential Hillside (–H) Overlay District, which is intended to support planning, design, and development activities in harmony with natural physical features and minimize potential safety, water runoff and soil erosion concerns associated with the natural terrain. The Project will acquire and preserve open space for several reasons, including sourcewater preservation, fire mitigation, scenic resources, and biological preservation. This approach will allow the City to preserve and protect the collective Conservation Parcels (640 acres total), while permitting limited, orderly, clustered low-density single- family housing development within the Development Parcels (54 acres). COMMENT LETTER 1: MARGO FRANK Comment: The commenter expresses concerns regarding wildfire. Response: See Master Response 1. COMMENT LETTER 2: CRISPIN B. HOLLINSHEAD Comment: The commenter expresses concerns regarding wildfire. Response: See Master Response 1. COMMENT LETTER 3: ULLA BRUNNBERG RAND Comment: The commenter expresses concerns regarding wildfire. Page 296 of 414 Response: See Master Response 1. Comment: The commenter suggests that the project be revised to only allow one dwelling per parcel and less Development Parcels. Response: Under the County’s General Plan and Zoning Ordinance, the entirety of the 707 acres has the potential to be developed with up to one dwelling per 40 acres, for a total of 17 primary dwellings. In addition, in accordance with state law, an Accessory Dwelling Unit ADU may be constructed as of right on each parcel, resulting in the potential for up to 34 total units to be developed. By-right development does not include public or discretionary review, nor does it include in-depth environmental review. The Proposed Project and Development Agreement would restrict development to one single family dwelling per parcel and one ADU (as required by law, except in cases where the slope exceeds 50 percent, per the City’s Hillside Overlay Ordinance), for a total of up to14 potential units. Due to these constraints, as well as other restrictions within the Hillside Overlay Zoning District, after the parcels are annexed into the City, the development of single-family homes on the Development Parcels would only occur if individual applicants/owners purchase the home sites from the developer, submit a complete project-specific site plan and Use Permit application, and receive approval from the Ukiah Planning Commission. As noted above, Development Parcels 1-3 may be developed within the County’s jurisdiction prior to annexation by-right, but will be required to be developed to R1-H standards through CC&Rs. Summarizing, the Project would result in a reduction in the number of units that are currently allowed. Under existing conditions, there is potential for up to 34 units to be developed by right. If the Project is approved, this number would be reduced to a maximum of up to 14 units. COMMENT LETTER 4: ALLIE DUGGAN Comment: The commenter expresses opposition to the Project. Response: This comment is noted and is included in the public record for Planning Commission and City Council consideration. Comment: The commenter expresses concerns regarding traffic on Redwood Avenue. Response: As noted in Section 5.17, Transportation, of the ISMND, impacts to transportation and traffic would be significant if the Project conflicted with a local plan, ordinance or policy addressing transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities; conflicted with CEQA Guidelines Sec. 15064.3(b), which contains criteria for analyzing transportation impacts; substantially increased hazards due to geometric design features; or resulted in inadequate emergency access. As noted in the ISMND, the Project would not conflict with a local plan or ordinance related to traffic, and is required to be in compliance with all Fire and Building codes related to emergency access and safety. Minor increases to traffic on adjacent streets (specifically Redwood Avenue and Helen Avenue) could occur from heavy equipment required for road and utility improvements, but would be considered temporary (1-2 months). In addition, the adjacent streets will not be closed to through traffic during construction of the road and utility improvements with the exception of the potential to have temporary (five to ten minute) closures when specialty Page 297 of 414 equipment may be delivered to the job site. Further, it is unlikely that all of the single family homes would be developed at the same time, and impacts to traffic would be analyzed on a project-level basis. For the aforementioned reasons, in addition to those discussed in the ISMND, traffic impacts associated with the Project would be less than significant. Comment: The commenter states that wildlife exists in the area and that development would destroy their habitat. The commenter further states that any impact to wildlife should be analyzed prior to development. Response: As noted in Section 5.4, Biological Resources, of the ISMND a Biological Resources Assessment (BRA) titled “Biological Assessment Report” was prepared for the Project by Jacobszoon & Associates, Inc. The BRA is designed to identify sensitive communities within the study area and determine the existence or potential occurrence for special-status species, as well as impacts to biological resources associated with the Project. The BRA found that all impacts to biological resources would be reduced to less than significant with implementation of Mitigation Measures BIO-1 through BIO-5, which require pre-construction surveys for nesting birds and sensitive species. Please refer to Section 5.4 and Attachment B of the ISMND for more information. Comment: The commenter references a Mendocino Voice news article from January 15, 2021 that states that the Donation Parcel was donated for open space and fire mitigation, and development of the parcel was never mentioned. Response: Consistent with the January 15, 2021 news article and as discussed in the Project Description, the Donation Parcel will be protected as open space and is not proposed for development. The City will cooperate with Cal Fire and other entities to continue efforts for fire mitigation work. As is common with other open space conservation projects, the scope of the Ukiah Western Hills Open Land Acquisition & Limited Development Project has evolved since its inception into the current proposal. The City of Ukiah has not yet acquired any land in the proposed project area but did receive a donation of 188 acres (referred to as the “Donation Parcel”). The donation of the land that was completed in 2020 was not part of the Proposed Project and, in fact, was done in part with the hopes of strengthening future grant applications. Under the County of Mendocino’s jurisdiction, portions of the Project sites, specifically the proposed Development Parcels, have been under consideration for development for the past several years, as Mr. Hull intended to develop portions with residential development at some point in the future. These improvements were not done in relation to the Proposed Project, or in coordination with the City of Ukiah. The City’s involvement with the property included efforts to secure grant funding in 2018 and 2019 for acquisition of the entire project site, but these efforts were unsuccessful. In the meantime, the property owner held the property for the possible grant acquisition but also continued property improvements during that time. The City was approached by Mr. Hull after the City’s last unsuccessful grant application and began to look at other solutions to acquiring the property. To complete the acquisition, the City will enter into a Property Exchange and Development Agreement (“Development Agreement”) with the current owner of the Hull Properties subject to the annexation Page 298 of 414 application. Under the Development Agreement, the current owner will convey the Annexation Parcels to the City in exchange for real property owned by the City and a payment from the City of an amount to make up the difference between the fair market value of the exchanged properties. The only portion of the project that includes the potential for development is the 54 easternmost acres located directly adjacent to the current City limits. As noted in response to Comment Letter 3, currently the lands proposed for annexation could be developed by- right under less restrictive zoning than what is currently proposed in the Development Agreement. The City’s acquisition of the property will enable the preservation and maintenance of the non-developed land for open space and enhanced fire mitigation assets, while limiting development to seven single family homes (with the possibility of seven ADUs) within 54 acres. Comment: The commenter express concerns regarding wildfire. Response: See Master Response 1. Comment: The commenter erroneously states that “this project started on April 16, 2021 and the homeowners on Redwood Avenue, who would be majorly impacted, were given printed notice of it on May 13, 2021, nearly a month after this process has started.” Response: The City has followed noticing procedures in compliance with City noticing requirements and the Government Code. Specifically, the Notice of Intent to adopt the ISMND and conduct a public hearing was provided in the following manner, in accordance with Ukiah City Code (UCC) §9267 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15073: • Provided to property owners within 300 feet of the project parcels, as well as agencies and departments with jurisdiction or interest over the project on April 16, 2021, June 1, 2021 and August 13, 2021; • Provided to members of the public, agencies, and interested parties who submitted written comments on the Draft ISMND during the public review period on August 13, 2021; • Published in the Ukiah Daily Journal on April 24, 2021, June 5, 2021 and August 14, 2021; • Posted on the Project site on May 3, 2021, June 1, 2021, and August 11; • Posted at the Civic Center (glass case) 72 hours prior to the public hearing; • Noticed for continuance at the May 26, 2021 Planning Commission hearing to a date certain of June 9, 2021; and • Notice for continuance at the June 9, 2021 Planning Commission to a date uncertain. In addition, based on the amount of interest in the Project and to receive as much public input as possible, additional public noticing was conducted in the following manner: • Posted on the City of Ukiah website on April 16, 2021 and August 16, 2021; • Emailed to Planning Commissioners and City Councilmembers on April 16, 2021 and August 13, 2021; • Hand-delivered to all residences (in addition to and beyond the 300-foot requirement) on Redwood Avenue on May 13, 2021 and mailed to all residences on Redwood Avenue on August 11, 2021. Page 299 of 414 COMMENT LETTER 5: Western Hills Fire Safe Council Comment: The commenter references a December 11, 2020 Ukiah Daily Journal news article regarding the donation of the Donation Parcel to the City by Mr. Hull and states that it did not mention the acquisition and annexation of the remaining properties proposed under the Project. Response: See response to Comment Letter 4 regarding the Donation Parcel and evolution of the Proposed Project. Comment: The commenter states that on April 16, 2021, the Notice of Intent was sent to a few Redwood Avenue and San Jacinta Drive property owners. Response: See response to Comment Letter 4 regarding noticing. Comment: “The majority of the property is zoned PF, public facilities. It [is] possible to change this zoning designation in the future to R1-H zoning (single family residential), should there be interest in further development. Is it possible to change the zoning on the inside conservation PF zoned parcels (ISMND map p.13) to a Conservation Easement in perpetuity along with the outside conservation parcels for a Ukiah Wildlife Sanctuary?” Response: There are many different ways to preserve land as open space. As noted in Master Response 2, the Project proposes to prezone the entire 640 acres for open space as “PF”. In accordance with the Government Code, parcels included in the prezone cannot be rezoned for a period of two years after adoption. In addition, because the parcels will be under City ownership, the City will have control over the use of the parcels. The City’s long-term goals for the parcels include open space and do not include residential development. Comment: The commenter asks the following questions regarding the proposed water tank: “W hat are the plans for the new water storage tank besides fire protection measures? Who will be responsible for maintaining the 150,000 gallon tank, pump, and well that supports the water tank? Is the water in this tank dedicated for fire department use or also for use of potential domestic purposes for the buildout? Will there be hydrants on the city water main extending up from Redwood Avenue?” Response: The new water storage tanks will be used to serve the Development Parcels. In addition, they will be used for fire protection. The tanks will be owned and maintained by the HOA. Per the California Fire Code, a portion of the water (varies based on size and number of homes) will be required to be allotted for fire protection services and cannot be used for residential use. Fire hydrants are also required to be installed with the residential development. Comment: The commenter states “Neil Davis’[s] responses to WHFSC questions to Mr. Sangiacomo regarding the Hull Properties Limited Development Agreement included a question on water resources. Mr. Davis stated, “…this project provides sourcewater protection and will benefit the entire Ukiah Valley by protecting the sourcewater and ensuring that it reaches its maximum potential.” How does Mr. Davis define “sourcewater protection?” Response: Acquisition of headwater properties in the Western Hills of the Ukiah Valley provides source water (headwater) protection because securing these properties will provide preservation of headwater properties in the Western Hills that will help ensure that Page 300 of 414 natural runoff and groundwater recharge patterns will continue in perpetuity. Benefits will include preserving the current hydrology of the Western Hills which are a major driver for the recharging of Ukiah Valley’s aquifer. Preserving these properties will ensure that there is no adverse change to these important resources and is consistent with the goals of section 15 of the State of California’s 2020 Water Resilience Portfolio in that it will “protect water quality and supply”. Comment: In addition to expressing concerns regarding wildfire and the shaded fuel break, the commenter asks if the residential development of the 54 easternmost acres can be taken out of the Development Agreement. In addition, the commenter asks if the lower elevation properties west of the shaded fuel break that remain in Mr. Hull’s possession will be considered for future buildout. Response: See Master Response 1 and Comment Letter 9 regarding wildfire and the shaded fuel break. As noted in response to Comment Letter 4, in order to complete the acquisition, the City will enter into a Property Exchange and Development Agreement (“Development Agreement”) with the current owner of the Hull Properties subject to the annexation application. Under the Development Agreement, the current owner will convey the Annexation Parcels to the City in exchange for real property owned by the City and a payment from the City of an amount to make up the difference between the fair market value of the exchanged properties; the City does not have the funding to purchase the entire project area without this component. As noted in the Project Description, the only portion of the project that includes the potential for development are the 54 easternmost acres located directly adjacent to the current City limits. See response to Comment Letter 3 for more information regarding the discretionary review process for future development. The remaining acreage will be preserved as open space. COMMENT LETTER 6: CHRIS WATT Comment: The commenter asks if the annexation requires a tax-sharing agreement with the County of Mendocino, and if so, what actions have been taken by the City to secure an agreement. Response: A tax-sharing agreement will be required as a part of the annexation application. Comment: The commenter asks if the parcels proposed for development to be prezoned as Single-Family Residential-Hillside Overlay District (R1-H) have been sized consistently with the Hillside Development Standards, and if not, further comments the parcels should be sized in accordance with the Hillside Development Standards and Subject to the Use Permitting Process and the Hillside Development Standards. Response: The Development Parcels included in the original preliminary Lot Line Adjustment proposed to be prezoned Single-Family Residential-Hillside Overlay District have been adequately sized and designed in accordance with the Hillside Overlay District regulations. See Response to Comments Attachment A which includes a topographical map and the average slope of the Development Parcel area, in accordance with the Hillside Overlay District lot size requirements. As noted above in the Revisions and Clarifications section, the final resulting configuration may vary, but the number of parcels Page 301 of 414 and Development Parcel area footprint will not. Additionally, the final parcel configuration and future single family residential development is required to be in accordance with the Hillside Overlay District regulations. For Development Parcels 4-7 this includes obtaining Planning Commission approval of a Use Permit for development of a single-family housing unit. As noted in Condition of Approval 3, a copy of the final recorded Lot Line Adjustment shall be submitted to the Community Development Department prior to submittal of a Use Permit for single family housing. Development Parcels 1-3 may be developed within the County’s jurisdiction prior to annexation by-right, but will be required to be developed to R1-H standards through CC&Rs if developed prior to annexation. Comment: The commenter asks if Landslide Hazard Identification Map No. 24 published in 1991 by the California Geological Survey was consulted to determine the potential presence of landslide hazards with the parcels proposed for development and the access roads to the development. This report should be consulted and included as a reference in the ISMND. Response: As noted in the References section, and Section 7, Geology and Soils, of the ISMND, information related to soils and geology, including landslides, was compiled using a variety of resources including the Background Report for the County of Mendocino General Plan Update (prepared by P.M.C., 2003), as well as the California Geological Survey, U.S. Landslide Inventory Web Application and Earthquake Fault Map, Ukiah. These resources do not identify the Development Parcels nor the access road as having a high landslide hazard potential. Comment: The commenter states that it seems imprudent to not perform a preliminary soils report to determine if the parcels proposed for development have soils or landslide hazards which would preclude development or at a minimum severely limit the development potential. The commenter also states that the Geology and Soils section should also reference the requirement in the California Building Code to submit a Geotechnical Report for each lot. Response: The Project does not include approval of any entitlements for development of homes. After the parcels are annexed into the City, Development Parcels 4-7 would not be developed until an applicant submits a project-specific site plan with a Use Permit application and receives Planning Commission approval for development of a home, in accordance with the Hillside Overlay Zoning District regulations. As stated in the Geology and Soils Section of the ISMND (Pg. 34), the Hillside Overly District regulations (UCC §9139 (c)), a soils engineering report completed by a professional engineer registered in the state of California is required to be submitted during the discretionary review period for development, including future single family residential, within the Hillside Overlay District. Additionally, a Building Permit is required for residential construction, which will ensure all activities are in compliance with building and seismic safety codes. As noted above, although Development Parcels 1-3 may be developed within the County’s jurisdiction prior to annexation by-right, they will be required to be developed to R1-H standards through CC&Rs. In addition, mitigation measures identified for residential development in the ISMND will be applied to all Development Parcels. This information has been added to the Final Draft ISMND. Comment: The commenter states that the Wildfire section of the ISMND indicates that fuel breaks are developed in the project area and states that the ISMND does not describe how the fuel breaks will be maintained. The commenter also asks the following questions: “if the Ukiah Valley Fire District have capacity to defend the proposed development areas against wildfire given the Extremely High Fire Risk for the lands adjacent to the proposed development area? Why not Page 302 of 414 subject these parcels to Wildland Urban Interface requirements? Perhaps include a benefit zone to pay for vegetation management and fire protection which is quite different from the urban parcels of the City.” Response: See Master Response 1. COMMENT LETTER 7: JEANNE WETZEL CHINN Comment: The commenter states the following: “I don’t take issue with transferring several of his individual parcels to be annexed to the City of Ukiah. However, there are concerns regarding how the additional acreage is planning to be utilized: 296ac for Conservation Lands on the most western area, 343ac for Recreational (zoned PF-Public Facilities) Lands in an odd shaped “C” pattern, and 54ac as Development Parcels (zoned R1-H) on the northeastern corner, as shown and stated in the ISMND map legend on p.13. Who owns the 5 parcels between the “C” Recreational Lands, and what are the plans for these parcels?” Response: The commenter erroneously states that the 343 acres within the City’s Sphere of Influence for open space would be classified as “Recreational Lands”. These parcels are proposed to be prezoned “Public Facilities” and used for open space and conservation. It is unclear what Parcels the commenter is referring to when they ask “who owns the 5 parcels between the “C” Recreational Lands, and what are the plans for these parcels?”, as the Project Description does not classify any of the proposed parcels for annexation in such a way. Instead, as discussed in Master Response 2, the City proposes to prezone the entire 640 acres of open space lands as “PF”. The commenter is referred to Table 1 of the Staff Report which contains a summary of parcel and prezoning information associated with the Proposed Project. Comment: The commenter expresses concerns regarding wildfire risk, the project being located within the Wildland-Urban Interface area, as well as comments regarding the shaded fuel break that are also expressed in other comment letters. Response: Please refer to Master Response 1 related to wildfire concerns. Comment: The commenter erroneously states that the community’s tax dollars would be paying for the utility extensions to the Development Parcels, and asks who would pay for the maintenance of the 150,000-gallon water storage and fire facilities tank, pump, and well. Response: The project involves City acquisition of property with most of the utility infrastructure completed by the developer and in place prior to any potential development. The property owner/developer will be responsible for the road improvements, installation and maintenance of the sewer system, water storage tanks and its associated equipment. Electric utilities will be installed by the City and/or the developer, but ultimately will be owned and maintained by the City. Comment: The commenter states that at the most recent Paths, Open Space, and Creeks Commission (POSCC) meeting, Commissioners were told there will be no infrastructure on the recreation lands, including no public bathroom facilities or parking areas for potential hikers & bikers, and asks who would be responsible for patrolling those areas to pick up cigarette butts and other trash, and keep transients from establishing camps. Page 303 of 414 Response: As clarified above, there are no lands that would be classified as “recreational lands” and the Proposed Project does not include allowing public access to the open space areas. If public access to open space areas is contemplated in the future, additional environmental review will be required, as applicable. Comment: The commenter states that there is significant wildlife and biologic resources documented in the Western Hills and they would like to see all of the open space lands annexed together as “Ukiah’s Wildlife Sanctuary” and conserved in perpetuity. Response: The City of Ukiah agrees and recognizes the importance of the biological resources within the Ukiah Western Hills. One of the City of Ukiah’s goals of the Proposed Project is to preserve and protect important source water and biological resources and open space within the Ukiah Western Hills. Accordingly, approximately 640 acres are proposed for open space and conservation. The City is proposing to annex the entire 707 acres (including the 640 acres for open space). See Master Response 2 for more information regarding prezoning. COMMENT LETTER 8: ANDREA VACHON Comment: The commenter makes statements and asks questions regarding public parking and access under the assumption that the open space areas will be a public park. Response: The Project site(s) is accessed via a gated private road at the terminus of Redwood Avenue and no public parking is proposed. The Project does not propose a public park, nor does it propose to allow public access to the open space lands at this time. Comment: The commenter asks questions regarding proposed access improvements and requirements within the Fire Code. Response: See Master Response 1. Comment: The commenter erroneously states that the City is paying for the extension of utilities and asks if the developer should be paying for them. Response: See response to Comment Letter 7. Comment: The commenter asks why the Inside Conservation parcels would not be a part of the City Council resolution or action to preserve them as open space. Response: See Master Response 2 and response to Comment Letter 5. Comment: The commenter expressed concerns regarding wildfire. Response: See Master Response 1. COMMENT LETTER 9: Michael Maynard Comment: The commenter states that he was the Cal Fire Battalion Chief from November 2010 to December 2020 and was responsible for fuel reduction efforts in the Western Hills. The commenter provides an overview of information relating to past fuel management practices and expresses support for the project. Page 304 of 414 Response: This comment is noted and is included in the public record for Planning Commission and City Council consideration COMMENT LETTER 10: Sharron Thomas Comment: The commenter expresses concerns regarding wildfire that are included in other comment letters. Response: See Master Response 1. COMMENT LETTER 11: ANDREA DAVIS Comment: The commenter expresses concerns regarding the access road in relation to its slope, topography, erosion and runoff. Response: Please refer to ISMND Section 5.7, Geology and Soils, as well as Section 5.10, Hydrology and Water Quality which addresses these comments. To summarize, Mitigation Measure GEO-1 is proposed and requires submittal of sediment and erosion plans identifying BMPs to reduce soil erosion and water runoff to reduce or avoid impacts to geology and soils to be submitted prior to any ground disturbance, in accordance with Ukiah City Code (“UCC”) Division 9, Chapter 7, Erosion and Sediment Control. In addition, Hillside Overlay District development standards require submittal of Geotechnical Reports, Grading Plans, Hydrology Reports, etc. In regards to the access road, slope is also regulated by the Hillside Overlay District and the Fire Code, as discussed in Master Response 1. Comment: The commenter expresses concerns that the Development Parcels are adjacent to a small canyon that traps dust and smoke. The commenter asks what regulations for burning on the lower elevations of annexed properties be and what will be done to enforce speed limits to decrease dust. Response: Air Quality and burning permits are regulated by the Mendocino County Air Quality Management District (MCAQMD) and Cal Fire. As noted in ISMND Section 5.3, Air Quality, the MCAQMD enforces regulations pertaining to air quality, including fugitive dust. Impacts associated with construction would be considered temporary and paving of the existing gravel access road will ultimately reduce dust emissions in the area. MCAQMD has a set of standard Best Management Practices (BMPs) for construction projects that are intended to reduce air quality impacts and ensure that projects remain in attainment with air quality thresholds (including Regulation 1 relating to fugitive dust). As noted in the ISMND, Mitigation Measures AIR-1 through AIR-3 incorporate BMPs suggested by the MCAQMD to regulate air quality and dust emissions. Specifically, in regards to the question regarding the speed limit, AIR-2(b) states “All unpaved surfaces, unless otherwise treated with suitable chemicals or oils, shall have a posted speed limit of 10 mph.” With incorporation of BMPs and mitigation measures identified within the ISMND, impacts to Air Quality were found to be less than significant. Comment: The commenter expresses concerns regarding traffic on Redwood Avenue and the potential for increased noise from vehicles traveling up the road. Response: As noted in Section 5.17, Transportation, of the ISMND, impacts to transportation and traffic would be significant if the Project conflicted with a local plan, Page 305 of 414 ordinance or policy addressing transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities; conflicted with CEQA Guidelines Sec. 15064.3(b), which contains criteria for analyzing transportation impacts; substantially increased hazards due to geometric design features; or resulted in inadequate emergency access. As noted in the ISMND, the Project would not conflict with a local plan or ordinance related to traffic, and is required to be in compliance with all Fire and Building codes related to emergency access and safety. Minor increases to traffic on adjacent streets (specifically Redwood Avenue and Helen Avenue) could occur from heavy equipment required for road and utility improvements, but would be considered temporary (1-2 months). In addition, the adjacent streets will not be closed to through traffic during the road and utility improvements with the exception of the potential to have temporary (five to ten minute) closures when specialty equipment may be delivered to the job site. Further, it is unlikely that all of the single family homes would be developed at the same time, and impacts to traffic would be analyzed on a project-level basis. For the aforementioned reasons, in addition to those discussed in the ISMND, traffic impacts associated with the Project would be less than significant. Similarly, noise impacts associated with traffic would be considered temporary during construction. Upon future construction of single-family homes, sources of noise would be consistent with other noise sources typical of residential uses (e.g., mechanical equipment, dogs/pets, landscaping activities, cars parking, etc.). Additionally, as noted in Section 5.13, Noise, of the ISMND the City’s Noise Ordinance (Division 7, Chapter 1, Article 6) establishes ambient base noise level standards that apply to specific zoning districts within the City of Ukiah. In addition, to reduce potential noise impacts to nearby sensitive receptors, Mitigation Measure NOI-1 would require compliance with the City’s allowed hours of construction (7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m.), include Best Management Practices (BMPs) for reducing construction noise, and require construction equipment to be equipped with properly operating and maintained mufflers and other state-required noise attenuation devices. Operation of the Proposed Project would result in stationary noise sources associated with typical residential land uses These noise sources are typically intermittent and short in duration, and would be comparable to existing sources of noise experienced at surrounding residential uses. Noise impacts associated with the Project would be less than significant with mitigation implemented. Comment: The commenter states that the greenhouse gas emissions discussion should consider that the development will encourage vehicle fuel consumption due to the location of the housing. Response: As discussed in ISMND Section 5.8, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Construction activities associated with the Project and future housing development could result in direct and indirect emissions of GHG emissions. Direct project-related GHG emissions generally include emissions from construction activities, area sources, and mobile sources, while indirect sources include emissions from electricity consumption, water demand, and solid waste generation. Operational GHG emissions would result from energy emissions from natural gas usage and automobile emissions. As discussed in Section 5.3, Air Quality, of the ISMND, the Project (both construction and operation) would not result in a significant negative impact to air quality. Similarly, as discussed in Section 17, Transportation, the Project would not produce significant amounts of traffic or vehicle miles traveled that would in turn result in a significant increase in GHG emissions. Individual residential development projects constructed under the Page 306 of 414 Development Agreement will be reviewed on a project by project basis to analyze GHG emissions and will be required to follow all building codes and policies including those intended to reduce emissions. Specifically, future residential uses constructed would be required to adhere to all federal, state, and local requirements for energy efficiency, including the Title 24 standards. Compliance with Title 24 Building Energy Efficiency Standards would provide minimum efficiency standards related to various building features, including appliances, water and space heating and cooling equipment, building insulation and roofing, and lighting. Implementation of the Title 24 standards significantly reduces energy usage, as well as GHG emissions. Lastly, the Project includes annexation and conservation of approximately 640 acres, which will have no impact (or a beneficial impact) on GHG, given that the Project is located within a non-attainment area the Project is rural in nature, and the Project has a small development footprint. The Project, including infrastructure improvements and other temporary construction activities, is not expected to significantly increase GHG in the area. With implementation of the aforementioned regulations, impacts to GHG emissions would be less than significant. Comment: The commenter suggests that the required botanical surveys are inadequate and be completed prior to finalization of the ISMND. Response: As noted in ISMND Section 5.4, Biological Resources, botanical surveys are required to be conducted in accordance with U.S. Fish and Wildlife (USFWS) survey protocols, which requires several surveys through different times of the year, in relation to different species’ blooming periods. At the time of circulation of the Draft ISMND, the two of three required surveys completed (March 30, 2021 and May 17, 2021) had resulted in negative findings. Per USFWS protocols one additional survey was required during the blooming period (March-July); as noted in Draft ISMND Mitigation Measure BIO-1, this survey would occur prior to any ground disturbing activities at the recommendation of the Biologist. However, since the circulation of the Draft ISMND, the final botanical survey was completed on July 9, 2021. The survey did not result in the identification of any sensitive botanical species. As such, no further botanical surveys are required and Mitigation Measure BIO-1 has been revised accordingly. This information has been incorporated into the Biological Resources section of the Final Draft ISMND accordingly; the Biological Resources Assessment Addendum for Rare Plant Assessment and Botanical Survey is included as Attachment B1 of the Final Draft ISMND. Comment: The commenter expresses concerns regarding biological resources and water courses and culverts within the Project vicinity. The commenter also expresses concerns related to wildlife movement. Response: As noted in the response to comments received from Jacobszoon & Associates, Inc. (Response to Comments Attachment A), and in the Biological Resources Survey for the Project, the creeks within the Study Area were surveyed during the Biological Resource Assessment and first botanical survey, but no special status amphibian species were observed; however, Mitigation Measure BIO-2 requires pre- construction surveys prior to work in or around the drainages or water courses to protect sensitive amphibian species. No modifications to existing culverts are proposed. However, as noted in Condition of Approval 6, the Developer shall obtain regulatory permits, Page 307 of 414 including but not limited to a 401 Water Quality Certification, California Department of Fish and Wildlife Lake and Streambed Alteration Agreement, etc., if work is proposed in the future, in accordance with existing regulatory requirements. As discussed in ISMND Section 5.4, Biological Resources, there are no established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or native wildlife nursery sites within the Project area. Because the Project includes preservation of approximately 640 acres, the Project will preserve existing habitat and opportunity for movement for wildlife species. COMMENT LETTER 12: MARGO FRANK Comment: The commenter expresses concerns regarding wildfire and expresses opposition to the project. Response: This comment is noted and is included in the public record for Planning Commission and City Council consideration. See Master Response 1 related to wildfire. COMMENT LETTER 13: HEATHER SEGGEL Comment: The commenter expresses concerns regarding wildfire and expresses opposition to the project. Response: This comment is noted and is included in the public record for Planning Commission and City Council consideration. COMMENT LETTER 14: THOMAS HUNT Comment: The commenter expresses concerns that the criteria for lot line adjustments is not being met and that each qualifying parcel of a lot line adjustment must have a recorded certificate of compliance that the lot is a viable conforming lot. The commenter also states that “reconfiguration of parcels using the lot line adjustment method becomes a violation of the Subdivision Map Act if greater than Four parcel reconfigurations (LLA) are performed. A development of this nature should be required to prepare a tentative subdivision map, preliminary engineering of the access road, lot layout in conformance with the hillside slope ordnance, and provide a slope analysis study in conformance with the Hillside ordinance using accurate topographic mapping.” Response: See response to Comment Letter 6. Each lot has valid Certificate of Compliances and any lot line adjustments are to be done in accordance with the Subdivision Map Act and all County and City codes, as applicable. Government Code section 66412 specifies circumstances and processes that are excepted from the Subdivision Map Act. The exception found in subdivision (d) to that section concerns lot line adjustments “between four or fewer existing adjoining parcels, where the land taken from one parcel is added to an adjoining parcel, and where a greater number of parcels than originally existed is not thereby created….” A lot line adjustment meeting these criteria renders the Subdivision Map Act “inapplicable” to the application. (San Dieguito Partnership v. City of San Diego (1992) 7 Cal. App. 4th 748, 756 & 761 [Gov. Code § 66412, subdivision (d), does not limit the size of the area subject to a lot line adjustment].) Sequential lot line adjustments involving the same (or some of the same) properties does not run afoul of these criteria and are permitted to be completed upon completion of the Page 308 of 414 preceding adjustment. (Sierra Club v. Napa County Bd. of Sup'rs (2012) 205 Cal. App. 4th 162.) The City’s review of applications is limited and ministerial in nature. It may only determine whether the lot line adjustment conforms to the local general plan, any applicable specific plan, any applicable coastal plan, and zoning and building ordinances. The City can require the prepayment of real property taxes prior to the approval of the lot line adjustment, and it may facilitate the relocation of existing utilities, infrastructure, or easements. So long as the adjustment does not exceed the referenced criteria, the application may not be denied. (Gov. Code, § 66412 (d); Sierra Club v. Napa County Bd. of Sup'rs, supra, 205 Cal. App. 4th at pp. 177–180; San Dieguito Partnership v. City of San Diego, supra, 7 Cal. App. 4th at p. 760.) Other than those describe above, no other conditions and exactions on approval of a lot line adjustments may be imposed. In short, “the regulatory function of the approving agency is strictly circumscribed by the Legislature in a lot line adjustment, with very little authority as compared to the agency's function and authority in connection with a subdivision.” (Ibid.) Please refer to response to Comment Letter 6 and responses below regarding development in conformance with the Hillside Overlay District. Comment: The commenter expresses concerns that the new road will not meet Fire Safety Road Standards and is concerned about how the road will be maintained. Response: As mentioned in Master Response 1 the existing access road will be improved in accordance with all applicable fire and safety codes. All future construction and roadways associated with the Project (including future residential construction) must adhere to the aforementioned regulations, in addition to all other local, state and federal regulations relating to access and safety. The road will be privately owned and maintained by a Homeowners Association. Comment: The commenter expressed concerns that the ISMND does not address the capacity for of the existing City utility to support the proposed homes and questions who would maintain the infrastructure. Response: The project involves City acquisition of property with most of the utility infrastructure completed by the developer and in place prior to any potential development. The property owner/developer will be responsible for the road improvements, installation and maintenance of the sewer system, water storage tanks and its associated equipment; these components will be maintained by the HOA. Electric utilities will be installed by the City and/or the developer, but ultimately will be owned and maintained by the City. Please refer to ISMND Section 5.19, Utilities and Service Systems for an analysis of service capacity. Additional information is also provided in response to Comment Letter 19. Comment: The commenter expressed concerns regarding wildfire and access requirements. In addition, the commenter expresses concerns regarding development regulations in the Hillside Overlay District related to slope. Response: See Master Response 1 and response to Comment Letter 6 and 11 regarding slope and development within the Hillside Overlay District. Page 309 of 414 Comment: The commenter states that impacts to hydrology from potential future development and replacements of culverts were not adequately discussed in the ISMND. Response: See response to Comment Letters 6,11 and 16. As discussed in ISMND Section 5.10, Hydrology and Water Quality, the project, including improvement of the access road and future residential construction, would result in impervious surfaces that could result in an impact to water quality. However, as noted in Mitigation Measures GEO- 1 and HAZ-1, prior to any ground disturbance, erosion and sediment control plans shall be submitted to the Public Works Department and Community Development Department for review and approval and shall include Best Management Practices (BMPs) to address soil erosion and stormwater runoff. Also, R1-H development regulations require submittal of the following: soil and geological reports, subsurface investigations, grading plans, vegetation reports, grading plans, hydrology reports, to ensure development is being properly designed to avoid impacts to geology, soils and hydrology. Additionally, construction projects that would disturb more than one acre of land, would be subject to the requirements of General Construction Activity Stormwater Permit (Construction General Permit Order 2009-0009-DWQ, also known as the CGP), which requires operators of such construction sites to implement stormwater controls and develop a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) identifying specific BMPs to be implemented to reduce the amount of sediment and other pollutants associated with construction sites from being discharged in stormwater runoff. The proposed Development Agreement does not include specific development designs or proposals, nor does it grant any entitlements for development. Future single-family housing development for all Development Parcels will be subject to the City’s R1-H development standards, building and safety codes, including review of stormwater management practices, where applicable. If future work in or adjacent to any of the other watercourses or culverts are proposed, the developer is required to obtain necessary regulatory permits form the California Department of Fish and Wildlife and the Regional Water Quality Control Board, as necessary. As noted in the ISMND impacts associated with erosion and stromwater runoff would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated. COMMENT LETTER 15: STEVE AND JEAN LINCOLN Comment: The commenter expresses concerns regarding wildfire and expresses opposition to the project. Response: This comment is noted and is included in the public record for Planning Commission and City Council consideration. COMMENT LETTER 16: NORTH COAST REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD (NCRWQCB) Comment: The commenter states that information regarding sensitive biological communities, Waters of the State and wetlands is conflicting within the Biological Resources Assessment. The NCRWQCB also states that if Waters of the State will be impacted by the project, regulatory permits will be required. Page 310 of 414 Response: As noted in the responses prepared by Jacobszoon and Associates, Inc. (included in Response to Comments Attachment A), “No wetlands were observed within the Study Area during the biological assessment” and “Biological Resources Assessment (Attachment B to the ISMND) Section 3.4.2, (3) Field Survey Methodology, (.4) Biological Communities, (.2) Sensitive Communities-Aquatic Resources (page 8) is not a result or account of what we observed on site and is meant to describe our methodology in defining and describing wetlands for the purposes of the assessment. Generally, if a suspected wetland is observed during our biological assessment, it is referred to as a “wet area” until a wetland delineation is performed to determine whether the “wet area’ meets the criteria of wetlands as described by the USACE 1987 Manual. The NWI database is consulted at a reconnaissance level before our site visit and is not intended to substitute on-the-ground field assessments for wetlands.” Please refer to section 5.1.2, (5) Field Survey Results, (.1) Biological Communities, (.2) Sensitive Biological Communities-Sensitive Aquatic Resources (page 16), for the results of the assessment concerning sensitive aquatic resources including wetlands. The Study Area contains two (2) Class II watercourses and four (4) Class III watercourses that were observed and mapped on-site. The closest watercourse is a Class II watercourse located on APN 001-040-83 (existing Parcel 1 and proposed Parcel 8) of the study area. This Class II watercourse is mapped on the USFWS National Wetland Inventory as a riverine habitat classified as R4SBC. R4SBC is a riverine intermittent system with a streambed and is seasonally flooded. Riverine systems are considered watercourses for the purposes of this assessment. The Proposed Project will not impact this watercourse, as it would be included in proposed Parcel 8, which will be preserved as open space. The project doesn’t propose modification of existing culverts. For the reasons discussed above, the Project would not result in a significant impact to sensitive biological communities or wetlands. If future work in or adjacent to any of the other watercourses or culverts are proposed, the Developer is required to obtain necessary regulatory permits form the California Department of Fish and Wildlife and the Regional Water Quality Control Board, as necessary. The Biological Resources Assessment identifies the following two sensitive tree communities in the Study Area: Quercus garryana Forest & Woodland Alliance: Oregon white oak forest and woodland and Umbellularia californica Forest & Woodland Alliance: California bay forest and woodland. Both communities are classified as having a California Department of Wildlife State Rarity Rank of S3 (Vulnerable). No trees are proposed for removal. However, if, future development of single-family homes propose removal of trees, pre-construction surveys identified in Mitigation Measure BIO-2 shall include identification of these species and removal shall be in accordance with the California Department of Fish and Wildlife regulations and the City of Ukiah Tree Management Guidelines. If trees are proposed for removal, surveys will also include identification of Oregon white oak forest and woodland, as well as California bay forest and woodland habitat; removal of sensitive habitat shall be conducted in accordance with the California Department of Fish and Wildlife regulations. See revisions to Mitigation Measures BIO-1 and BIO-2 for consistency with the Biological Resources Assessment. COMMENT LETTER 17: JOHN AND DELYNNE ROGERS Page 311 of 414 Comment: The commenter expresses concerns regarding wildfire. Response: See Master Response 1. Comment: The commenter states that once City utilities are extended to the Development Parcels, that there is increased potential for further development. Response: See Section 5.14, Population and Housing, regarding a discussion on potential growth inducing impacts. The residential component of the proposed Development Agreement would be located within 54 acres of the total 707 acres proposed for annexation. Development would be restricted to a total of 14 units (seven single family homes and the potential for an ADU to each home) compact and clustered in order to maximize the preservation of open space. This housing cluster will be contiguous and similar to existing urbanized areas within the Western Hills under City jurisdiction. If the property were to remain unincorporated housing units could be developed on each parcel throughout the total area, albeit in a more widely disbursed configuration. These proposed jurisdictional changes would not engender ‘Sprawl’. On the contrary, viewed as a whole, the proposed annexation will reduce potential sprawl and concentrate urban services (water, sewer, electricity, solid waste collection and public and private roads) in the area already developed for single family housing and receiving urban services. The contiguous properties to the northeast are already under City jurisdiction and zoned R1-H. Services would only be extended to the residential sites and would not induce growth throughout the larger Western Hills. COMMNET LETTER 18: PINKY KUSHNER Comment: The commenter raises concerns and questions related to the prezone approach identified in the Project Description. Response: Please refer to Master Response 2 for clarification. Comment: The commenter refers to the following text: “City-owned parcels can be located anywhere in the County as long as they are less than 300 acres, owned by the City, and used for municipal purposes at the time of the annexation application” and states “It is not clear how this project satisfies any of those limitations. In fact, it seems clear that none of the provisions are satisfied. The property that is proposed to be designated PF, will not be for municipal purposes in the ordinary legal meaning of the word “municipal.” Response: As discussed in Master Response 2, the approximately 296 acres of property located outside of the City’s current Sphere of Influence will be preserved as open space and prezoned PF” (Public Facilities), consistent with all of the remaining “Conservation Parcels”, totaling 640 acres, in response to comments submitted by the Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCo). All of this property will be owned and maintained by the City of Ukiah. As noted in the Project Description and Master Response 2, PF specifically identifies public or quasi-public uses, including, but not limited to, natural resource conservation areas and parks and recreation. Comment: The commenter states the following: “The City should demand a codicil to the private road access that will require that a keyed entrance gate be built on the road at the entry to the developed (housing) area and also at the distal end of the developed (housing) area. Furthermore, no third party, other than the owners of the developed housing and the City, can be given rights Page 312 of 414 to trespass those two gates. Without such a codicil, it is obvious that this proposed development will be able to leapfrog further development into the County property that lies further to the west along the roadway. These further lying parcels are designated County lands, and any development/construction will not be subject to City of Ukiah’s reviews and will be without City limitations (as mentioned in the neg dec in the argument for the present annexation). It is egregious that the potential for leapfrogged development is not even mentioned in the ‘neg dec.’” Response: The existing access road is a private road and is currently accessed by a gate with a code. See response to Comment Letter 17 for information that addresses the comment regarding the potential for “sprawl”. Comment: the commenter expresses concerns regarding visual impacts related to the water tank, “new access roads”, and potential single-family homes. Response: As discussed in ISMND Section 5.1, Aesthetics, the Project site(s) consists of mostly undeveloped parcels with firebreaks and private access roads. No new access roads are proposed. The parcels have been subject to vegetation management and grading practices, including clearing areas for potential water tank pad sites and house sites, over the last several years through the County’s permitting process. No trees are proposed for removal as a part of the Project. The Project proposes to acquire and preserve open space for several reasons, including sourcewater preservation, fire mitigation, scenic resources, and biological preservation. Approximately 640 acres would remain open space, while 54 acres would be potentially developed with up to 14 units (one single-family dwelling and one ADU per lot). Although the Project does not include specific development proposals for construction of the homes, the Development Agreement allows the potential for the homes to be built at some point in the future. However, the location of potential homes (within the Development Parcels) are all proposed in the lowest elevation of the Project area, therefore limiting visual impact from the valley floor. In addition, as outlined in the City’s Zoning Ordinance (UCC Section 9018), the City’s Single Family Residential (R1) zoning district contains development standards including a 30-foot height limitation for single-family homes. This scale of potential development would be similar to residential development in the area east of the site. While the easternmost portion of the Project that could be developed with homes, development of these homes would not substantially degrade a scenic vista or the visual character of the area, as it is assumed they would be constructed within the existing house sites and not require a substantial amount of vegetation removal. One of the intentions of the –H District is to preserve outstanding natural physical features, such as the highest crest of a hill, natural rock outcroppings, major tree belts, etc. Allowing the development of homes on the easternmost portion of the site, while preventing residential development on the remaining 640 acres, will ensure orderly development patterns to prevent sprawl and visual degradation within the Western Hills. The assumed low-density development pattern is consistent and contributes to the rural “small town” character of the Ukiah Valley and consistent with proposed City zoning for the sites. It is also consistent with the purposes and intentions of the Ukiah Valley Area Plan. In addition, future residential development of Development Parcels 4-7 would be subject to discretionary and environmental review, and be required to comply with City regulations for height, setbacks, and other development standards established to protect natural Page 313 of 414 features and scenic resources within the Western Hills. Although Development Parcels 1- 3 may be developed within the County’s jurisdiction prior to annexation by-right, they will be required to be developed to R1-H standards through CC&Rs. In addition, all mitigation measures identified for residential development in the ISMND will be applied to Development Parcels 1-3. Therefore, the potential residential development associated with the Project would not conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality. Sewer and electric utilities would be extended from Redwood Avenue to the house sites, but would be located underground within the existing roadway to avoid visual impacts. The two proposed water tanks (34 ft x 34 ft, 10.5 ft high) would be colored a shade of green to blend in with the landscape. The water tank site has already been cleared of vegetation and is surrounded by trees, making it less visible to the public. Due to the location and topography of the site, and distance from public views, such as those in adjacent residential areas or views from the valley floor, the proposed water tank would not significantly impact scenic resources on the site or in the area. For the aforementioned reasons, the Project would not result in a significant impact to scenic vistas, nor the visual character of the site or area. Impacts would be less than significant. Comment: The commenter states that “According to the ISMND the project should evaluate “forest carbon measurement methodology provided in Forest Protocols adopted by the California Air Resources Board.” No data have been provided. CO2 levels continue to increase in the Ukiah Valley. The removal of forests will add to the carbon increases. This effect cannot be said to be less than significant unless carbon measurements are established. In order to ‘neg dec’ the project, current, pre-project baseline data must be measured. The heat effect of forest removal must be evaluated.” Response: The language the commenter refers to is included in the CEQA Guidelines Appendix G checklist for Agriculture and Forestry Resources. It is provided in the checklist as a tool for measuring the conversion of forest land. As noted in Section 5.2, Agriculture and Forestry Resources of the ISMND, according to the California Department of Conservation Farmland Mapping & Monitoring Program, California Important Farmland Finder, the Project area does not contain Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance. Additionally, the Project does not contain timberland. The Project would not convert Farmland, conflict with existing zoning for agriculture or forest land, and would not involve changes to the environment that would result in the conversion of agricultural resources to non-agriculture uses. Therefore, the analysis the commenter refers to is not applicable to the Project. Please refer to ISMND Section 5.3, Air Quality for a discussion of air quality impacts. Comment: The commenter expresses the opinion that the Biological Resource Assessment for the Project is inadequate because not all of the botanical surveys had been completed at the time of the Draft ISMND. In addition, the commenter states that the entire 707 acres associated with the Project should be surveyed. Response: See response to Comment Letter 16. In addition, it should be clarified that surveys and the Biological Resources Assessment was conducted on 55 acres of the Project site and limited to areas that would include ground disturbance; this includes the Page 314 of 414 55 acres encompassing the proposed Development Parcels, in addition to the access road (extended out to 100 ft on either side), and the water tank pad site. No development or ground disturbance would occur on the reaming approximately 640 acres, as it will be preserved as open space. Accordingly, additional biological surveys are not warranted. Comment: The commenter expresses concern regarding wildfire and asks several questions regarding wildfire, insurance, soil moisture, drought, feasibility of the Project, and housing needs. Response: Please refer to Master Response 1 regarding wildfire. Regarding the remaining questions raised by the commenter, ISMND Section 5.20, Wildfire, provides an analysis of wildfire impacts, as required by CEQA. Information relevant to this analysis regarding the City’s Housing Element and Regional Housing Needs Allocation can be found in ISMND Section 5.14, Population and Housing. An analysis of the City’s service and utility capacity (including water) can be found in ISMND Section 5.19, Utilities and Service Systems and also in response to Comment Letter 19. The remaining comments raised by the commenter include questions that are hypothetical in nature and/or do not require analysis in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15204 which states “reviewers should be aware that the adequacy of an EIR is determined in terms of what is reasonably feasible, in light of factors such as the magnitude of the project at issue, the severity of its likely environmental impacts, and the geographic scope of the project. CEQA does not require a lead agency to conduct every test or perform all research, study, and experimentation recommended or demanded by commenters. When responding to comments, lead agencies need only respond to significant environmental issues and do not need to provide all information requested by reviewers, as long as a good faith effort at full disclosure is made in the EIR.” Comment: The commenter is of the opinion that the figures included in the ISMND are inadequate and states that a topographical map was not included. In addition, the commenter states that the photographs in the Biological Resource Assessment do not note the “geographical or topographical whereabouts.” Response: Topographical maps, as well as many other resources listed in the References Section of the ISMND, were reviewed during the preparation of the ISMND. A topographical map is not required to be included in the ISMND. However, one is included in Response to Comments Attachment A for reference. Comment: The commenter states that “an EIR is required to have alternative, including a no project alternative and other alternatives that achieve the same or equal provisions.” Response: The commenter is correct, in that according to CEQA Guidelines Section 15126, in preparation of an EIR, alternatives must be provided. However, the commenter erroneously identifies the ISMND as an EIR; ISMNDs are not required to provide alternatives. Comment: The commenter states that alternative sites for the water tank must be included and raises concerns regarding the water analysis. Response: Although not required, alternative water tank locations were considered in the preliminary planning process of this Project. As noted in ISMND Section 5.10, Hydrology and Water Quality, as well as Section 5.19, Utilities and Service Systems, water will be Page 315 of 414 provided on-site by the developer via two (2) 65,000-gallon water tanks. According to the water tank planning study memorandum, prepared by GHD (December 10, 2020), the existing wells produce approximately 50,000 gallons per day and are located adjacent to the proposed tanks. As a result, the developer proposes to supply the tanks with water from the well rather than constructing new booster pump stations to pump water up to the tanks from the City’s existing wells. As noted in the GHD memorandum, the potential development in this area could be served with adequate pressure by a tank at the proposed location. This information has been added to the Final Draft ISMND. COMMENT LETTER 19: MENDOCINO COUNTY LOCAL FORMATION COMMISSION (LAFCo) Comment: LAFCo states that “in order to fully address the annexation component of the proposed project, the Initial Study needs to further analyze the change in development potential of the annexation area from current conditions. This involves identifying and comparing the maximum development potential under current conditions (County General Plan/Zoning and Ukiah Valley Sanitation District service) and the proposed project development potential (Boundary Line Adjustment, City General Plan/Prezoning, and City services). The proposed project development potential of 7 Single-Family Dwelling Units and 7 Accessory Dwelling Units identified for the Development Parcels appears appropriate based on the Development Agreement, and may result in an overall reduction of environmental impacts or environmental benefits from the clustered development design, when compared with the current conditions. Since there is no development anticipated for the Noguera properties, the development potential of these parcels would be the maximum development potential under both current conditions (County General Plan/Zoning and Ukiah Valley Sanitation District service) and the proposed project (City General Plan/Prezoning and City services). The comparison of current and proposed development potential for the Conservation Parcels may result in an overall reduction of environmental impacts or environmental benefits from long-term conservation and associated natural resource and land management activities.” Response: An analysis of impacts associated with current development potential and development potential under the Proposed Project is provided throughout the ISMND, as appropriate. Specifically, Section 5.14, Population and Housing states the following: “Discussion: (a) Less than significant impact. As previously discussed in the Project Description and Land Use Section (11) of this Initial Study, the Proposed Project would annex approximately 707 acres into the City. Once annexed, 54 acres could be developed with up to 14 residential units (seven single family homes and one associated ADU per lot) through the proposed Development Agreement. Although no development is proposed at this time, for this analysis it is assumed that future development would result in construction and development of residential uses on the site. Under the County’s General Plan and Zoning Ordinance, the entirety of the 707 acres has the potential to be developed with up to one dwelling per 40 acres, for a Page 316 of 414 total of 17 primary dwellings. In addition, an ADU may be constructed as of right on each parcel, resulting in the potential for up to 34 total units to be developed. The City of Ukiah’s General Plan land use designation of Low Density Residential (LDR) allows for a density of six dwelling units per acre. Under these regulations, the 54 acres for residential development could conceivably be developed with up to 330 units. However, the proposed Development Agreement would restrict development to one single family dwelling per parcel and one ADU (except in cases where the slope exceeds 50 percent, per the City’s Hillside Overlay Ordinance), for a total of up to14 units. Although Development Parcels 1-3 may be developed within the County’s jurisdiction prior to annexation by-right, they will be required to be developed to R1-H standards through CC&Rs. All Development Parcels would be prezoned to R1-H (with a Low Density Residential General Plan land use designation) and are located within the 95’ General Plan’s Unincorporated Planning Area, as well as the current UVAP/SOI boundary. The proposed Development Parcels are consistent with the density and intent of the LDR land use designation and R1H zoning. Additionally, the 14 units that could be developed under the Development Agreement would fulfil a portion of the moderate to above moderate income units required by the City’s RHNA for the 2019-2027 Planning Cycle. As a part of the Project, utilities would be extended to the area. However, because the extension of utilities would be limited to the seven Development Parcels that are currently zoned for rural residential development, the Project, including development of up to 14 units, would not directly induce substantial unplanned development and population growth in the area. The remaining 640 acres that would be preserved as open space would not be developed with residential uses that could result in an increase in population. For the aforementioned reasons, the Proposed Project would not induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly or indirectly. Impacts would be less than significant.” Because the “Noguera Properties” would be used for (existing) access only and are not included in the Development Agreement, as no development is proposed. Therefore, the parcels were not included in the development assumptions, and a detailed “maximum buildout” scenario is not appropriate. As noted in LAFCo’s previous comment, all parcels must be included in the prezoning application. These parcels lay in between existing R1- H parcels immediately to the east within city limits, and the proposed Development Parcels immediately to the west that are proposed to also be prezoned R1-H. Therefore, prezoning these parcels any other zoning district would create “spot zoning” and would not be consistent with existing land use patterns. The City agrees that preservation of the “Conservation Parcels” (640 acres total) as open space greatly reduces environmental impacts when compared to the existing development potential within the County’s jurisdiction. In addition, by limiting development within the proposed Development Parcels beyond what is currently allowed within the County’s zoning code through the City’s R1-H zoning district, the Project would result in an overall reduction of environmental impacts when compared to current conditions. Comment: LAFCo states that parcels outside of the SOI must be included in the prezoning in Govt. Code 56375(a)(7). Page 317 of 414 Response: After further review of Government Code Section 56375(a)(7), City of Ukiah proposes to prezone the entirety of the “Conservation Parcels” (approximately 640 acres) of as “public Facilities” for open space purposes. See Master Response 2 for more information. The Final Draft Initial Study has be updated with this information. Because the proposed use associated with these parcels remains the same, no additional environmental impact that was not previously addressed in the Initial Study would occur. Comment: LAFCo states the following: “In order to fully address the annexation component of the proposed project, the Initial Study needs to further analyze the provision of municipal services. This involves a comparison of current system capacity, anticipated service demand of the proposed project based on development potential, and the City’s ability to serve the proposed project based on available capacity and project demand. While not necessarily applicable to the proposed project, in situations where service expansions or improvements are needed to address the proposed project, the potential environmental impacts of such expansion and/or improvements should also be analyzed.” Response: An analysis of utility service systems is included in ISMND Section 5.19, Utilities and Service Systems. A detailed Plan for Services will be included in the application for annexation. However, the following information has been added to the Final Draft ISMND for clarification. Sewer, water and electric utilities would be provided to the Development Parcels. Sewer and water will be developed by the property owner, while electric infrastructure will be developed by the property owner and/or the City. All utilities would be owned and maintained by the HOA, with the exception of electric, which will be ultimately maintained by the City. Water will be provided by the property owner/developer on-site via two (2) 65,000 gallon water tanks. According to the water tank planning study memorandum, prepared by GHD (December 10, 2020), the existing wells produce approximately 50,000 gallons per day and are located adjacent to the proposed tank. As a result, the developer proposes to supply the tanks with water from the wells rather than constructing new booster pump stations to pump water up to the tanks from the City’s existing wells. As noted in the GHD memorandum, the potential development in this area could be served with adequate pressure by a tank at the proposed location. The City of Ukiah 2020 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) was adopted by City Council on June 2, 2021. The UWMP considers several growth scenarios including additional 2500 and 5000 hookups and there is capacity thru the 2045 planning horizon. The City’s Waste Water Treatment Plant (WWTP) was upgraded in 2008. This upgrade included the addition of 2,400 equivalent sanitary sewer units (ESSUs). An ESSU is approximately what is used by a single family dwelling unit. This project has seven building sites that could have seven additional Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs). This project is anticipated to use 14 ESSUs. The WWTP currently has available, between the City of Ukiah and the Ukiah Valley Sanitation District (UVSD), 1,571 ESSUs. Comment: LAFCo states that the Proposed Project should include detachment of the annexation area from the Ukiah Valley Sanitation District, to address jurisdictional overlap and duplication of Page 318 of 414 municipal service issues, and potentially County Service Area 3 if duplication of municipal services is applicable. Response: The City of Ukiah will submit an application for detachment of the Ukiah Valley Sanitation District concurrently with the application for annexation. COMMENT LETTER 20: HELEN SIZEMORE Comment: The commenter expresses concerns regarding the small gated community and would recommend multifamily structures. Response: This comment is noted and is included in the public record for Planning Commission and City Council consideration. Page 319 of 414 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ATTACHMENT A Page 320 of 414 Providing shared management of fire protection services for the City of Ukiah and Ukiah Valley Fire District UKIAH VALLEY FIRE AUTHORITY 1500 SOUTH STATE STREET UKIAH, CA 95482-6709 Phone: (707)462-7921 ♦ Fax: (707)462-2938 ♦ Email: uvfd@sonic.net MEMORANDUM Date: 27 May 2021 To: Michelle Irace, Community Development Manager From: Doug Hutchison, Fire Chief Subject: Western Hills Annexation, aka “the Hull Properties” This memo is in regards to fire safety concerns that have been raised regarding the potential annexation of the Hull Properties in the Western Hills are of Ukiah. The largest issue for the Fire Authority will be the administration and oversight of the project area for fire prevention once it is annexed. Per State law, once the area is annexed into the city it will be re-designated from “State Responsibility Area” (SRA) to “Local Responsibility Area” (LRA), but will retain its classification as a Very High Fire Hazard Zone. As such, the city, through the Fire Authority, will be required to enforce the State’s fire safety standards on those lands. It is our understanding that the proposal includes the possibility of very limited future development of seven (7) parcels in the lower, mid-slope portion of the property. I performed a site visit with the property owner and went over the proposed development plans and believe that with the widening and paving of the road, and the installation of the water tank and fire hydrants we will be able to comply with the State’s fire safety regulations in that area. This is not to say that the area does not present challenges, but they are no different than many other areas that we currently protect, and in many cases the conditions currently present and proposed would be better than those other areas. In regards to the recently re-established shaded fuel break in the area, the addition of the small amount of structures would have minimal if any impact on its effectiveness. The Page 321 of 414 Providing shared management of fire protection services for the City of Ukiah and Ukiah Valley Fire District defensible spaces created by the home sites could even enhance its effectiveness in that limited area. Please do not hesitate to reach out if you need more information or have other questions or concerns. Page 322 of 414 Page 323 of 414 Page 324 of 414 May 31, 2021 Catherine Iantosca Environmental Scientist Southern 401 Water Quality Certification Unit North Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board 5550 Skylane Blvd, Ste. A Santa Rosa, CA 95403 RE: Response to 5/20/21 Regional Water Board Comments: City of Ukiah Western Hills Open Land Acquisition & Limited Development Agreement Dear Catherine, Thank you for commenting on the Biological Resource Report for the City of Ukiah Western Hills Open Land Acquisition & Limited Development Agreement. With regards streams and riparian habitat Section 5.1.2, (5) Field Survey Results, (.1) Biological Communities (.2) Sensitive Biological Communities – Sensitive Aquatic Resources (page 16) states that six watercourses were observed and mapped in the Study Area. It additionally states that two sensitive biological communities, Quercus garryana Forest & Woodland Alliance (S3) and Umbellularia californica Forest & Woodland Alliance (S3) were observed within the Study Area. Please refer to section 6.1, (6) Assessment Summary and Recommendations, (.1) Biological Communities (page 27-28), for recommended mitigations to reduce the impact of the project to streams and sensitive biological communities including riparian habitat. For proposed work within watercourses, such as stream crossings, our recommendations include obtaining a CDFW LSA Agreement but should include obtaining a SWRCB 401 permit as well. With regards to wetlands, Section 3.4.2, (3) Field Survey Methodology, (.4) Biological Communities, (.2) Sensitive Communities-Aquatic Resources (page 8), is not a result or account of what we observed on site and is meant to describe our methodology in defining and describing wetlands for the purposes of the assessment. Generally, if a suspected wetland is observed during our biological assessment, it is referred to as a “wet area” until a wetland delineation is performed to determine whether the “wet area’ meets the criteria of wetlands as described by the USACE 1987 Manual. The NWI database is consulted at a reconnaissance level before our site visit and is not intended to substitute on-the-ground field assessments for wetlands. Please refer to section 5.1.2, (5) Field Survey Results, (.1) Biological Communities, (.2) Sensitive Biological Communities-Sensitive Aquatic Resources (page 16), for the results of the assessment concerning sensitive aquatic resources including wetlands. No wetlands were observed within the Study Area during the biological assessment. We will make these results clearer for future reporting. Page 325 of 414 If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, Alicia Ives Ringstad Senior Wildlife Biologist Jacobszoon & Associates, Inc. Page 326 of 414 August 8, 2021 RE: Response to 5/20/21 Public Comments: City of Ukiah Western Hills Open Land Acquisition & Limited Development Agreement To whom it may concern, Thank you for commenting on the Biological Resource Report for the City of Ukiah Western Hills Open Land Acquisition & Limited Development Agreement. With regards to the following comments: “I encourage the City to complete the botanical studies as planned. The study states that at least one more site visit was recommended. I recommend that this be completed before CEQA is finalized. That may mean waiting another year as many plants bloomed early this year and have already withered.” As noted in the Draft ISMND, botanical surveys were completed on 03/30/2021 and 5/17/2021. As noted in Draft ISMND Mitigation Measure BIO‐1, the third botanical survey was required to be completed within the blooming period (March –July) and prior to any ground disturbing activities. The third and final botanical survey was completed and 7/9/2021. The surveys were conducted in accordance with “Protocols for Surveying and Evaluating Impacts to Special Status Native Plant Populations and Natural Communities” (CDFW 2018). No special status species plants were observed during the surveys. The botanical surveys are now completed for the project and no further recommendations for sensitive plants are required. Please refer to the Biological Resources Assessment Addendum for Rare Plant Assessment and Botanical Survey for more information. “There are year‐round springs adjacent to the road and I have heard that there are others in the area. We have found giant pacific salamanders on our property that must be residents of the springs. I don’t think the salamanders are a protected species but they are very unusual in the Ukiah Valley. I have found native snails that I think are also unusual, if not protected, and I wonder what other species might be residents of these springs? I hope the biological surveys included the areas around the creek drainage.” The creeks within the Study Area were surveyed during the biological assessment and first botanical survey and no special status species were observed; however, it is recommended in biological assessment report in Section 6 that if any work is proposed within the streams to conduct pre‐ construction surveys for sensitive amphibian species. “The unnamed creek drainage that runs along Redwood Avenue should be treated as a wildlife corridor and a seasonal creek. The springs along the creek are an important water source for wildlife. I have this drainage affected by sediment flows from improper grading, poor culvert placement, bright lights, tree removal in the creek corridor, and recently, fencing of the creek, prohibiting wildlife passage. I am concerned that these trends will continue if there is not educated oversight. Some of this has been on county land and some within the city limits.” Page 327 of 414 It is recommended in the Biological Assessment report in Section 6 that all earthwork within or adjacent to the watercourse adhere to standard methods of erosion and sediment control and, if possible, to complete all work while the channel is dry to reduce sediment load downstream. It is also recommended that a qualified biologist be on site for any dewatering event to address the potential for the presence of sensitive aquatic species such as foothill yellow‐legged frog (Rana boylii). If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, Alicia Ives Ringstad Senior Wildlife Biologist Jacobszoon & Associates, Inc. Page 328 of 414 Comments Received on the Ukiah Western Hills Open Land Acquisition & Limited Development Agreement Project Draft ISMND Public Review Period April 16, 2021- May 20, 2021 Comment Letter # Commenter Date Received 1 Margo Frank May 3, 2021 2 Crispin B. Hollinshead May 6, 2021 3 Ulla Brunnberg Rand May 12, 2021 4 Allie Duggan May 13, 2021 5 Western Hills Fire Safe Council May 14, 2021 6 Chris Watt May 18, 2021 7 Jeanne Wetzel Chinn May 19, 2021 8 Andrea Vachon May 19, 2021 9 Michael Maynard May 19, 2021 10 Sharron Thomas (sent via email from Emily Thomas) May 19, 2021 11 Andrea Davis May 20, 2021 12 Margo Frank May 20, 2021 13 Heather Seggel May 20, 2021 14 Thomas Hunt (via email from Chris Watt) May 20, 2021 15 Steve and Jean Lincoln May 20, 2021 16 North Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board May 20, 2021 17 John and Delynne Rogers May 20, 2021 18 Pinky Kushner May 20, 2021 19 Mendocino County Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCo) May 20, 2021 20 Helen Sizemore May 20, 2021 ATTACHMENT 6 Page 329 of 414 From:Margo Frank To:Michelle Irace Subject:Commenting on draft for Western hills open land Date:Monday, May 3, 2021 7:17:20 PM [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Hi Michelle, I read the lengthy and detailed draft of the initial study for the Western Hills development. We moved to Gardens Ave last fall after living at the top of Deerwood in the Eastern hills of the Ukiah Valley. While living there we were very aware of the danger of living in a high fire zone and having only one road for egress. It seems to me that this proposed Western Hills development would create a similarly dangerous situation. Many people I know who now live on the far western edge of Ukiah, up against the hills, are very concerned about fire risk. I don’t understand how development on those hills makes any sense! Thank you, Margo Frank 180 Gardens Ave. Ukiah Comment Letter 1 Page 330 of 414 From:Crispin B. Hollinshead To:Michelle Irace Subject:comments of proposed Western Hills annexation Date:Thursday, May 6, 2021 12:23:36 PM [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Members of the Planning Commission, My name is Crispin B. Hollinshead. I am a neighborhood representative on the Western Hills FireSafe Council, and the proposed Western Hills annexation was a topic of discussion at our recent meeting. California is now headed into another drought, and the fire seasons over the last few years keep exceeding previous records. The proposed annexation includes 7 parcels for residential development, allowing up to 14 new homes. Emerging fire safe understanding suggests this kind of Wildland Urban Interface development is bad public policy, very risky for the potential home owners, and expensive for the community trying to protect that property. Historic fires in the area burned down to the valley floor as far a Todd Grove Park in the 1950’s. There is no reason to believe that the projected development wouldn’t be completely destroyed by such fires happening in the future. The projected development is to the west of the recently completed Shaded Fuel Break, putting it in the expected sacrifice zone. The single road access will be a problem in a fire emergency, and will likely violate emerging CalFire regulations. I urge you to take a serious look at the fire hazard being created, and revise the plans. Sincerely, Crispin B. Hollinshead 960m Dominican Way Ukiah, CA 95482 Gratitude, Love, and Global Awakening May All Beings Awaken From The Illusion Of Separation May You Awaken With This Breath Comment Letter 2 Page 331 of 414 From:Ulla Brunnberg Rand To:Michelle Irace Subject:Comments of proposed Western Hills annexation Date:Wednesday, May 12, 2021 2:08:58 PM [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Members of the Planning Commission, My name is Ulla Brunnberg Rand. I am a neighborhood representative on the Western Hills Fire Safe Council, and the proposed Western Hills annexation was a topic of discussion at our recent meeting. California is now headed into another drought, and the fire seasons over the last few years keep exceeding previous records. The proposed annexation includes 7 parcels for residential development, allowing up to 14 new homes. Emerging fire safe understanding suggests this kind of Wildland Urban Interface development is bad public policy, very risky for the potential homeowners, and expensive for the community trying to protect that property. Historic fires in the area, one of them started by boys playing with matches, burned down to the valley floor as far as Todd Grove Park in the 1950’s. There is no reason to believe that the projected development would not be completely destroyed by such fires happening in the future. The projected development is to the west of the recently completed Shaded Fuel Break, putting it in the expected sacrifice zone. The single road access will be a problem in a fire emergency. It will likely violate emerging CalFire regulations. I urge you to take a serious look at the fire hazard being created. Please revise the plans to only allow one dwelling per parcel and possibly less parcels. In addition, please consider, allowing this Western Hill Development can become a precedent for future developments in the WUI area. I do not want to see any more developments in the hills. I am concerned that having more people living in high fire prone zones creates more possibilities for accidental fires and could potentially endanger the entire Ukiah Valley. Sincerely, Ulla Brunnberg Rand 109 Giorno Ave. Ukiah, CA 95482 Comment Letter 3 Page 332 of 414 1 Michelle Irace From:Allie Duggan <allie@studio4forty.com> Sent:Thursday, May 13, 2021 9:52 AM To:Michelle Irace Subject:Ukiah Western Hills Open Land Acquisition [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. I am writing to express my strong opposition to the development of homes on the Ukiah Western Hills Open Land Acquisition. This development would be detrimental to the area, nearly all residents in on Redwood Avenue are completely opposed to the development of homes that will cause traffic on a road not equipped for any more than it already sees, safety problems, and destroy local wildlife habitat. Additionally, I was under the impression that this land was originally donated for fire mitigation and recreation, not development. Traffic and safety of children on the street are major areas of concern. We don’t need any more cars and trucks going up and down this tiny street and we did not sign up for months of construction equipment going up and down the street on a daily basis. Most of the time with cars parked on the street it is a one lane road and not equipped to handle the high traffic this will cause. Wildlife has been observed in the area, and any development will destroy their habitat. Any planned development of the property should consider the continuing impact to local wildlife habitat which should be investigated by the appropriate agency prior to approving development. Among the impacts stated on the notice we got, wildfire is my, and should be the cities main concern. We do not need any more catalysts that could potentially cause a wildfire in this are, especially a high risk zone like the proposed land. This land was originally acquired for fire mitigation so this is completely going against what the land was originally donated for. Quoted from a news article from January 15, 2021 "the local government hopes to use the land to create and maintain fuel breaks to protect the city from fire, for conservation, and for recreation.” Link Absolutely no mention of development, so it is extremely discouraging to know that has been added to the plan now. I was disappointed that this project started on April 16, 2021 and the homeowners on Redwood Avenue, who would be majorly impacted, were given printed notice of it on May 13, 2021, nearly a month after this process has started. That is completely inconsiderate to all of us on this street who will have to deal with the issues that development will cause. I urge you to disapprove the proposed development, and from recent meetings and discussions with my neighbors, I know my opinions are shared by many who have not managed to write letters and emails. Thank you for your continued service and support of our communities. Best regards, ALLIE DUGGAN | CREATIVE DIRECTOR 916.539.9395 | allie@studio4forty.com | studio4forty.com Comment Letter 4 Page 333 of 414 2 Page 334 of 414 To the Ukiah Planning Commission and City Council Members: The Western Hills Fire Safe Council (WHFSC) is a FSC project under The Mendocino County Fire Safe Council (MCFSC), a 501.C3 organization. WHFSC has eighteen neighborhood sub-groups in and along the Western Hills that actively work on fire preparedness, prevention, emergency measures, and environmental protections. The ISMND states that Mr. Hull generously donated 188.57 acres (ISMND, Figure 2, parcel 10) to the City in December 2020. On December 11, 2020, there was an article in the Ukiah Daily Journal by Justine Frederiksen praising the gift from Mr. Hull. There was no mention of the annexation and acquisition of 693 acres (ISMND, p.2) or 740 acres (ISMND, p.4, para 2) or 640 acres (ISMND, p.4, para 6) (“Hull Properties”) when she interviewed City Manager Sangiacomo. On April 16, 2021, Notice of Intent was sent to a few Redwood Avenue and San Jacinta Drive property owners, and the scope of the project goes well beyond a land donation. The improvements Mr. Hull has made to his property go back at least to 2015 (ISMND, page 3, #3-Background – road improvements were made throughout 2015-2017 and the road extended further west in 2018). Changes included widening, improving, and extending the westward access road, vegetation management on proposed construction sites, and preparation of the water tank site. These improvements were followed by the December 2020, 188.57 acre land donation, followed by the current proposed annexation and acquisition agreement. The majority of the property is zoned PF, public facilities. It possible to change this zoning designation in the future to R1-H zoning (single family residential), should there be interest in further development. Clearly, the property was being prepared years ahead for development, as documented in the ISMND. Is it possible to change the zoning on the inside conservation PF zoned parcels (ISMND map p.13) to a Conservation Easement in perpetuity along with the outside conservation parcels for a Ukiah Wildlife Sanctuary? Regarding the proposed water tank, in the ISMND, page 8, it is stated, “…the City desires to add new water storage and fire protection facilities in the Western Hills.” What are the plans for the new water storage tank besides fire protection measures? Who will be responsible for maintaining the 150,000 gallon tank, pump, and well that supports the water tank? Is the water in this tank dedicated for fire department use or also for use of potential domestic purposes for the buildout? Will there be hydrants on the city water main extending up from Redwood Avenue? Neil Davis’ responses to WHFSC questions to Mr. Sangiacomo regarding the Hull Properties Limited Development Agreement included a question on water resources. Mr. Davis stated, “…this project provides sourcewater protection and will benefit the entire Ukiah Valley by protecting the sourcewater and ensuring that it reaches its maximum potential.” How does Mr. Davis define “sourcewater protection?” Historical wildland fires in the Western Hills includes the substantial 1945 Hayworth Fire that took out all the vegetation. The Fire Department came to the edge of development and set backfires that halted the fires. The Strong Mountain Fire occurred in 1950, and another scare Comment Letter 5 Page 335 of 414 about a decade ago was from 150 lightening fires to the west that didn’t result in fire in the Western Hills. The proposed buildout area is in the CalFIRE designated Highest Fire Severity Zone, as well as in a Wildland-Urban-Interface (WUI) area. It would be prudent to keep this landscape free of human habitation for the safety of citizens and to not further overburden our fire resources. “One of the first and most important considerations is how the location itself influences exposure to wildfire and potential for future losses of life and property.” (Moritz, Max, Butsic, Van, Building to Coexist with Fire: Community Risk Reduction Measures for New Development in California. UC ANR Publication 8680, April 2020, page 8) The potential development parcels buildout of 14 units (ISMND, p.7, para 3) are west of the fire break thus defeating the purpose of the Shaded Fuel Break for wildfire protection measures. Can the residential development of the 54 easternmost acres be taken out of the Development Agreement, or are they inextricably linked to acquiring the conservation lands? Will the lower elevation properties also west of the shaded fuel break that remain in Mr. Hull’s possession be considered for future buildout? Thank you for your attention to these matters. We look forward to your responses. The Western Hills Fire Safe Council Chair, Jeanne Wetzel Chinn, M.S. 395 San Jacinta Drive, Ukiah JeanneChinn@gmail.com Page 336 of 414 From:Christopher Watt To:Michelle Irace Subject:Ukiah Western Hills Open Land Acquisition and Limited Development Agreement Date:Tuesday, May 18, 2021 11:25:40 AM [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Hi Michelle - here are my comments/questions on the IS/MND. Please include in the record and provide responses. 1. Does the annexation require a tax-sharing agreement with the County of Mendocino? If so, what actions have been taken by the City to secure an access agreement? 2.Have the parcels proposed for development to be pre-zoned as Residential with Hillside Overlay been sized consistently with the Hillside Development Standards? If not, the parcels should be sized in accordance with the Hillside Development Standards and Subject to the Use Permitting Process and the Hillside Development Standards. 3.In 1991, the California Geological Survey prepared a report titled Landslide and Engineering Geology of the Western Ukiah Area, Central Mendocino County, California, Landslide Hazard Identification Map No. 24. Was this map consulted to determine the potential presence of landslide hazards with the parcels proposed for development and the access roads to the development? This report should be consulted and included as a reference in the IS/MND. 4. The California Building Code requires a Preliminary Soils Report for any subdivision of land. This project seeks to create parcels for development by lot line adjustment thus avoiding the requirements for subdivisions; however, given the known landslide hazards within the Western Hills as documented in the 1991 CGS Report, it seems imprudent to not perform a preliminary soils report to determine if the parcels proposed for development have soils or landslide hazards which would preclude development or at a minimum severely limit the development potential. 5. The Geology and Soils section of the IS/MND should also reference the requirement in the California Building Code to submit a Geotechnical Report for each lot. 6. The Wildfire section of the IS/MND indicates that fuel breaks are developed in the project area. However, fuel breaks requirement ongoing maintenance. The IS/MND does not describe how the fuel breaks will be maintained. Also does, the Ukiah Valley Fire District have capacity to defend the proposed development areas against wildfire given the Extremely High Fire Risk for the lands adjacent to the proposed development area? Why not subject these parcels to Wildland Urban Interface requirements? Perhaps include a benefit zone to pay for vegetation management and fire protection which is quite different from the urban parcels of the City. Sincerely, Chris Watt Comment Letter 6 Page 337 of 414 690 Mendocino Drive, Ukiah Page 338 of 414 From:Jeanne Chinn To:Michelle Irace Subject:Comments on proposed Western Hills Annexation Date:Wednesday, May 19, 2021 1:36:38 PM [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. To Ukiah's Planning Commission: I applaud David Hull for donating 188 acres of wildlands to the City of Ukiah. I don’t take issue with transferring several of his individual parcels to be annexed to the City of Ukiah. However, there are concerns regarding how the additional acreage is planning to be utilized: 296ac for Conservation Lands on the most western area, 343ac for Recreational (zoned PF-Public Facilities) Lands in an odd shaped “C” pattern, and 54ac as Development Parcels (zoned R1-H) on the northeastern corner, as shown and stated in the ISMND map legend on p.13. Who owns the 5 parcels between the “C” Recreational Lands, and what are the plans for these parcels? The role of land use planning in communities with very high and high fire severity zones is to create wildfire resilience for protection of the community. CalFIRE has already supported this in calling out Ukiah’s Western Hills as one of their 35 top projects in 2017. That alone tells us these Western Hills are fragile and at risk. CalFIRE’s follow-through was exemplary in dozering the ridge tops and working with the County/City to re-establish and extend the Shaded Fuel Break from Low Gap Road to Robinson Creek Road. The Western Hills is in a Wildland-Urban-Interface (WUI) area. Given the recent uptick in wildfires and drought years, to be further exacerbated by climate change into the future, it is counter-intuitive to plan a buildout of [up to 14] any more homes in the WUI/highest fire severity zone. Further, this buildout would be west of the Shaded Fuel Break, creating additional risk and expense to fire fighting resources and potentially life-threatening to the residents. These homes would be exclusive and a gated community. I’m not opposed to gated communities, and the City is also working on additional low and moderate income housing. However, in this case it is the Ukiah community whose tax dollars would pay for undergrounding plumbing and utility lines up to this area for the benefit of a few in a higher income category. And, who would pay for the maintenance of the 150,000 gal. water storage and fire facilities tank, pump, and well? It would be more appropriate to plan this gated community in a non-WUI area with a lower fire hazard zone rating where wild lands are not being developed. In 2005, the Mendocino County Fire Safe Council (MCFSC) co-sponsored a report, the Mendocino County Wildfire Protection Plan. On page 86 in reference to the western hills of Ukiah, the report states the following: “These hills have experienced large-scale fires since the turn of the century, with major fires occurring in 1950 and 1959. The City of Ukiah’s encroachment into these hills since then has created the significant probability of a very destructive wildland interface fire.” (https://firesafemendocino.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/CWPP-FINAL.pdf) Comment Letter 7 Page 339 of 414 At the most recent Paths, Open Space, and Creeks Commission (POSC) meeting, we were told there will be no infrastructure on the recreation lands, including no public bathroom facilities or parking areas for potential hikers & bikers. Who would be responsible for patrolling those areas to pick up cigarette butts and other trash, and keep transients from establishing camps? As a Commissioner for POSC, I support protection of open space for wildlife. There is documented wildlife in the Western Hills that City Manager Sangiacomo mentioned at a POSC meeting over a year ago from footage taken on wildlife cameras. These wildlife include a mountain lion and her cub, bobcat, bear, fox, occasional coyote, many deer, and smaller mammals. In addition, Doolan Creek is a Class I watercourse that has steelhead trout and frogs, and there are Class II and Class III watercourses that likely have other aquatic species. These different wildlife species have overlapping territories and need landscape level space for their survival. I would like to see the Conservation and Recreational Lands be annexed together and retained as “Ukiah’s Wildlife Sanctuary” and conserved in perpetuity. That would be a feather in the cap for Ukiah and our wildlife! Rather than further fragmenting the lands with hiking trails and e-bike paths, the accompanying noise, and recreation lands that can in the future be rezoned for housing, let’s protect this area for nesting, denning, fawning, and a place for wildlife. Sincerely, Jeanne Wetzel Chinn, M.S. Commissioner, POSC Page 340 of 414 May 19, 2021 TO: Michelle Irace, Planning Manager, City of Ukiah Community Development Department and Ukiah City Council Members RE: UKIAH WESTERN HILLS OPEN LAND ACQUISITION AND LIMITED DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT PROJECT Here are comments and questions regarding the Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration (ISMND). Trafﬁc on Redwood Avenue This is a quiet cul-de-sac of approx. 20 properties. • Additional trafﬁc from fourteen (14) more residences would signiﬁcantly negatively affect the quality of life of existing residents. • Additional volume of trafﬁc due to a 300+ acre Public Facility (park) accessible to the public according to Division 1, Chapter 12 of Ukiah City Code (see ISMND p. 42) would severely impact existing residents' quality of life. https://www.codepublishing.com/CA/ Ukiah/#!/Ukiah01/Ukiah0112.html • In what circumstances are secondary access roads required by the Fire Code? Is a secondary access road available or planned for the proposed housing development? Parking If a Public Facility is established on the 343-acre Inside Conservation Parcels, where are its users expected to park their motor vehicles? Utilities Numerous statements in the ISMND suggest uncertainty that housing will be developed on the 54 acres (examples below). In view of this uncertainty, why is the City proposing to pay for extension of utilities to the site? And should this not be the future developer's responsibility? "The Project does not propose any residential development at this time..." (p7) "...sites would not be developed until an applicant submits a project site plan..." (p7) "However, no purchasers have been identified, and the timing of the sale and development of the properties is unknown." (p7) "It is unknown whether all of the single family homes, and ADUs in particular, would be developed..." (p12) Protected Open Space If the City is going to preserve the Outside Parcels via a Council resolution (ISMND pp 5, 42-43), why not include the Inside Parcels also? This would effectively create valuable local wildlife habitat, and perhaps allow limited public access seasonally or by permit. (As an avid hiker and mountain bicyclist, I welcome new opportunities for recreation, but do not think this project is an appropriate location for a large public park.) Wildﬁre Risk Section V 11 of the ISMND (particularly p 43) discusses how the 14 housing units would constitute a portion of the City's Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA). It is my understanding that the development site lies to the west (i.e., the "wrong side") of the shaded fuel break, as well as being in a zone of highest ﬁre risk. How can this be considered a wise location for new housing? Thank you for your attention. Sincerely, Andrea Vachon 537 Redwood Ave. Ukiah, CA 95482 avachon1@mindspring.com Comment Letter 8 Page 341 of 414 Ukiah City Planning Commission 300 Seminary Drive Ukiah CA 95482 5/18/2021 Subject: Ukiah Western Hills Open Land Acquisition and Limited Development Agreement Honorable Members, From November 2010 to December 2020, I was the CAL FIRE Battalion Chief for the Ukiah Valley area. During this period, I was responsible for the fuel reduction efforts in State Responsibility Area of the Ukiah Valley and surrounding areas. I write to support the Ukiah Western Hills Open Land Acquisition and Limited Development Agreement and hope to provide some history and context to the fuel reduction efforts in the western hills of Ukiah and how it relates to this project. Beginning in 2012 I began working with representatives from the City of Ukiah and private owners to discuss, plan and reduce the fire hazard and improve public safety in the Ukiah Valley. The westside was chosen for several reasons. There was no recent fire history, and little had been done to address the fuel loading. Access was limited with more residents in the wildland-urban-interface at risk. The western hills were nearly inaccessible to firefighting resources. In the subsequent eight years we planned, funded and completed multiple projects that were too big for any one individual to complete on their own and met the standard of ‘good for the community’. Through these projects multiple access routes have been developed for firefighting vehicles to use during a fire, landing zones constructed for helicopters to land, 435 acres of prescribed burn were completed, twelve miles of fire breaks constructed in 2015 and again in 2018. Nine miles of shaded fuel breaks were cut from Low Gap to Highway 253 continuing the work completed in 2002 and 2004. These accomplishments were the result of three levels of government; City, County and State, dropping boundaries and jurisdictions, working in concert on a singular goal to reduce the risk of a catastrophic fire that have become all too frequent in the State. The fourth critical component that made it all possible was the property owners that allowed the work to be completed for the good of the community. The common denominator was the conclusion that vegetation fires were now a Ukiah community problem, not an individual problem, that put the entire community at risk. Among the nearly one hundred properties that participated, one of the most critical properties is the “Hull Properties”. From a firefighter perspective, they are kind of a key in middle that holds the three elements of the prevention work together- fire breaks, fuel breaks and prescribed burning. The Hull Properties provide access to the top of the western hill of Ukiah for fire resources that did not exist prior to 2018. This property is one of the few bisecting fire breaks, natural or man-made, on the western side of Ukiah. The roads and fire breaks are the foundation for future prescribed burns that reduce the fuel loading on the hills that have not burned since the late sixties. Comment Letter 9 Page 342 of 414 All the work done since 2002 needs to be maintained and the work continue. I believe that the best way to maintain the roads, continue fuel reduction projects and reduce the risk of a catastrophic fire in Ukiah Valley, to have the City of Ukiah acquire the Hull Properties. The consolidation of the parcels under City guidance will allow for a single entity to manage the fuel reduction work, manage the watershed and reduce risk to the community. It is my opinion that the proposed mid-slope development of the parcels would not add any additional risk to the community and may even reduce risk. There are many narrow, steep streets on the west side of Ukiah that present far greater risk due to development without wildland fires in mind. This development would benefit from the knowledge and experience in the current fire environment. Developed parcels are more likely to be maintained versus being converted to open space and dependent on the CAL FIRE funding and time to maintain. A homeowner would have a vested interest to maintain the property to a defensible space standard. Any improved road surfaces in the development would provide a permanent fire break and development of a water system could be critical to fire extinguishment on the west side of Ukiah. This development could be a model for the future that combines modern pre-fire planning with rural development at the landscape level expanding the current shaded fuel break. There will be challenges and new responsibilities with annexation and I would hope the City would adopt road and clearance standards like PRC 4290 and 4291 for any development off the valley floor. The City would become the stewards for a large portion of the western hills and would be challenged to manage it appropriately. Based on my interaction with the City of Ukiah over the years and the community attention and concern, I believe the City is up to the task and I appreciate a new, local approach. We must think outside the box find new ways to engage at all levels to change the trend of the fires. It is critical that the work to reduce the risk of a catastrophic fire continue to be a top community priority and worked on at the community level, not at the individual parcel or owner level. It is not realistic to expect individual owners to maintain what has been done. The City acquiring the Hull Properties will keep the western hills fuel reduction a viable community level project and will provide the best chance of continued success. Thank you for your time and please do not hesitate if you have any question. Michael Maynard Page 343 of 414 Page 344 of 414 From:EMILY THOMAS To:Kristine Lawler; Michelle Irace Subject:Proposed Western Hills Annexation and Development Date:Wednesday, May 19, 2021 1:46:24 PM [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Subject: comments of proposed Western Hills annexation Date: May 19, 2021 TO: Members of the Planning Commission & City Council Members My name is Sharron Thomas. I am a neighborhood representative on the Western Hills FireSafe Council, and the proposed Western Hills annexation was a topic of discussion at our recent meeting. California is now headed into another drought, and the fire seasons over the last few years keep exceeding previous records. The proposed annexation includes 7 parcels for residential development, allowing up to 14 new homes. Emerging fire safe understanding suggests this kind of Wildland Urban Interface development is bad public policy, very risky for the potential home owners, and expensive for the community trying to protect that property. Historic fires in the area burned down to the valley floor as far as Todd Grove Park in the 1950’s. There is no reason to believe that the projected development wouldn’t be completely destroyed by such fires happening in the future. The projected development is to the west of the recently completed Shaded Fuel Break, putting it in the expected sacrifice zone. The single road access will be a problem in a fire emergency, and will likely violate emerging CalFire regulations. Turnouts are unlikely to mitigate congestion for fleeing residents in such an emergency. I urge you to take a serious look at the fire hazard being created, and revise the plans. Sincerely, Comment Letter 10 Page 345 of 414 Sharron Thomas Page 346 of 414 May 20, 2021 Dear Ms. Irace and members of the City of Ukiah Planning and Building Department, I am writing to express my concerns and questions regarding the Ukiah Western Hills Open Land Acquisition and Limited Development Agreement Project. I have been a resident of Redwood Avenue for 11 years. During the last 4 years, I have seen many changes to our neighborhood. The road that extends from the end of Redwood Avenue (first graded in 1960 per the draft study) should never have been constructed. It is overly steep, approaching slopes of 30% for much of its length. I realize that much of what has occurred up to this point in time was under Mendocino County’s jurisdiction and we are now stuck with their poor planning. When I first saw this road, it was overgrown with vegetation, much of it native grasses, shrubs and forbs. The road bed was stable due to the vegetation that prevented erosion. When the new property owners started grading the road, there was significant erosion, sometimes resulting in mud running down Redwood Avenue and often resulting in significant mud on the road tracked by vehicle tires. The topography in this area prevents road widening or contouring to decrease the steepness of the road bed. It also prevents best practices in disconnecting the hydrology from road to creeks. Redwood Avenue is in a small canyon that traps dust and smoke. There have been several times that I’ve looked outside, or have been returning home, and thought that the canyon was on fire only to realize that dust was thick in the air from travel on the dirt road. Burning in the lower canyon likewise results in smoke trapped between the ridges and there have been winter days when I’m sure our air quality and the ash floating in the air was as bad as some of our worst summer wildfire days. Any plans should acknowledge this aspect of the topography. What will be the regulations for burning on the lower elevations of annexed properties? What will be done to enforce speed limits to decrease dust? The study indicates that with development, the first ½ mile of the road would be paved, but I’m not sure how much activity will continue on the road before that would happen. Steep topography increases the noise from vehicles traveling up the road. Noise is likely amplified by the encompassing ridges, but I think it is mostly the result of the low gearing needed to go up the steep hill. Trucks are often loud enough to wake us up at night. I am not sure how this can be mitigated. Traffic on narrow, short Redwood Avenue is already surprisingly heavy. I am disappointed to see plans that will cause an increase. When I first moved here, children commonly played on the street and it felt safe for them to do so. The CEQA study indicates that the increased costs of providing fire and police coverage will be covered by development fees. I wonder about the logistics of the coverage when this will essentially be a locked gate community located on a very steep, very narrow road? I don’t think we have a precedent for this in Ukiah? Included in the Energy and Green House Gas Emission discussions in the study should be the consideration that the development will encourage vehicle fuel consumption due to the location of the housing. I disagree with the statement in the study that “The assumed low-density development pattern is consistent and contributes to the rural ‘small town’ character of the Ukiah Valley.” Comment Letter 11 Page 347 of 414 I encourage the City to complete the botanical studies as planned. The study states that at least one more site visit was recommended. I recommend that this be completed before CEQA is finalized. That may mean waiting another year as many plants bloomed early this year and have already withered. There are year-round springs adjacent to the road and I have heard that there are others in the area. We have found giant pacific salamanders on our property that must be residents of the springs. I don’t think the salamanders are a protected species but they are very unusual in the Ukiah Valley. I have found native snails that I think are also unusual, if not protected, and I wonder what other species might be residents of these springs? I hope the biological surveys included the areas around the creek drainage. I worry about enforcement of some of the practices recommended in the report. In the last few years, I have seen trees removed during nesting periods without nesting surveys and wildlife corridors fenced; 2 practices that the study states will be prohibited. The unnamed creek drainage that runs along Redwood Avenue should be treated as a wildlife corridor and a seasonal creek. The springs along the creek are an important water source for wildlife. I have this drainage affected by sediment flows from improper grading, poor culvert placement, bright lights, tree removal in the creek corridor, and recently, fencing of the creek, prohibiting wildlife passage. I am concerned that these trends will continue if there is not educated oversight. Some of this has been on county land and some within the city limits. I believe this project has many desirable aspects if implemented as planned, primarily in protecting the views of western hills as well as protecting open space and watersheds. I recommend that information about the project be presented in a form that will be easier for the public to understand, with pros and cons transparently written out. I sincerely believe that if development is inevitable, it will be better managed by the City of Ukiah than the County of Mendocino while at the same time believing that the area is unsuitable for road building and development and that the county should never have allowed it to proceed. Thank you for your consideration, Andrea Davis 607 Redwood Ave Ukiah, CA 95482 Page 348 of 414 From:Kristine Lawler To:Michelle Irace; Maya Simerson Cc:Craig Schlatter Subject:FW: Western Hill Development Date:Thursday, May 20, 2021 11:22:14 AM From: Margo Frank <margo@margofrank.com> Sent: Thursday, May 20, 2021 11:04 AM To: Kristine Lawler <klawler@cityofukiah.com> Subject: Fwd: Western Hill Development Begin forwarded message: From: Margo Frank <margo@margofrank.com> Subject: Western Hill Development Date: May 20, 2021 at 8:48:36 AM PDT To: lauraem@sbcglobal.net Cc: mshilliker@comcast.net, roody@pacific.net Dear Ukiah Planning Commission Members, I am at a loss to understand how the Ukiah Planning Department could even consider building homes with only one egress/access route in the Western Hills at this time. We know that this area is at high risk of fire devastation. Having homes in a gated community in heavily wooded hill land seems incredibly short-sighted. As the planet warms and droughts in the West become the norm, we will all be at risk. When the City builds housing in vulnerable areas with only one way out, we mislead home purchasers, implying they will be safe. I also do not understand why this development would be a gated community, one that shouts “We are special, we need protection from the rest of Ukiah”. Please do not approve this development. If I am correct that the current landowner is demanding this development in order to create/donate the nature conservancy. parkland in the Western Hills then we are all being held hostage by him. I urge you to look at the bigger picture, to consult with local fire chiefs before seriously considering approval of this project. Thank you for serving on the Planning Commission. Margo Frank 180 Gardens Ave. Ukiah, CA. 463-1834 Comment Letter 12 Page 349 of 414 From:Kristine Lawler To:Michelle Irace Subject:FW: cc-ing you my note to the planning commission Date:Thursday, May 20, 2021 11:46:30 AM From: Heather Seggel <heatherlseggel@gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, May 20, 2021 11:26 AM To: Kristine Lawler <klawler@cityofukiah.com> Subject: cc-ing you my note to the planning commission Ms. Lawler, I should have copied you on this at the time, but here it is, for inclusion in the public record of comments. Thanks very much, Sincerely, Heather Seggel From: Heather Seggel <heatherlseggel@gmail.com> Date: 5/20/21 6:36 AM (GMT-08:00) To: lauraem@sbcglobal.net, mshilliker@comcast.net, roody@pacific.net Subject: western hills development Dear members of the planning commission, I'm writing to voice my concern about a planned development in the western hills of Ukiah. While I know the need for housing is dire, I have also lived through more stress and peril than I ever thought possible due to the wildfires that have ravaged our county. The location of this development seems like a double-whammy of negatives-- it's beyond the reach of our fire breaks and in the path of potential fires, which means resources that can be used to save more populated areas will have to choose what to prioritize in the very literal heat of the moment. Let's create housing in areas that are easier to protect, and let the land rest where and whenever we can. Thanks for your consideration, Heather Seggel 306A W. Church St Ukiah CA 95482 707-467-9067 Comment Letter 13 Page 350 of 414 From:Christopher Watt To:Michelle Irace Subject:Fwd: Western Hills Open Space / Land Development Agreement Date:Thursday, May 20, 2021 12:36:50 PM [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Michelle - see below. Another comment for you. -Chris Sent from my iPhone. Forgive the brevity, typos and lack of nuance. Begin forwarded message: From: Thomas Hunt <thomashuntpe@gmail.com> Date: May 19, 2021 at 9:11:50 AM PDT To: mirace@cityofukiah.org Subject: Western Hills Open Space / Land Development Agreement Michelle- Here are some additional comments prepared as a local resident in the vicinity of this project: 1.The proposed IS/MND appear to not comply with the criteria for lot line adjustments is that each qualifying parcel of a lot line adjustment must have a recorded certificate of compliance that the lot is a viable conforming lot, and was created prior to the Subdivision Map Act of in compliance with the Subdivision Map Act. To qualify for a Certificate of Compliance the existing parcel has to comply with Map Act and local development ordinances. The reconfiguration of parcels using the lot line adjustment method becomes a violation of the Subdivision Map Act if greater than Four parcel reconfigurations (LLA) are performed. A development of this nature should be required to prepare a tentative subdivision map, preliminary engineering of the access road, lot layout in conformance with the hillside slope ordnance, and provide a slope analysis study in conformance with the Hillside ordinance using accurate topographic mapping. If the proposed project is to be approved a final subdivision map would be required per the California Subdivision Map Act and improvements would be in conformance with subdivision standards. 2.The proposed IS/MND appears to lack an analysis of the geologic slope stability Comment Letter 14 Page 351 of 414 effects of a new road that meets Fire Safety Road Standards for width and turning radius, turnouts, and turnarounds on the existing hillside slopes. If the Road is to be private how is it to be maintained, or would the City except the roadway for public use and maintenance. 3.The proposed IS/MND does not address whether the existing City Utilities provide adequate sewer and water capacity for the proposed homes. The IS does not identify “Who” would own and maintain the water storage tank and booster pump(s) stations to serve the development, or what fire agency will protect these homes. 4.The proposed IS/MND does not address the following issues: The clearing limits of the Fire Safety zone around the homes, it is typically recommended by CalFire to clear a 100 foot radius, that is approximately a minimum of 1.2 acre per home. The proposed homes sites, plus roads, would clear over 10 acres of the last remaining unimprovement scenic hillside area left surrounding the Ukiah valley, and convert the scenic view of the native trees into homes and roads. This same area burned approximately 60 years ago in a wildfire and will continue to be a hazardous area even if developed. Allowing this development regardless of the fire safe clearing requirements around these proposed buildings would be unsafe for future residences, including the existing residences at the toe of the hillside, and irresponsible of a public agency to allow. Once you build homes in this area it will become increasing more difficult to control fuel loads because of the potential danger to the homes. The potential increase in the drainage runoff and erosion impacts of converting 10 plus acres of vegetated watershed into roof tops, driveways, roads and areas of cleared vegetation is not considered in the IS as any increase in runoff will end up in Mendocino creek drainage and the Redwood Avenue. The impact on these drainages may be significant to require the repair of failing culverts particular on Mendocino Creek at Mendocino Drive, the capacity of the Redwood Creek downstream drainage structures should analyzed as most of this drainage has be placed in culverts east of Helen Avenue. Thank you for considering these issues. Sincerely, Thomas Hunt 420 Cochrane Ave Ukiah Ca 95482 Email: thomashuntpe@gmail.com Cell: 707-499-0152 Page 352 of 414 From:Steve & Jean Lincoln To:Michelle Irace Subject:opposition to more residences high in Ukiah"s western hills Date:Thursday, May 20, 2021 2:10:23 PM [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. To: Ukiah City Planning Commission We wish to express our strong oppostion to the proposed residential property parcels on the Hull property in the western foothills. It is our very great concern that it is simply too dangerous to build more residences in this area which is ripe for burning - especially as we experience an increase in the length of wildfire season with increased temperatures and reduced soil and vegetation moisture. We live at the base of these hills and, every day, see the tremedous fuel load that has accumulated on them since the last wildfires there in the 1950's. Not only would these new homes be in a very vunerable position with the shaded fuel break downhill from them, but, during a wildfire, they will take a large amount of firefighing efforts at a time when the higher density of homes downhill will probably also need much firefighting effort. We trust you to make the wisest decision for Ukiah. Thank you for your consideration, Steve and Jean Lincoln 104 North Highland Ave, Ukiah Comment Letter 15 Page 353 of 414 From:Iantosca, Catherine M.@Waterboards To:Michelle Irace Cc:Filak, Jordan@Waterboards Subject:Regional Water Board Comments: City of Ukiah Western Hills Open Land Acquisition & Limited Development Agreement Date:Thursday, May 20, 2021 2:53:38 PM [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Dear Michelle Irace, Thank you for providing staff of the North Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board (Regional Water Board) the opportunity to comment on the Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) for the Ukiah Western Hills Open Land Acquisition & Limited Development Agreement Project, SCH #2021040428. We offer the following comments based on our review of the IS/MND. Our comments are focused on the planned infrastructure improvements and construction components of the proposed project, including plans to pave/improve existing roadways, construct new roads for access to the development parcels, extend underground utilities, and construct a City water tank, and how these activities might impact waters of the state. California Water Code defines waters of the state as “any surface water or groundwater, including saline waters, within the boundaries of the state” (Water Code §13050 (e)). Projects that adversely impact waters of the state require permits from the Regional Water Board in the form of 401 Water Quality Certifications or Waste Discharge Requirements. Regarding waters of the state in the IS/MND study area, the IS/MND’s Biological Resources section contains information that conflicts with Attachment B, the Biological Assessment Report. IS/MND Biological Resources Discussion Section b-c (IS/MND page 25) says “no sensitive biological communities, including riparian habitat or wetlands, were observed within or immediately adjacent to the study area.” However, the Biological Assessment Report (Assessment) identified six watercourses in the study area and did not definitively determine the presence or absence of wetlands in the study area. With regard to wetlands, Assessment Section 3.4.2 Sensitive Biological Communities – Aquatic Resources states that a wetland delineation has not been performed in the study area (Assessment page 8). Instead, the Assessment referenced the United States Fish and Wildlife Service National Wetlands Inventory (NWI), which does not provide sufficient detail to determine the presence or absence of wetlands on at a property-specific level. The Assessment states that any wet areas onsite (which the Assessment defines as areas with hydrophytic vegetation and/or other hydrologic indicators) should be given the same protections as wetlands “until a wetland delineation is conducted to confirm the presence and extent of wetlands” (Assessment page 8). Please note that these hydrologic indicators are often difficult to identify during the summer and fall, particularly during a drought year. If the City of Ukiah determines that wetlands are present in the study area and that wetlands will be impacted by the project, a permit from the Regional Water Board will be required. With regard to streams and riparian habitat, Assessment Section 5.1.2 Sensitive Biological Communities – Sensitive Aquatic Resources states that six watercourses were observed and mapped in the study area (Assessment page 16). These watercourses are depicted in the Assessment on a map titled “MCV2 Classification Map.” These watercourses are considered waters of the state. The MCV2 Classification Map shows existing roads crossing several of the watercourses. The IS/MND states that the existing gravel access road will be paved to serve the future development sites, and new access roads may be constructed. Work within watercourses or in their riparian areas, e.g. installation of new culverts or replacement of existing culverts during road improvement/construction, requires permits from the Regional Water Board. If other construction activities, such as utility installation or water tank construction, will impact waters of the state, those activities will require permits too. Comment Letter 16 Page 354 of 414 If you determine that the proposed project will impact waters of the state, please contact the Regional Water Board prior to starting work to obtain the required permits. Impacts to waters of the state should be avoided or minimized as much as possible, and any unavoidable impacts will require compensatory mitigation. More information about the Regional Water Board’s permitting can be found on our website: https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/northcoast/water_issues/programs/water_quality_certification/. Thank you. Please contact me if you have any questions. Catherine Iantosca Environmental Scientist Southern 401 Water Quality Certification Unit North Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board 5550 Skylane Blvd, Ste. A Santa Rosa, CA 95403 P: (707) 576-2501 E: catherine.iantosca@waterboards.ca.gov Page 355 of 414 City of Ukiah Community Development Department May 20, 2021 ATTN: Michelle Irace 300 Seminary Avenue Ukiah, CA 95482 Subject: Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration for Western Hills Open Land Acquisition and Limited Development Agreement Project Dear Ms. Irace, We are very concerned about potential fire impacts from the proposed land development project in the western hills of Ukiah. The City of Ukiah would annex and acquire land for open space preservation in exchange for allowing the developer to develop seven residential parcels with the potential for two houses per parcel or 14 total houses. While the project has fire protection benefits (open space preservation), the potential for residential development raises serious fire safety concerns in the western hills of Ukiah. The project area is in a very high fire hazard severity zone. With an increased frequency of drought conditions and impacts from climate change, the probability of a major wildland fire increases in the western hills of Ukiah. In 2005, the Mendocino County Fire Chiefs’ Association, including the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (now Cal Fire) published a report, the Mendocino County Wildfire Protection Plan. On page 86 in reference to the western hills of Ukiah, the report states the following: “These hills have experienced large-scale fires since the turn of the century, with major fires occurring in 1950 and 1959. The City of Ukiah’s encroachment into these hills since then has created the significant probability of a very destructive wildland interface fire.” The parcels currently lie outside the city limits and city utilities are not available – power, sewer, water. Once annexed, the parcels will have access to city utilities with the ability for new development to connect to those utilities, increasing the likelihood for future residential development in the western hills. We live at the end of San Jacinta Drive and adjoin one of the parcels in the project. We are in close proximity to the project and with the increased number of wildland fires in northern California over the last several years, we are very concerned about the increased potential of a wildland fire in our area. We urge you to take a serious look at the potential fire hazard created by the proposed project and the potential for future development beyond the current project. Sincerely, John and Delynne Rogers, Members of the Western Hills Fire Safe Council Comment Letter 17 Page 356 of 414 Comments on the ISMND May 20, 2021 Submitted by Pinky Kushner 504 N. Oak St., Apt #1 Ukiah, CA I thank you for allowing me to comment on the environmental assessment document for the Western Hills project. 1. For the portion of the Conservation Parcels located outside of the SOI (“Outside Conservation Parcels,” consisting of approximately 296 acres), the City will ensure that they remain preserved as open space through City Council resolution or other means, rather than prezoning them PF. Proposed Parcels 8 and 10 would effectively be “split zoned”; the portion within theSOI would be prezoned PF, while the remaining portion outside of the SOI would not be prezoned, but subject to a conservation easement, or other City Council action prohibiting development and preserving it as open space. The language in the underlined section is weak and/or unclear. The land “will be subject to …easement or other City Council action.” The document should specify that this land will be dedicated open space in perpetuity by the City. By saying it ‘could be’ put into a conservation easement implies that the ownership of the property will not be the City and could be a private party. Thus the city might not be gaining the proposed proposed promise of open space with approx. 640 acres, only approx 340 acres. 2. “City-owned parcels proposed for annexation are not required to be located within the City's SOI. City-owned parcels can be located anywhere in the County as long as they are less than 300 acres, owned by the City, and used for municipal purposes at the time of the annexation application.” It is not clear how this project satisﬁes any of those limitations. In fact it seems clear that none of the provisions are satisﬁed. The property that is proposed to be designated PF, will not be for municipal purposes in the ordinary legal meaning of the word “municipal.” In order to be designated as ‘municipal’, the City should assign the area, the entire 640 acres, as a protected natural area in perpetuity. The proposed designation of PF could be changed by the current or any future City Council. 3. Leapfrog development: The City should demand a codicil to the private road access that will require that a keyed entrance gate be built on the road at the entry to the developed (housing) area and also at the distal end of the developed (housing) area. Furthermore, no third party, other than the owners of the developed housing and the City, can be given rights to trespass those two gates. Comment Letter 18 Page 357 of 414 Without such a codicil, it is obvious that this proposed development will be able to leapfrog further development into the County property that lies further to the west along the roadway. These further lying parcels are designated County lands, and any development/construction will not be subject to City of Ukiah’s reviews and will be without City limitations (as mentioned in the neg dec in the argument for the present annexation). It is egregious that the potential for leapfrogged development is not even mentioned in the ‘neg dec.’ 4. Aesthetics: The view shed of the City of Ukiah is unique and beautiful. Ukiah, derived from native language meaning ‘deep valley,’ indeeds lies in a narrow deep trough, approximately 2 miles wide and 20 miles long. Standing in the ﬂat mid-point, one sees these 20 miles of wooded hillsides on either side. This project will affect this view in a deleterious manner, removing native vegetation, adding roads, lights and paved areas, in the south-western hills, in addition to a large 30’ high water tank. This project for up to 14 dwellings, presumably large imposing houses with large, turn-around driveways, and lights, will be a signiﬁcant blow to Ukiah’s unique view shed. The potential damage is not “less than signiﬁcant.” Moreover, painting a house ‘earth-tones’ is not adequate mitigation for forest removal. 5. Forestry Resources: According to the ISMND the project should evaluate “forest carbon measurement methodology provided in Forest Protocols adopted by the California Air Resources Board.” No data have been provided. CO2 levels continue to increase in the Ukiah Valley. The removal of forests will add to the carbon increases. This effect cannot be said to be less than signiﬁcant unless carbon measurements are established. In order to ‘neg dec’ the project, current, pre-project baseline data must be measured. The heat effect of forest removal must be evaluated. 6. Air Quality: The removal of forest and the on-going and continuing increase in carbon may contribute signiﬁcantly to the atmospheric inversions that occur routinely in the Ukiah Valley. This issue cannot be said to be less than signiﬁcant unless data about the Valley’s atmospheric inversions are calculated. No data are found in the ‘neg dec.’ 7. Biological Assessment: This report is inadequate and cannot be said to evaluate the biological features of the project. At the beginning of the document prepared for the assessment, Jacoobzooms and Associates state, “A site visit was conducted on February 5, 2021. A botanical survey was conducted on March 30, 2021. Additional botanical survey results will be amended in once completed.” This statement is clear— the biological assessment at the present is inadequate to support the neg. dec. Interspersed in the document, the authors admit that they did not evaluate the plants and animals sufﬁciently. For example, birds of interest may be nesting, but not during February; plants of interest may appear but not be observable on March 30. And so on. The neg dec is incomplete since the biological assessment has not been completed. I believe the assessment only reviewed the 55 acres for housing development. Am I wrong? What about the rest of the acreage in the annexation project? The large acreage, described as 640 acres at one point but not consistently, has not been Page 358 of 414 surveyed. Yet the project will allow (some might say promote) the roadway to access not only the area proposed for development, but also the further Western Hills. This is not a mere city lot with only trafﬁc and noise to worry about on a small acreage. The acreage of the project is almost as large as Golden Gate Park in San Francisco and deserves a thorough biological assessment done in various seasons of the year for the entire project area. 8. Fire: It appears that a portion of the area proposed for housing lies beyond a ﬁre- break. How is it justiﬁed to propose development beyond the ﬁre-break? Relative to this project are the following questions for a neg dec analysis: What is the potential for a ﬁrestorm in the Western Hills? What is the history of ﬁrestorms in the Western Hills? What is the state of drought in the Ukiah Valley? Has this drought increased the ﬁre potential in the Western Hills? Does the proposed development, occurring in a naturally wooded area increase, decrease or have no effect on the potential for ﬁres? On the potential for a ﬁre storm? What is the moisture content of the soil annually in the summer and fall months? Will the roadway increase or decrease the moisture content of the surrounds? What will be the speed of the ﬁre’s path were there to be a Western Hills ﬁre originating in the project area? 9. Feasibility: What is the likelihood of any home development in a ﬁre-prone acreage in the Western Hills? Will there be ﬁre insurance for the developers/new home-owners? How will this development project be different from the homes in Deerwood that cannot get ﬁre insurance? 10. Location and site plan: The maps are inadequate and not well integrated into the context of the document. There are no topographical maps. This is in spite of the fact that the site has very steep slopes. The slopes should be described precisely with the various grades of the roadway and possible driveways included. For ﬁre management and the water tank accessibility these data are very important in an environmental assessment. The maps should have better satellite over-lays, with more indications of where the roadway and driveways will be located, complete with ﬁre vehicle turn- arounds, etc. The photos included in the biological assessments are described only as “to the south” or “to the west”, with no indication as to geographical or topographical whereabouts. 11. Land Use Planning: The goal of the City of Ukiah is densiﬁcation, not suburban sprawl. This project is suburban sprawl. What is the mitigation? What is the justiﬁcation? Page 359 of 414 12. Alternatives: an EIR is required to have alternatives, including a no project alternative and other alternatives that achieve the same or equal provisions. a. Housing: Recently, the Ukiah Planning Department sponsored a public review of housing possibilities within the current boundaries of the City of Ukiah. Where are the results of that review in this environmental evaluation and why don’t the areas identiﬁed satisfy the needs for housing/development, even at all ends of the housing market? The Western Hills proposed project is clearly for the high end market. What is the need for high end housing in a ﬁre prone area when those needs can be met within the existing boundaries of the City where the infrastructure improvements exist with good roads, good sidewalks, bike paths, trees, and parks? b. Water: The water tank is said to help with supplying water to the southwestern portion of the City. Alternative sites for the water tank must be identiﬁed, sites that are more accessible to more developed areas of south Ukiah and to a larger population of residents. The proposed site must be evaluated for efﬁciency and sufﬁciency in providing water to the urban population and for its use should a ﬁre in south Ukiah occur, relative to other sites closer to the already built-out urban area. Page 360 of 414 MENDOCINO Local Agency Formation Commission Ukiah Valley Conference Center | 200 South School Street | Ukiah, California 95482 Telephone: (707) 463-4470 | E-mail: eo@mendolafco.org | Web: http://mendolafco.org May 20, 2021 Michelle Irace Planning Manager, City of Ukiah 300 Seminary Avenue Ukiah, CA 95482 RE: Responsible Agency Comments regarding the City of Ukiah Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration for Ukiah Western Hills Open Land Acquisition and Limited Development Agreement Project Dear Ms. Irace, We have reviewed the Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Ukiah Western Hills Open Land Acquisition and Limited Development Agreement Project and identified the following items as a Responsible Agency related to the annexation component of the proposed project. Further Growth Inducing Analysis for Annexation Component In order to fully address the annexation component of the proposed project, the Initial Study needs to further analyze the change in development potential of the annexation area from current conditions. This involves identifying and comparing the maximum development potential under current conditions (County General Plan/Zoning and Ukiah Valley Sanitation District service) and the proposed project development potential (Boundary Line Adjustment, City General Plan/Prezoning, and City services). The proposed project development potential of 7 Single-Family Dwelling Units and 7 Accessory Dwelling Units identified for the Development Parcels appears appropriate based on the Development Agreement, and may result in an overall reduction of environmental impacts or environmental benefits from the clustered development design, when compared with the current conditions. Since there is no development anticipated for the Noguera properties, the development potential of these parcels would be the maximum development potential under both current conditions (County General Plan/Zoning and Ukiah Valley Sanitation District service) and the proposed project (City General Plan/Prezoning and City services). The comparison of current and proposed development potential for the Conservation Parcels may result in an overall reduction of environmental impacts or environmental benefits from long-term conservation and associated natural resource and land management activities. Further Municipal Service Analysis for Annexation Component In order to fully address the annexation component of the proposed project, the Initial Study needs to further analyze the provision of municipal services. This involves a comparison of current system capacity, anticipated service demand of the proposed project based on development potential, and the City’s ability to serve the proposed project based on Comment Letter 19 Page 361 of 414 available capacity and project demand. While not necessarily applicable to the proposed project, in situations where service expansions or improvements are needed to address the proposed project, the potential environmental impacts of such expansion and/or improvements should also be analyzed. Prezoning The Outside Conservation Parcels are subject to Prezoning pursuant to GOV §56375(a)(7) and should be addressed in the Initial Study. Concurrent Detachment Please modify the proposed project to include detachment of the annexation area from the Ukiah Valley Sanitation District, to address jurisdictional overlap and duplication of municipal service issues, and potentially County Service Area 3 if duplication of municipal services is applicable. Based on interest expressed from City of Ukiah staff in support of a proposed Ukiah Valley Fire District annexation of City Limits, per LAFCo Pre-application No. P-2020-03, concurrent detachment from the Ukiah Valley Fire District does not appear appropriate at this time. By addressing the above items in the Initial Study, the Mendocino Local Agency Formation Commission will be able to rely on the City’s CEQA Determination in consideration of the annexation proposal. Please note that we are available to assist in modifying the Initial Study to address these items. Please feel free to contact me if you need additional information or have any questions. Sincerely, Uma Hinman Executive Officer Cc: Craig Schlatter, City of Ukiah Community Development Director Page 362 of 414 From:Kristine Lawler To:Michelle Irace; Maya Simerson Subject:FW: ISMND and proposed project Date:Friday, May 21, 2021 7:44:27 AM From: Helen Sizemore <helensize@gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, May 20, 2021 9:55 PM To: Kristine Lawler <klawler@cityofukiah.com> Cc: Laura Christensen <lauraem@sbcglobal.net>; Mark Hilliker <mshilliker@comcast.net>; roody@pacific.net Subject: ISMND and proposed project [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Kristine - please forward to City Council Members. TY To the Planning Commission and the City Council: I am very concerned to hear about the development of a small gated development in the western hills, at Redwood Avenue. There is a housing shortage in California and in Ukiah. It would be so much more appropriate to construct condominium housing. Your future vision must consider our climate changing, drought emergency prone times. Continuing the economic and cultural division in our town is not vision it is backward thinking. A gift of land to the city does not have to be given back to the wealthy. The clustering of a condo project would be more easily defended from fire threat and be less damaging to the hillside when putting in utilities. Ukiah can be the change we need. Single family housing is so last century. Thank you, Helen Sizemore Comment Letter 20 Page 363 of 414 ATTACHMENT 7 Response to Comments Received on the Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration (ISMND) for the Ukiah Western Hills Open Land Acquisition and Limited Development Project Public Review. CEQA Guidelines Sections 15201 and 15204 discuss public participation regarding the review and evaluation of Environmental Impact Reports (EIRs) and Negative Declarations. Specifically, Section 15204 states the following: “(a) In reviewing draft EIRs, persons and public agencies should focus on the sufficiency of the document in identifying and analyzing the possible impacts on the environment and ways in which the significant effects of the project might be avoided or mitigated. Comments are most helpful when they suggest additional specific alternatives or mitigation measures that would provide better ways to avoid or mitigate the significant environmental effects. At the same time, reviewers should be aware that the adequacy of an EIR is determined in terms of what is reasonably feasible, in light of factors such as the magnitude of the project at issue, the severity of its likely environmental impacts, and the geographic scope of the project. CEQA does not require a lead agency to conduct every test or perform all research, study, and experimentation recommended or demanded by commentors. When responding to comments, lead agencies need only respond to significant environmental issues and do not need to provide all information requested by reviewers, as long as a good faith effort at full disclosure is made in the EIR. (b) In reviewing negative declarations, persons and public agencies should focus on the proposed finding that the project will not have a significant effect on the environment. If persons and public agencies believe that the project may have a significant effect, they should: (1) Identify the specific effect, (2) Explain why they believe the effect would occur, and (3) Explain why they believe the effect would be significant. (c) Reviewers should explain the basis for their comments, and should submit data or references offering facts, reasonable assumptions based on facts, or expert opinion supported by facts in support of the comments. Pursuant to Section 15064, an effect shall not be considered significant in the absence of substantial evidence.” Notice of Intent. The Notice of Intent to adopt the ISMND and conduct a public hearing was provided in the following manner, in accordance with Ukiah City Code (UCC) §9267 and California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15073:  Provided to property owners within 300 feet of the project parcels, as well as agencies and departments with jurisdiction or interest over the project on April 16, 2021, June 1, 2021 and August 13, 2021;  Provided to members of the public, agencies, and interested parties who submitted written comments on the Draft ISMND during the public review period on August 13, 2021;  Published in the Ukiah Daily Journal on April 24, 2021, June 5, 2021 and August 14, 2021;  Posted on the Project site on May 3, 2021, June 1, 2021, and August 11;  Posted at the Civic Center (glass case) 72 hours prior to the public hearing; Page 364 of 414  Noticed for continuance at the May 26, 2021 Planning Commission hearing to a date certain of June 9, 2021; and  Notice for continuance at the June 9, 2021 Planning Commission to a date uncertain. In addition, based on the amount of interest in the Project and to receive as much public input as possible, additional public noticing was conducted in the following manner:  Posted on the City of Ukiah website on April 16, 2021 and August 16, 2021;  Emailed to Planning Commissioners and City Councilmembers on April 16, 2021 and August 13, 2021;  Hand-delivered to all residences (in addition to and beyond the 300-foot requirement) on Redwood Avenue on May 13, 2021 and mailed to all residences on Redwood Avenue on August 11, 2021. Revisions and Clarifications. The below list includes a summary of changes and/or clarifications that have been made to the Project since the Draft ISMND was circulated for public review. These revisions have been made either by the developer, in response to comments, or are corrections and clarifications identified by staff. The below list is meant to highlight the larger changes and does not include all minor changes such as grammatical errors or minor clarifications. Information provided in the Response to Comments section below has also been incorporated into the Final Draft ISMND as appropriate. Development Parcels- The original Project Description included a Development Agreement to allow Hull Properties to individually sell seven Development Parcels for development of one single-family home (and the possibility for one Accessory Dwelling Unit) per parcel upon annexation and Planning Commission approval of a Use Permit to construct individual homes within the Single-Family Residential-Hillside (R1-H) Overlay District. However, Hull Properties is choosing to retain the right to sell and develop Development Parcels 1-3 prior to annexation. The Development Parcels are located within the County of Mendocino’s jurisdiction within the Upland Residential, 40-acre minimum (UR:40) zoning district. Construction of the single-family homes within the County’s jurisdiction would be by-right and not require discretionary approval, environmental review, nor the development standards contained within the City’s R1-H zoning district. However, Hull Properties is choosing to require the single-family homes to be constructed to R1-H standards by including them in the Declaration of Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) for Development Parcels 1-3. In addition, although not required, the mitigation measures contained within the ISMND for residential development will also be included in the CC&Rs. Development Parcels 1-3 will still be included in the application for annexation and prezoned to R1-H. As described in the original Project Description, the remaining Development Parcels (4-7) will not be developed until annexation is complete and each home receives Planning Commission approval of a Use Permit for construction within the City’s R1-H zoning district. Lot Line Adjustment- The original Project Description proposed a lot line adjustment to reconfigure the existing parcels into seven Development Parcels, ranging from 5 to 10 acres in size, in accordance with the R1-H zoning district. Draft ISMND Table 1 identified the existing and proposed parcels, while Figure 2 showed the existing parcel configuration and Figure 3 showed the proposed configuration. Hull Properties will complete sequential lot line adjustments in both the City’s and County’s jurisdiction in accordance with the Page 365 of 414 Subdivision Map Act to ultimately reach the proposed configuration identified in Figure 3. Although the final configuration of the Development Parcels may vary slightly, the footprint of the resulting configuration for the Development Parcels (54 acres) and number of parcels will remain the same (identified in yellow on Figure 1, Location Map). A copy of the final recorded Lot Line Adjustments will be submitted to the Community Development Department prior to submittal of a Use Permit for single family housing within the Development Parcels. In accordance with Ukiah City Code Section 8296(f), which states “Concurrent Permit Processing: when a lot line adjustment is part of a project that requires one or more discretionary planning entitlements and the applicant does not want the lot line adjustment unless the entire project is approved, then the lot line adjustment shall be reviewed as part of the discretionary planning application. In that event, all permits and approvals, including the lot line adjustment, shall be combined into one application, processed concurrently, and acted upon by the highest review authority required by this code based on the entitlements included in the application. (Ord. 1138, §2 (Exh. A), adopted 2012).” Hull properties has indicated that they wish to record the Lot Line Adjustments, regardless of whether or not the overall Project gets approved. As such, the Lot Line Adjustments remain ministerial and do not require approval by the highest review authority (City Council, in this case). Prezoning- Previously lands intended for open space that are located outside of the City’s current Sphere of Influence (SOI) were not proposed for prezoning. However, based on comments received from the Mendocino County Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCo) these open space lands are proposed to be prezoned Public Facilities, consistent with the remaining open space land (see Master Response 2 below for more information). Access Road- The existing access road width was previously generally described as being 18 ft wide. However, the access road width ranges from 18 ft to 35 ft, with the majority of it being a minimum of 20 ft wide. The sections that are 18 ft wide are approximately 100 ft long and have wider turn-outs immediately before or after them. Both the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (Cal Fire) and the Ukiah Valley Fire Authority (UVFA) have reviewed the Project and conducted a site visit. Proposed road improvements will be in accordance with all applicable fire codes and access standards. See Master Response 1 below for more information. Utilities- Previously City water utilities were proposed to be extended to the Development Parcels. In addition, one (1) 150,000-gallon tank was proposed for additional water storage and fire protection. However, water will now be provided on-site by the land owner/developer and water will be stored in two (2) 65,000-gallon water tanks. The tanks will be located in the same location as the previously proposed single 150,000-gallon tank. The developer proposes to supply the tanks with water from the on-site wells rather than constructing new booster pump stations to pump water up to the tanks from the City’s existing wells. The tanks will be maintained by the future Homeowner’s Association. The plan for an on-site community septic system remains as originally proposed. Previously the City was proposing to extend electric utilities to the Development Parcels, but now electric utilities will be extended by both the City and/or the property owner/developer. Ultimately, upon annexation, the City will own and maintain the electric infrastructure. All utilities would be located within the same footprint as previously proposed. Page 366 of 414 Biological Resources- As noted in ISMND Section 5.4, Biological Resources, botanical surveys are required to be conducted in accordance with U.S. Fish and Wildlife (USFWS) survey protocols, which requires several surveys through different times of the year, in relation to different species’ blooming periods. At the time of circulation of the Draft ISMND, the two of three required surveys completed had resulted in negative findings. Per USFWS protocols one additional survey was required during the blooming period (March-July); and as noted in Draft ISMND Mitigation Measure BIO-1, this survey would occur prior to any ground disturbing activities at the recommendation of the Biologist. However, since the circulation of the Draft ISMND, the final botanical survey was completed on July 9, 2021. The survey did not result in the identification of any sensitive botanical species (see the Biological Resources Assessment Addendum for Rare Plant Assessment and Botanical Survey included as Attachment B1 of the Final Draft ISMND). As such, no further botanical surveys are required. However, if trees are proposed for removal, preconstruction surveys and coordination with California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW ) shall be required. Mitigation Measure BIO-1 has been revised as follows. In addition, Mitigation Measure BIO-2 has been clarified as follows to encompass all sensitive amphibian species, consistent with findings in the Biological Resources Assessment. Deleted text is shown in strikethrough font, while added text is shown in underline font. BIO-1: Special-Status Plants Sensitive Trees. Full USFWS protocol-level sensitive plant species surveys for Mendocino tarplant, congested headed hayfield tarplant, bristly leptosiphon, broad- lobed leptosiphon, redwood lily, green monardella, white-flowered rein orchid, Mayacamas popcornflower, beaked tracyina, showy Indian clover, and oval-leaved viburnum within the blooming period (generally March-August) shall be conducted prior to any ground disturbing activities to verify the presence of special status plants and identify additional mitigation if needed, to ensure that the Project will not result in a significant impact. If trees are proposed for removal, preconstruction surveys shall be conducted by a qualified biologist to identify Oregon white oak forest and woodland, as well as California bay forest and woodland habitat; removal of sensitive habitat shall be conducted in accordance with California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) regulations. BIO-2: Red-belly newt Sensitive Amphibian Species. A qualified biologist shall survey the area prior to any groundbreaking activities to determine the presence of Red-belly newt, or other sensitive amphibian species, and identify additional avoidance measures, if needed. A qualified biologist shall be on-site for any dewatering event to address the potential for the presence of sensitive amphibian species such as foothill yellow-legged frog (Rana boylii). Per CEQA Guidelines Section 15073.5(a), “a lead agency is required to recirculate a negative declaration when the document must be substantially revised after public notice of its availability has previously been given pursuant to Section 15072, but prior to its adoption. Notice of recirculation shall comply with Sections 15072 and 15073. (b) A “substantial revision” of the negative declaration shall mean: (1) A new, avoidable significant effect is identified and mitigation measures or project revisions must be added in order to reduce the effect to insignificance, or (2) The lead agency determines that the proposed mitigation measures or project revisions will not reduce potential effects to less than significance and new measures or revisions must be required. Page 367 of 414 (c) Recirculation is not required under the following circumstances: (1) Mitigation measures are replaced with equal or more effective measures pursuant to Section 15074.1. (2) New project revisions are added in response to written or verbal comments on the project’s effects identified in the proposed negative declaration which are not new avoidable significant effects. (3) Measures or conditions of project approval are added after circulation of the negative declaration which are not required by CEQA, which do not create new significant environmental effects and are not necessary to mitigate an avoidable significant effect. (4) New information is added to the negative declaration which merely clarifies, amplifies, or makes insignificant modifications to the negative declaration.” Because the changes described above, and others made in response to public comments (as discussed below) are for clarification purposes and/or do not result in a new significant effect that was previously not analyzed within the Draft ISMND, recirculation of the ISMND is not required. Response to Comments. The City of Ukiah received comments on the Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration (ISMND) from the individuals and entities listed in Table 1 below during the public comment period (April 16, 2021-May 20, 2021). Individual comments can be found in Attachment 6 of the Staff Report. CEQA Guidelines Section 15073 (Public Review of a Proposed Negative Declaration or Mitigated Negative Declaration) does not require a Lead Agency to provide written responses to public comment, with the exception of those raised by a Responsible or public agency. However, the City of Ukiah has chosen to review and respond to all written public comments received on the Draft ISMND. Table 1, Comments Received on the Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Comment Letter # Commenter Date Received 1 Margo Frank May 3, 2021 2 Crispin B. Hollinshead May 6, 2021 3 Ulla Brunnberg Rand May 12, 2021 4 Allie Duggan May 13, 2021 5 Western Hills Fire Safe Council May 14, 2021 6 Chris Watt May 18, 2021 7 Jeanne Wetzel Chinn May 19, 2021 8 Andrea Vachon May 19, 2021 9 Michael Maynard May 19, 2021 10 Sharron Thomas (via email from Emily Thomas) May 19, 2021 11 Andrea Davis May 20, 2021 Page 368 of 414 12 Margo Frank May 20, 2021 13 Heather Seggel May 20, 2021 14 Thomas Hunt (via email from Chris Watt) May 20, 2021 15 Steve and Jean Lincoln May 20, 2021 16 North Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board May 20, 2021 17 John and Delynne Rogers, May 20, 2021 18 Pinky Kushner May 20, 2021 19 Mendocino County Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCo) May 20, 2021 20 Helen Sizemore May 20, 2021 The majority of the comments received expressed concerns regarding wildfire risk. In addition, many commenters appear to be of the opinion that the Project includes a public park with planned public access within the open space area, which is not a part of this project. Because of the nature of these repeated topics of comment, responses to these comments have been addressed through Master Responses as identified below. Responses to individual comment letters regarding other issues are provided below according to the numbering system identified above in Table 1. Other comments expressed general opposition of the project but do not raise issues related to the analysis or adequacy of the Initial Study that require a formal response under CEQA. Information contained within the below response to comments has been incorporated into the ISMND for clarification purposes, as applicable. Supporting information, including a topographical map letters submitted by Mendocino Cal Fire Unit Fire Captain Vallerga and Ukiah Valley Fire Authority (UVFA) Chief Hutchison, and Jacobszoon and Associates, Inc. in response to comments received, can be found in Response to Comments Attachment A. Master Responses 1. Wildfire. The majority of the commenters concerns are largely associated with existing conditions and concerns regarding construction of future single-family homes within the Western Hills, which is identified by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (Cal Fire) as a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone. Zone. Commenters also express concerns regarding the existing shaded fuel break and emergency access. Response: Geographical areas are designated and classified by Cal Fire through their Fire Hazard Severity Zone Mapping program as Very High, High, or Moderate in State Responsibility Areas. These zones are based on factors such as fuel, slope, fire weather, etc. Consistent with other lands designated Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones within Mendocino County’s jurisdiction, the Project area is currently located within a Cal Fire State Responsibility Area (SRA). Once annexed into the City, the responsibility will be transferred to the Ukiah Valley Fire Authority (UVFA) and become a Local Responsibility Area. The UVFA has indicated it has capacity to serve the Project area and will ensure that all applicable regulations are met. Page 369 of 414 Construction and Access. Requirements for construction are directly related to Fire Hazard Severity Zone Mapping and heavily regulated, pursuant to California Public Resources Code and the California Building Code. Specifically, construction methods, access standards, and hazardous vegetation and fuels management requirements intended to mitigate wildfire exposure are contained within the following:  California Building Code, Chapter 7A (Materials and Construction Methods for Exterior Wildfire Exposure, including Wildland Urban Interface regulations);  California Residential Code, Section R337 (Materials and Construction Methods for Exterior Wildlife Exposure);  California Referenced Standards Code, Chapter 12-7A (Fire Resistive Standards);  California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Division 1.5, Chapter 7, Subchapter 3 (Fire Hazard Reduction Around Buildings and Structures); and  California Government Code, Section 51182 (Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones). Although not located within an SRA, the City of Ukiah (UCC §5200) has adopted the SRA regulations for lands within the City limits located in High or Very High fire areas. In addition, Public Resources Code Sections 4290 and 4291 contain additional requirements for lands within Very High Fire Severity Zones. These include, but are not limited to, the following which are designed to provide defensible space and fire protection for new construction and ensure adequate emergency access: increased property line setbacks for all applicable construction; on-site water storage for fire protection, driveway/roadway types and specifications based on designated usage; all weather driveway/roadway surfaces being engineered for 75,000lb vehicles; maximum slope of 16%; turnout requirements; gate requirements and setbacks, parking standards, fuels reduction regulations, etc. The existing gravel access road will be improved with asphalt and a cul-de-sac, in accordance with all current fire and safety codes applicable to the Project. The Project also includes installation of water tanks and fire hydrants to add new water storage and fire protection facilities in the Western Hills. Per the California Fire Code, a portion of the water (varies based on size and number of homes) will be required to be allotted for fire protection services and cannot be used for residential use; this will be accomplished by a float switch inside the tank. Both Cal Fire and the UVFA have reviewed the Project and conducted a site visit to ensure the access road and proposed improvements are adequate. This information has been incorporated into the Final Draft ISMND. Comments submitted by Mendocino Cal Fire Unit Fire Captain Vallerga and UVFA Fire Chief Hutchison are included in Response to Comment Attachment A. Similarly, all future construction and roadways associated with the Project (including future residential construction in both the City’s and County’s jurisdiction) must adhere to the aforementioned regulations, in addition to all other local, state and federal regulations relating to access and safety. All construction requiring a Building Permit Page 370 of 414 will be reviewed by the Building Official and Fire Marshall, as well as other City and County departments and agencies, as applicable, for consistency with life safety and access requirements. However, prior to obtaining Building Permits, all future residential construction within the proposed Single-Family Residential-Hillside Overlay District will require discretionary review. Specifically, once the parcels are annexed into the City, the Development Parcels would not be developed until an applicant submits a project- specific site plan with a Use Permit application and receives Planning Commission approval for development of a home, in accordance with the Hillside Overlay Zoning District regulations.1 The Hillside Overlay District includes strict development standards relating to fire hazards including increased setbacks, minimum required natural areas, restrictions on the use of combustible roof materials, water and fire hydrant requirements and slope requirements. The Use Permit process for construction within the Hillside Overlay District will provide another layer of review for safety standards related to wildfire that may not otherwise be required for “by-right” housing- i.e. construction of housing requiring a ministerial building permit- within the Western Hills. As noted above, Development Parcels 1-3 may be developed within the County’s jurisdiction prior to annexation by-right, but will be required to be developed to R1-H standards. The City’s ultimate acquisition of the property will enable the preservation and maintenance of 640 acres of land for open space and enhanced fire mitigation assets, while limiting development to seven single- family homes (with the possibility of seven accessory dwelling units) within 54 acres. Fuel Break. The fuel break, also known as a shaded fuel break, is a fire prevention and mitigation measure implemented in the Ukiah Valley for the Western Hills bordering City limits. A shaded fuel break is a forest management strategy used for mitigating the threat of wildfire. The goal of a shaded fuel break is to thin the surface vegetation, conduct selective thinning, remove dead and downed woody material, and remove ladder fuels to prevent a catastrophic fire and loss of structures. As supported by Comment Letter 9 submitted by Cal Fire’s former Battalion Chief Michael Maynard (2010 to 2020), who was responsible for fuel reduction efforts in the State Responsibility Area of the Ukiah Valley and surrounding areas, the Proposed Project parcels are among “the most critical” properties from a firefighter perspective. The parcels are located in the middle of the Western Hills and represent the key that holds all three elements of the fire prevention work done by Cal Fire together, including fire breaks, fuel breaks and prescribed burning. The Project location provides access to the top of the Western Hills for fire resources that did not exist prior to 2018 and is one of the few bisecting fire breaks, natural or man-made, on the western side of Ukiah Although the Proposed Project may result in a limited number of single-family homes to the west of the shaded fuel break, these new homes would not take away from the validity of the fuel break, as the break still provides a layer of protection to the urban interface and a defensible space for firefighting staging if needed. As noted by Mr. Maynard, “The consolidation of the parcels under City guidance will allow for a single 1 The Hillside Overlay District Regulations can be found online at: https://www.codepublishing.com/CA/Ukiah/#!/Ukiah09/Ukiah0902-1100.html#art11 Page 371 of 414 entity to manage the fuel reduction work, manage the watershed and reduce risk to the community.” Having the majority of the lands under City ownership will also allow for cohesive planned maintenance of the fuel break. Future homeowners will be required to maintain their property to fire standards as part of their membership in the Homeowners Association. In the memorandum provided by UVFA Chief Hutchison (Response to Comments Attachment A), Chief Hutchison states that the limited number of structures resulting from the Project would have minimal, if any, impacts on the fuel break’s effectiveness. The Chief also states that fire hazards in the Project area are not greater than other areas similar to the Project location, and that the defensible spaces created by the home sites could even enhance its effectiveness in that limited area. The water storage tanks will serve the Development Parcels and for fire protection. The future Homeowner’s Association will own the tanks and provide all maintenance on the tanks and its associated equipment. Per the California Fire Code, a portion of the water (varies based on size and number of homes) will be required to be allotted for fire protection services and cannot be used for residential use. Fire hydrants are also required to be installed with the residential development. 2. Prezoning and Open Space. Some commenters erroneously stated that the open space parcels will be a public park. Some commenters expressed concern regarding public access to the open space area. Lastly, there were several questions related to the prezoning approach for parcels within and outside of the City’s Sphere of Influence. Response: There are many different ways to preserve land as open space. The Project Description within the Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration proposes two methods: i. The portion of the proposed parcels within the current Sphere of Influence (a portion of Parcels 8 and 10, totaling approximately 343 acres, ref erred to as the “Inside Conservation Parcels”) will be preserved as open space and is proposed to be prezoned “PF” (Public Facilities) which specifically identifies public or quasi- public uses, including, but not limited to, natural resource conservation areas and parks and recreation. ii. The City will preserve the portion of the Conservation Parcels located outside of the Sphere of Influence (“Outside Conservation Parcels,” consisting of approximately 296 acres), as open space through City Council resolution or other means, rather than prezoning them “PF”. Proposed Parcels 8 and 10 would effectively be “split zoned”; i.e., the portion within the SOI would be prezoned PF, while the remaining portion outside of the SOI would not be prezoned, but would be made subject to a conservation easement or other City Council action prohibiting development and preserving it as open space. The Mendocino County Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCo), which is the Responsible Agency under CEQA and will ultimately consider the City’s annexation and prezoning application, submitted comments (see Comment Letter 19) stating that the “Outside Conservation Parcels” must be included in the prezoning application, per Page 372 of 414 Government Code Section 56375(a)(7) which states “the decision of the commission with regard to a proposal to annex territory to a city shall be based upon the general plan and prezoning of the city. When the development purposes are not made known to the annexing city, the annexation shall be reviewed on the basis of the adopted plans and policies of the annexing city or county. A commission shall require, as a condition to annexation, that a city prezone the territory to be annexed or present evidence satisfactory to the commission that the existing development entitlements on the territory are vested or are already at build-out, and are consistent with the city’s general plan. However, the commission shall not specify how, or in what manner, the territory shall be prezoned.” Accordingly, and to incorporate LAFCo’s comments the City of Ukiah proposes to prezone the entirety of the “Conservation Parcels” (approximately 640 acres) as PF. See revised Figure 3, Proposed Parcel Configurations and Prezoning and revised Table 1 of the Staff Report, which contains a summary of parcel and prezoning information associated with the Proposed Project. In response to comments received regarding public access to the open space areas, the Project site(s) is accessed via a gated private road and no public parking is proposed. The Project does not propose a public park, nor does it propose to allow public access to the open space lands. Although the City does not currently have a stand-alone Open Space zoning designation, the City’s existing Public Facilities (PF) zoning designation encompasses lands within the City that contain open space and natural areas, parks, as well as other public facilities. The proposed Development Parcels (approximately 54 acres) will remain prezoned for Single-Family Residential Hillside (–H) Overlay District, which is intended to support planning, design, and development activities in harmony with natural physical features and minimize potential safety, water runoff and soil erosion concerns associated with the natural terrain. The Project will acquire and preserve open space for several reasons, including sourcewater preservation, fire mitigation, scenic resources, and biological preservation. This approach will allow the City to preserve and protect the collective Conservation Parcels (640 acres total), while permitting limited, orderly, clustered low-density single- family housing development within the Development Parcels (54 acres). COMMENT LETTER 1: MARGO FRANK Comment: The commenter expresses concerns regarding wildfire. Response: See Master Response 1. COMMENT LETTER 2: CRISPIN B. HOLLINSHEAD Comment: The commenter expresses concerns regarding wildfire. Response: See Master Response 1. COMMENT LETTER 3: ULLA BRUNNBERG RAND Comment: The commenter expresses concerns regarding wildfire. Page 373 of 414 Response: See Master Response 1. Comment: The commenter suggests that the project be revised to only allow one dwelling per parcel and less Development Parcels. Response: Under the County’s General Plan and Zoning Ordinance, the entirety of the 707 acres has the potential to be developed with up to one dwelling per 40 acres, for a total of 17 primary dwellings. In addition, in accordance with state law, an Accessory Dwelling Unit ADU may be constructed as of right on each parcel, resulting in the potential for up to 34 total units to be developed. By-right development does not include public or discretionary review, nor does it include in-depth environmental review. The Proposed Project and Development Agreement would restrict development to one single family dwelling per parcel and one ADU (as required by law, except in cases where the slope exceeds 50 percent, per the City’s Hillside Overlay Ordinance), for a total of up to14 potential units. Due to these constraints, as well as other restrictions within the Hillside Overlay Zoning District, after the parcels are annexed into the City, the development of single-family homes on the Development Parcels would only occur if individual applicants/owners purchase the home sites from the developer, submit a complete project-specific site plan and Use Permit application, and receive approval from the Ukiah Planning Commission. As noted above, Development Parcels 1-3 may be developed within the County’s jurisdiction prior to annexation by-right, but will be required to be developed to R1-H standards through CC&Rs. Summarizing, the Project would result in a reduction in the number of units that are currently allowed. Under existing conditions, there is potential for up to 34 units to be developed by right. If the Project is approved, this number would be reduced to a maximum of up to 14 units. COMMENT LETTER 4: ALLIE DUGGAN Comment: The commenter expresses opposition to the Project. Response: This comment is noted and is included in the public record for Planning Commission and City Council consideration. Comment: The commenter expresses concerns regarding traffic on Redwood Avenue. Response: As noted in Section 5.17, Transportation, of the ISMND, impacts to transportation and traffic would be significant if the Project conflicted with a local plan, ordinance or policy addressing transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities; conflicted with CEQA Guidelines Sec. 15064.3(b), which contains criteria for analyzing transportation impacts; substantially increased hazards due to geometric design features; or resulted in inadequate emergency access. As noted in the ISMND, the Project would not conflict with a local plan or ordinance related to traffic, and is required to be in compliance with all Fire and Building codes related to emergency access and safety. Minor increases to traffic on adjacent streets (specifically Redwood Avenue and Helen Avenue) could occur from heavy equipment required for road and utility improvements, but would be considered temporary (1-2 months). In addition, the adjacent streets will not be closed to through traffic during construction of the road and utility improvements with the exception of the potential to have temporary (five to ten minute) closures when specialty Page 374 of 414 equipment may be delivered to the job site. Further, it is unlikely that all of the single family homes would be developed at the same time, and impacts to traffic would be analyzed on a project-level basis. For the aforementioned reasons, in addition to those discussed in the ISMND, traffic impacts associated with the Project would be less than significant. Comment: The commenter states that wildlife exists in the area and that development would destroy their habitat. The commenter further states that any impact to wildlife should be analyzed prior to development. Response: As noted in Section 5.4, Biological Resources, of the ISMND a Biological Resources Assessment (BRA) titled “Biological Assessment Report” was prepared for the Project by Jacobszoon & Associates, Inc. The BRA is designed to identify sensitive communities within the study area and determine the existence or potential occurrence for special-status species, as well as impacts to biological resources associated with the Project. The BRA found that all impacts to biological resources would be reduced to less than significant with implementation of Mitigation Measures BIO-1 through BIO-5, which require pre-construction surveys for nesting birds and sensitive species. Please refer to Section 5.4 and Attachment B of the ISMND for more information. Comment: The commenter references a Mendocino Voice news article from January 15, 2021 that states that the Donation Parcel was donated for open space and fire mitigation, and development of the parcel was never mentioned. Response: Consistent with the January 15, 2021 news article and as discussed in the Project Description, the Donation Parcel will be protected as open space and is not proposed for development. The City will cooperate with Cal Fire and other entities to continue efforts for fire mitigation work. As is common with other open space conservation projects, the scope of the Ukiah Western Hills Open Land Acquisition & Limited Development Project has evolved since its inception into the current proposal. The City of Ukiah has not yet acquired any land in the proposed project area but did receive a donation of 188 acres (referred to as the “Donation Parcel”). The donation of the land that was completed in 2020 was not part of the Proposed Project and, in fact, was done in part with the hopes of strengthening future grant applications. Under the County of Mendocino’s jurisdiction, portions of the Project sites, specifically the proposed Development Parcels, have been under consideration for development for the past several years, as Mr. Hull intended to develop portions with residential development at some point in the future. These improvements were not done in relation to the Proposed Project, or in coordination with the City of Ukiah. The City’s involvement with the property included efforts to secure grant funding in 2018 and 2019 for acquisition of the entire project site, but these efforts were unsuccessful. In the meantime, the property owner held the property for the possible grant acquisition but also continued property improvements during that time. The City was approached by Mr. Hull after the City’s last unsuccessful grant application and began to look at other solutions to acquiring the property. To complete the acquisition, the City will enter into a Property Exchange and Development Agreement (“Development Agreement”) with the current owner of the Hull Properties subject to the annexation Page 375 of 414 application. Under the Development Agreement, the current owner will convey the Annexation Parcels to the City in exchange for real property owned by the City and a payment from the City of an amount to make up the difference between the fair market value of the exchanged properties. The only portion of the project that includes the potential for development is the 54 easternmost acres located directly adjacent to the current City limits. As noted in response to Comment Letter 3, currently the lands proposed for annexation could be developed by- right under less restrictive zoning than what is currently proposed in the Development Agreement. The City’s acquisition of the property will enable the preservation and maintenance of the non-developed land for open space and enhanced fire mitigation assets, while limiting development to seven single family homes (with the possibility of seven ADUs) within 54 acres. Comment: The commenter express concerns regarding wildfire. Response: See Master Response 1. Comment: The commenter erroneously states that “this project started on April 16, 2021 and the homeowners on Redwood Avenue, who would be majorly impacted, were given printed notice of it on May 13, 2021, nearly a month after this process has started.” Response: The City has followed noticing procedures in compliance with City noticing requirements and the Government Code. Specifically, the Notice of Intent to adopt the ISMND and conduct a public hearing was provided in the following manner, in accordance with Ukiah City Code (UCC) §9267 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15073:  Provided to property owners within 300 feet of the project parcels, as well as agencies and departments with jurisdiction or interest over the project on April 16, 2021, June 1, 2021 and August 13, 2021;  Provided to members of the public, agencies, and interested parties who submitted written comments on the Draft ISMND during the public review period on August 13, 2021;  Published in the Ukiah Daily Journal on April 24, 2021, June 5, 2021 and August 14, 2021;  Posted on the Project site on May 3, 2021, June 1, 2021, and August 11;  Posted at the Civic Center (glass case) 72 hours prior to the public hearing;  Noticed for continuance at the May 26, 2021 Planning Commission hearing to a date certain of June 9, 2021; and  Notice for continuance at the June 9, 2021 Planning Commission to a date uncertain. In addition, based on the amount of interest in the Project and to receive as much public input as possible, additional public noticing was conducted in the following manner:  Posted on the City of Ukiah website on April 16, 2021 and August 16, 2021;  Emailed to Planning Commissioners and City Councilmembers on April 16, 2021 and August 13, 2021;  Hand-delivered to all residences (in addition to and beyond the 300-foot requirement) on Redwood Avenue on May 13, 2021 and mailed to all residences on Redwood Avenue on August 11, 2021. Page 376 of 414 COMMENT LETTER 5: Western Hills Fire Safe Council Comment: The commenter references a December 11, 2020 Ukiah Daily Journal news article regarding the donation of the Donation Parcel to the City by Mr. Hull and states that it did not mention the acquisition and annexation of the remaining properties proposed under the Project. Response: See response to Comment Letter 4 regarding the Donation Parcel and evolution of the Proposed Project. Comment: The commenter states that on April 16, 2021, the Notice of Intent was sent to a few Redwood Avenue and San Jacinta Drive property owners. Response: See response to Comment Letter 4 regarding noticing. Comment: “The majority of the property is zoned PF, public facilities. It [is] possible to change this zoning designation in the future to R1-H zoning (single family residential), should there be interest in further development. Is it possible to change the zoning on the inside conservation PF zoned parcels (ISMND map p.13) to a Conservation Easement in perpetuity along with the outside conservation parcels for a Ukiah Wildlife Sanctuary?” Response: There are many different ways to preserve land as open space. As noted in Master Response 2, the Project proposes to prezone the entire 640 acres for open space as “PF”. In accordance with the Government Code, parcels included in the prezone cannot be rezoned for a period of two years after adoption. In addition, because the parcels will be under City ownership, the City will have control over the use of the parcels. The City’s long-term goals for the parcels include open space and do not include residential development. Comment: The commenter asks the following questions regarding the proposed water tank: “W hat are the plans for the new water storage tank besides fire protection measures? Who will be responsible for maintaining the 150,000 gallon tank, pump, and well that supports the water tank? Is the water in this tank dedicated for fire department use or also for use of potential domestic purposes for the buildout? Will there be hydrants on the city water main extending up from Redwood Avenue?” Response: The new water storage tanks will be used to serve the Development Parcels. In addition, they will be used for fire protection. The tanks will be owned and maintained by the HOA. Per the California Fire Code, a portion of the water (varies based on size and number of homes) will be required to be allotted for fire protection services and cannot be used for residential use. Fire hydrants are also required to be installed with the residential development. Comment: The commenter states “Neil Davis’[s] responses to WHFSC questions to Mr. Sangiacomo regarding the Hull Properties Limited Development Agreement included a question on water resources. Mr. Davis stated, “…this project provides sourcewater protection and will benefit the entire Ukiah Valley by protecting the sourcewater and ensuring that it reaches its maximum potential.” How does Mr. Davis define “sourcewater protection?” Response: Acquisition of headwater properties in the Western Hills of the Ukiah Valley provides source water (headwater) protection because securing these properties will provide preservation of headwater properties in the Western Hills that will help ensure that Page 377 of 414 natural runoff and groundwater recharge patterns will continue in perpetuity. Benefits will include preserving the current hydrology of the Western Hills which are a major driver for the recharging of Ukiah Valley’s aquifer. Preserving these properties will ensure that there is no adverse change to these important resources and is consistent with the goals of section 15 of the State of California’s 2020 Water Resilience Portfolio in that it will “protect water quality and supply”. Comment: In addition to expressing concerns regarding wildfire and the shaded fuel break, the commenter asks if the residential development of the 54 easternmost acres can be taken out of the Development Agreement. In addition, the commenter asks if the lower elevation properties west of the shaded fuel break that remain in Mr. Hull’s possession will be considered for future buildout. Response: See Master Response 1 and Comment Letter 9 regarding wildfire and the shaded fuel break. As noted in response to Comment Letter 4, in order to complete the acquisition, the City will enter into a Property Exchange and Development Agreement (“Development Agreement”) with the current owner of the Hull Properties subject to the annexation application. Under the Development Agreement, the current owner will convey the Annexation Parcels to the City in exchange for real property owned by the City and a payment from the City of an amount to make up the difference between the fair market value of the exchanged properties; the City does not have the funding to purchase the entire project area without this component. As noted in the Project Description, the only portion of the project that includes the potential for development are the 54 easternmost acres located directly adjacent to the current City limits. See response to Comment Letter 3 for more information regarding the discretionary review process for future development. The remaining acreage will be preserved as open space. COMMENT LETTER 6: CHRIS WATT Comment: The commenter asks if the annexation requires a tax-sharing agreement with the County of Mendocino, and if so, what actions have been taken by the City to secure an agreement. Response: A tax-sharing agreement will be required as a part of the annexation application. Comment: The commenter asks if the parcels proposed for development to be prezoned as Single-Family Residential-Hillside Overlay District (R1-H) have been sized consistently with the Hillside Development Standards, and if not, further comments the parcels should be sized in accordance with the Hillside Development Standards and Subject to the Use Permitting Process and the Hillside Development Standards. Response: The Development Parcels included in the original preliminary Lot Line Adjustment proposed to be prezoned Single-Family Residential-Hillside Overlay District have been adequately sized and designed in accordance with the Hillside Overlay District regulations. See Response to Comments Attachment A which includes a topographical map and the average slope of the Development Parcel area, in accordance with the Hillside Overlay District lot size requirements. As noted above in the Revisions and Clarifications section, the final resulting configuration may vary, but the number of parcels Page 378 of 414 and Development Parcel area footprint will not. Additionally, the final parcel configuration and future single family residential development is required to be in accordance with the Hillside Overlay District regulations. For Development Parcels 4-7 this includes obtaining Planning Commission approval of a Use Permit for development of a single-family housing unit. As noted in Condition of Approval 3, a copy of the final recorded Lot Line Adjustment shall be submitted to the Community Development Department prior to submittal of a Use Permit for single family housing. Development Parcels 1-3 may be developed within the County’s jurisdiction prior to annexation by-right, but will be required to be developed to R1-H standards through CC&Rs if developed prior to annexation. Comment: The commenter asks if Landslide Hazard Identification Map No. 24 published in 1991 by the California Geological Survey was consulted to determine the potential presence of landslide hazards with the parcels proposed for development and the access roads to the development. This report should be consulted and included as a reference in the ISMND. Response: As noted in the References section, and Section 7, Geology and Soils, of the ISMND, information related to soils and geology, including landslides, was compiled using a variety of resources including the Background Report for the County of Mendocino General Plan Update (prepared by P.M.C., 2003), as well as the California Geolog ical Survey, U.S. Landslide Inventory Web Application and Earthquake Fault Map, Ukiah. These resources do not identify the Development Parcels nor the access road as having a high landslide hazard potential. Comment: The commenter states that it seems imprudent to not perform a preliminary soils report to determine if the parcels proposed for development have soils or landslide hazards which would preclude development or at a minimum severely limit the development potential. The commenter also states that the Geology and Soils section should also reference the requirement in the California Building Code to submit a Geotechnical Report for each lot. Response: The Project does not include approval of any entitlements for development of homes. After the parcels are annexed into the City, Development Parcels 4-7 would not be developed until an applicant submits a project-specific site plan with a Use Permit application and receives Planning Commission approval for development of a home, in accordance with the Hillside Overlay Zoning District regulations. As stated in the Geology and Soils Section of the ISMND (Pg. 34), the Hillside Overly District regulations (UCC §9139 (c)), a soils engineering report completed by a professional engineer registered in the state of California is required to be submitted during the discretionary review period for development, including future single family residential, within the Hillside Overlay District. Additionally, a Building Permit is required for residential construction, which will ensure all activities are in compliance with building and seismic safety codes. As noted above, although Development Parcels 1-3 may be developed within the County’s jurisdiction prior to annexation by-right, they will be required to be developed to R1-H standards through CC&Rs. In addition, mitigation measures identified for residential development in the ISMND will be applied to all Development Parcels. This information has been added to the Final Draft ISMND. Comment: The commenter states that the Wildfire section of the ISMND indicates that fuel breaks are developed in the project area and states that the ISMND does not describe how the fuel breaks will be maintained. The commenter also asks the following questions: “if the Ukiah Valley Fire District have capacity to defend the proposed development areas against wildfire given the Extremely High Fire Risk for the lands adjacent to the proposed development area? Why not Page 379 of 414 subject these parcels to Wildland Urban Interface requirements? Perhaps include a benefit zone to pay for vegetation management and fire protection which is quite different from the urban parcels of the City.” Response: See Master Response 1. COMMENT LETTER 7: JEANNE WETZEL CHINN Comment: The commenter states the following: “I don’t take issue with transferring several of his individual parcels to be annexed to the City of Ukiah. However, there are concerns regarding how the additional acreage is planning to be utilized: 296ac for Conservation Lands on the most western area, 343ac for Recreational (zoned PF-Public Facilities) Lands in an odd shaped “C” pattern, and 54ac as Development Parcels (zoned R1-H) on the northeastern corner, as shown and stated in the ISMND map legend on p.13. Who owns the 5 parcels between the “C” Recreational Lands, and what are the plans for these parcels?” Response: The commenter erroneously states that the 343 acres within the City’s Sphere of Influence for open space would be classified as “Recreational Lands”. These parcels are proposed to be prezoned “Public Facilities” and used for open space and conservation. It is unclear what Parcels the commenter is referring to when they ask “who owns the 5 parcels between the “C” Recreational Lands, and what are the plans for these parcels?”, as the Project Description does not classify any of the proposed parcels for annexation in such a way. Instead, as discussed in Master Response 2, the City proposes to prezone the entire 640 acres of open space lands as “PF”. The commenter is referred to Table 1 of the Staff Report which contains a summary of parcel and prezoning information associated with the Proposed Project. Comment: The commenter expresses concerns regarding wildfire risk, the project being located within the Wildland-Urban Interface area, as well as comments regarding the shaded fuel break that are also expressed in other comment letters. Response: Please refer to Master Response 1 related to wildfire concerns. Comment: The commenter erroneously states that the community’s tax dollars would be paying for the utility extensions to the Development Parcels, and asks who would pay for the maintenance of the 150,000-gallon water storage and fire facilities tank, pump, and well. Response: The project involves City acquisition of property with most of the utility infrastructure completed by the developer and in place prior to any potential development. The property owner/developer will be responsible for the road improvements, installation and maintenance of the sewer system, water storage tanks and its associated equipment. Electric utilities will be installed by the City and/or the developer, but ultimately will be owned and maintained by the City. Comment: The commenter states that at the most recent Paths, Open Space, and Creeks Commission (POSCC) meeting, Commissioners were told there will be no infrastructure on the recreation lands, including no public bathroom facilities or parking areas for potential hikers & bikers, and asks who would be responsible for patrolling those areas to pick up cigarette butts and other trash, and keep transients from establishing camps. Page 380 of 414 Response: As clarified above, there are no lands that would be classified as “recreational lands” and the Proposed Project does not include allowing public access to the open space areas. If public access to open space areas is contemplated in the future, additional environmental review will be required, as applicable. Comment: The commenter states that there is significant wildlife and biologic resources documented in the Western Hills and they would like to see all of the open space lands annexed together as “Ukiah’s Wildlife Sanctuary” and conserved in perpetuity. Response: The City of Ukiah agrees and recognizes the importance of the biological resources within the Ukiah Western Hills. One of the City of Ukiah’s goals of the Proposed Project is to preserve and protect important source water and biological resources and open space within the Ukiah Western Hills. Accordingly, approximately 640 acres are proposed for open space and conservation. The City is proposing to annex the entire 707 acres (including the 640 acres for open space). See Master Response 2 for more information regarding prezoning. COMMENT LETTER 8: ANDREA VACHON Comment: The commenter makes statements and asks questions regarding public parking and access under the assumption that the open space areas will be a public park. Response: The Project site(s) is accessed via a gated private road at the terminus of Redwood Avenue and no public parking is proposed. The Project does not propose a public park, nor does it propose to allow public access to the open space lands at this time. Comment: The commenter asks questions regarding proposed access improvements and requirements within the Fire Code. Response: See Master Response 1. Comment: The commenter erroneously states that the City is paying for the extension of utilities and asks if the developer should be paying for them. Response: See response to Comment Letter 7. Comment: The commenter asks why the Inside Conservation parcels would not be a part of the City Council resolution or action to preserve them as open space. Response: See Master Response 2 and response to Comment Letter 5. Comment: The commenter expressed concerns regarding wildfire. Response: See Master Response 1. COMMENT LETTER 9: Michael Maynard Comment: The commenter states that he was the Cal Fire Battalion Chief from November 2010 to December 2020 and was responsible for fuel reduction efforts in the Western Hills. The commenter provides an overview of information relating to past fuel management practices and expresses support for the project. Page 381 of 414 Response: This comment is noted and is included in the public record for Planning Commission and City Council consideration COMMENT LETTER 10: Sharron Thomas Comment: The commenter expresses concerns regarding wildfire that are included in other comment letters. Response: See Master Response 1. COMMENT LETTER 11: ANDREA DAVIS Comment: The commenter expresses concerns regarding the access road in relation to its slope, topography, erosion and runoff. Response: Please refer to ISMND Section 5.7, Geology and Soils, as well as Section 5.10, Hydrology and Water Quality which addresses these comments. To summarize, Mitigation Measure GEO-1 is proposed and requires submittal of sediment and erosion plans identifying BMPs to reduce soil erosion and water runoff to reduce or avoid impacts to geology and soils to be submitted prior to any ground disturbance, in accordance with Ukiah City Code (“UCC”) Division 9, Chapter 7, Erosion and Sediment Control. In addition, Hillside Overlay District development standards require submittal of Geotechnical Reports, Grading Plans, Hydrology Reports, etc. In regards to the access road, slope is also regulated by the Hillside Overlay District and the Fire Code, as discussed in Master Response 1. Comment: The commenter expresses concerns that the Development Parcels are adjacent to a small canyon that traps dust and smoke. The commenter asks what regulations for burning on the lower elevations of annexed properties be and what will be done to enforce speed limits to decrease dust. Response: Air Quality and burning permits are regulated by the Mendocino County Air Quality Management District (MCAQMD) and Cal Fire. As noted in ISMND Section 5.3, Air Quality, the MCAQMD enforces regulations pertaining to air quality, including fugitive dust. Impacts associated with construction would be considered temporary and paving of the existing gravel access road will ultimately reduce dust emissions in the area. MCAQMD has a set of standard Best Management Practices (BMPs) for construction projects that are intended to reduce air quality impacts and ensure that projects remain in attainment with air quality thresholds (including Regulation 1 relating to fugitive dust). As noted in the ISMND, Mitigation Measures AIR-1 through AIR-3 incorporate BMPs suggested by the MCAQMD to regulate air quality and dust emissions. Specifically, in regards to the question regarding the speed limit, AIR-2(b) states “All unpaved surfaces, unless otherwise treated with suitable chemicals or oils, shall have a posted speed limit of 10 mph.” With incorporation of BMPs and mitigation measures identified within the ISMND, impacts to Air Quality were found to be less than significant. Comment: The commenter expresses concerns regarding traffic on Redwood Avenue and the potential for increased noise from vehicles traveling up the road. Response: As noted in Section 5.17, Transportation, of the ISMND, impacts to transportation and traffic would be significant if the Project conflicted with a local plan, Page 382 of 414 ordinance or policy addressing transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities; conflicted with CEQA Guidelines Sec. 15064.3(b), which contains criteria for analyzing transportation impacts; substantially increased hazards due to geometric design features; or resulted in inadequate emergency access. As noted in the ISMND, the Project would not conflict with a local plan or ordinance related to traffic, and is required to be in compliance with all Fire and Building codes related to emergency access and safety. Minor increases to traffic on adjacent streets (specifically Redwood Avenue and Helen Avenue) could occur from heavy equipment required for road and utility improvements, but would be considered temporary (1-2 months). In addition, the adjacent streets will not be closed to through traffic during the road and utility improvements with the exception of the potential to have temporary (five to ten minute) closures when specialty equipment may be delivered to the job site. Further, it is unlikely that all of the single family homes would be developed at the same time, and impacts to traffic would be analyzed on a project-level basis. For the aforementioned reasons, in addition to those discussed in the ISMND, traffic impacts associated with the Project would be less than significant. Similarly, noise impacts associated with traffic would be considered temporary during construction. Upon future construction of single-family homes, sources of noise would be consistent with other noise sources typical of residential uses (e.g., mechanical equipment, dogs/pets, landscaping activities, cars parking, etc.). Additionally, as noted in Section 5.13, Noise, of the ISMND the City’s Noise Ordinance (Division 7, Chapter 1, Article 6) establishes ambient base noise level standards that apply to specific zoning districts within the City of Ukiah. In addition, to reduce potential noise impacts to nearby sensitive receptors, Mitigation Measure NOI-1 would require compliance with the City’s allowed hours of construction (7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m.), include Best Management Practices (BMPs) for reducing construction noise, and require construction equipment to be equipped with properly operating and maintained mufflers and other state-required noise attenuation devices. Operation of the Proposed Project would result in stationary noise sources associated with typical residential land uses These noise sources are typically intermittent and short in duration, and would be comparable to existing sources of noise experienced at surrounding residential uses. Noise impacts associated with the Project would be less than significant with mitigation implemented. Comment: The commenter states that the greenhouse gas emissions discussion should consider that the development will encourage vehicle fuel consumption due to the location of the housing. Response: As discussed in ISMND Section 5.8, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Construction activities associated with the Project and future housing development could result in direct and indirect emissions of GHG emissions. Direct project-related GHG emissions generally include emissions from construction activities, area sources, and mobile sources, while indirect sources include emissions from electricity consumption, water demand, and solid waste generation. Operational GHG emissions would result from energy emissions from natural gas usage and automobile emissions. As discussed in Section 5.3, Air Quality, of the ISMND, the Project (both construction and operation) would not result in a significant negative impact to air quality. Similarly, as discussed in Section 17, Transportation, the Project would not produce significant amounts of traffic or vehicle miles traveled that would in turn result in a significant increase in GHG emissions. Individual residential development projects constructed under the Page 383 of 414 Development Agreement will be reviewed on a project by project basis to analyze GHG emissions and will be required to follow all building codes and policies including those intended to reduce emissions. Specifically, future residential uses constructed would be required to adhere to all federal, state, and local requirements for energy efficiency, including the Title 24 standards. Compliance with Title 24 Building Energy Efficiency Standards would provide minimum efficiency standards related to various building features, including appliances, water and space heating and cooling equipment, building insulation and roofing, and lighting. Implementation of the Title 24 standards significantly reduces energy usage, as well as GHG emissions. Lastly, the Project includes annexation and conservation of approximately 640 acres, which will have no impact (or a beneficial impact) on GHG, given that the Project is located within a non-attainment area the Project is rural in nature, and the Project has a small development footprint. The Project, including infrastructure improvements and other temporary construction activities, is not expected to significantly increase GHG in the area. With implementation of the aforementioned regulations, impacts to GHG emissions would be less than significant. Comment: The commenter suggests that the required botanical surveys are inadequate and be completed prior to finalization of the ISMND. Response: As noted in ISMND Section 5.4, Biological Resources, botanical surveys are required to be conducted in accordance with U.S. Fish and Wildlife (USFWS) survey protocols, which requires several surveys through different times of the year, in relation to different species’ blooming periods. At the time of circulation of the Draft ISMND, the two of three required surveys completed (March 30, 2021 and May 17, 2021) had resulted in negative findings. Per USFWS protocols one additional survey was required during the blooming period (March-July); as noted in Draft ISMND Mitigation Measure BIO-1, this survey would occur prior to any ground disturbing activities at the recommendation of the Biologist. However, since the circulation of the Draft ISMND, the final botanical survey was completed on July 9, 2021. The survey did not result in the identification of any sensitive botanical species. As such, no further botanical surveys are required and Mitigation Measure BIO-1 has been revised accordingly. This information has been incorporated into the Biological Resources section of the Final Draft ISMND accordingly; the Biological Resources Assessment Addendum for Rare Plant Assessment and Botanical Survey is included as Attachment B1 of the Final Draft ISMND. Comment: The commenter expresses concerns regarding biological resources and water courses and culverts within the Project vicinity. The commenter also expresses concerns related to wildlife movement. Response: As noted in the response to comments received from Jacobszoon & Associates, Inc. (Response to Comments Attachment A), and in the Biological Resources Survey for the Project, the creeks within the Study Area were surveyed during the Biological Resource Assessment and first botanical survey, but no special status amphibian species were observed; however, Mitigation Measure BIO-2 requires pre- construction surveys prior to work in or around the drainages or water courses to protect sensitive amphibian species. No modifications to existing culverts are proposed. However, as noted in Condition of Approval 6, the Developer shall obtain regulatory permits, Page 384 of 414 including but not limited to a 401 Water Quality Certification, California Department of Fish and Wildlife Lake and Streambed Alteration Agreement, etc., if work is proposed in the future, in accordance with existing regulatory requirements. As discussed in ISMND Section 5.4, Biological Resources, there are no established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or native wildlife nursery sites within the Project area. Because the Project includes preservation of approximately 640 acres, the Project will preserve existing habitat and opportunity for movement for wildlife species. COMMENT LETTER 12: MARGO FRANK Comment: The commenter expresses concerns regarding wildfire and expresses opposition to the project. Response: This comment is noted and is included in the public record for Planning Commission and City Council consideration. See Master Response 1 related to wildfire. COMMENT LETTER 13: HEATHER SEGGEL Comment: The commenter expresses concerns regarding wildfire and expresses opposition to the project. Response: This comment is noted and is included in the public record for Planning Commission and City Council consideration. COMMENT LETTER 14: THOMAS HUNT Comment: The commenter expresses concerns that the criteria for lot line adjustments is not being met and that each qualifying parcel of a lot line adjustment must have a recorded certificate of compliance that the lot is a viable conforming lot. The commenter also states that “reconfiguration of parcels using the lot line adjustment method becomes a violation of the Subdivision Map Act if greater than Four parcel reconfigurations (LLA) are performed. A development of this nature should be required to prepare a tentative subdivision map, preliminary engineering of the access road, lot layout in conformance with the hillside slope ordnance, and provide a slope analysis study in conformance with the Hillside ordinance using accurate topographic mapping.” Response: See response to Comment Letter 6. Each lot has valid Certificate of Compliances and any lot line adjustments are to be done in accordance with the Subdivision Map Act and all County and City codes, as applicable. Government Code section 66412 specifies circumstances and processes that are excepted from the Subdivision Map Act. The exception found in subdivision (d) to that section concerns lot line adjustments “between four or fewer existing adjoining parcels, where the land taken from one parcel is added to an adjoining parcel, and where a greater number of parcels than originally existed is not thereby created….” A lot line adjustment meeting these criteria renders the Subdivision Map Act “inapplicable” to the application. (San Dieguito Partnership v. City of San Diego (1992) 7 Cal. App. 4th 748, 756 & 761 [Gov. Code § 66412, subdivision (d), does not limit the size of the area subject to a lot line adjustment].) Sequential lot line adjustments involving the same (or some of the same) properties does not run afoul of these criteria and are permitted to be completed upon completion of the Page 385 of 414 preceding adjustment. (Sierra Club v. Napa County Bd. of Sup'rs (2012) 205 Cal. App. 4th 162.) The City’s review of applications is limited and ministerial in nature. It may only determine whether the lot line adjustment conforms to the local general plan, any applicable specific plan, any applicable coastal plan, and zoning and building ordinances. The City can require the prepayment of real property taxes prior to the approval of the lot line adjustment, and it may facilitate the relocation of existing utilities, infrastructure, or easements. So long as the adjustment does not exceed the referenced criteria, the application may not be denied. (Gov. Code, § 66412 (d); Sierra Club v. Napa County Bd. of Sup'rs, supra, 205 Cal. App. 4th at pp. 177–180; San Dieguito Partnership v. City of San Diego, supra, 7 Cal. App. 4th at p. 760.) Other than those describe above, no other conditions and exactions on approval of a lot line adjustments may be imposed. In short, “the regulatory function of the approving agency is strictly circumscribed by the Legislature in a lot line adjustment, with very little authority as compared to the agency's function and authority in connection with a subdivision.” (Ibid.) Please refer to response to Comment Letter 6 and responses below regarding development in conformance with the Hillside Overlay District. Comment: The commenter expresses concerns that the new road will not meet Fire Safety Road Standards and is concerned about how the road will be maintained. Response: As mentioned in Master Response 1 the existing access road will be improved in accordance with all applicable fire and safety codes. All future construction and roadways associated with the Project (including future residential construction) must adhere to the aforementioned regulations, in addition to all other local, state and federal regulations relating to access and safety. The road will be privately owned and maintained by a Homeowners Association. Comment: The commenter expressed concerns that the ISMND does not address the capacity for of the existing City utility to support the proposed homes and questions who would maintain the infrastructure. Response: The project involves City acquisition of property with most of the utility infrastructure completed by the developer and in place prior to any potential development. The property owner/developer will be responsible for the road improvements, installation and maintenance of the sewer system, water storage tanks and its associated equipment; these components will be maintained by the HOA. Electric utilities will be installed by the City and/or the developer, but ultimately will be owned and maintained by the City. Please refer to ISMND Section 5.19, Utilities and Service Systems for an analysis of service capacity. Additional information is also provided in response to Comment Letter 19. Comment: The commenter expressed concerns regarding wildfire and access requirements. In addition, the commenter expresses concerns regarding development regulations in the Hillside Overlay District related to slope. Response: See Master Response 1 and response to Comment Letter 6 and 11 regarding slope and development within the Hillside Overlay District. Page 386 of 414 Comment: The commenter states that impacts to hydrology from potential future development and replacements of culverts were not adequately discussed in the ISMND. Response: See response to Comment Letters 6,11 and 16. As discussed in ISMND Section 5.10, Hydrology and Water Quality, the project, including improvement of the access road and future residential construction, would result in impervious surfaces that could result in an impact to water quality. However, as noted in Mitigation Measures GEO- 1 and HAZ-1, prior to any ground disturbance, erosion and sediment control plans shall be submitted to the Public Works Department and Community Development Department for review and approval and shall include Best Management Practices (BMPs) to address soil erosion and stormwater runoff. Also, R1-H development regulations require submittal of the following: soil and geological reports, subsurface investigations, grading plans, vegetation reports, grading plans, hydrology reports, to ensure development is being properly designed to avoid impacts to geology, soils and hydrology. Additionally, construction projects that would disturb more than one acre of land, would be subject to the requirements of General Construction Activity Stormwater Permit (Construction General Permit Order 2009-0009-DWQ, also known as the CGP), which requires operators of such construction sites to implement stormwater controls and develop a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) identifying specific BMPs to be implemented to reduce the amount of sediment and other pollutants associated with construction sites from being discharged in stormwater runoff. The proposed Development Agreement does not include specific development designs or proposals, nor does it grant any entitlements for development. Future single-family housing development for all Development Parcels will be subject to the City’s R1-H development standards, building and safety codes, including review of stormwater management practices, where applicable. If future work in or adjacent to any of the other watercourses or culverts are proposed, the developer is required to obtain necessary regulatory permits form the California Department of Fish and Wildlife and the Regional Water Quality Control Board, as necessary. As noted in the ISMND impacts associated with erosion and stromwater runoff would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated. COMMENT LETTER 15: STEVE AND JEAN LINCOLN Comment: The commenter expresses concerns regarding wildfire and expresses opposition to the project. Response: This comment is noted and is included in the public record for Planning Commission and City Council consideration. COMMENT LETTER 16: NORTH COAST REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD (NCRWQCB) Comment: The commenter states that information regarding sensitive biological communities, Waters of the State and wetlands is conflicting within the Biological Resources Assessment. The NCRWQCB also states that if Waters of the State will be impacted by the project, regulatory permits will be required. Page 387 of 414 Response: As noted in the responses prepared by Jacobszoon and Associates, Inc. (included in Response to Comments Attachment A), “No wetlands were observed within the Study Area during the biological assessment” and “Biological Resources Assessment (Attachment B to the ISMND) Section 3.4.2, (3) Field Survey Methodology, (.4) Biological Communities, (.2) Sensitive Communities-Aquatic Resources (page 8) is not a result or account of what we observed on site and is meant to describe our methodology in defining and describing wetlands for the purposes of the assessment. Generally, if a suspected wetland is observed during our biological assessment, it is referred to as a “wet area” until a wetland delineation is performed to determine whether the “wet area’ meets the criteria of wetlands as described by the USACE 1987 Manual. The NWI database is consulted at a reconnaissance level before our site visit and is not intended to substitute on-the-ground field assessments for wetlands.” Please refer to section 5.1.2, (5) Field Survey Results, (.1) Biological Communities, (.2) Sensitive Biological Communities-Sensitive Aquatic Resources (page 16), for the results of the assessment concerning sensitive aquatic resources including wetlands. The Study Area contains two (2) Class II watercourses and four (4) Class III watercourses that were observed and mapped on-site. The closest watercourse is a Class II watercourse located on APN 001-040-83 (existing Parcel 1 and proposed Parcel 8) of the study area. This Class II watercourse is mapped on the USFWS National Wetland Inventory as a riverine habitat classified as R4SBC. R4SBC is a riverine intermittent system with a streambed and is seasonally flooded. Riverine systems are considered watercourses for the purposes of this assessment. The Proposed Project will not impact this watercourse, as it would be included in proposed Parcel 8, which will be preserved as open space. The project doesn’t propose modification of existing culverts. For the reasons discussed above, the Project would not result in a significant impact to sensitive biological communities or wetlands. If future work in or adjacent to any of the other watercourses or culverts are proposed, the Developer is required to obtain necessary regulatory permits form the California Department of Fish and Wildlife and the Regional Water Quality Control Board, as necessary. The Biological Resources Assessment identifies the following two sensitive tree communities in the Study Area: Quercus garryana Forest & Woodland Alliance: Oregon white oak forest and woodland and Umbellularia californica Forest & Woodland Alliance: California bay forest and woodland. Both communities are classified as having a California Department of Wildlife State Rarity Rank of S3 (Vulnerable). No trees are proposed for removal. However, if, future development of single-family homes propose removal of trees, pre-construction surveys identified in Mitigation Measure BIO-2 shall include identification of these species and removal shall be in accordance with the California Department of Fish and Wildlife regulations and the City of Ukiah Tree Management Guidelines. If trees are proposed for removal, surveys will also include identification of Oregon white oak forest and woodland, as well as California bay forest and woodland habitat; removal of sensitive habitat shall be conducted in accordance with the California Department of Fish and Wildlife regulations. See revisions to Mitigation Measures BIO-1 and BIO-2 for consistency with the Biological Resources Assessment. COMMENT LETTER 17: JOHN AND DELYNNE ROGERS Page 388 of 414 Comment: The commenter expresses concerns regarding wildfire. Response: See Master Response 1. Comment: The commenter states that once City utilities are extended to the Development Parcels, that there is increased potential for further development. Response: See Section 5.14, Population and Housing, regarding a discussion on potential growth inducing impacts. The residential component of the proposed Development Agreement would be located within 54 acres of the total 707 acres proposed for annexation. Development would be restricted to a total of 14 units (seven single family homes and the potential for an ADU to each home) compact and clustered in order to maximize the preservation of open space. This housing cluster will be contiguous and similar to existing urbanized areas within the Western Hills under City jurisdiction. If the property were to remain unincorporated housing units could be developed on each parcel throughout the total area, albeit in a more widely disbursed configuration. These proposed jurisdictional changes would not engender ‘Sprawl’. On the contrary, viewed as a whole, the proposed annexation will reduce potential sprawl and concentrate urban services (water, sewer, electricity, solid waste collection and public and private roads) in the area already developed for single family housing and receiving urban services. The contiguous properties to the northeast are already under City jurisdiction and zoned R1-H. Services would only be extended to the residential sites and would not induce growth throughout the larger Western Hills. COMMNET LETTER 18: PINKY KUSHNER Comment: The commenter raises concerns and questions related to the prezone approach identified in the Project Description. Response: Please refer to Master Response 2 for clarification. Comment: The commenter refers to the following text: “City-owned parcels can be located anywhere in the County as long as they are less than 300 acres, owned by the City, and used for municipal purposes at the time of the annexation application” and states “It is not clear how this project satisfies any of those limitations. In fact, it seems clear that none of the provisions are satisfied. The property that is proposed to be designated PF, will not be for municipal purposes in the ordinary legal meaning of the word “municipal.” Response: As discussed in Master Response 2, the approximately 296 acres of property located outside of the City’s current Sphere of Influence will be preserved as open space and prezoned PF” (Public Facilities), consistent with all of the remaining “Conservation Parcels”, totaling 640 acres, in response to comments submitted by the Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCo). All of this property will be owned and maintained by the City of Ukiah. As noted in the Project Description and Master Response 2, PF specifically identifies public or quasi-public uses, including, but not limited to, natural resource conservation areas and parks and recreation. Comment: The commenter states the following: “The City should demand a codicil to the private road access that will require that a keyed entrance gate be built on the road at the entry to the developed (housing) area and also at the distal end of the developed (housing) area. Furthermore, no third party, other than the owners of the developed housing and the City, can be given rights Page 389 of 414 to trespass those two gates. Without such a codicil, it is obvious that this proposed development will be able to leapfrog further development into the County property that lies further to the west along the roadway. These further lying parcels are designated County lands, and any development/construction will not be subject to City of Ukiah’s reviews and will be without City limitations (as mentioned in the neg dec in the argument for the present annexation). It is egregious that the potential for leapfrogged development is not even mentioned in the ‘neg dec.’” Response: The existing access road is a private road and is currently accessed by a gate with a code. See response to Comment Letter 17 for information that addresses the comment regarding the potential for “sprawl”. Comment: the commenter expresses concerns regarding visual impacts related to the water tank, “new access roads”, and potential single-family homes. Response: As discussed in ISMND Section 5.1, Aesthetics, the Project site(s) consists of mostly undeveloped parcels with firebreaks and private access roads. No new access roads are proposed. The parcels have been subject to vegetation management and grading practices, including clearing areas for potential water tank pad sites and house sites, over the last several years through the County’s permitting process. No trees are proposed for removal as a part of the Project. The Project proposes to acquire and preserve open space for several reasons, including sourcewater preservation, fire mitigation, scenic resources, and biological preservation. Approximately 640 acres would remain open space, while 54 acres would be potentially developed with up to 14 units (one single-family dwelling and one ADU per lot). Although the Project does not include specific development proposals for construction of the homes, the Development Agreement allows the potential for the homes to be built at some point in the future. However, the location of potential homes (within the Development Parcels) are all proposed in the lowest elevation of the Project area, therefore limiting visual impact from the valley floor. In addition, as outlined in the City’s Zoning Ordinance (UCC Section 9018), the City’s Single Family Residential (R1) zoning district contains development standards including a 30-foot height limitation for single-family homes. This scale of potential development would be similar to residential development in the area east of the site. While the easternmost portion of the Project that could be developed with homes, development of these homes would not substantially degrade a scenic vista or the visual character of the area, as it is assumed they would be constructed within the existing house sites and not require a substantial amount of vegetation removal. One of the intentions of the –H District is to preserve outstanding natural physical features, such as the highest crest of a hill, natural rock outcroppings, major tree belts, etc. Allowing the development of homes on the easternmost portion of the site, while preventing residential development on the remaining 640 acres, will ensure orderly development patterns to prevent sprawl and visual degradation within the Western Hills. The assumed low-density development pattern is consistent and contributes to the rural “small town” character of the Ukiah Valley and consistent with proposed City zoning for the sites. It is also consistent with the purposes and intentions of the Ukiah Valley Area Plan. In addition, future residential development of Development Parcels 4-7 would be subject to discretionary and environmental review, and be required to comply with City regulations for height, setbacks, and other development standards established to protect natural Page 390 of 414 features and scenic resources within the Western Hills. Although Development Parcels 1- 3 may be developed within the County’s jurisdiction prior to annexation by-right, they will be required to be developed to R1-H standards through CC&Rs. In addition, all mitigation measures identified for residential development in the ISMND will be applied to Development Parcels 1-3. Therefore, the potential residential development associated with the Project would not conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality. Sewer and electric utilities would be extended from Redwood Avenue to the house sites, but would be located underground within the existing roadway to avoid visual impacts. The two proposed water tanks (34 ft x 34 ft, 10.5 ft high) would be colored a shade of green to blend in with the landscape. The water tank site has already been cleared of vegetation and is surrounded by trees, making it less visible to the public. Due to the location and topography of the site, and distance from public views, such as those in adjacent residential areas or views from the valley floor, the proposed water tank would not significantly impact scenic resources on the site or in the area. For the aforementioned reasons, the Project would not result in a significant impact to scenic vistas, nor the visual character of the site or area. Impacts would be less than significant. Comment: The commenter states that “According to the ISMND the project should evaluate “forest carbon measurement methodology provided in Forest Protocols adopted by the California Air Resources Board.” No data have been provided. CO2 levels continue to increase in the Ukiah Valley. The removal of forests will add to the carbon increases. This effect cannot be said to be less than significant unless carbon measurements are established. In order to ‘neg dec’ the project, current, pre-project baseline data must be measured. The heat effect of forest removal must be evaluated.” Response: The language the commenter refers to is included in the CEQA Guidelines Appendix G checklist for Agriculture and Forestry Resources. It is provided in the checklist as a tool for measuring the conversion of forest land. As noted in Section 5.2, Agriculture and Forestry Resources of the ISMND, according to the California Department of Conservation Farmland Mapping & Monitoring Program, California Important Farmland Finder, the Project area does not contain Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance. Additionally, the Project does not contain timberland. The Project would not convert Farmland, conflict with existing zoning for agriculture or forest land, and would not involve changes to the environment that would result in the conversion of agricultural resources to non-agriculture uses. Therefore, the analysis the commenter refers to is not applicable to the Project. Please refer to ISMND Section 5.3, Air Quality for a discussion of air quality impacts. Comment: The commenter expresses the opinion that the Biological Resource Assessment for the Project is inadequate because not all of the botanical surveys had been completed at the time of the Draft ISMND. In addition, the commenter states that the entire 707 acres associated with the Project should be surveyed. Response: See response to Comment Letter 16. In addition, it should be clarified that surveys and the Biological Resources Assessment was conducted on 55 acres of the Project site and limited to areas that would include ground disturbance; this includes the Page 391 of 414 55 acres encompassing the proposed Development Parcels, in addition to the access road (extended out to 100 ft on either side), and the water tank pad site. No development or ground disturbance would occur on the reaming approximately 640 acres, as it will be preserved as open space. Accordingly, additional biological surveys are not warranted. Comment: The commenter expresses concern regarding wildfire and asks several questions regarding wildfire, insurance, soil moisture, drought, feasibility of the Project, and housing needs. Response: Please refer to Master Response 1 regarding wildfire. Regarding the remaining questions raised by the commenter, ISMND Section 5.20, Wildfire, provides an analysis of wildfire impacts, as required by CEQA. Information relevant to this analysis regarding the City’s Housing Element and Regional Housing Needs Allocation can be found in ISMND Section 5.14, Population and Housing. An analysis of the City’s service and utility capacity (including water) can be found in ISMND Section 5.19, Utilities and Service Systems and also in response to Comment Letter 19. The remaining comments raised by the commenter include questions that are hypothetical in nature and/or do not require analysis in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15204 which states “reviewers should be aware that the adequacy of an EIR is determined in terms of what is reasonably feasible, in light of factors such as the magnitude of the project at issue, the severity of its likely environmental impacts, and the geographic scope of the project. CEQA does not require a lead agency to conduct every test or perform all research, study, and experimentation recommended or demanded by commenters. When responding to comments, lead agencies need only respond to significant environmental issues and do not need to provide all information requested by reviewers, as long as a good faith effort at full disclosure is made in the EIR.” Comment: The commenter is of the opinion that the figures included in the ISMND are inadequate and states that a topographical map was not included. In addition, the commenter states that the photographs in the Biological Resource Assessment do not note the “geographical or topographical whereabouts.” Response: Topographical maps, as well as many other resources listed in the References Section of the ISMND, were reviewed during the preparation of the ISMND. A topographical map is not required to be included in the ISMND. However, one is included in Response to Comments Attachment A for reference. Comment: The commenter states that “an EIR is required to have alternative, including a no project alternative and other alternatives that achieve the same or equal provisions.” Response: The commenter is correct, in that according to CEQA Guidelines Section 15126, in preparation of an EIR, alternatives must be provided. However, the commenter erroneously identifies the ISMND as an EIR; ISMNDs are not required to provide alternatives. Comment: The commenter states that alternative sites for the water tank must be included and raises concerns regarding the water analysis. Response: Although not required, alternative water tank locations were considered in the preliminary planning process of this Project. As noted in ISMND Section 5.10, Hydrology and Water Quality, as well as Section 5.19, Utilities and Service Systems, water will be Page 392 of 414 provided on-site by the developer via two (2) 65,000-gallon water tanks. According to the water tank planning study memorandum, prepared by GHD (December 10, 2020), the existing wells produce approximately 50,000 gallons per day and are located adjacent to the proposed tanks. As a result, the developer proposes to supply the tanks with water from the well rather than constructing new booster pump stations to pump water up to the tanks from the City’s existing wells. As noted in the GHD memorandum, the potential development in this area could be served with adequate pressure by a tank at the proposed location. This information has been added to the Final Draft ISMND. COMMENT LETTER 19: MENDOCINO COUNTY LOCAL FORMATION COMMISSION (LAFCo) Comment: LAFCo states that “in order to fully address the annexation component of the proposed project, the Initial Study needs to further analyze the change in development potential of the annexation area from current conditions. This involves identifying and comparing the maximum development potential under current conditions (County General Plan/Zoning and Ukiah Valley Sanitation District service) and the proposed project development potential (Boundary Line Adjustment, City General Plan/Prezoning, and City services). The proposed project development potential of 7 Single-Family Dwelling Units and 7 Accessory Dwelling Units identified for the Development Parcels appears appropriate based on the Development Agreement, and may result in an overall reduction of environmental impacts or environmental benefits from the clustered development design, when compared with the current conditions. Since there is no development anticipated for the Noguera properties, the development potential of these parcels would be the maximum development potential under both current conditions (County General Plan/Zoning and Ukiah Valley Sanitation District service) and the proposed project (City General Plan/Prezoning and City services). The comparison of current and proposed development potential for the Conservation Parcels may result in an overall reduction of environmental impacts or environmental benefits from long -term conservation and associated natural resource and land management activities.” Response: An analysis of impacts associated with current development potential and development potential under the Proposed Project is provided throughout the ISMND, as appropriate. Specifically, Section 5.14, Population and Housing states the following: “Discussion: (a) Less than significant impact. As previously discussed in the Project Description and Land Use Section (11) of this Initial Study, the Proposed Project would annex approximately 707 acres into the City. Once annexed, 54 acres could be developed with up to 14 residential units (seven single family homes and one associated ADU per lot) through the proposed Development Agreement. Although no development is proposed at this time, for this analysis it is assumed that future development would result in construction and development of residential uses on the site. Under the County’s General Plan and Zoning Ordinance, the entirety of the 707 acres has the potential to be developed with up to one dwelling per 40 acres, for a Page 393 of 414 total of 17 primary dwellings. In addition, an ADU may be constructed as of right on each parcel, resulting in the potential for up to 34 total units to be developed. The City of Ukiah’s General Plan land use designation of Low Density Residential (LDR) allows for a density of six dwelling units per acre. Under these regulations, the 54 acres for residential development could conceivably be developed with up to 330 units. However, the proposed Development Agreement would restrict development to one single family dwelling per parcel and one ADU (except in cases where the slope exceeds 50 percent, per the City’s Hillside Overlay Ordinance), for a total of up to14 units. Although Development Parcels 1-3 may be developed within the County’s jurisdiction prior to annexation by-right, they will be required to be developed to R1-H standards through CC&Rs. All Development Parcels would be prezoned to R1-H (with a Low Density Residential General Plan land use designation) and are located within the 95’ General Plan’s Unincorporated Planning Area, as well as the current UVAP/SOI boundary. The proposed Development Parcels are consistent with the density and intent of the LDR land use designation and R1H zoning. Additionally, the 14 units that could be developed under the Development Agreement would fulfil a portion of the moderate to above moderate income units required by the City’s RHNA for the 2019-2027 Planning Cycle. As a part of the Project, utilities would be extended to the area. However, because the extension of utilities would be limited to the seven Development Parcels that are currently zoned for rural residential development, the Project, including development of up to 14 units, would not directly induce substantial unplanned development and population growth in the area. The remaining 640 acres that would be preserved as open space would not be developed with residential uses that could result in an increase in population. For the aforementioned reasons, the Proposed Project would not induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly or indirectly. Impacts would be less than significant.” Because the “Noguera Properties” would be used for (existing) access only and are not included in the Development Agreement, as no development is proposed. Therefore, the parcels were not included in the development assumptions, and a detailed “maximum buildout” scenario is not appropriate. As noted in LAFCo’s previous comment, all parcels must be included in the prezoning application. These parcels lay in between existing R1- H parcels immediately to the east within city limits, and the proposed Development Parcels immediately to the west that are proposed to also be prezoned R1-H. Therefore, prezoning these parcels any other zoning district would create “spot zoning” and would not be consistent with existing land use patterns. The City agrees that preservation of the “Conservation Parcels” (640 acres total) as open space greatly reduces environmental impacts when compared to the existing development potential within the County’s jurisdiction. In addition, by limiting development within the proposed Development Parcels beyond what is currently allowed within the County’s zoning code through the City’s R1-H zoning district, the Project would result in an overall reduction of environmental impacts when compared to current conditions. Comment: LAFCo states that parcels outside of the SOI must be included in the prezoning in Govt. Code 56375(a)(7). Page 394 of 414 Response: After further review of Government Code Section 56375(a)(7), City of Ukiah proposes to prezone the entirety of the “Conservation Parcels” (approximately 640 acres) of as “public Facilities” for open space purposes. See Master Response 2 for more information. The Final Draft Initial Study has be updated with this information. Because the proposed use associated with these parcels remains the same, no additional environmental impact that was not previously addressed in the Initial Study would occur. Comment: LAFCo states the following: “In order to fully address the annexation component of the proposed project, the Initial Study needs to further analyze the provision of municipal services. This involves a comparison of current system capacity, anticipated service demand of the proposed project based on development potential, and the City’s ability to serve the proposed project based on available capacity and project demand. While not necessarily applicable to the proposed project, in situations where service expansions or improvements are needed to address the proposed project, the potential environmental impacts of such expansion and/or improvements should also be analyzed.” Response: An analysis of utility service systems is included in ISMND Section 5.19, Utilities and Service Systems. A detailed Plan for Services will be included in the application for annexation. However, the following information has been added to the Final Draft ISMND for clarification. Sewer, water and electric utilities would be provided to the Development Parcels. Sewer and water will be developed by the property owner, while electric infrastructure will be developed by the property owner and/or the City. All utilities would be owned and maintained by the HOA, with the exception of electric, which will be ultimately maintained by the City. Water will be provided by the property owner/developer on-site via two (2) 65,000 gallon water tanks. According to the water tank planning study memorandum, prepared by GHD (December 10, 2020), the existing wells produce approximately 50,000 gallons per day and are located adjacent to the proposed tank. As a result, the developer proposes to supply the tanks with water from the wells rather than constructing new booster pump stations to pump water up to the tanks from the City’s existing wells. As noted in the GHD memorandum, the potential development in this area could be served with adequate pressure by a tank at the proposed location. The City of Ukiah 2020 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) was adopted by City Council on June 2, 2021. The UWMP considers several growth scenarios including additional 2500 and 5000 hookups and there is capacity thru the 2045 planning horizon. The City’s W aste Water Treatment Plant (WWTP) was upgraded in 2008. This upgrade included the addition of 2,400 equivalent sanitary sewer units (ESSUs). An ESSU is approximately what is used by a single family dwelling unit. This project has seven building sites that could have seven additional Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs). This project is anticipated to use 14 ESSUs. The WWTP currently has available, between the City of Ukiah and the Ukiah Valley Sanitation District (UVSD), 1,571 ESSUs. Comment: LAFCo states that the Proposed Project should include detachment of the annexation area from the Ukiah Valley Sanitation District, to address jurisdictional overlap and duplication of Page 395 of 414 municipal service issues, and potentially County Service Area 3 if duplication of municipal services is applicable. Response: The City of Ukiah will submit an application for detachment of the Ukiah Valley Sanitation District concurrently with the application for annexation. COMMENT LETTER 20: HELEN SIZEMORE Comment: The commenter expresses concerns regarding the small gated community and would recommend multifamily structures. Response: This comment is noted and is included in the public record for Planning Commission and City Council consideration. Page 396 of 414 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ATTACHMENT A Page 397 of 414 Providing shared management of fire protection services for the City of Ukiah and Ukiah Valley Fire District UKIAH VALLEY FIRE AUTHORITY 1500 SOUTH STATE STREET UKIAH, CA 95482-6709 Phone: (707)462-7921 ♦ Fax: (707)462-2938 ♦ Email: uvfd@sonic.net MEMORANDUM Date: 27 May 2021 To: Michelle Irace, Community Development Manager From: Doug Hutchison, Fire Chief Subject: Western Hills Annexation, aka “the Hull Properties” This memo is in regards to fire safety concerns that have been raised regarding the potential annexation of the Hull Properties in the Western Hills are of Ukiah. The largest issue for the Fire Authority will be the administration and oversight of the project area for fire prevention once it is annexed. Per State law, once the area is annexed into the city it will be re-designated from “State Responsibility Area” (SRA) to “Local Responsibility Area” (LRA), but will retain its classification as a Very High Fire Hazard Zone. As such, the city, through the Fire Authority, will be required to enforce the State’s fire safety standards on those lands. It is our understanding that the proposal includes the possibility of very limited future development of seven (7) parcels in the lower, mid-slope portion of the property. I performed a site visit with the property owner and went over the proposed development plans and believe that with the widening and paving of the road, and the installation of the water tank and fire hydrants we will be able to comply with the State’s fire safety regulations in that area. This is not to say that the area does not present challenges, but they are no different than many other areas that we currently protect, and in many cases the conditions currently present and proposed would be better than those other areas. In regards to the recently re-established shaded fuel break in the area, the addition of the small amount of structures would have minimal if any impact on its effectiveness. The Page 398 of 414 Providing shared management of fire protection services for the City of Ukiah and Ukiah Valley Fire District defensible spaces created by the home sites could even enhance its effectiveness in that limited area. Please do not hesitate to reach out if you need more information or have other questions or concerns. Page 399 of 414 Page 400 of 414 Page 401 of 414 May 31, 2021 Catherine Iantosca Environmental Scientist Southern 401 Water Quality Certification Unit North Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board 5550 Skylane Blvd, Ste. A Santa Rosa, CA 95403 RE: Response to 5/20/21 Regional Water Board Comments: City of Ukiah Western Hills Open Land Acquisition & Limited Development Agreement Dear Catherine, Thank you for commenting on the Biological Resource Report for the City of Ukiah Western Hills Open Land Acquisition & Limited Development Agreement. With regards streams and riparian habitat Section 5.1.2, (5) Field Survey Results, (.1) Biological Communities (.2) Sensitive Biological Communities – Sensitive Aquatic Resources (page 16) states that six watercourses were observed and mapped in the Study Area. It additionally states that two sensitive biological communities, Quercus garryana Forest & Woodland Alliance (S3) and Umbellularia californica Forest & Woodland Alliance (S3) were observed within the Study Area. Please refer to section 6.1, (6) Assessment Summary and Recommendations, (.1) Biological Communities (page 27-28), for recommended mitigations to reduce the impact of the project to streams and sensitive biological communities including riparian habitat. For proposed work within watercourses, such as stream crossings, our recommendations include obtaining a CDFW LSA Agreement but should include obtaining a SWRCB 401 permit as well. With regards to wetlands, Section 3.4.2, (3) Field Survey Methodology, (.4) Biological Communities, (.2) Sensitive Communities-Aquatic Resources (page 8), is not a result or account of what we observed on site and is meant to describe our methodology in defining and describing wetlands for the purposes of the assessment. Generally, if a suspected wetland is observed during our biological assessment, it is referred to as a “wet area” until a wetland delineation is performed to determine whether the “wet area’ meets the criteria of wetlands as described by the USACE 1987 Manual. The NWI database is consulted at a reconnaissance level before our site visit and is not intended to substitute on-the-ground field assessments for wetlands. Please refer to section 5.1.2, (5) Field Survey Results, (.1) Biological Communities, (.2) Sensitive Biological Communities-Sensitive Aquatic Resources (page 16), for the results of the assessment concerning sensitive aquatic resources including wetlands. No wetlands were observed within the Study Area during the biological assessment. We will make these results clearer for future reporting. Page 402 of 414 If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, Alicia Ives Ringstad Senior Wildlife Biologist Jacobszoon & Associates, Inc. Page 403 of 414 August 8, 2021 RE: Response to 5/20/21 Public Comments: City of Ukiah Western Hills Open Land Acquisition & Limited Development Agreement To whom it may concern, Thank you for commenting on the Biological Resource Report for the City of Ukiah Western Hills Open Land Acquisition & Limited Development Agreement. With regards to the following comments: “I encourage the City to complete the botanical studies as planned. The study states that at least one more site visit was recommended. I recommend that this be completed before CEQA is finalized. That may mean waiting another year as many plants bloomed early this year and have already withered.” As noted in the Draft ISMND, botanical surveys were completed on 03/30/2021 and 5/17/2021. As noted in Draft ISMND Mitigation Measure BIO‐1, the third botanical survey was required to be completed within the blooming period (March –July) and prior to any ground disturbing activities. The third and final botanical survey was completed and 7/9/2021. The surveys were conducted in accordance with “Protocols for Surveying and Evaluating Impacts to Special Status Native Plant Populations and Natural Communities” (CDFW 2018). No special status species plants were observed during the surveys. The botanical surveys are now completed for the project and no further recommendations for sensitive plants are required. Please refer to the Biological Resources Assessment Addendum for Rare Plant Assessment and Botanical Survey for more information. “There are year‐round springs adjacent to the road and I have heard that there are others in the area. We have found giant pacific salamanders on our property that must be residents of the springs. I don’t think the salamanders are a protected species but they are very unusual in the Ukiah Valley. I have found native snails that I think are also unusual, if not protected, and I wonder what other species might be residents of these springs? I hope the biological surveys included the areas around the creek drainage.” The creeks within the Study Area were surveyed during the biological assessment and first botanical survey and no special status species were observed; however, it is recommended in biological assessment report in Section 6 that if any work is proposed within the streams to conduct pre‐ construction surveys for sensitive amphibian species. “The unnamed creek drainage that runs along Redwood Avenue should be treated as a wildlife corridor and a seasonal creek. The springs along the creek are an important water source for wildlife. I have this drainage affected by sediment flows from improper grading, poor culvert placement, bright lights, tree removal in the creek corridor, and recently, fencing of the creek, prohibiting wildlife passage. I am concerned that these trends will continue if there is not educated oversight. Some of this has been on county land and some within the city limits.” Page 404 of 414 It is recommended in the Biological Assessment report in Section 6 that all earthwork within or adjacent to the watercourse adhere to standard methods of erosion and sediment control and, if possible, to complete all work while the channel is dry to reduce sediment load downstream. It is also recommended that a qualified biologist be on site for any dewatering event to address the potential for the presence of sensitive aquatic species such as foothill yellow‐legged frog (Rana boylii). If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, Alicia Ives Ringstad Senior Wildlife Biologist Jacobszoon & Associates, Inc. Page 405 of 414 From:Jonelle Farr To:Michelle Irace Subject:Trail building and housing plan on western hill Date:Monday, May 24, 2021 7:50:48 PM [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. To: Michelle Irace at Planning department Ukiah 5/25/2021 I am writing in favor of Dave Hull's proposal to donate his remaining land on the westen hills. I live on Mendocino Drive and Dave Hull has allowed me to do many exploratory hikes on his property. I have brought many friends and they have all been amazed at the views and the beauty of this area. It will be so nice not to have to drive to Marin or Sonoma to do major hiking, The potential is endless!! Not only is the area untapped hiking potential we are better off due to the fact that Dave and his team have done an amazing job of fire mitigation. He has removed many of the dead and dying trees. Every time I get the chance to hike I find they have done many improvements. I can't wait to see the potential hiking opportunities that we will be able to develop and we can do much to help all the area be fire safe and safe against illegal grows that will compromise Gibson or Dolan Creeks!! The interface between the homes and hiking will be somewhat of a challenge but when you hike on Mt. Tamalpais is doable with good planning and property owners that see the value in sharing the western hills with all of us!! I hope all of you will take the opportunity to visit this spectacular property and make it possible to share this beauty with all those who love this area!! Sincerely, Jonelle Farr 861 Mendodino Dr. Ukiah, Ca ATTACHMENT 8 Page 406 of 414 1 Michelle Irace From:Kristine Lawler Sent:Monday, May 24, 2021 7:43 AM To:Michelle Irace; Maya Simerson Cc:Craig Schlatter Subject:FW: RE: gated community in Western Hills. Michelle, The correspondence below came to me; however, it's possible you may already have a copy. ~Kristine ‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐ From: kramer@saber.net <kramer@saber.net> Sent: Saturday, May 22, 2021 9:29 PM To: Kristine Lawler <klawler@cityofukiah.com> Subject: Fwd: RE: gated community in Western Hills. ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Subject: RE: gated community in Western Hills. Date: 2021‐05‐20 19:49 From: roody <roody@pacific.net> To: kramer@saber.net Please send this to klawler@cityofukiah.com Sent from my Verizon, Samsung Galaxy smartphone ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ From: kramer@saber.net Date: 5/20/21 6:15 PM (GMT‐08:00) To: roody@pacific.net Subject: gated community in Western Hills. Dear Planning Commission members, While not necessarily against all development in the Western Hills as owners of three properties on Westside ( willow Avenue and West. Standley) we are adamantly opposed to the development of a gated community. Outrageous deviation from the spirit of Westside. We love to walk the streets and cannot imagine being "locked out." Why is this being proposed? Who is being locked out? Thanks for your consideration of our opinion. Yvonne and Marvin Kramer Page 407 of 414 From:Patty Mcmillen To:Michelle Irace Subject:Western Hills Project Date:Monday, May 24, 2021 3:16:04 PM [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Good Afternoon: I wanted to reach out in favor of the Western Hills Project to say that I'm excited to see some new Westside housing parcels that will be available for market rate housing that allow ADU units. At our current market.. we only have 25 homes that are available for purchase and only one is a new home. The community needs to keep in mind that the hospital is constantly looking to recruit doctors to our area and with the shortage of housing they go to other areas with larger inventory of homes. It's not just about home development it's about accessibility of westside hiking trails, keeping the low density housing & the fire mitigation that has been done to protect the western hills. This is a great project for Ukiah and I'm excited to see it come alive. Patty McMillen Selzer Realty/ReMax Gold 707-467-3637 Page 408 of 414 1 ATTACHMENT 9 RESOLUTION NO. 2021- RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF UKIAH TO PREZONE CERTAIN PARCELS IN ASSOCIATION WITH THE WESTERN HILLS OPEN LAND ACQUISITION AND LIMITED DEVELOPMENT PROJECT. WHEREAS: 1.The City proposes to acquire and annex approximately 707 acres total, including the “Hull Properties” (APNs 001-040-83, 157-070-01, 157-070-02, 003-190-01, 157- 050-09, 157-060-02, 157-050-02, 157-050-04, 157-050-01, 157-030-02, 157-030- 03, 157-050-11 & 157-050-12),the “Noguera Properties” (APNs 003-190-09 & 003- 110-90) and the City-owned “Donation Parcel” (APNs 157-050-03,157-060-003) in the Western Hills for open space preservation, while allowing the potential for future low-density residential development on the approximately 54 easternmost acres (“Development Parcels”), consistent with existing development in the Western Hills within the City of Ukiah limits; and 2.Government Code Section 65859 allows the City to adopt a zoning district for land outside of the city limits in anticipation of annexation and development, i.e. prezone. 3.Government Code Section 56742 allows the City to annex parcels that are not located within the City's Sphere of Influence (“SOI”), provided that those parcels are located in the County of Mendocino, less than 300 acres, owned by the City, and used for municipal purposes at the time of the annexation application. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED AND ORDERED that: 1.The City will apply to annex approximately 640 acres total referred to as the “Conservation Parcels”, for open space and conservation. The Conservation Parcels will be pre-zoned with a Public Facilities (PF) zoning designation, which encompasses lands within the City that contain open space and parks, as well as other public facilities. Approximately 343 acres of the Conservation Parcels are located within the City’s SOI and 296 acres outside of it. 2.The proposed Development Parcels (totaling approximately 54 acres) will be prezoned to Single-Family Residential-Hillside Overlay District (R1-H) with a General Plan Designation of Low Density Residential (LDR), consistent with adjacent City zoning and development patterns in the Western Hills. In addition, the Noguera Properties will be prezoned R1-H for consistency with surrounding zoning and land uses, but will continue to be utilized for access only. 3.A map of the affected territories is set forth in Exhibit A, and the parcel configuration, intended use, and proposed prezoning of the affected territories are set forth in Exhibit B, attached hereto and by reference incorporated herein. PASSED AND ADOPTED this 15th day of September, 2021, by the following roll call vote: Page 409 of 414 2 AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Juan V. Orozco, Mayor ATTEST: Kristine Lawler, City Clerk Page 410 of 414 APN:00104083 APN:00319001 APN:15707002 APN:15707001 APN:15705009 APN:15705011 APN:15705012 APN:15705002 APN:15706003 & 157050003 APN:157030003 APN:15703002 APN:15705001 APN:15705004 APN:15706002 Sphere of Influence APNs:003-190-09 & 003-110-90 Ukiah Western Hills Open Land Acquisition & Limited Development Project Annexation Parcels (+/-707ac) Parcel Donation to City Development Parcels (+/-54ac) Proposed Water Tanks Sphere of Influence City Limits Existing Access Road This map is a guide. Every reasonable effort has been made to ensure accuracy of the map and data provided. Parcel lines are not intended to represent surveyed data.Document Path: S:\Public Works\Stricklin, Andrew\GIS\Projects\Planning\Western Hills Project Figure 1Exhibit ALocation MapPage 411 of 414 : k, E E;I.fitHN-SE;r$;iTs:tq..EB€E '.,6E!9ofEq\$oRIIEo*)EqI\0'ii*)h'lx.x r{ I I ------------------t I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I *t* r.YE fibi o-\ f N s € f{dq:Br d$E't$ o :*B etr .t) $ tNse$ b"ES8 frE&ts $ tB t^. bI r.S a-oBs so{q o0bEo b u=$Hn ii$-* 5 a'".€*\ RSNrtf, $ti$ n fc$* N $ EsSR Figure 2Existing Parcel Configuraton Page 412 of 414 Proposed Parcel Configuration & Prezoning for Western Hills (Hull Properties) Open Land Acquisition & Limited Development Agreement Project Sphere of Influence Conservation Parcels” (640ac) with Public Facilities (PF) Prezoning “Development Parcels (54ac) with Single-Family Residential- Hillside Overlay District (R1-H) Prezoning Last revised June 2, 2021 Figure 3 Proposed Parcel Configuration & Prezoning Exhibit B Page 413 of 414 EXHIBIT B- ANNEXATION PARCELS AND PREZONING Assessor’s Parcel Number (APN) Existing Size (+/acres) Proposed Size (+/-acres) through Lot Line Adjustments1 Resulting Parcel Configuration, Intended Use and Proposed Prezoning 001-040-83 77.6 9.8 Parcel 1 will become a Development Parcel intended for single family housing and prezoned R1-H. 157-070 01, 157-070-02, 003-190-01 & 157-050-09 148.2 5.1 Parcel 2 on Existing Conditions Tentative Map, contains several APNs but is one legal parcel (149 acres total). This parcel will become a Development Parcel intended for single-family housing and prezoned R1-H. 157-050-11 40.0 9.9 Parcel 3 will become a Development Parcel intended for single-family housing and prezoned R1-H. 157-050-02 40.5 9.0 Parcel 4 will become a Development Parcel intended for single-family housing and prezoned R1-H. 157-050-01 40.3 5.0 Parcel 5 will become a Development Parcel intended for single-family housing and prezoned R1-H. 157-030-02 20.0 9.7 Parcel 6 will become a Development Parcel intended for single-family housing and prezoned R1-H. 157-050-12 40.0 5.0 Parcel 7 will become a Development Parcel intended for single-family housing and prezoned R1-H. 157-050-04 & 157-060-02 38.7 391.5 Parcel 8 will become a Conservation Parcel and be prezoned PF. The proposed water tanks will be placed on this parcel within the existing water tank pad site (on existing Parcel 2). 157-030-03 60.0 60.0 Parcel 9 is an Outside Conservation Parcel and will not be prezoned. 157-030-03 & 157-060-03 188.5 188.5 Parcel 10 (City-owned “Donation Parcel”) will become a Conservation Parcel and will be prezoned PF. “Noguera Properties” 003-190-09 & 003-110-90 10.20 4.14 10.20 4.14 These parcels contain the existing access road that will be improved but remain under private ownership. It will be included in the annexation proposal and prezoned R1-H, consistent with surrounding zoning and land uses, but no development is proposed; this parcel is not included in the Lot Line Adjustment. TOTAL +/- 707 acres 1 Resulting parcel configuration is subject to change but the Development Parcel area footprint and number of resulting parcels will remain the same. Page 414 of 414