Sebastopol City Council
April 2, 2024

City of Sebastopol
The Canopy

4.4-6
protection and preservation measures; and work may only resume when appropriate protections are in place and have been approved by the Planning Department.  If human remains are discovered during any ground disturbing activity, work shall stop until the Planning Department and the County Coroner have been contacted; if the human remains are determined to be of Native American origin, the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) and the most likely descendants have been consulted; and work may only resume when appropriate measures have been taken and approved by the Planning Department.

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

Action COS 10e: Develop a Historic Sebastopol program to identify and protect historic resources, encourage landowners to voluntarily preserve and rehabilitate historical structures, and to provide a coordinated approach to draw visitors and tourists to these areas. The program may include:
 Coordinated signage and identifying placards of historic areas, including downtown, specific buildings, and businesses.
 Maps available on-line, at the Chamber of Commerce, and key locations of the City that direct visitors and history aficionados to key historic and cultural resources in the City.  Establishment of local historic districts (such as the downtown) with standards to conserve historical resources and promote the highest and best use of such resources.  Property owner incentives for the preservation and restoration of historic buildings and sites. Consider the following incentives: Interest-free or reduced interest loans for rehabilitation work consistent with the original character of the building; tax incentives for the preservation of historic structures, including the use of Mills Act preservation contracts; reduced processing fees for preservation and protection of outstanding buildings; use of the State Historic Building Code where applicable; a brochure that identifies resources to purchase materials and fixtures that are historically accurate in appearance but offer modern benefits (e.g., energy-efficient lighting, windows, building materials that correlate to specific architectural or historic periods that are often seen in the City); and awards and grants for the preservation and protection of outstanding buildings.

Action COS 10f: Develop guidelines for remodels of potentially historic residential structures to ensure that the character and individuality of such residences is maintained. The guidelines should address:
 Design styles, age of home, and other criteria to determine applicability of the guidelines;  Exterior features that are important and covered by the guidelines (e.g., siding and exterior finishes, windows, doors, roofs, porches, garages, outbuildings, and streetscapes);  Standards for modifications and renovation, including the extent of changes that can occur; and
 Activities that are exempt from the guidelines, such as interior improvements and routine maintenance and repair.

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

Environmental Impact Analysis
Cultural Resources
Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.4-7
Action COS 10g: Encourage and support local and non-profit efforts to publicize and educate regarding local history and culture. Key historical resources, groups, and time periods to emphasize may include, but are certainly not limited to: the railroad culture and history; the redwood logging industry; the Pomo Indians and other Native American groups; Mexican and other Latin American immigrants: the Californios; the region’s apple farming and processing history; the history and origin of Sebastopol’s name; historic Chinatown; and local JapaneseAmerican history.

Action COS 10h: Continue to implement the Cultural Heritage Chapter of the Sebastopol Municipal Code and encourage the protection, restoration, and enhancement of the City’s aesthetic and historic attractions and resources.

Action COS 10i: Continue to refer projects to Sonoma State University’s Archaeological Resource Center and Western Sonoma County Historical Society.

Action COS 10j: Seek funding for the restoration and preservation of archaeological and historical resources.

The Community Design Element establishes goals and policies to protect historic buildings and historic structures within Sebastopol.

Goal CD 3: Recognize the Value and Ensure the Preservation of Sebastopol’s Historical and Cultural Resources
Policy CD 3-1: Ensure historic buildings and resources are preserved for future generations.

Policy CD 3-2: Preserve significant historical structures by encouraging adaptive reuse opportunities of historic buildings for contemporary uses.

Policy CD 3-3: Identify and document historical, cultural, and archeological resources including significant sites and structures.

Policy CD 3-4: Require new development to avoid the disruption of cultural, archeological, and historical resources to the greatest extent feasible.

Policy CD 3-5: Encourage and support an increased public awareness of local cultural and historical resources.

Policy CD 3-6: Ensure that restoration efforts of City owned historic structures adhere to the original architecture style and period detail of the original structure whenever feasible.

Ac�ons in Support of Goal CD 3
Action CD 3a: Work with federal, state, and local agencies, nonprofit organizations, educational institutions, and interested citizens to obtain funding and increase community involvement to enhance and preserve historical sites and structures.

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

Action CD 3c: Develop and distribute educational guides of places with cultural and historical significance. Educational guides should be accessible for viewing at City Hall, on the City website, or available at the local library whenever possible.

Action CD 3d: Support cultural events that promote the City’s cultural history and diversity.

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

City of Sebastopol
The Canopy

4.4-8
Action CD 3e: Develop a priority list for the restoration and preservation of significant structures in the City.

Action CD 3f: Encourage and assist property owners’ restoration efforts whenever feasible. This includes providing preservation guidance for design elements, and assisting in the placement of structures on the National Register of Historic Places.

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

Action CD 3h: Seek funding strategies such as grants and tax incentives (i.e. Mills Act) for historic building rehabilitation, and to promote historic preservation throughout the community.

Action CD 3i: Utilize the City’s Cultural Heritage ordinance to recognize historically or culturally significant structures.

4.4.2 Environmental Setting
Indigenous History
The project site lies near the boundary of the Northwest California and San Francisco Bay Area archaeological regions (Milliken et al. 2009 Moratto 1984). Following Milliken et al. (2007), the prehistoric cultural chronology for the area can be generally divided into six periods: The Pleistocene-Holocene Transition (ca. 11,500-8,000 BCE) the Early Holocene (8,000-3,500 BCE), Early (3,500-500 BCE), Lower Middle (500 BCE to 430 CE), the Upper Middle (430-1050 CE), and the Late Period (1050 CE-Contact).

Pleistocene-Holocene Transition (11,500 to 8,000 BCE)
No evidence for human occupation during the Pleistocene-Holocene Transition has been discovered in the Bay Area to date, though early Paleoindian groups likely lived in the area prior to 8,000 BCE (Milliken et al. 2007). Limited finds have been made in the Northwest Coast region, including Post Pattern sites near Clear Lake and Cache Creek in Lake County and isolated finds in Mendocino County and at Bodega Head (Hildebrandt et al. 2007).

Early Holocene (8,000 to 3,500 BCE)
The Early Holocene in the San Francisco Bay Area is characterized by a mobile forager pattern and the presence of millingslabs, handstones, and a variety of leaf-shaped projectile points, though evidence for this period is limited. It is likely that Holocene alluviation buried many prehistoric sites in the area (Moratto 1984; Ragir 1972). Sites such as CA-CCO-696 and CA-CCO-637 in Contra Costa County are two of just a few sites dating to this period. The earliest date for the Early Holocene comes from site CA-CCO-696 at Los Vaqueros Reservoir (Milliken et al. 2007). In Northwest California, the Early Holocene is characterized by the Borax Lake Pattern and the Berkeley Pattern.

The Borax Lake Pattern is typically represented by large wide-stemmed projectile points, serrated bifaces, and millingslabs, though no faunal or floral remains have been identified at these sites so diet composition remains unclear (Hildebrandt 2007). The Berkeley Pattern is characterized by longterm settlements, contracting and square-stem points, and the use of pestles for acorn processing.

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

Environmental Impact Analysis
Cultural Resources
Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.4-9
Early Period (3,500 to 500 BCE)
The Early Period saw increased sedentism from the Early Holocene as indicated by new ground stone technologies (replacement of millingslabs with the mortar and pestle), an increase in regional trade, and the earliest cut-bead horizon. The first documentation of the mortar and pestle, dating to 3,800 BCE, comes from CA-CCO-637 in the Los Vaqueros Reservoir area. By 1,500 BCE, mortars and pestles had almost completely replaced millingslabs and handstones. A shift to a sedentary or semisedentary lifestyle is marked by the prevalence of mortars and pestles, ornamental grave associations, and shell mounds. The earliest cut bead horizon, dating to this period, is represented by rectangular Haliotis (abalone) and Olivella (snail) beads from several sites, including CA-CCO-637 (Los Vaqueros Reservoir), CA-SCL-832 (Sunnyvale), and CA-ALA-307 (Berkeley) (Meyer and Rosenthal 1998; Milliken et al. 2007). The advent of the mortar and pestle indicates a greater reliance on processing nuts such as acorns. Faunal evidence from various sites indicates a diverse diet based on mussel and other shellfish, marine mammals, terrestrial mammals, and birds (D’Oro 2009). In the Northwest Coast region during this period, the Mendocino Pattern is common throughout the area and is categorized by side-notched, corner-notched, and concave-base points and a variety of other stone tools. The Berkeley Pattern has also been recognized for this period, characterized by elaborate points, bone tools, baked clay items, and mortars and pestles (Hildebrandt 2007).

Lower Middle Period (500 BCE to 430 CE)
The Lower Middle Period saw numerous changes from the previous period. Rectangular shell beads, common during the Early Period, disappear completely and are replaced by split-beveled and saucer Olivella beads. In addition to the changes in bead types, Haliotis ornaments, bone tools and ornaments, and basketry awls indicating coiled basketry manufacture appeared. Mortars and pestles continued to be the dominant grinding tool (Milliken et al. 2007). Evidence for the Lower Middle Period in the Bay Area comes from sites such as the Emeryville shell mound (CA-ALA-309) and Ellis Landing (CA-CCO-295). CA-ALA-309 is one of the largest shell mounds in the Bay Area and contains multiple cultural sequences. The lower levels of the site, dating to the Middle Period, contain flexed burials with bone implements, chert bifaces, charmstones, and oyster shells (Moratto 1984). The Augustine Pattern, characterized by corner-notched projectile points and ornate ceremonial and decorative objects, is recognized at the southern extent of the Northwest Coast region (Hildebrandt 2007).

Upper Middle Period (430 to 1050 CE)
Around 430 CE, at the beginning of the Upper Middle Period, Olivella saucer bead trade networks established during earlier periods collapsed and over half of known sites occupied during the Lower Middle Period were abandoned. Olivella saucer beads were replaced with Olivella saddle beads.

New items appear at sites, including elaborate, decorative blades, fishtail charmstones, new Haliotis ornament forms, and mica ornaments. Sea otter bones are found more frequently than from earlier periods (Milliken et al. 2007). Excavations at CA-ALA-309 have indicated a shift from oysters to clams at that site. Subsistence analyses at various sites dating to this period indicate a diverse diet that included various species of fish, mammal species, bird species, shellfish, and plant resources that varied by location in the Bay Area (Hylkema 2002).

Late Period (1050 CE to contact)
The Late Period saw an increase in social complexity, indicated by differences in burials, and an increased level of sedentism relative to preceding periods. Small, finely worked projectile points Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

City of Sebastopol
The Canopy

4.4-10
associated with bow and arrow technology appear around 1250 CE. Olivella shell beads disappeared and were replaced with clamshell disk beads. The toggle harpoon, hopper mortar, and magnesite tube beads also appeared during this period (Milliken et al. 2007). According to Moratto (1984), this period saw an increase in the intensity of resource exploitation that correlates with an increase in population. Many of the well-known sites of earlier periods, such as the Emeryville shell mound (CAALA-309) and the West Berkeley site (CA-ALA-307) were abandoned, possibly due to fluctuating climates and drought that occurred throughout the Late Period (Lightfoot and Luby 2002). In Northwest California during this period, the archaeological record exhibits a high degree of diversity in material culture patterns, site types, and degrees of sedentism. Seasonal Augustine pattern sites have been identified along the Sonoma County Coast, though researchers have argued for a more sedentary settlement system inland (Hildebrandt 2007).

Ethnographic Setting
See Chapter 4.14 Tribal Cultural Resources.

Post-Contact Setting
Post-Contact history for the state of California refers to the time after the arrival of Europeans and is generally divided into three periods: the Spanish Period (1769–1822), Mexican Period (1822–1848), and American Period (1848–present). Although Spanish, Russian, and British explorers visited the area for brief periods between 1529 and 1769, the Spanish Period in California begins with the establishment in 1769 of a settlement at San Diego and the founding of Mission San Diego de Alcalá, the first of 21 missions constructed between 1769 and 1823. Independence from Spain in 1821 marks the beginning of the Mexican Period, and the signing of the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo in 1848, ending the Mexican-American War, signals the beginning of the American Period when California became a territory of the United States.

Spanish Period (1769 – 1822)
Spanish explorers made sailing expeditions along the coast of California between the mid-1500s and mid-1700s. In 1952, Juan Rodríguez Cabrillo led the first European expedition to observe what was known by the Spanish as Alta (upper) California. For more than 200 years, Cabrillo and other Spanish, Portuguese, British, and Russian explorers sailed the Alta California coast and made limited inland expeditions, but they did not establish permanent settlements (Bean 1968; Rolle 2003). The Spanish crown laid claim to Alta California based on the surveys conducted by Cabrillo and Vizcaíno (Bancroft 1885; Gumprecht 1999).

By the 18th century, Spain developed a three-pronged approach to secure its hold on the territory and counter against other foreign explorers. The Spanish established military forts known as presidios, as well as missions and pueblos (towns) throughout Alta California. The 1769 overland expedition led by Captain Gaspár de Portolá marks the beginning of California’s historic period, occurring just after the King of Spain installed the Franciscan Order to direct religious and colonization matters in assigned territories of the Americas. Portolá established the Presidio of San Diego as the first Spanish settlement in Alta California in 1769. Franciscan Father Junípero Serra also founded Mission San Diego de Alcalá that same year, the first of the 21 missions that would be established in Alta California by the Spanish and the Franciscan Order between 1769 and 1823 (San Diego History and Heritage 2023). Construction of missions and associated presidios was a major emphasis during the Spanish Period in California to integrate the Native American population into Christianity and communal enterprise. Incentives were also provided to bring settlers to pueblos or Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

Environmental Impact Analysis
Cultural Resources
Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.4-11
towns; just three pueblos were established during the Spanish Period, only two of which were successful and remain as California cities (San José and Los Angeles).

Spain began making land grants in 1784, typically to retiring soldiers, although the grantees were only permitted to inhabit and work the land. The land titles technically remained property of the Spanish king (Livingston 1914).

Mexican Period (1822 – 1848)
Several factors kept growth within Alta California to a minimum, including the threat of foreign invasion, political dissatisfaction, and unrest among the indigenous population. After more than a decade of intermittent rebellion and warfare, New Spain won independence from Spain in 1821. In 1822, the Mexican legislative body in California ended isolationist policies designed to protect the Spanish monopoly on trade, and decreed California ports open to foreign merchants (Dallas 1955).

Extensive land grants were established in the interior during the Mexican Period, in part to increase the population inland from the more settled coastal areas where the Spanish had first concentrated their colonization efforts. The secularization of the missions following Mexico’s independence from Spain resulted in the subdivision of former mission lands and establishment of many additional ranchos. Commonly, former soldiers and well-connected Mexican families were the recipients of these land grants, which now included the title to the land (Library of Congress 2023). Much of the land along the coast and in the interior valleys became part of Mexican land grants or “ranchos” (Robinson 1948). During the Mexican period there were small towns located where San Francisco (then known as Yerba Buena) and Monterey are situated in the present day. The rancho owners tended to reside either in town or in an adobe house on the rancho itself.

Economic opportunity in northern California was based on seal and sea otter furs as well as cattle hides and tallow (NPS 2015). Russian explorers ventured to northern California from Alaska in search of fur and established Fort Ross. The Russian American Fur Company prospered for thirty years by harvesting seal and otter furs (Sonoma County Permit Sonoma 2023). When extreme hunting decimated sea otter populations, the Russian American Fur Company sold Fort Ross to European immigrant John Sutter in 1841. After the Russians left, the Mexican government quickly monopolized the costal access by giving land grants from Estero de San Antonio to the Gualala River.

The number of nonnative inhabitants increased during this period because of the influx of explorers, trappers, and ranchers associated with the land grants. The rising California population contributed to the introduction and rise of diseases foreign to the Native American population, who had no associated immunities.

American Period (1848 – Present)
The United States went to war with Mexico in 1846. During the first year of the war, John C.

Fremont traveled from Monterey to Los Angeles with reinforcements for Commodore Stockton and evaded Californian soldiers in Santa Barbara’s Gaviota Pass by taking the route over the San Marcos grade instead (Kyle 2002). The war ended in 1848 with the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, ushering California into its American Period.

California officially became a state with the Compromise of 1850, which also designated Utah and New Mexico (with present-day Arizona) as US territories (Waugh 2003). The discovery of gold initiated the 1849 California Gold Rush, which brought thousands of miners and settlers to the Sierra foothills east and southeast of Sacramento. Agriculture became the major economic interest replacing lumber on the coast. Livestock ranchers held large properties to the north on the coastal Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

City of Sebastopol
The Canopy

4.4-12
plain, just before the Gualala River (Sonoma County Permit Sonoma 2023). Wheat and livestock were major agricultural products but overgrazing and soil erosion forced farmers to pivot to dairy products (Sonoma County Permit Sonoma 2023).

In the mid-1800s, Gravenstein apples were widely planted in Sebastopol and wider Sonoma County (Sonoma County 2023). Due to its cool summers and sandy soils, Sebastopol became a center growing location and major processing center for Gravenstein apples. In more recent years, Gravenstein apple production declined significantly due to suburban development, orchard/vineyard conversion, a global over-abundance of apples, and other factors (Sonoma County 2023).

Rapid population increase occasioned by the Gold Rush of 1849 allowed California to become a state in 1850. Most Mexican land grants were confirmed to the grantees by United States courts, but usually with more restricted boundaries, which were surveyed by the United States Surveyor General’s office. Land outside the land grants became federal public land which was surveyed into sections, quarter-sections, and quarter-quarter sections. The federal public land could be purchased at a low fixed price per acre or could be obtained through homesteading after 1862 (Robinson 1948).

Local History
The following was excerpted from the 2016 Sebastopol General Plan (City of Sebastopol 2016), which offers an overview of the city’s history since the mid-nineteenth century.

The City [of Sebastopol] lies near the juncture of two Mexican land grants: Cañada de Jonive and Llano de Santa Rosa. Cañada de Jonive, to the west, a 10,787-acre Mexican land grant, was acquired by James Black from Governor Pío Pico in 1845. In 1849, Black traded this rancho to Jasper O’Farrell for his land grant Ranch Nicasio. O’Farrell married in 1849, and he and his wife settled on the Jonive Rancho, which they renamed the “Annaly Ranch.” The spelling of the ranch name was later corrupted to “Analy.” The O’Farrells’ home was an adobe at the foot of Jonive Hill near the community of Freestone, which was later a store, and fell in 1906. The patent for the Rancho lands was issued in 1858 to Jasper O’Farrell (Hoover, Rensch and Rensch 1970). The Llano de Santa Rosa land grant of 13,361 acres was made to Joaquín Carrillo, a brother-in-law of General Vallejo in 1845 by Governor Manuel Micheltorena. Carrillo built an adobe house near the western edge of the grant in 1846 on what is now Petaluma Avenue. Carrillo became the owner of two hotels in Sebastopol (the Analy and the Pioneer) as well as a saloon and boarding house. In 1871, the patent for the lands was issued to Carrillo. Carrillo lived in Sebastopol until his death in 1899.

The town of Sebastopol was started on the lands between the two ranchos by Joseph H.P.

Morris. It was first named “Pine Grove” in 1853. At one point, there were five Sebastopols in California, all named soon after 1854 and the siege of the Russian seaport of that name by British and French forces. This is the only town with this name to survive—Napa’s Sebastopol is now Yountville and the Sebastopols in Tulare, Sacramento, and Nevada counties no longer exist.

Local tradition places the renaming of the town as a result of a war of words between two parties at the general store, with one party waiting all day for the other to exit the store. When the post office was set to be established in the town, it was found there was already a Pine Grove in California so the name Sebastopol was selected (Gudde 1969; Western Sonoma County Historical Society 2003). The early settlers of the region soon discovered the agricultural value of the land. Early crops included fruit, especially grapes and apples. Hops, cherries and berries later became important crops. Another individual to recognize the importance of the agricultural Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

Environmental Impact Analysis
Cultural Resources
Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.4-13
value of the area was famed horticulturalist Luther Burbank. He started his work in Santa Rosa in 1878, but rapidly needed more space, and purchased 18 acres near Sebastopol on which he established the Gold Ridge Experimental Farm. He could plant large fields and was able to carry on even more extensive experiments with improvements to various crops through plant breeding, election and hybridization (Hoover, Rensch and Rensch 1970; Western Sonoma County Historical Society 2003). The cottage and three acres of the Gold Ridge Farm are now maintained by volunteers and is associated with the Western Sonoma County Historical Society.

An early connection was established with the completion of the Santa Rosa, Sebastopol & Green Valley Railroad, organized in 1887, and built as a standard gauge line from Santa Rosa to Sebastopol. The rail line was leased to the California Northwestern Railway in 1898 and sold to the Northwestern Railway Company in 1907 (Fickewirth 1992).

The City of Sebastopol was incorporated in 1902, reportedly with the main purpose of taking care of sewage problems. The City acquired land to build a sewage farm along the Laguna de Santa Rosa (Western Sonoma County Historical Society 2003). In 1903, the Petaluma and Santa Rosa Railway Company was incorporated. The electric railway line was started in April of the following year and completed by October 1904. The route provided transportation for Sebastopol residents to Santa Rosa, connecting to points beyond, especially with overnight freight service to San Francisco. The railroad line provided a means of quickly getting produce, lumber and dairy products to a wider market, as well as a means for more efficiently getting goods to Sebastopol. As with the electric railway systems in other areas, the automobile brought about the end of the system in the 1920s and 1930s. People preferred personal automobiles, eliminating the passenger carrying needs, and trucking allowed the economical shipment and delivery of goods and products. The original wooden depot built in Sebastopol for the railway in 1904, was replaced in 1917 by a stucco and stone building. This building is currently the site of the West County Museum, preserving and interpreting the history of the region (Western Sonoma County Historical Society 2003).

Currently, the City of Sebastopol has a population of approximately 7,800 people and serves a trade area population in excess of 50,000 people. The City is located in a region that produces the majority of the world’s supply of Gravenstein apples and has become a significant grape-growing region for high quality wine. The city is also popular gateway to the Russian River and its surrounding redwood forests, as well as Bodega and Jenner’s coastal recreation areas (City of Sebastopol 2023).

4.4.1 Existing Conditions
This section analyzes the project’s potential impacts related to cultural resources, including historical built environment and archaeological resources as well as human remains. The analysis in this section is based, in part, on the Cultural Resource Evaluation prepared for the project by Archaeological Resource Management in June 2023. The investigation consisted of a California Historical Resources Information System (CHRIS) records search of the project site as well as a 0.25- mile radius around the project site at the Northwest Information Center (NWIC), a geoarchaeological sensitivity review, and a surface reconnaissance survey of the project site.

The NWIC records search identified 10 previously recorded cultural resources within a 0.25-mile radius of the project site, none of which overlap the project site. One built environment resource, a historic-period residence, was previously documented adjacent to the project site; however, this resource was recommended as ineligible for the NRHP and is no longer present. No built Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

City of Sebastopol
The Canopy

4.4-14
environment or archaeological resources were observed within the project site during the survey.

However, the geoarchaeological review indicates that the project site is located less than a mile from a permanent water source (Laguna De Santa Rosa) on a Holocene era alluvial floodplain, which suggests that the project site generally has the potential for subsurface cultural deposits.

On May 25, 2025, a search of the Sacred Lands File (SLF) by the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) was requested on behalf of the City. The NAHC responded to the request on June 20, 2023, stating that the results of the SLF search were positive.

4.4.2 Impact Analysis
a. Methodology and Significance Thresholds
If a project may cause a substantial adverse change in the characteristics of a resource that convey its significance or justify its eligibility for inclusion in the CRHR or a local register, either through demolition, destruction, relocation, alteration, or other means, then the project would have a significant effect on the environment (CEQA Guidelines §Section 15064.5[b]). Impacts would be significant if the project would:

Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to §15064.5;
Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5; or
Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries.

Threshold 1 broadly refers to historical resources. To more clearly differentiate between archaeological and built environment resources, analysis under Threshold 1 has been limited to built environment resources. Archaeological resources, including those that may be considered historical resources pursuant to Section 15064.5 and those that may be considered unique archaeological resources pursuant to Section 21083.2, are considered under Threshold 2.

Direct impacts can be assessed by identifying the types and locations of proposed development, determining the exact locations of cultural resources within the project area, assessing the significance of the resources that may be affected, and determining the appropriate mitigation.

Removal, demolition, or alteration of historical resources can permanently impact the historic fabric of an archaeological site, structure, or historic district.

The State Legislature, in enacting the CRHR, amended CEQA to clarify which properties are significant, as well as which project impacts are considered to be significantly adverse. A project with an effect that may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource is a project that may have significant effect on the environment (CEQA Guidelines §Section 150645[b]). A substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource means demolition, destruction, relocation, or alteration of the resource or its immediate surroundings such that the significance of a historical resource would be materially impaired (CEQA Guidelines §Section 150645[b][1]).

The CEQA Guidelines further state that “[t]he significance of an historical resource is materially impaired when a project… [d]emolishes or materially alters in an adverse manner those physical characteristics of an historical resource that convey its historical significance and that justify its inclusion in the California Register … local register of historic resources… or its identification in an historic resources survey.” As such, the test for determining whether or not the project will have a Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

Environmental Impact Analysis
Cultural Resources
Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.4-15
significant impact on identified historical resources is whether it will materially impair physical integrity of the historic resource such that it could no longer be listed in the CRHR or a local landmark program.
b. Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Threshold 1: Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to §15064.5?
Impact CUL-1 THE PROJECT WOULD NOT CAUSE A SUBSTANTIAL ADVERSE CHANGE IN THE SIGNIFICANCE OF A HISTORICAL RESOURCE, AS THERE ARE NO SUCH RESOURCES ON THE PROJECT SITE. THERE WOULD BE NO IMPACT.

As outlined above in Section 4.4.1, Existing Conditions, no built environment historical resources were identified as a result of the cultural resources evaluation conducted for the project. Therefore, the project would result in no impact to historical resources as defined in Section 15064.5(b) of the CEQA Guidelines.

Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is required.

Significance After Mitigation
There would be no impact to historical resources.

Threshold 2: Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5?
Impact CUL-2 GRADING AND EXCAVATION REQUIRED FOR THE PROPOSED PROJECT WOULD HAVE THE

POTENTIAL TO UNEARTH AND ADVERSELY CHANGE OR DAMAGE PREVIOUSLY UNIDENTIFIED HISTORICAL AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES. IMPACTS WOULD BE LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT WITH IMPLEMENTATION OF MITIGATION.

According to the California Office of Historic Preservation, any physical evidence of human activities over 45 years of age can be recorded and evaluated for consideration as historical resources (California Office of Historic Preservation 1995). This includes not only buildings, but also structures, objects, sites, and districts.

The results of the NWIC records search identified 10 previously recorded cultural resources within a

0.25-mile radius of the project site, none of which overlap the project site. Similarly, no cultural resources were observed during the surface reconnaissance survey of the project site. However, the lack of surface evidence of archaeological materials does not preclude their subsurface existence.

The project site is situated on an alluvial plain relatively close to a permanent water source and the sediments date to the Holocene, the age of human occupation. Moreover, the results of the SLF search were positive for Sacred Lands. As such, the project site is considered to be moderately sensitive for subsurface archaeological deposits.

It is possible that unanticipated archaeological deposits and/or human remains could be encountered and damaged during the ground-disturbing activities associated with construction (such as grading and excavation). Grading within the project site could unearth and either damage or destroy buried or otherwise unknown subsurface cultural resources. Likewise, excavation required for installation of utilities, such as sanitary sewer pipeline to serve the proposed project Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

City of Sebastopol
The Canopy

4.4-16
within the project site could also encounter and either damage or destroy unknown subsurface cultural resources, if present. The potential damage or destruction of cultural resources would be considered a potentially significant impact.

Action COS 10c of the 2016 Sebastopol General Plan requires all development, infrastructure, and other ground-disturbing projects to comply with the following conditions in the event of an inadvertent discovery of cultural resources:

If construction or grading activities result in the discovery of significant historic or prehistoric archaeological artifacts or unique paleontological resources, all work within 100 feet of the discovery shall cease, the Planning Department shall be notified, the resources shall be examined by a qualified archaeologist, paleontologist, or historian for appropriate protection and preservation measures; and work may only resume when appropriate protections are in place and have been approved by the Planning Department.

While Action COS 10c broadly addresses work stoppage in the event of unanticipated discoveries during construction activities, it does not provide adequate detail regarding the process that follows. As such, the following mitigation measure is required in order to reduce the potential impacts to archaeological resources to a less than significant level.

Mitigation Measure
The following mitigation measure is required.

CUL-2 Archaeological Resources Assessment, Evaluation, and Treatment In the event that archaeological resources are unexpectedly encountered during ground-disturbing construction activities, the construction contractor shall halt work within 100 feet of the find, and an archaeologist meeting the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualifications Standards for archaeology (National Park Service 1983) shall be contacted immediately to evaluate the find, as well as the Sebastopol Planning Department. If the find is determined by the qualified archaeologist to be Native American in origin, then a Native American representative shall also be contacted to participate in the evaluation of the find. If necessary, archaeological testing for CRHR eligibility shall be completed. If the discovery proves to be eligible for the CRHR and impacts to the resource cannot be avoided via project redesign, a qualified archaeologist shall prepare a data recovery plan tailored to the physical nature and characteristics of the deposit, per the requirements of PRC Section 15126.4(b)(3)(C). The data recovery plan shall identify data recovery excavation methods, measurable objectives, and data thresholds to reduce any significant impacts to cultural resources.

Pursuant to the data recovery plan, the qualified archaeologist and Native American representative, as appropriate, shall recover and document the scientifically consequential information that justifies the resource’s significance. The City shall review and, in consultation with a Native American representative, approve the treatment plan and archaeological testing as appropriate, and the resulting documentation shall be submitted to the regional repository of the California Historical Resources Information System, per PRC Section 15126.4(b)(3)(C).

Significance After Mitigation
By adhering to Action COS 10c and Mitigation Measure CUL-2 above, the City would evaluate and protect significant archaeological resources if encountered during construction, resulting in a less than significant impact.

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

Environmental Impact Analysis
Cultural Resources
Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.4-17
Threshold 3: Would the project disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries?
Impact CUL-3 GRADING AND EXCAVATION REQUIRED FOR THE PROJECT WOULD HAVE THE POTENTIAL TO UNEARTH AND DISTURB PREVIOUSLY UNIDENTIFIED OR UNKNOWN HUMAN REMAINS. COMPLIANCE WITH

EXISTING REGULATIONS PERTAINING TO DISCOVERY OF HUMAN REMAINS WOULD ENSURE IMPACTS ARE LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT.

The NWIC records search did not identify any known cemeteries or burial sites within the project site or 0.25-mile radius of the project. However, there is always potential for previously unrecorded or unidentified human remains to exist below ground surface. Construction of the project would require grading and excavation activities, which would have the potential to unearth and disturb previously unidentified human remains, if present. Section 7050.5 of the California Health and Safety Code states:
“In the event of discovery or recognition of any human remains in any location other than a dedicated cemetery, there shall be no further excavation or disturbance of the site, or any nearby area reasonably suspected to overlay adjacent remains, until the County Coroner has examined the remains. If the Coroner determines the remains to be those of a Native American or has reason to believe that they are those of a Native American, the Coroner shall contact by telephone within 24 hours the NAHC. In addition, any person who mutilates or disinters, wantonly disturbs, or willfully removes any human remains in or from any location other than a dedicated cemetery without authority of law is guilty of a misdemeanor.” Thus, in the event that previously unidentified human remains are uncovered within the project site, the County Coroner and NAHC would identify a Native American Most Likely Descendant (MLD) to inspect the site and provide recommendations for the proper treatment of the remains and associated grave goods. CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5 directs the lead agency or applicant, under certain circumstances, to develop an agreement with the Native Americans for the treatment and disposition of the remains and associated grave goods.

Additionally, Action COS 10c of the 2016 Sebastopol General Plan requires all development, infrastructure, and other ground-disturbing projects to comply with the following conditions in the event of an inadvertent discovery of human remains:
 If human remains are discovered during any ground disturbing activity, work shall stop until the Planning Department and the County Coroner have been contacted; if the human remains are determined to be of Native American origin, the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) and the most likely descendants have been consulted; and work may only resume when appropriate measures have been taken and approved by the Planning Department.

Pursuant to adherence to Action COS 10c and compliance with the existing state requirements, the impact of the proposed project on human remains would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is required.

Significance After Mitigation
Impacts would be less than significant without mitigation.

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

City of Sebastopol
The Canopy

4.4-18

4.4.3 Cumulative Impacts
The geographic scope for cumulative cultural resource impacts includes the areas surrounding the project site, including incorporated Sebastopol lands and Sonoma County lands within approximately 10 miles of the city. This geographic scope is appropriate for cultural resources because it encompasses the regional area that could contain important resources similar to the project site.

The planned and pending projects in the project vicinity are listed in Table 3-1 of Section 3, Environmental Setting. Cumulative development in the region would continue to disturb areas with the potential to contain historical resources, archaeological resources, and human remains. Impacts to these resources would most likely be mitigated on a project-by-project basis. However, permanent losses of cultural resources would have a potentially significant cumulative impact.

As described under Impact CUL-1, the project would not result in impacts to built environment historical resources as none have been identified in the project site. Because of the lack of built environment historical resources on the project site, the project’s contribution to cumulative impacts to historical resources would not be cumulatively considerable. As described above, adherence to General Plan Action COS 10c and Mitigation Measure CUL-2 would ensure that project-level impacts to unknown archaeological resources are adequately mitigated. Therefore, the project’s contribution to cumulative impacts to archaeological resources would not be cumulatively considerable. The proposed project and cumulative projects would be required to comply with the State of California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 following the discovery of human remains, as described in Impact CUL-3. With adherence to existing regulations relating to human remains, as well as General Plan Action COS 10,c cumulative impacts would be less than significant and the proposed project’s impacts would not be cumulatively considerable.

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

Environmental Impact Analysis
Geology and Soils
Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.5-1

4.5 Geology and Soils
This section describes seismic ground shaking, erosion, geologic stability, and paleontological resource impacts of the proposed project. The analysis that follows relies in part on the Geotechnical Investigation prepared for the project (Quantum Geotechnical, 2021, Appendix F).

4.5.1 Environmental Setting
a. Regional Geology
The City of Sebastopol is in Sonoma County, which is located within the Coastal Range Geomorphic Province, which are northwest trending mountain ranges (2,000 to 4,000, occasionally 6,000 feet elevation above sea level), and valleys. The ranges and valleys trend northwest, subparallel to the San Andreas Fault. To the west is the Pacific Ocean. The coastline is uplifted, terraced and wave-cut.

The Coast Ranges are composed of thick Mesozoic and Cenozoic sedimentary strata. The northern and southern ranges are separated by a depression containing the San Francisco Bay. The northern Coast Ranges are dominated by irregular, knobby, landslide topography of the Franciscan Complex.

The eastern border is characterized by strike-ridges and valleys in Upper Mesozoic strata. In several areas, Franciscan rocks are overlain by volcanic cones and flows of the Quien Sabe, Sonoma, and Clear Lake volcanic fields. The Coast Ranges are subparallel to the active San Andreas Fault. The San Andreas is more than 600 miles long, extending from Point Arena to the Gulf of California. West of the San Andreas is the Salinian Block, a granitic core extending from the southern extremity of the Coast Ranges to the north of the Farallon Islands. (California Department of Conservation 2002). b. Local Geologic Setting
Soils
The region is predominantly marine and nonmarine sediments of the Pliocene and Quaternary with recent alluvium. The oldest geologic units in the region are the Franciscan Complex, which is Jurassic (208 to 146 million years ago) (mya) to Early Cretaceous (146 to 106 mya). The Franciscan Complex consists of folded and faulted sandstones, shale, conglomerates, chert, greenstone, and serpentinite rocks. In some areas these rocks occur as large intact blocks, and in others may occur as a mixture of rocks. Much younger Miocene (5 to 23 mya) to Pliocene (1.8 to 5 mya) sedimentary rocks, including the Wilson Grove Formation (marine sandstone, conglomerate, and tuff) and the Petaluma Formation (mostly non-marine claystone, mudstone, and siltstone) were deposited on top of the Franciscan Complex. During Pliocene time volcanic activity created widespread deposits of the Sonoma Volcanics (basalt, andesite, rhyolite, tuff, and other volcanic rocks) in the eastern portion of the County. Pleistocene (1.8 mya to 11,000 years ago) to Holocene (<11,000 years ago) alluvium constitutes the youngest geologic unit in the region (California Department of Water Resources [DWR] 2004).

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

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

City of Sebastopol
The Canopy Project

4.5-2
Seismic Hazards
Like much of California, the City of Sebastopol is subject to risks associated with potentially destructive earthquakes. Earthquakes are most common along geologic faults, which are planes of weakness or fractures along which rocks have been displaced. The project site is near active faults, such as the San Andreas Fault, Rogers Creek Fault, Healdsburg Fault, Mayacama Fault, and West Napa Fault (California Department of Conservation [DOC] 2021). Regional hazards with respect to earthquakes are considered significant due to the City's proximity to major faults in the area (e.g., San Andreas and Hayward) and the project site’s proximity to minor faults listed above.

The probability of one or more earthquakes of magnitude 6.7 (Richter scale) or higher occurring in the San Francisco Bay Area has been evaluated by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). Based on the results of the USGS evaluation, there is a 63‐percent likelihood that such an earthquake event will occur in the Bay Area between 2007 and 2036. The faults with the greater probability of movement with a magnitude of 6.7 or higher earthquake are the Hayward Fault at 27 percent, the San Andreas Fault at 21 percent, and the Calaveras Fault at 11 percent (USGS 2007).

Surface Rupture
Surface rupture represents the breakage of ground along the surface trace of a fault, which is caused by the intersection of the fault surface area ruptured in an earthquake with the earth's surface. Fault displacement occurs when material on one side of a fault moves relative to the material on the other side of the fault. This can have particularly adverse consequences when buildings are located within the rupture zone. It is not feasible from a structural or economic perspective to design and build structures that can accommodate rapid displacement involved with surface rupture. Amounts of surface displacement can range from a few inches to tens of feet during a rupture event.

Faults are geologic hazards because of surface fault displacement and seismic ground shaking, which are distinct but related properties. Surface fault displacement results when the fault plane ruptures and that rupture surface extends to or intersects the ground surface. Surface fault rupture can be very destructive to structures constructed across active faults. However, the zone of damage is limited to a relatively narrow area along either side of the fault as opposed to seismic ground shaking damage that can be widespread. Faults are categorized as active, potentially active, and inactive. A fault is classified as active if it has moved during the Holocene time, which consists of approximately the last 11,000 years. A fault is classified as potentially active if it has experienced movement within Quaternary time, which is during the last 1.8 million years. Faults that have not moved in the last 1.8 million years are generally considered inactive.

The closest faults are described above under the Faults subheading. There are no Holocene faults or Alquist-Priolo Fault Zones in or near the project site.

Faults
San Andreas Fault System
The San Andreas Fault system is an active fault located approximately 11 miles west of the City of Sebastopol. The fault generally follows a northwest to southeast line and is capable of 8.0 magnitude earthquakes. The fault is characterized as a right-lateral strike-slip fault. Major seismic events along this fault were recorded on April 18, 1906 (in the Northern segment) and on January 9, 1857 (in the Mojave segment). The most recent seismic event along this fault was the 1989 Loma Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

Environmental Impact Analysis
Geology and Soils
Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.5-3
Prieta earthquake, which occurred on October 18, 1989. The epicenter was on the San Andreas Fault roughly 56 miles south of San Francisco and 10 miles northeast of Santa Cruz, near Mt. Loma Prieta in the Santa Cruz Mountains. The focal depth was 11 miles (typical California earthquake focal depths are 4 to 6 miles). Loma Prieta ruptured the southernmost 30 miles of the break that caused the 1906 San Francisco Earthquake. The Loma Prieta earthquake registered at a magnitude 6.9 and was felt as far away as San Diego and Western Nevada (California Geological Survey 2002).

Rogers Creek Fault
The Rodgers Creek Fault is an active fault located approximately 6 miles to the east of the City of Sebastopol. The fault generally follows a path that is parallel to the San Andreas Fault and is capable of a 7.0 magnitude earthquake. This fault is considered a northern extension of the Hayward Fault System, although there is no evidence that they connect under the San Pablo Bay. The fault is characterized as a right-lateral strike slip fault. There are no historical reports of land rupture; however, geologists estimate the most recent rupture to have occurred sometime between 1670 and 1776 (California Geological Survey 2002).

Healdsburg Fault
The Healdsburg Fault is an active fault located approximately 6 miles east of the City of Sebastopol.

The Healdsburg Fault extends north from the Rodgers creek fault in Santa Rosa, and generally follows a path that is parallel to the San Andreas Fault and is capable of a 7.5 magnitude earthquake. This fault is a northern extension of the Rodgers Creek Fault, which is part of the Hayward Fault System. The fault is characterized as a right-lateral strike slip fault. The last reported event was recorded in 1969 (California Geological Survey 2002).

Mayacama Fault
The Mayacama Fault is an active fault located to the northwest of the City of Sebastopol. The fault generally follows a path that is parallel to the San Andreas Fault and is capable of a 7.5 magnitude earthquake. This fault is the northern-most extension of Hayward Fault System. The fault is characterized as a right-lateral slip fault. There are no historical reports of land rupture; however, geologists estimate the most recent rupture to have occurred sometime between 1520 and 1660. (California Geological Survey 2002).

West Napa Fault
The West Napa fault is located approximately 25 miles east of the City of Sebastopol. The fault is associated with an approximately 57-km-long zone of late Quaternary deformation that trends along the western margin of the Napa Valley from near the City of St. Helena on the north to Carquinez Strait on the south. The fault has an overall better geomorphic expression than previously thought, and additional evidence of young fault activity has been observed through recent studies.

Geologists from UC Davis now warn that the West Napa Fault, which in 2014 triggered the Bay Area’s strongest earthquake in the past 25 years (6.0 magnitude), is longer and quicker moving than previously thought.

Ground Shaking
The major cause of structural damage from earthquakes is ground shaking. The intensity of ground motion expected at a particular site depends upon the magnitude of the earthquake, the distance to the epicenter, and the geology of the area between the epicenter and the property. Greater Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

City of Sebastopol
The Canopy Project

4.5-4
movement can be expected at sites located on poorly consolidated material such as alluvium, within close proximity to the ruptured fault, or in response to a seismic event of great magnitude.

Historically, the City of Sebastopol has been impacted by ground shaking during major earthquakes in the seismically active Northern California region and is likely to experience ground shaking from major earthquakes in the future.

Liquefaction
Liquefaction is a seismic phenomenon in which loose, saturated granular and non-plastic finegrained soils lose their structure/strength when subjected to high-intensity ground shaking.

Liquefaction occurs when three general conditions exist: 1) shallow groundwater within the top 50 feet of the ground surface; 2) low-density non-plastic soils; and 3) high-intensity ground motion. The risk of liquefaction within the City is generally very low, with areas of low risk along South Main Street and moderate to high risk in the northeastern portion of the City. Liquefaction risk at the project site is characterized as very low (Appendix F).

Landslides and Slope Stability
Seismic ground shaking can also result in landslides and other slope instability issues. Landslides occur when slopes become unstable, and masses of earth material move downslope. Landslides are usually rapid events, often triggered during periods of rainfall or by earthquakes. Mudslides and slumps are a shallower type of slope failure. They typically affect the upper surficial soils horizons rather than bedrock features. Usually, mudslides and slumps occur during or soon after periods of rainfall, but they can be triggered by seismic shaking. The area’s most susceptible to landslides are shown on maps prepared by the California Division of Mines and Geology. Landslide susceptibility is grouped into classes ranging from zero to ten, which are calculated based upon a combination of rock strength and slope. Classes seven through ten indicate very high landslide susceptibility and include both very steep slopes in hard rocks and moderate to very steep slopes in weak rocks (CGS 2011). In addition, landslides occur where faults have fractured rock and along the base of slopes or cliffs where supporting material has been removed by stream or wave erosion, or human activities.

Heavy rainfall, human actions, or earthquakes can trigger landslides. They may take the form of a slow continuous movement such as a slump or may move very rapidly as a semi-liquid mass such as a debris flow or avalanche. Landslide susceptibility within the City of Sebastopol ranges from very low to moderate. The project site has moderate susceptibility to landslides.

Subsidence
Subsidence or settlement can occur from immediate settlement, consolidation, shrinkage of expansive soil, and liquefaction. Immediate settlement occurs when a load from a structure or placement of new fill material is applied, causing distortion in the underlying materials. This settlement occurs quickly and is typically complete after placement of the final load. Consolidation settlement occurs in saturated clay from the volume change caused by squeezing out water from the pore spaces. Consolidation occurs over a period and is followed by secondary compression, which is a continued change in void ratio (ratio of the volume of voids to volume of solids) under the continued application of the load. Soils tend to settle at different rates and by varying amounts depending on the load weight or changes in properties over an area, which is referred to as differential settlement. Areas underlain by soft sediments or undocumented fills are most prone to settlement. While subsidence is an issue of concern in some areas in California, the Natural Resource Conservation Service does not identify it as an issue of concern in the City of Sebastopol.

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

Environmental Impact Analysis
Geology and Soils
Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.5-5
Expansive Soils
Expansive soils swell with increases in moisture content and shrink with decreases in moisture content. These soils usually contain high clay content. Foundations for structures constructed on expansive soils require special design considerations. Because expansive soils can expand when wet and shrink when dry, they can cause foundations, basement walls, and floors to crack, causing substantial structural damage. As such, structural failure due to expansive soils near the ground surface is a potential hazard. Shrink-swell potential throughout the City is low. Only one area in the city has high potential for shrink-swell located in the northeastern corner of the city. The project site contains low to moderately expansive clay soil (Appendix F).

Soil Erosion
Erosion refers to the removal of soil by water or wind. Factors that influence erosion include the amount of rainfall and wind, the length and steepness of the slope, and the amount and type of vegetative cover. Depending on how well protected the soil is from these forces, the erosion process can be very slow or rapid. Properties of the soil also contribute to how likely or unlikely it is to erode. Removal of natural or man-made protection can result in substantial soil erosion and excessive sedimentation and pollution problems in streams, lakes, and estuaries through a process called siltation. Risk of soil erosion throughout the City is relatively low, with higher rates of erosion present along the eastern edge of the City. Risk of soil erosion at the project site is moderate and may be impacted by grading activities (Appendix F).

Paleontological Resources
Paleontological resources, or fossils, are the evidence of once-living organisms preserved in the rock record. They include both the fossilized remains of ancient plants and animals and the traces thereof (e.g., trackways, imprints, burrows, etc.). Paleontological resources are not found in “soil” but are contained within the geologic deposits or bedrock that underlies the soil layer. Typically, fossils are greater than 5,000 years old (i.e., older than middle Holocene in age) and are usually preserved in sedimentary rocks. Although rare, fossils can also be preserved in volcanic rocks and low-grade metamorphic rocks under certain conditions (Society of Vertebrate Paleontology [SVP] 2010). Fossils occur in a non-continuous and often unpredictable distribution within some sedimentary units, and the potential for fossils to occur within sedimentary units depends on several factors. It is possible to evaluate the potential for geologic units to contain scientifically important paleontological resources.

The geology of the region surrounding the project site was mapped by Delattre and Koehler (2008), who identified a single geologic unit, Wilson Grove Formation, underlying the project site. The Wilson Grove Formation consists of light gray to yellowish-brown, well-sorted, sandstone and pebbly sandstone with orange and red iron-oxide staining and locally occurring lenses of wellrounded chert and quartz pebbles. The Wilson Grove Formation is late Miocene to Pliocene in age.

The Wilson Grove Formation has produced numerous paleontological resources, including walrus (Odobenidae), sea cow (Sirenia), whale (Cetacea), bird, shark, ray-finned fish, and invertebrates (Powell et al. 2019; University of California Museum of Paleontology 2023). Given this fossilproducing history, the Wilson Grove Formation has high paleontological sensitivity.

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

City of Sebastopol
The Canopy Project

4.5-6

4.5.2 Regulatory Setting
a. Federal Regulations
U.S. Geological Survey Landslide Hazard Program
The USGS created the Landslide Hazard Program in the mid-1970s; the primary objective of the program is to reduce long-term losses from landslide hazards by improving our understanding of the causes of ground failure and suggesting mitigation strategies. The federal government takes the lead role in funding and conducting this research, whereas the reduction of losses due to geologic hazards is primarily a State and local responsibility. In Sonoma County, an Emergency Operations Plan has been developed for the protection of life and property.

Clean Water Act
Congress enacted the Clean Water Act (CWA), formerly the Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, with the intent of restoring and maintaining the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the waters of the United States. The CWA requires states to set standards to protect, maintain, and restore water quality through the regulation of point source and non-point source discharges to surface water. Those discharges are regulated by the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit process (CWA Section 402). NPDES permitting authority is administered by the California State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) and its nine Regional Water Quality Control Boards (RWQCB). The City of Sebastopol is located within the North Coast RWQCB jurisdiction.

Projects within the city and Sonoma County that disturb more than one acre are required to obtain NPDES coverage under the California General Permit for Storm Water Discharges Associated with Construction and Land Disturbance Activities (Construction General Permit). The Construction General Permit (Order 2022-0057-DWQ) requires the development and implementation of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) describing best management practices (BMPs) that the discharger would use to prevent and retain storm water runoff and to prevent soil erosion.

Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (Stafford Act) The Stafford Act (1988) provides the legal basis for state, tribal, and local governments to undertake risk-based approaches to reducing natural hazard risks through mitigation planning. Specifically, the Stafford Act requires state, tribal, and local governments to develop and adopt Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)-approved hazard mitigation plans as a condition for receiving certain types of non-emergency disaster assistance. The Act also authorizes grants for pre- and postdisaster projects and planning.

Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000
Congress passed the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 to amend the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act by invoking new and revitalized approaches to mitigation planning.

Section 322 of the Act emphasized the need for state and local government entities to closely coordinate on mitigation planning activities and makes the development of a hazard mitigation plan a specific eligibility requirement for local governments applying for federal mitigation grant funds.

Communities with an adopted and federally approved hazard mitigation plan thereby become preAgenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

Environmental Impact Analysis
Geology and Soils
Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.5-7
positioned and more apt to receive available mitigation funds before and after the next declared disaster.

To implement the new Stafford Act provisions, FEMA published requirements and procedures for local hazard mitigation plans in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) at Title 44, Chapter 1, Part 201.6. These regulations specify minimum standards for developing, updating, and submitting local hazard mitigation plans for agency review and approval at least once every five years. b. State Regulations
California Building Code
The California Building Code (CBC), Title 24, Part 2 provides building codes and standards for the design and construction of structures in California. The 2016 CBC is based on the 2015 International Building Code, with the addition of more extensive structural seismic provisions. Chapter 16 of the CBC contains definitions of seismic sources and the procedure used to calculate seismic forces on structures. The CBC requires addressing soil-related hazards, such as treating hazardous soil conditions involving removal, proper fill selection, and compaction. In cases where soil remediation is not feasible, the CBC requires structural reinforcement of foundations to resist the forces of expansive soils. The CBC includes requirements for geotechnical investigations (such as inclusion of a soil report), excavation, grading, and fills, load-bearing of soils, as well as foundations, shallow foundations, and deep foundations (Chapter 18). Chapter 18 also describes analysis of expansive soils, including conducting soil tests in areas likely to contain expansive soils. Soils are considered expansive if either items one through three are met or item four is met:

Plasticity index (PI) of 15 or greater, determined in accordance with ASTM D 4318; More than 10 percent of the soil particles pass a No. 200 sieve (75 micrometers), determined in accordance with ASTM D 422;
More than 10 percent of the soil particles are less than 5 micrometers in size, determined in accordance with ASTM D 422; and
Expansion index greater than 20, determined in accordance with ASTM D 4829.

Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act
The Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act of 1972 was passed into law following the destructive February 9, 1971 magnitude 6.6 San Fernando earthquake. The Act provides a mechanism for reducing losses from surface fault rupture on a statewide basis. The intent of the Act is to ensure public safety by prohibiting the siting of most structures for human occupancy across traces of active faults that constitute a potential hazard to structures from surface faulting or fault creep. This Act groups faults into categories of active, potentially active, and inactive. Historic and Holocene age faults are considered active, Late Quaternary and Quaternary age faults are considered potentially active, and pre-Quaternary age faults are considered inactive.

The Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act regulates development near the surface traces of active faults to mitigate the hazard of surface fault rupture. Essentially, this Act contains two requirements: (1) it prohibits the location of most structures for human occupancy across the trace of active faults; and (2) it establishes Earthquake Fault Zones and requires geologic/seismic studies of most proposed development within 50 feet of the zone. The Earthquake Fault Zones are delineated and defined by the State Geologist and identify areas where potential surface rupture Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

City of Sebastopol
The Canopy Project

4.5-8
along a fault could occur. According to CGS, there are no Earthquake Fault Zones in the vicinity of the project site (DOC 2021).

Seismic Hazards Mapping Act
The Seismic Hazards Mapping Act (the Act) of 1990 was passed into law following the destructive October 17, 1989, magnitude 6.9 Loma Prieta earthquake. The Act directs the CGS to delineate Seismic Hazard Zones. The purpose of the Act is to reduce the threat to public health and safety and to minimize the loss of life and property by identifying and mitigating seismic hazards, such as liquefaction, landslides, amplified ground shaking, and inundation by tsunami or seiche. Cities, counties, and State agencies are directed to use seismic hazard zone maps developed by CGS in their land-use planning and permitting processes. The Act requires that site-specific geotechnical investigations be performed prior to permitting most urban development projects within seismic hazard zones. CGS maintains these required maps. The project site is not in a CGS-mapped seismic hazard zone.

California Environmental Quality Act – Paleontological Resources Paleontological resources are protected under CEQA, which states in part a project will “normally” have a significant effect on the environment if it, among other things, will disrupt or adversely affect a paleontological site except as part of a scientific study. Specifically, in Section VII(f) of Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, the Environmental Checklist Form, the question is posed thus: “Will the project directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature.” To determine the uniqueness of a given paleontological resource, it must first be identified or recovered (i.e., salvaged). Therefore, CEQA mandates mitigation of adverse impacts, to the extent practicable, to paleontological resources.

CEQA does not define “a unique paleontological resource or site.” However, the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology (SVP) has defined a “significant paleontological resource” in the context of environmental review as follows:

Fossils and fossiliferous deposits, here defined as consisting of identifiable vertebrate fossils, large or small, uncommon invertebrate, plant, and trace fossils, and other data that provide taphonomic, taxonomic, phylogenetic, paleoecologic, stratigraphic, and/or biochronologic information. Paleontological resources are typically to be older than recorded human history and/or older than middle Holocene (i.e., older than about 5,000 radiocarbon years) (SVP 2010).

The loss of paleontological resources meeting the criteria outlined above (i.e., a significant paleontological resource) would be a significant impact under CEQA, and the CEQA lead agency is responsible for ensuring that impacts to paleontological resources are mitigated, where practicable, in compliance with CEQA and other applicable statutes.

California Public Resources Code
Section 5097.5 of the Public Resources Code states:

No person shall knowingly and willfully excavate upon, or remove, destroy, injure or deface any historic or prehistoric ruins, burial grounds, archaeological or vertebrate paleontological site, including fossilized footprints, inscriptions made by human agency, or any other archaeological, paleontological or historical feature, situated on public lands, except with the express Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

Environmental Impact Analysis
Geology and Soils
Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.5-9
permission of the public agency having jurisdiction over such lands. Violation of this section is a misdemeanor.

Here “public lands” means those owned by, or under the jurisdiction of, the state or a city, county, district, authority, or public corporation, or an agency thereof. Consequently, public agencies are required to comply with Public Resources Code Section 5097.5 for their own activities, including construction and maintenance, and for permit actions (e.g., encroachment permits) undertaken by others.
c. Regional and Local Regulations
Sonoma County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan The Sonoma County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan (2021) assesses hazard vulnerabilities and identifies potential mitigation actions each jurisdiction will pursue in order to reduce the level of injury, property damage, and community disruption that might otherwise result from such events. Adoption of the MJHMP will allow the County and participating jurisdictions to remain eligible for various types of pre- and post-disaster financial assistance from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and the State government. 2016 Sebastopol General Plan
The City of Sebastopol General Plan (2016) sets forth the following guiding and implementing policies relevant to geology, soils, and seismicity:

Policy SA 1-1: Reduce the risk of loss of life, personal injury, and damage to property and the environment resulting from seismic hazards.

Policy SA 1-2: Enforce adopted regulations to identify and address potential hazards relating to seismic, geologic, and soils conditions.

Policy SA 1-3: Discourage construction of high density residential and other critical, high occupancy or essential services buildings in areas with high seismic and/or geologic hazards, including high potential for shrink-swell, liquefaction, and landslides.

Policy SA 1-4: Regulate development in areas of seismic and geologic hazards to reduce risks to life and property associated with earthquakes, liquefaction, erosion, landslides, and expansive soils.

Policy SA 1-5: Where feasible, require new development to avoid unreasonable exposure to geologic hazards, including earthquake damage, subsidence, liquefaction, and expansive soils.

Policy SA 1-6: Ensure that critical facilities are designed and constructed to withstand the "maximum probable" earthquake and remain in service.

Policy SA 1-7: All structures and building foundations located within areas containing expansive soils shall be designed and engineered to comply with the most current version of the California Code of Regulations (CCR), Title 24.

Policy SA 1-8: Encourage community awareness of seismic safety issues, including building safety and emergency response plans, including steps to take for safety during and after an earthquake and identified evacuation routes.

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

City of Sebastopol
The Canopy Project

4.5-10
Policy CSF 4-8: Prioritize sewer service improvements to areas within the City that pose a threat to public health and the environment as a result of deficiencies in existing sewer or septic systems.

Policy CSF 4-9: Ensure future sewer and septic systems are designed to meet or exceed all applicable water quality standards and are located to protect waterways and groundwater resources.

Goal COS 10 of the City of Sebastopol General Plan (2016) is to “Protect and Preserve Sebastopol’s Historic and Cultural Resources”, which includes paleontological resources.

Action COS 10c states:

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

If construction or grading activities result in the discovery of significant historic or prehistoric archaeological artifacts or unique paleontological resources, all work within 100 feet of the discovery shall cease, the Planning Department shall be notified, the resources shall be examined by a qualified archaeologist, paleontologist, or historian for appropriate protection and preservation measures; and work may only resume when appropriate protections are in place and have been approved by the Planning Department.

Sebastopol Municipal Code (SMC)
SMC Chapter 16.40 – General Requirements
SMC Section 16.40.120(F) explains the measures required to protect paleontological resources in Sebastopol. It states “Whenever significant archeological or paleontological sites may be located within the project area, an appropriate survey by qualified archaeologists shall be made and mitigation measures implemented prior to development of the site. Changes to the project to prevent or minimize the impact and/or mitigation measures shall be required where development may result in impacts to such areas.”
SMC Section 16.40.200 outlines all of the required parts of a geotechnical report or soils investigation, as required by SMC Section 16.28.020. As a part of a geotechnical report, the City required that recommendations for grading procedures and design criteria for erosion control and corrective measures shall be included. This section also requires that a Geotechnical Engineer shall review and approve the final drawings for grading and other geotechnical work for the subdivision as compliance with the recommendations of his or her report. In addition, SMC Chapter 16.40 requires that the design and improvement of each subdivision shall incorporate all required mitigation measures, conditions and requirements identified in the environmental document adopted for the project in any plan prepared for the subdivision.

SMC Chapter 13.08 – Regulations for Sewer Service
SMC Section 13.08.040 (C) of Chapter 13.08 requires that any new development is required to connect to public sewer. This requirement also pertains to the construction of an additional unit on the existing parcel.

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

Environmental Impact Analysis
Geology and Soils
Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.5-11

4.5.3 Impact Analysis
a. Significance Thresholds and Methodology
Significance Thresholds
Based on Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines a project may be deemed to have a significant impact on geology and soils if it would:

Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:

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
Strong seismic ground shaking
Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction
Landslides;
Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil; 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;
Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial direct or indirectly risks to life or property; Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater; or Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature.

Methodology
Impacts to geology and soils were determined by reviewing the existing setting for the project site, as summarized in Section 4.5.1, Setting, and analyzing the project’s potential to result in substantial adverse effects related to geological hazards.

The paleontological sensitivity of the geologic units that underlie the project site were evaluated to assess the project’s potential for significant impacts to scientifically important paleontological resources. Paleontological sensitivity refers to the potential for a geologic unit to produce scientifically significant fossils. Direct impacts to paleontological resources occur when earthwork activities, such as grading or trenching, cut into the geologic deposits within which fossils are buried and physically destroy the fossils. Sensitivity is determined by rock type, history of the geologic unit in producing significant fossils, and fossil localities recorded from that unit. Paleontological sensitivity is derived from the known fossil data collected from the entire geologic unit, not just from a specific survey.

The SVP outlines in its Standard Procedures for the Assessment and Mitigation of Adverse Impacts to Paleontological Resources guidelines for categorizing paleontological sensitivity of geologic units within a project site (SVP 2010). The paleontological sensitivity of geologic units underlying the project site has been evaluated according to the following categories:

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

City of Sebastopol
The Canopy Project

4.5-12
 High Potential: Rock units from which significant vertebrate or significant invertebrate fossils or significant suites of plant fossils have been recovered are considered to have a high potential for containing significant non-renewable fossiliferous resources. These units include but are not limited to, sedimentary formations and some volcanic formations which contain significant nonrenewable paleontological resources anywhere within their geographical extent, and sedimentary rock units temporally or lithologically suitable for the preservation of fossils.  Low Potential: Sedimentary rock units that are potentially fossiliferous but have not yielded fossils in the past or contain common and/or widespread invertebrate fossils of well documented and understood taphonomic (processes affecting an organism following death, burial, and removal from the ground), phylogenetic species (evolutionary relationships among organisms), and habitat ecology.
 Undetermined Potential: Specific areas underlain by sedimentary rock units for which little information is available are considered to have undetermined fossiliferous potentials. Field surveys by a qualified vertebrate paleontologist to specifically determine the potentials of the rock units are required before programs of impact mitigation for such areas may be developed.  No Potential: Rock units of metamorphic or igneous origin are commonly classified as having no potential for containing significant paleontological resources. b. Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Threshold 1a: Would the project directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving 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?
Impact GEO-1 THE PROPOSED PROJECT WOULD NOT DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY CAUSE POTENTIAL

SUBSTANTIAL ADVERSE EFFECTS, INCLUDING RISK OF LOSS, INJURY, OR DEATH INVOLVING RUPTURE OF A KNOWN EARTHQUAKE FAULT. IMPACTS WOULD BE LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT.

Fault rupture can occur along or immediately adjacent to faults during an earthquake. Fault rupture is characterized by ground cracks and displacement which could endanger life and property.

Damage is typically limited to areas close to the moving fault.

There are no active or inactive faults that cross the project site; the site is not located within an Earthquake Fault Zone designated by the state under the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act (DOC 2023). As such, the proposed project would not directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving rupture of a known earthquake fault. This impact would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures
No mitigation would be required.

Significance After Mitigation
Impacts would be less than significant without mitigation.

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

Environmental Impact Analysis
Geology and Soils
Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.5-13
Threshold 1b: Would the project directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving strong seismic ground shaking? Impact GEO-2 THE PROPOSED PROJECT WOULD NOT DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY CAUSE POTENTIAL

SUBSTANTIAL ADVERSE EFFECTS INCLUDING THE RISK OF LOSS, INJURY, OR DEATH INVOLVING STRONG SEISMIC GROUND SHAKING. IMPACTS WOULD BE LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT.

Ground shaking effects are also the result of an earthquake, but the impacts can be widespread.

Although a function of earthquake intensity, ground shaking effects can be magnified by the underlying soils and geology, which may amplify shaking at great distances. It is difficult to predict the magnitude of ground shaking following an earthquake, as shaking can vary widely within a relatively small area. The project site is in a seismically active area. There are numerous faults located in the region. These include the San Andreas Fault System, the Rodgers Creek Fault, the Healdsburg Fault, West Napa Fault, and the Mayacama Fault. Rupture of any of these faults, or of an unknown fault in the region could cause seismic ground shaking. As a result, development at the project site may expose people or structures to potential adverse effects associated with a seismic event, including strong ground shaking and seismic-related ground failure.

Potential structural damage and the exposure of people to the risk of injury or death from structural failure could occur. However, these risks would be minimized by compliance with CBC engineering design and construction measures, which require foundations and other structural support features to resist or absorb damaging forces from strong ground shaking. Although nothing can ensure that the residences and infrastructure do not fail under seismic stress, proper engineering can minimize the risk to life and property. Although the risk of sustaining an earthquake with higher ground accelerations can never be completely eliminated, compliance with all applicable provisions of the CBC would ensure that potential impacts from ground-shaking would be minimized to the extent possible. Additionally, SMC Chapter 16.40 requires that all recommendations included in the Geotechnical Investigation (Appendix F) be incorporated into the design of the project and each of the proposed residences, which would be verified by the City prior to issuance of a building permit.

Incorporation of the design features related to liquefaction and soil stability recommended in the Geotechnical Investigation, such as moisture conditioning and compacting soils, utilization of a posttensioned slab foundation, and grading during dry months, would ensure that impacts would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures
No mitigation would be required.

Significance After Mitigation
Impacts would be less than significant without mitigation.

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

City of Sebastopol
The Canopy Project

4.5-14
Threshold 1c: Would the project directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction?
Threshold 1d: Would the project directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving landslides? Threshold 3: Would the project 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? Impact GEO-3 THE PROJECT COULD CAUSE SUBSTANTIAL ADVERSE EFFECTS INCLUDING THE RISK OF

LOSS, INJURY, OR DEATH INVOLVING SEISMIC- RELATED GROUND FAILURE INCLUDING LIQUEFACTION, LANDSLIDES, LATERAL SPREADING, SUBSIDENCE, OR COLLAPSE. IMPACTS WOULD BE LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT.

Liquefaction most often occurs in loose saturated silts, and saturated poorly graded fine-grained sands. The California Geological Survey (CGS) has not yet published a map categorizing liquefaction or landslide hazards in the vicinity. The Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) liquefaction susceptibility map categorizes the site in an area with low susceptibility (Appendix F). Due to the presence of a thick predominantly non-liquefiable cover overlying any potential liquefiable sand layers, no sand boils are expected and will limit any surface manifestations of liquefaction (Appendix F).

The proposed project would involve grading and excavation that would level portions of the project site. As stated above, the CGS has not yet published a map categorizing landslide hazards in the vicinity of the project site. In order to address the hazards present at the project site, the geotechnical report prepared by Quantum Geotechnical, Inc. (Appendix F) provides a comprehensive list of design recommendations. Those recommendations cover several design considerations, including foundation design, site preparation and grading, utility trenches, and drainage, which would minimize the potential for landslides to occur on site as a result of development. SMC Chapter 16.40 requires that all recommendations included in the Geotechnical Investigation (Appendix F) be incorporated into the design of the project and each of the proposed residences, which would be verified by the City prior to issuance of a building permit. Incorporation of the design features related to liquefaction and soil stability recommended in the Geotechnical Investigation would ensure that impacts would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures
No mitigation would be required.

Significance After Mitigation
Impacts would be less than significant without mitigation.

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

Environmental Impact Analysis
Geology and Soils
Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.5-15
Threshold 2: Would the project result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? Impact GEO-4 THE PROPOSED PROJECT WOULD NOT RESULT IN SUBSTANTIAL SOIL EROSION OR LOSS OF TOPSOIL. IMPACTS WOULD BE LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT.

Construction of the proposed project would require grading and excavation on the project site.

Grading and excavation activities would temporarily expose bare soils, which could be removed from the site and transported through wind shearing or stormwater runoff. Because the project site is greater than one acre, construction activities would be subject to the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Construction General Permit and would be required to develop a SWPPP, as discussed under Section 4.5.3, Regulatory Setting. The SWPPP includes BMPs to reduce soil erosion and sedimentation. BMPs include but are not limited to the development of inspection and maintenance procedures for stormwater control, containment of leaks and spills of pollutants in storage areas on-site, prevention of sediment flow into storm drains, and watering of exposed soil to reduce erosion.

With mandatory implementation of the SWPPP and erosion control measures, the proposed project would not result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil. Impacts would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures
No mitigation would be required.

Significance After Mitigation
Impacts would be less than significant without mitigation.

Threshold 4: Would the project be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property?
Impact GEO-5 PORTIONS OF THE PROJECT SITE HAVE THE POTENTIAL TO BE LOCATED ON EXPANSIVE SOIL, AS DEFINED IN TABLE 1-B OF THE UNIFORM BUILDING CODE, WHICH MAY RESULT IN DIRECT OR INDIRECT RISKS TO LIFE OR PROPERTY. IMPACTS WOULD BE LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT.

Expansive soils tend to swell with increases in soil moisture and shrink as the soil moisture decreases. For example, expansive soils could swell during and hours after a precipitation event but then shrink in the following weeks if no additional precipitation occurs. Shrinking and swelling of soils can cause damage to the foundations of proposed residences, roads, and other structures. The project site contains the presence of moderately expansive clay soil that may affect the foundation subgrade (Appendix F). Near surface materials vary from low to moderately expansive, which makes the on-site soil material prone to heave and shrink movements with changes in moisture content (Appendix F).

Compliance with the CBC would reduce the risk to life and property involving expansive soil. As described under Impact GEO-2, the project would incorporate seismic and soil stability measures included in the Geotechnical Investigation (Appendix E) pursuant to Sebastopol Municipal Code and the CBC. Incorporation of these recommendations would ensure that impacts related to expansive soils would be less than significant.

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

City of Sebastopol
The Canopy Project

4.5-16
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation would be required.

Significance After Mitigation
Impacts would be less than significant without mitigation.

Threshold 5: Would the project have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater?
Impact GEO-6 THE PROJECT WOULD NOT INVOLVE SEPTIC TANKS OR ALTERNATIVE WASTEWATER DISPOSAL SYSTEMS. THERE WOULD BE NO IMPACT.

In accordance with SMC Section 13.08.040 (C), which requires all new development to connect to the public sewer system, the project would be connected to the municipal wastewater treatment system. Septic systems would not be used. No impact would occur.

Mitigation Measures
No mitigation would be required.

Significance After Mitigation
Impacts would be less than significant without mitigation.

Threshold 6: Would the project directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature?
Impact GEO-7 THE PROJECT HAS THE POTENTIAL TO SIGNIFICANTLY IMPACT PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES. THESE IMPACTS WOULD BE LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT WITH MITIGATION.

The project site is underlain by a single geologic unit, the Wilson Grove Formation (Delattre and Koehler 2008), which has high paleontological sensitivity. Significant impacts to paleontological resources include the destruction, damage, or loss of scientifically important paleontological resources or associated stratigraphic data. Ground-disturbing activities (i.e., grading, excavating, trenching) in undisturbed sediments or geologic units with high paleontological sensitivity have the potential to significantly impact paleontological resources. The project would be constructed on land that was previously used for orchards and a small garden. The geotechnical investigation did not encounter any obvious fill sediments within the project site (Appendix F), so the site is assumed to be undisturbed. Ground-disturbing activities for this project would include grading for building pads and excavations for new utilities (i.e., water, sewer, storm drains). Grading for building pads will extend down to 6 feet below the surface, and excavations for utilities will extend down to 13 feet below the surface. Therefore, previously undisturbed portions of the highly sensitive Wilson Grove Formation will be disturbed and significant impacts to paleontological resources could occur.

Mitigation Measure GEO-7 is recommended to ensure that potential impacts to paleontological resources are less than significant. This mitigation measure would apply during all ground-disturbing activities in undisturbed sediments.

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

Environmental Impact Analysis
Geology and Soils
Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.5-17
Mitigation Measures
GEO-7 Paleontological Resources Monitoring and Mitigation QUALIFIED PROFESSIONAL PALEONTOLOGIST.

Prior to excavation, City Ventures shall retain a Qualified Professional Paleontologist, as defined by the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology (SVP; 2010). The Qualified Professional Paleontologist shall draft a Paleontological Resources Mitigation and Monitoring Plan, which shall direct all mitigation measures related to paleontological resources.

PALEONTOLOGICAL WORKER ENVIRONMENTAL AWARENESS PROGRAM.

Prior to the start of construction, the Qualified Professional Paleontologist or their designee shall conduct a paleontological Worker Environmental Awareness Program (WEAP) training for construction personnel regarding the appearance of fossils and the procedures for notifying paleontological staff should fossils be discovered by construction personnel.

PALEONTOLOGICAL MONITORING.

Full-time paleontological monitoring shall be conducted during ground disturbing construction activities within previously undisturbed sediments. Paleontological monitoring shall be conducted by a paleontological monitor with experience with collection and salvage of paleontological resources and who meets the minimum standards of the SVP (2010) for a Paleontological Resources Monitor. The Qualified Professional Paleontologist may recommend that monitoring be reduced in frequency or ceased entirely based on geologic observations. Such decisions shall be subject to review and approval by the City of Sebastopol. In the event of a fossil discovery by the paleontological monitor or construction personnel, all construction activity within 50 feet of the find shall cease, and the Qualified Professional Paleontologist shall evaluate the find. If the fossil(s) is (are) not scientifically significant, then construction activity may resume. If it is determined that the fossil(s) is (are) scientifically significant, the following shall be completed:
 Fossil Salvage. The paleontological monitor shall salvage (i.e., excavate and recover) the fossil to protect it from damage/destruction. Typically, fossils can be safely salvaged quickly by a single paleontological monitor with minimal disruption to construction activity. In some cases, larger fossils (such as complete skeletons or large mammal fossils) require more extensive excavation and longer salvage periods. Bulk matrix sampling may be necessary to recover small invertebrates or microvertebrates from within paleontologically sensitive deposits. After the fossil(s) is (are) salvaged, construction activity may resume.  Fossil Preparation and Curation. Fossils shall be identified to the lowest (i.e., most-specific) possible taxonomic level, prepared to a curation-ready condition, and curated in a scientific institution with a permanent paleontological collection along with all pertinent field notes, photos, data, and maps. Fossils of undetermined significance at the time of collection may also warrant curation at the discretion of the Qualified Professional Paleontologist.

FINAL PALEONTOLOGICAL MITIGATION REPORT.

Upon completion of ground-disturbing activities (or laboratory preparation and curation of fossils, if necessary), the Qualified Professional Paleontologist shall prepare a final report describing the results of the paleontological monitoring efforts. The report shall include a summary of the field and laboratory methods employed; an overview of project geology; and, if fossils were discovered, an Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

City of Sebastopol
The Canopy Project

4.5-18
analysis of the fossils, including physical description, taxonomic identification, and scientific significance. The report shall be submitted to the City of Sebastopol and, if fossil curation occurred, the designated scientific institution.

Significance After Mitigation
Implementation of Mitigation Measure GEO-1 would reduce potential impacts to paleontological resources to a less than significant level through the recovery, identification, and curation of previously unrecovered fossils.

4.5.4 Cumulative Impacts
The geographic scope for considering cumulative impacts to geology and soils is the project site and the immediately adjacent sites. This scope is appropriate because geological materials and soils occur at specific locales and are generally affected by construction and operational activities directly on or immediately adjacent to the soils, and not by construction or operational activities occurring outside the area. In addition, any geologic impacts of the project would be site-specific.

Cumulative development in the area would increase the population of the region, as well as the number of structures and supporting infrastructure in the region. Cumulative development could expose new residents and property to seismic and other geologic hazards. However, as with the proposed project, cumulative development would be required to evaluate seismic and soil issues through preparation of individual soils and geotechnical engineering studies specific to each project.

Cumulative development would also be required to adhere to existing local and State laws and regulations including, among others, applicable CBC standards and requirements. Therefore, cumulative impacts related to seismic and soil issues would be less than significant.

The proposed project, by itself or in connection with other planned development in the surrounding area, would not exacerbate existing seismic risks or soil issues and would therefore not result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to cumulative impacts. With the implementation of the identified mitigation for the project as well as its adherence to the applicable laws and regulations, the project’s contribution to any cumulative geology and soils, including paleontological resources, would not be considerable.

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

Environmental Impact Analysis
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.6-1

4.6 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
This section summarizes the setting for greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and climate change and analyzes the impacts related to GHG emissions and climate change due to the project.

4.6.1 Setting
Gases that absorb and re-emit infrared radiation in the atmosphere are called GHGs. The gases that are widely seen as the principal contributors to human-induced climate change include carbon dioxide (CO2); methane (CH4); nitrous oxides (N2O); fluorinated gases such as hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) and perfluorocarbons (PFCs); and sulfur hexafluoride (SF6). Water vapor is excluded from the list of GHGs because it is short-lived in the atmosphere and its atmospheric concentrations are largely determined by natural processes, such as oceanic evaporation.

Different types of GHGs have varying global warming potentials (GWP). The GWP of a GHG is the potential of a gas or aerosol to trap heat in the atmosphere over a specified timescale (generally, 100 years). Because GHGs absorb different amounts of heat, a common reference gas (CO2) is used to relate the amount of heat absorbed to the amount of the gas emitted, referred to as “carbon dioxide equivalent” (CO2e), which is the amount of GHG emitted multiplied by its GWP. Carbon dioxide has a 100-year GWP of one. By contrast, methane has a 100-year GWP of 30, meaning its global warming effect is 30 times greater than CO2 on a molecule per molecule basis (United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [IPCC] 2021).1 GHGs are emitted by natural processes and human activities. Of these gases, CO2 and CH4 are emitted in the greatest quantities from human activities. Emissions of CO2 are usually by-products of fossil fuel combustion, and CH4 results from off-gassing associated with agricultural practices and landfills. Human-made GHGs, many of which have greater heat-absorption potential than CO2, include fluorinated gases and SF6 (United States Environmental Protection Agency [USEPA] 2023a).

Climate change is the observed increase in the average temperature of the Earth’s atmosphere and oceans along with other substantial changes in climate (such as wind patterns, precipitation, and storms) over an extended period. The term “climate change” is often used interchangeably with the term “global warming,” but climate change is preferred because it conveys that other changes are happening in addition to rising temperatures. The baseline against which these changes are measured originates in historical records that identify temperature changes that occurred in the past, such as during previous ice ages. The global climate is changing continuously, as evidenced in the geologic record, which indicates repeated episodes of substantial warming and cooling. The rate of change has typically been incremental, with warming or cooling trends occurring over the course of thousands of years. The past 10,000 years have been marked by a period of incremental warming, as glaciers have steadily retreated across the globe. However, scientists have observed acceleration in the rate of warming over the past 150 years. The IPCC expressed in their Sixth Assessment Report that the rise and continued growth of atmospheric CO2 concentrations is unequivocally due to human activities (IPCC 2021). Human influence has warmed the atmosphere, ocean, and land, which has led the climate to warm at an unprecedented rate in the last 2,000 years. It is estimated that between the period of 1850 through 2019, a total of 2,390 gigatons of anthropogenic CO2 was emitted. It is likely that anthropogenic activities have increased the global 1 The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (2021) Sixth Assessment Report determined that methane has a GWP of 30. However, the 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan published by the California Air Resources Board uses a GWP of 25 for methane, consistent with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (2007) Fourth Assessment Report. Therefore, this analysis utilizes a GWP of 25.

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

City of Sebastopol
The Canopy

4.6-2
surface temperature by approximately 1.07 degrees Celsius between the years 2010 through 2019 (IPCC 2021).

The accumulation of GHGs in the atmosphere regulates the earth’s temperature. Without the natural heat-trapping effect of GHGs, the earth’s surface would be about 33 degrees Celsius (°C) cooler (World Meteorological Organization 2013). However, since 1750, estimated concentrations of CO2, CH4, and N2O in the atmosphere have increased by 47 percent, 156 percent, and 23 percent, respectively, primarily due to human activity (IPCC 2021). GHG emissions from human activities, particularly the consumption of fossil fuels for electricity production and transportation, are believed to have elevated the concentration of these gases in the atmosphere beyond the level of concentrations that occur naturally.
a. Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory
Global Emissions Inventory
Worldwide anthropogenic GHG emissions totaled 47,000 million metric tons (MT) of CO2e in 2015, which is a 43 percent increase from 1990 GHG levels (USEPA 2023b). Specifically, 34,522 million metric tons (MMT) of CO2e of CO2, 8,241 MMT of CO2e of CH4, 2,997 MMT of CO2e of N2O, and 1,001 MMT of CO2e of fluorinated gases were emitted in 2015. The largest source of GHG emissions were energy production and fuel use from vehicles and buildings, which accounted for 75 percent of the global GHG emissions. Agriculture uses and industrial processes contributed 12 percent and six percent, respectively. Waste sources contributed three percent and international transportation sources contributed two percent. These sources account for approximately 98 percent because there was a net sink of two percent from land-use change (including afforestation/reforestation and emissions removals by other land use activities) (USEPA 2023b).

United States Emissions Inventory
Total United States (U.S.) GHG emissions were 6,558 MMT of CO2e in 2019. Emissions decreased by

1.7 percent from 2018 to 2019. Since 1990, total U.S. emissions have increased by an average annual rate of 0.06 percent for a total increase of 1.8 percent between 1990 and 2019. The decrease from 2018 to 2019 reflects the combined influences of several long-term trends, including population changes, economic growth, energy market shifts, technological changes such as improvements in energy efficiency, and decrease carbon intensity of energy fuel choices. In 2019, the industrial and transportation end-use sectors accounted for 30 percent and 29 percent, respectively, of nationwide GHG emissions; while the commercial and residential end-use sectors accounted for 16 percent and 15 percent of nationwide GHG emissions, respectively, with electricity emissions distributed among the various sectors (USEPA 2023c).

California Emissions Inventory
Based on the California Air Resources Board (CARB) California Greenhouse Gas Inventory for 2000- 2019, California produced 418.2 MMT of CO2e in 2019, which is 7.2 MMT of CO2e lower than 2018 levels. The major source of GHG emissions in California is the transportation sector, which comprises 40 percent of the state’s total GHG emissions. The industrial sector is the second largest source, comprising 21 percent of the state’s GHG emissions, while electric power accounts for approximately 14 percent (CARB 2021). The magnitude of California’s total GHG emissions is due in part to its large size and large population compared to other states. However, its relatively mild climate is a factor that reduces California’s per capita fuel use and GHG emissions as compared to Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

Environmental Impact Analysis
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.6-3
other states. In 2016, the State of California achieved its 2020 GHG emission reduction target of reducing emissions to 1990 levels, as emissions fell below 431 MMT of CO2e (CARB 2021).

Local Emissions Inventory
Based on the City’s Climate Action Framework, the City generated approximately 65,711 MT of CO2e in 2018. Transportation was the major source accounting for 66.7 percent of the total, followed by building and energy use (24.5 percent) and then solid waste (8.8 percent). The remaining GHG emissions are attributed to water and wastewater (City of Sebastopol 2022). b. Potential Effects of Climate Change
Globally, climate change has the potential to affect numerous environmental resources through potential impacts related to future air temperatures and precipitation patterns. Scientific modeling predicts that continued GHG emissions at or above current rates would induce more extreme climate changes during the 21st century than were observed during the 20th century. Each of the past three decades has been warmer than all the previous decades on record, and the decade from 2000 through 2010 has been the warmest. The observed global mean surface temperature from 2015 to 2017 was approximately 1.0°C higher than the average global mean surface temperature over the period from 1880 to 1900 (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 2020).

Furthermore, several independently analyzed data records of global and regional Land-Surface Air Temperature obtained from station observations jointly indicate that Land-Surface Air Temperature and sea surface temperatures have increased.

According to California’s Fourth Climate Change Assessment, statewide temperatures from 1986 to 2016 were approximately 0.6 to 1.1°C higher than those recorded from 1901 to 1960. Potential impacts of climate change in California may include reduced water supply from snowpack, sea level rise, more extreme heat days per year, larger forest fires, and more drought years (State of California 2018). In addition to statewide projections, California’s Fourth Climate Change Assessment includes regional reports that summarize climate impacts and adaptation solutions for nine regions of the state and regionally specific climate change case studies (State of California 2018). However, while there is growing scientific consensus about the possible effects of climate change at a global and statewide level, current scientific modeling tools are unable to predict what local impacts may occur with a similar degree of accuracy. A summary follows of some of the potential effects that could be experienced in California because of climate change.

Air Quality
Scientists project that the annual average maximum daily temperatures in California could rise by

2.4 to 3.2°C in the next 50 years and by 3.1 to 4.9°C in the next century (State of California 2018).

Higher temperatures are conducive to air pollution formation, and rising temperatures could therefore result in worsened air quality in California. As a result, climate change may increase the concentration of ground-level ozone. The magnitude of the effect of the increased concentration of ground-level ozone, and therefore its indirect effects, are uncertain. In addition, as temperatures have increased in recent years, the area burned by wildfires throughout the state has increased, and wildfires have occurred at higher elevations in the Sierra Nevada Mountains (State of California 2018). If higher temperatures continue to be accompanied by an increase in the incidence and extent of large wildfires, air quality could worsen. Severe heat accompanied by drier conditions and poor air quality could increase the number of heat-related deaths, illnesses, and asthma attacks throughout the state. However, if higher temperatures are accompanied by wetter, rather than Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

City of Sebastopol
The Canopy

4.6-4
drier conditions, the rains could tend to temporarily clear the air of particulate pollution, which would effectively reduce the number of large wildfires and thereby ameliorate the pollution associated with them (California Natural Resources Agency 2009).

Water Supply
Analysis of paleoclimatic data (such as tree-ring reconstructions of stream flow and precipitation) indicates a history of naturally and widely varying hydrologic conditions in California and the west, including a pattern of recurring and extended droughts. Uncertainty remains with respect to the overall impact of climate change on future precipitation trends and water supplies in California.

Year-to-year variability in statewide precipitation levels has increased since 1980, meaning that wet and dry precipitation extremes have become more common (California Department of Water Resources 2018). This uncertainty regarding future precipitation trends complicates the analysis of future water demand, especially where the relationship between climate change and its potential effect on water demand is not well understood. The average early spring snowpack in the western U.S., including the Sierra Nevada Mountains, decreased by about 10 percent during the last century.

During the same period, sea level rose over 0.15 meter along the central and southern California coasts (State of California 2018). The Sierra snowpack provides most of California's water supply as snow that accumulates during wet winters is released slowly during the dry months of spring and summer. A warmer climate is predicted to reduce the fraction of precipitation that falls as snow and the amount of snowfall at lower elevations, thereby reducing the total snowpack (State of California 2018). Projections indicate that average spring snowpack in the Sierra Nevada and other mountain catchments in central and northern California will decline by approximately 66 percent from its historical average by 2050 (State of California 2018).

Hydrology and Sea Level Rise
Climate change could affect the intensity and frequency of storms and flooding (State of California 2018). Furthermore, climate change could induce substantial sea level rise in the coming century.

Rising sea level increases the likelihood of and risk from flooding. The rate of increase of global mean sea levels between 1993 to 2022, observed by satellites, is approximately 3.5 millimeters per year, double the twentieth century trend of 1.6 millimeters per year (World Meteorological Organization 2013; National Aeronautics and Space Administration 2023). Sea levels are rising faster now than in the previous two millennia, and the rise will probably accelerate, even with robust GHG emission control measures. While the City is not close to the Pacific coast, sea level rise may jeopardize California’s water supply due to saltwater intrusion and induce groundwater flooding and/or exposure of buried infrastructure (State of California 2018).

Agriculture
California has an over $50 billion annual agricultural industry that produces over a third of the country’s vegetables and two-thirds of the country’s fruits and nuts (California Department of Food and Agriculture 2020). Higher CO2 levels can stimulate plant production and increase plant wateruse efficiency. However, if temperatures rise and drier conditions prevail, certain regions of agricultural production could experience water shortages of up to 16 percent, which would increase water demand as hotter conditions lead to the loss of soil moisture. In addition, crop yield could be threatened by water-induced stress and extreme heat waves, and plants may be susceptible to new and changing pest and disease outbreaks (State of California 2018). Temperature increases could Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

Environmental Impact Analysis
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.6-5
also change the time of year certain crops, such as wine grapes, bloom or ripen, and thereby affect their quality (California Climate Change Center 2006).

Ecosystems
Climate change and the potential resultant changes in weather patterns could have ecological effects on the global and local scales. Soil moisture is likely to decline in many regions because of higher temperatures, and intense rainstorms are likely to become more frequent. Rising temperatures could have four major impacts on plants and animals: timing of ecological events; geographic distribution and range of species; species composition and the incidence of nonnative species within communities; and ecosystem processes, such as carbon cycling and storage (Parmesan 2006; State of California 2018).

4.6.2 Regulatory Setting
a. Federal Regulations
Federal Clean Air Act
The U.S. Supreme Court determined in Massachusetts et al. v. Environmental Protection Agency et al. ([2007] 549 U.S. 05-1120) that the USEPA has the authority to regulate motor vehicle GHG emissions under the federal Clean Air Act. The USEPA issued a Final Rule for mandatory reporting of GHG emissions in October 2009. This Final Rule applies to fossil fuel suppliers, industrial gas suppliers, direct GHG emitters, and manufacturers of heavy-duty and off-road vehicles and vehicle engines and requires annual reporting of emissions. In 2012, the USEPA issued a Final Rule that established the GHG permitting thresholds that determine when Clean Air Act permits under the New Source Review Prevention of Significant Deterioration and Title V Operating Permit programs are required for new and existing industrial facilities.

In Utility Air Regulatory Group v. Environmental Protection Agency (134 Supreme Court 2427 [2014]), the U.S. Supreme Court held the USEPA may not treat GHGs as an air pollutant for purposes of determining whether a source can be considered a major source required to obtain a Prevention of Significant Deterioration or Title V permit. The Court also held that Prevention of Significant Deterioration permits otherwise required based on emissions of other pollutants may continue to require limitations on GHG emissions based on the application of Best Available Control Technology.

Safer Affordable Fuel-Efficient Vehicles Rule
On September 27, 2019, the USEPA and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration published the Safer Affordable Fuel-Efficient (SAFE) Vehicles Rule Part One: One National Program.

The SAFE Rule Part One revokes California’s authority to set its own GHG emissions standards and to adopt its own zero-emission vehicle mandates. On April 30, 2020, the USEPA and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration published Part Two of the SAFE Vehicles Rule, which revised corporate average fuel economy and CO2 emissions standards for passenger cars and trucks of model years 2021-2026, such that the standards increase by approximately 1.5 percent each year through model year 2026, as compared to the approximately 5 percent annual increase required under the 2012 standards (National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 2023).

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

City of Sebastopol
The Canopy

4.6-6
Construction Equipment Fuel-Efficiency Standard
USEPA sets emission standards for construction equipment. The first federal standards (Tier 1) were adopted in 1994 for all off-road engines over 50 horsepower (hp) and were phased in by 2000. A new standard was adopted in 1998 that introduced Tier 1 for all equipment below 50 hp and established the Tier 2 and Tier 3 standards. The Tier 2 and Tier 3 standards were phased in by 2008 for all equipment. The current iteration of emissions standards for construction equipment are the Tier 4 efficiency requirements, which are contained in 40 Code of Federal Regulations Parts 1039, 1065, and 1068 (originally adopted in 69 Federal Register 38958 [June 29, 2004] and most recently updated in 2014 [79 Federal Register 46356]). Emissions requirements for new off-road Tier 4 vehicles were completely phased in by the end of 2015.
b. State Regulations
CARB is responsible for the coordination and oversight of State and local air pollution control programs in California. There are numerous regulations aimed at reducing the state’s GHG emissions. These initiatives are summarized below.

California Advanced Clean Cars Program
Assembly Bill (AB) 1493 (2002), California’s Advanced Clean Cars program (referred to as “Pavley”), requires CARB to develop and adopt regulations to achieve “the maximum feasible and costeffective reduction of GHG emissions from motor vehicles.” On June 30, 2009, the USEPA granted the waiver of Clean Air Act preemption to California for its GHG emission standards for motor vehicles, beginning with the 2009 model year, which allows California to implement more stringent vehicle emission standards than those promulgated by the USEPA. Pavley I regulates model years from 2009 to 2016 and Pavley II, now referred to as “LEV (Low Emission Vehicle) III GHG,” regulates model years from 2017 to 2025. The Advanced Clean Cars program coordinates the goals of the LEV, Zero Emissions Vehicles (ZEV), and Clean Fuels Outlet programs and would provide major reductions in GHG emissions. By 2025, the rules will be fully implemented, and new automobiles will emit 34 percent fewer GHGs and 75 percent fewer smog-forming emissions from their model year 2016 levels (CARB 2011).

Executive Order B-48-18: Zero-Emission Vehicles
On January 26, 2018, Governor Brown signed Executive Order B-48-18 requiring all State entities to work with the private sector to have at least 5 million ZEVs on the road by 2030, as well as install 200 hydrogen fueling stations and 250,000 electric vehicle (EV) charging stations by 2025. It specifies that 10,000 of the EV charging stations should be direct current fast chargers. This order also requires all State entities to continue to partner with local and regional governments to streamline the installation of ZEV infrastructure. The Governor’s Office of Business and Economic Development is required to publish a Plug-in Charging Station Design Guidebook and update the 2015 Hydrogen Station Permitting Guidebook to aid in these efforts. All State entities are required to participate in updating the 2016 ZEV Action Plan, along with the 2018 ZEV Action Plan Priorities Update, which includes and extends the 2016 ZEV Action Plan (Governor’s Interagency Working Group on Zero-Emission Vehicles 2016, 2018) to help expand private investment in ZEV infrastructure with a focus on serving low-income and disadvantaged communities.

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

Environmental Impact Analysis
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.6-7
Executive Order N-79-20
Governor Gavin Newsom signed Executive Order N-79-20 in September 2020, which sets a Statewide goal that 100 percent of all new passenger car and truck sales in the State will be zeroemissions by 2035. It also sets a goal that 100 percent of statewide new sales of medium- and heavy-duty vehicles will be zero emissions by 2045, where feasible, and for all new sales of drayage trucks to be zero emissions by 2035. Additionally, the Executive Order targets 100 percent of new off-road vehicle sales in the State to be zero emission by 2035. CARB is responsible for implementing the new vehicle sales regulation.

California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (Assembly Bill 32, Senate Bill 32, and Assembly Bill 1279)
The “California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006,” (AB 32), outlines California’s major legislative initiative for reducing GHG emissions. AB 32 codifies the statewide goal of reducing GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020 and requires CARB to prepare a Scoping Plan that outlines the main state strategies for reducing GHG emissions to meet the 2020 deadline. In addition, AB 32 requires CARB to adopt regulations to require reporting and verification of statewide GHG emissions. Based on this guidance, CARB approved a 1990 statewide GHG level and 2020 target of 431 MMT of CO2e, which was achieved in 2016. CARB approved the Scoping Plan on December 11, 2008, which included GHG emission reduction strategies related to energy efficiency, water use, and recycling and solid waste, among others (CARB 2008).

The CARB approved the 2013 Scoping Plan update in May 2014. The update defined the CARB’s climate change priorities for the next five years, set the groundwork to reach post-2020 statewide goals, and highlighted California’s progress toward meeting the “near-term” 2020 GHG emission reduction goals defined in the original Scoping Plan.

On September 8, 2016, the governor signed Senate Bill (SB) 32 into law, extending the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 by requiring the state to further reduce GHG emissions to 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030 (the other provisions of AB 32 remain unchanged). On December 14, 2017, the CARB adopted the 2017 Scoping Plan, which provides a framework for achieving the 2030 target. The 2017 Scoping Plan relies on the continuation and expansion of existing policies and regulations, such as the Cap-and-Trade Program, and implementation of recently adopted policies and legislation, such as SB 1383 and SB 100 (discussed below). The 2017 Scoping Plan also puts an increased emphasis on innovation, adoption of existing technology, and strategic investment to support its strategies.

AB 1279, “The California Climate Crisis Act,” was passed on September 16, 2022 and declares the State would achieve net zero greenhouse gas emissions as soon as possible, but no later than 2045, and to achieve and maintain net negative greenhouse gas emissions thereafter. In addition, the bill states that the State would reduce GHG emissions by 85 percent below 1990 levels no later than 2045. The 2022 Scoping Plan lays out a path to achieve AB 1279 targets (CARB 2022). The actions and outcomes in the 2022 Scoping Plan would achieve significant reductions in fossil fuel combustion by deploying clean technologies and fuels, further reductions in short-lived climate pollutants, support for sustainable development, increased action on natural and working lands to reduce emissions and sequester carbon, and the capture and storage of carbon.

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

City of Sebastopol
The Canopy

4.6-8
Senate Bill 375
The Sustainable Communities and Climate Protection Act of 2008 (SB 375), signed in August 2008, enhances the state’s ability to reach AB 32 goals by directing the CARB to develop regional GHG emission reduction targets to be achieved from passenger vehicles by 2020 and 2035. SB 375 aligns regional transportation planning efforts, regional GHG reduction targets, and affordable housing allocations. Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs) are required to adopt a Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS), which allocates land uses in the MPO’s Regional Transportation Plan (RTP). Qualified projects consistent with an approved SCS or Alternative Planning Strategy (categorized as “transit priority projects”) can receive incentives to streamline CEQA processing.

The City of Sebastopol is within the planning area of the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG). ABAG was assigned targets of a 10 percent reduction in GHGs from transportation sources by 2020 and a 19 percent reduction in GHGs from transportation sources by 2035 (CARB 2023).

Assembly Bill 1493 (Reduce GHG Emissions from Vehicle Use) AB 1493 (Chapter 200, Statutes of 2002), known as the Pavley Bill, amended Health and Safety Code Sections 42823, and added Section 43018.5 requiring CARB to develop and adopt regulations that achieve maximum feasible and cost-effective reduction of GHG emissions from passenger vehicles, light-duty trucks, and other vehicles used for noncommercial personal transportation in California.

Assembly Bill 1007 (State Alternative Fuels Plan)
AB 1007 (Chapter 371, Statutes of 2005) required the California Energy Commission (CEC) to prepare a State plan to increase the use of alternative fuels in California. The CEC prepared the State Alternative Fuels Plan (SAF Plan) in partnership with CARB and in consultation with other federal, State, and local agencies. The SAF Plan presents strategies and actions California must take to increase the use of alternative non-petroleum fuels in a manner that minimizes costs to California and maximizes the economic benefits of in-state production. The SAF Plan assessed various alternative fuels and developed fuel portfolios to meet California’s goals to reduce petroleum consumption, increase alternative fuels use, reduce GHG emissions, and increase in-State production of biofuels without causing a significant degradation of public health and environmental quality.

CARB In-Use On-Road and Off-Road Diesel Rules
The CARB rule imposes limits on idling, restricts the addition of older vehicles, and requires the retirement or replacement of older engines depending on their fleet size category. This policy indirectly impacts energy consumption.

More specifically, CARB is also charged with developing air pollution control regulations based upon the best available control measures and implementing feasible control measures under the State and Federal Clean Air Act (Health & Safety Code, Sections 39602.5, 39667, 43013, subdivisions (a) and (h), 43018, 40600, 40601, 40612(a)(2) and (c)(1)(A)). Pursuant to these statutory authorities, more stringent emission standards were adopted in 2004 for off-road construction equipment (i.e. “Tier 4” standards) (40 Code of Federal Regulations Parts 1039, 1065, and 1068; California Code of Regulations, title 13, Section 2025; AR 2854). CARB also adopted emission standards for on-road heavy duty diesel vehicles (i.e., haul trucks). (California Code of Regulations, title 13, Section 1956.8.) These haul truck regulations mandate fleet ensuring that nearly all on-road diesel trucks will have 2010 model year engines or equivalent [i.e., Tier 4] by 2023.

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

Environmental Impact Analysis
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.6-9
California Integrated Waste Management Act (Assembly Bill 341)/Assembly Bill 1826 (Mandatory Recycling/Composting)
The California Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989, as modified by AB 341, requires each jurisdiction’s source reduction and recycling element to include an implementation schedule that shows diversion away from landfills of 75 percent of all solid waste by 2020 and annually thereafter.

AB 1826 requires recycling of organic waste (i.e., composting). All businesses and public entities that generate four or more cubic yards of solid waste per week and multi-family residential dwellings that have five or more units are required to recycle and compost.

Senate Bill 1383
Adopted in September 2016, SB 1383 requires CARB to approve and begin implementing a comprehensive strategy to reduce emissions of short-lived climate pollutants. SB 1383 requires the strategy to achieve the following reduction targets by 2030:
 Methane – 40 percent below 2013 levels
 Hydrofluorocarbons – 40 percent below 2013 levels
 Anthropogenic black carbon – 50 percent below 2013 levels SB 1383 also requires the California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle), in consultation with the CARB, to adopt regulations that achieve specified targets for reducing organic waste in landfills.

Senate Bill 100
Adopted on September 10, 2018, SB 100 supports the reduction of GHG emissions from the electricity sector by accelerating the state’s Renewables Portfolio Standard (RPS) Program, which was last updated by SB 350 in 2015. SB 100 requires electricity providers to increase procurement from eligible renewable energy resources to 33 percent of total retail sales by 2020, 60 percent by 2030, and 100 percent by 2045. The 2020 goal was met, with approximately 36 percent of electricity coming from renewable sources in March 2021 (CARB 2021b).

Executive Order B-55-18
On September 10, 2018, the former Governor Brown issued Executive Order B-55-18, which established a new statewide goal of achieving carbon neutrality by 2045 and maintaining net negative emissions thereafter. This goal is in addition to the existing statewide GHG reduction targets established by SB 375, SB 32, SB 1383, and SB 100.

Senate Bill 1020
Senate Bill 1020 (SB 1020), signed into law on September 16, 2022, requires renewable energy and zero-carbon resources to supply 90 percent of all retail electricity sales by 2035, 95 percent by 2040, and 100 percent by 2045. All State agencies facilities must be served by 100 percent renewable and zero-carbon resources by 2030. SB 1020 also requires the Public Utilities Commission, Energy Commission, and CARB to issue a joint progress report outlining the reliability of the electrical grid with a focus on summer reliability and challenges and gaps. Additionally, SB 1020 requires the Public Utilities Commission to define energy affordability and use energy affordability metrics to develop protections, incentives, discounts, or new programs for residential customers facing hardships due to energy or gas bills.

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

City of Sebastopol
The Canopy

4.6-10
CARB Gas Appliances Sales Ban
As part of the 2022 State Implementation Plan, CARB adopted a ban on new sales of natural gas heaters, water heaters, and furnaces by 2030 in September of 2022. This new measure is intended to reduce emissions from new residential and commercial space and water heaters sold in the State.

An emission standard for space and water heaters will go into effect in 2030. Beginning in 2030, 100 percent of the sales of new natural gas-powered heaters and water heaters would need to comply with the emission standard, such as putting in electric heaters or other zero-emission options.

California Building Standards Code
The California Code of Regulations (CCR) Title 24 is referred to as the California Building Standards Code. It consists of a compilation of several distinct standards and codes related to building construction, including plumbing, electrical, interior acoustics, energy efficiency, and accessibility for persons with physical and sensory disabilities. The California Building Standards Code’s energyefficiency and green building standards are outlined below. These standards are updated every three years and the project would be subject to the 2022 California Building Standards.

Part 6 – Building Energy Efficiency Standards/Energy Code CCR Title 24, Part 6 is the Building Energy Efficiency Standards or California Energy Code. This code, originally enacted in 1978, establishes energy-efficiency standards for residential and nonresidential buildings to reduce California’s energy demand. New construction and major renovations must demonstrate their compliance with the current Energy Code through submittal and approval of a Title 24 Compliance Report to the local building permit review authority and the CEC. The current iteration is the 2022 Title 24 standards. The California Building Standards Code’s energyefficiency and green building standards are outlined below.

Part 11 – California Green Building Standards
The California Green Building Standards Code, referred to as CALGreen, was added to Title 24 as Part 11, first in 2009 as a voluntary code, which then became mandatory effective on January 1, 2011 (as part of the 2010 California Building Standards Code). The 2022 CALGreen includes mandatory minimum environmental performance standards for all ground-up new construction of residential and non-residential structures. It also includes voluntary tiers with stricter environmental performance standards for these same categories of residential and non-residential buildings. Local jurisdictions must enforce the minimum mandatory CALGreen standards and may adopt additional amendments for stricter requirements.

The mandatory standards require:
 Minimum 20 percent reduction in indoor water use relative to specified baseline levels;2  Waste Reduction:

Minimum 65 percent non-hazardous construction/demolition waste diverted from landfills; Non-residential and Multifamily dwellings with 5 or more units shall provide readily accessible areas identified for the depositing, storage and collection of nonhazardous 2 Similar to the compliance reporting procedure for demonstrating Energy Code compliance in new buildings and major renovations, compliance with the CALGreen water reduction requirements must be demonstrated through completion of water use reporting forms.

Buildings must demonstrate a 20 percent reduction in indoor water use by either showing a 20 percent reduction in the overall baseline water use as identified in CALGreen or a reduced per-plumbing-fixture water use rate.

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

Environmental Impact Analysis
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.6-11
materials for recycling including (at a minimum) paper, corrugated cardboard, glass, plastic, organic waste, and metals;
Nonresidential: 100 percent of trees, stumps, rocks and associated vegetation soils resulting from primary land clearing shall be reused or recycled.  Inspections of energy systems to ensure optimal working efficiency;  Electric Vehicle (EV) Charging for New Construction:3 Multifamily dwellings, hotels/motels with less than 20 units/rooms: Designation of at least 10 percent of the total number of parking spaces shall be EV capable and at least 25 percent of the total number of parking spaces shall be EV Ready.

Multifamily dwellings, hotels/motels with greater than 20 units/rooms: Designation of at least 10 percent of the total number of parking spaces shall be EV capable, at least 25 percent of the total number of parking spaces shall be EV Ready, and at least 5 percent of the total number of parking spaces shall be equipped with a Level 2 Charging Station.

The CALGreen voluntary standards are only mandatory if a local ordinance requires them. Since the City has not made any of the voluntary measures mandatory, the following voluntary standards would not be applicable to the project:
 Deconstruct existing buildings and reuse applicable salvaged materials;  Residential Bicycle Parking:

Multifamily/hotel/motel short-term parking: Provide permanently anchored bicycle racks within 100 feet of visitor’s entrance for 5 percent of visitor motorized vehicle parking capacity (minimum 1 two-bike capacity rack).

The CALGreen voluntary standards are divided into two tiers. Tier 1 adds additional requirements beyond the mandatory measures, whereas Tier 2 further increases the requirements.  Tier I
Stricter energy efficiency requirements;
Stricter water conservation requirements for specific fixtures; Minimum 65 percent reduction in construction waste with third-party verification, Minimum 10 percent recycled content for building materials; Minimum 20 percent permeable paving;
Minimum 20 percent cement reduction;
Multifamily developments/hotels/motels: Minimum 35 percent of total parking spaces shall be EV ready and for projects with 20 or more dwelling units/rooms a minimum of 10 percent of the total number of parking spaces shall be equipped with EV charging stations;  Tier II
Stricter energy efficiency requirements,
Stricter water conservation requirements for specific fixtures; 3 EV Capable = a vehicle space with electrical panel space and load capacity to support a branch circuit and necessary raceways to support EV charging. EV Ready = a vehicle space which is provided with a branch circuit and any necessary raceways to accommodate EV charging stations including a receptacle for future installation of a charger. See 2022 California Green Building Standard Code, Title 24 Part 11 for full explanation of mandatory measures including exceptions.

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

City of Sebastopol
The Canopy

4.6-12
Minimum 75 percent reduction in construction waste with third-party verification, Minimum 15 percent recycled content for building materials; Minimum 30 percent permeable paving;
Minimum 25 percent cement reduction;
Multifamily developments/hotels/motels: Minimum 40 percent of total parking spaces shall be EV ready and for projects with 20 or more dwelling units/rooms a minimum of 15 percent of the total number of parking spaces shall be equipped with EV charging stations. c. Regional and Local Regulations
Plan Bay Area 2050
Plan Bay Area 2050 is a State-mandated, integrated long-range transportation, land-use, and housing plan, known as an RTP/SCS, that would support a growing economy, provide more housing and transportation choices and reduce transportation-related pollution in the nine-county San Francisco Bay Area. Plan Bay Area 2050 builds on earlier efforts to develop an efficient transportation network and grow in a financially and environmentally responsible way. Plan Bay Area 2050 focuses on advancing equity and improving resiliency in the Bay Area by creating strategies in the following four elements: Housing, Economy, Transportation, and Environment. The Plan discusses how the future is uncertain due to anticipated employment growth, lack of housing options, and outside forces, such as climate change and economic turbulence. These uncertainties will impact growth in the Bay Area and exacerbate issues for those who are historically and systemically marginalized and underserved and excluded. Thus, Plan Bay Area 2050 has created strategies and considered investments that will serve those systemically underserved communities and provide equitable opportunities. The Plan presents a total of 35 strategies to outline how the $1.4 trillion dollar investment would be utilized. The strategies include, but are not limited to, the following: providing affordable housing, allowing higher-density in proximity to transit-corridors, optimizing the existing roadway network, creating complete streets, providing subsides for public transit, reducing climate emissions, and expanding open space area. To bring these strategies to fruition, it will require participation by agencies, policymakers, and the public. An implementation plan is also included as part of the Plan to assess the requirements needed to carry out the strategies, identify the roles of pertinent entities, create an appropriate method to implement the strategies, and create a timeline for implementation.

Sebastopol Climate Action Framework
The City of Sebastopol adopted its Climate Action Framework on July 19, 2022, which includes goals to reduce citywide GHG emissions to net zero by 2030; sequester carbon from the atmosphere using nature-based solutions; prepare for climate impacts that cannot be avoided; and center equity and community engagement in the City’s climate actions. The Climate Action Framework contains 26 action area goals for six areas: transportation, sustainable land use, buildings and clean energy, consumption and waste, community, and city operations and leadership. The following action area goals related to GHG emissions are applicable to the proposed project:

Goal T2: Reduce vehicle miles traveled (VMT) by Sebastopol residents.

Goal T5: Support a rapid, equitable transition to electric vehicles (EVs) for trips requiring a personal vehicle.

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

Environmental Impact Analysis
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.6-13
Goal LU1: Promote infill housing at appropriate densities within Sebastopol’s voter-approved urban growth boundary that reduces VMT by locating housing within walking or biking distance of basic daily needs.

Goal BE1: Reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from buildings and support better community health by eliminating natural gas use in new buildings, electrifying existing structures, minimizing embodied carbon in new construction and remodels, and making all buildings more energy efficient.

Goal BE3: Expand the installation of solar panels and other renewable energy sources, both locally and in partnership with other entities in Sonoma County, to further decarbonize Sebastopol’s electricity supply.

Goal BE4: Maximize water conservation and reuse.

Goal CW1: Reach Zero Waste by 2030 by minimizing solid waste production, increasing recycling, composting, and food recovery, and supporting community sharing, mending, and reuse.

Sebastopol General Plan
The City of Sebastopol adopted its General Plan on November 15, 2016, which includes the following Elements: Land Use, Circulation, Community Services and Facilities, Conservation and Open Space, Noise, Community Design, Safety, Economic Vitality, Community Health and Wellness, and Housing. The following goals and policies related to GHG emissions are applicable to the proposed project:

Goal CIR 2: Maintain and Expand a Safe and Efficient Pedestrian, Bicycle, and Transit Network that Connects Neighborhoods with Key Destinations to Encourage Travel by Non-Automobile Modes while also Improving Public Health.

Policy CIR 2-14 Provide secure bicycle racks in places such as the Downtown, at commercial areas, park and ride transit facilities, schools, multiple unit residential developments, and other locations where there is a concentration of residents, visitors, students, or employees.

Goal CIR 3: Coordinate Circulation Facilities with Land Use and Development Patterns to Create an Environment that Encourages Walking, Bicycling, and Transit Use.

Policy CIR 3-3 Prioritize high-density and mixed land use patterns that promote transit and pedestrian travel along transit corridors.

Policy CIR 3-4 Design developments to include features that encourage walking, bicycling, and transit use. Design features shall include bus turnouts, transit shelters and benches, and pedestrian access points between subdivisions and between adjacent related land uses.

Goal CIR 5: Coordinate Circulation Facilities with Land Use and Development Patterns to Create an Environment that Encourages Walking, Bicycling, and Transit Use.

Policy CIR 5-3 Support the establishment and expansion of a regional network of electric vehicle charging stations and encourage the expanded use of electric vehicles.

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

City of Sebastopol
The Canopy

4.6-14
Goal COS 8: Reduce Emissions of Greenhouse Gases from City Operations and Community Sources.

Policy COS 8-5 Encourage public transit, ridesharing and van pooling, shortened and combined motor vehicle trips to work and services, use of bicycles, and walking. Minimize single passenger motor vehicle use.

Goal COS 9: Promote Conservation of Energy and Other Natural Resources.

Policy COS 9-1 Require all new public and privately constructed buildings to meet and comply with CALGreen Tier 1, or successor program, standards.

Policy COS 9-3 Support innovative and green building best management practices including, but not limited to, LEED certification for new development, and encourage project applicants to exceed the most current “green” development standards in the California Code of Regulations (CCR), Title 24, if feasible.

Policy COS 9-5 Promote the use of sustainable and carbon-neutral energy sources in new development.

Policy COS 9-7 Promote efforts and programs, including increased access to clean technologies such as electric vehicles and charging stations, to encourage residents, businesses, and local organizations to use clean energy sources to supplant dirty technologies.

Policy COS 9-9 Promote water conservation among water users.

Policy COS 9-10 Continue to require new development to incorporate water efficient fixtures into design and construction.

Policy COS 9-11 Promote the use of reclaimed water and other non-potable water sources Policy COS 9-12 Encourage and support the installation and use of rainwater catchment systems and grey water systems on private land and in public projects.

Policy COS 9-13 Continue the citywide recycling program, actively encourage recycling citywide, including the recycling/composting of food waste, and advocate for a regional composting facility.

Sebastopol Municipal Code
Chapter 15.70, Installation of Wood-Burning Appliances, Removal and Operation of Noncertified Wood Heaters, of the SMC permits one wood heater per housing unit and outlines requirements for installing or replacing a wood-burning appliance or heater. Chapter 15.70 also prohibits the use of non-EPA or Northern Sonoma County Pollution Control District certified wood heaters.

Section 17.110.040, Electric Vehicles, of the SMC outlines the following requirements for all new parking lots with 10 or more spaces:
 EV charging infrastructure shall be sized to accommodate a minimum 40-amp 220 VAC charging to a minimum of 50 percent of parking spaces.
 A minimum of 20 percent of vehicle parking spaces and at least one ADA space shall have a fully operational 30-amp electric vehicle service equipment (EVSE) unit installed with a functioning payment system. All electric vehicle charging systems and infrastructure shall be sized for adequate capacity to meet all safety requirements.

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

Environmental Impact Analysis
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.6-15
 A 20 percent reduction in the total electric vehicle charging spaces required shall be provided for each 50 kW or above DC fast charger, up to a maximum reduction of 40 percent.

Section 17.110.070, Bicycle Parking Requirements, of the SMC requires bicycle parking for multifamily projects and outlines guidelines for number of bicycle parking spaces as well as bicyclie parking design and devices.

4.6.3 Impact Analysis
a. Significance Thresholds and Methodology
Significance Thresholds
Based on Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines a project may be deemed to have a significant impact on GHG emissions if it would:

Generate greenhouse gas emissions, 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 greenhouse gases.

Most individual projects do not generate sufficient GHG emissions to create a project-specific impact through a direct influence on climate change. However, physical changes caused by a project can contribute incrementally to cumulative effects that are significant, even if individual changes resulting from a project are limited. The issue of climate change typically involves an analysis of whether a project’s contribution towards an impact is cumulatively considerable. “Cumulatively considerable” means that the incremental effects of an individual project are significant when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, other current projects, and probable future projects (CEQA Guidelines, Section 15064[h][1]). The BAAQMD adopted updated thresholds of significance for climate impacts on April 20, 2022 (BAAQMD 2023). Under the updated thresholds, a project must include, at a minimum, the following project design elements, or must be consistent with a local GHG reduction strategy that meets the criteria under State CEQA Guidelines Section 15183.5(b):

1. Buildings
a. The project will not include natural gas appliances or natural gas plumbing (in both residential and nonresidential development).
b. The project will not result in any wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary energy usage as determined by the analysis required under CEQA Section 21100(b)(3) and Section 15126.2(b) of the State CEQA Guidelines.

2. Transportation
a. Achieve a reduction in project-generated vehicle miles traveled (VMT) below the regional average consistent with the current version of the California Climate Change Scoping Plan (currently 15 percent) or meet a locally adopted Senate Bill 743 VMT target, reflecting the recommendations provided in the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research’s Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA:
 Residential projects: 15 percent below the existing VMT per capita  Office projects: 15 percent below the existing VMT per employee Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

City of Sebastopol
The Canopy

4.6-16
 Retail projects: no net increase in existing VMT
b. Achieve compliance with off-street electric vehicle requirements in the most recently adopted version of CALGreen Tier 2.

Methodology
The City’s Climate Action Framework does not constitute as a qualified GHG reduction strategy pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183.5(b) since it does not forecast projected emissions for activities covered by the plan and was not adopted in a public process following environmental review. Therefore, this section analyzes GHG impacts using project consistency with the BAAQMDrequired project design elements for buildings and transportation outlined above under Significance Thresholds.
b. Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Threshold 1: Would the project generate GHG emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment?
Impact GHG-1 THE PROPOSED PROJECT WOULD BE CONSISTENT WITH BAAQMD’S GHG THRESHOLDS FOR BUILDINGS AND TRANSPORTATION. THEREFORE, THE PROJECT WOULD NOT GENERATE GHG EMISSIONS THAT MAY HAVE A SIGNIFICANT IMPACT ON THE ENVIRONMENT. THIS IMPACT WOULD BE LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT WITH IMPLEMENTATION OF MITIGATION MEASURE GHG-1.

Construction
Construction of the project would result in GHG emissions during construction, primarily from fuel consumption associated with heavy equipment, light-duty vehicles, machinery, and generators for lighting. Temporary grid power may also be provided to construction trailers or electric construction equipment that may result in indirect GHG emissions from energy generation. The project would utilize construction contractors that would be required to comply with applicable CARB regulations, such as accelerated retrofitting, repowering, or replacement of heavy-duty diesel on-road and offroad equipment. Construction contractors are required to comply with the provisions of CCR Title 13, sections 2449 and 2485, and CARB regulations, which prohibit diesel-fueled commercial and offroad vehicles from idling for more than five minutes, minimizing unnecessary GHG emissions.

Construction equipment would be subject to the USEPA Construction Equipment Fuel Efficiency Standard, which would minimize inefficient fuel consumption and thus GHG emissions. These construction equipment standards (i.e., Tier 4 efficiency requirements) are contained in 40 Code of Federal Regulations Parts 1039, 1065, and 1068. Pursuant to applicable regulatory requirements of CALGreen, the project would comply with construction waste management practices to divert construction and demolition debris from landfills. These practices would result in efficient use of energy during construction and, therefore, would minimize unnecessary GHG emissions.

Furthermore, in the interest of cost efficiency, construction contractors would not utilize fuel in a manner that is wasteful or unnecessary, which would also have the effect of minimizing GHG emissions. Therefore, construction of the proposed project would not result in any wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary energy usage, and the proposed project would be consistent with 1.b of BAAQMD’s GHG thresholds.

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

Environmental Impact Analysis
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.6-17
Operations
The project would result in GHG emissions during operation. The nature of GHG emissions would be typical of those associated with residential uses. GHG emissions would result primarily from building energy usage and fuel consumption associated with vehicle trips.

Transportation
As discussed in Section 4.13, Transportation, and based on the Transportation Impact Study prepared by W-Trans on September 6, 2023 (Appendix G), the proposed project would result in a VMT per capita of 13.07, which is below the 15 percent below countywide average VMT per capita of 14.11. Therefore, the proposed project would be consistent with BAAQMD’s GHG threshold 2.a.

The proposed project would include pre-wiring for EV charging in garages for all 80 units with solar battery backup and would include 10 percent of EV charging parking spaces (6 spaces out of 41 spaces) for standard surface parking. However, CALGreen Tier 2 requires 15 percent of the total number of parking spaces to be equipped with EV charging stations. Therefore, the proposed project would not comply with EV requirements in the most recently adopted version of CALGreen Tier 2 and would not be consistent with 2.b of BAAQMD’s GHG thresholds. Impacts would be potentially significant and Mitigation Measure GHG-1 would be required.

Buildings
Future buildings developed under the project would be served by PG&E, which is required to increase its renewable energy procurement in accordance with SB 100 targets. SB 100 supports the reduction of GHG emissions from the electricity sector by accelerating the state’s Renewables Portfolio Standard Program. It requires electricity providers to increase procurement from eligible renewable energy resources to 33 percent of total retail sales by 2020, 60 percent by 2030, and 100 percent by 2045. Future homeowners also have the option to opt into the Sonoma Clean Power (SCP) program, which provides residents and businesses in Sonoma and Mendocino counties with clean energy from more renewable resources, such as geothermal, wind, and solar. The proposed project would construct 80 solar all-electric, three-story townhome-style condominiums and up to 16 ADUs and would not include natural gas appliances or natural gas plumbing. Therefore, the proposed project would be consistent with 1.a of BAAQMD’s GHG thresholds.

As discussed in Section 4.16, Impacts Found to be Less Than Significant, the proposed project would exceed 2022 Title 24 Building Energy Efficiency Standards by approximately 5 to 10 percent and would include solar which would reduce demand on the electrical grid. Furthermore, the project would include a new, enhanced 6-foot-wide pedestrian pathway with public access to connect the West County Trail to Gravenstein Highway, 96 bicycle parking spaces, and a bicycle repair station to facilitate pedestrian and bicycle transportation and reduce the use of gasoline vehicles. Therefore, project operation would not result in potentially significant environmental effects due to the wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy, and the proposed project would be consistent with BAAQMD’s GHG threshold 1.b.

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

City of Sebastopol
The Canopy

4.6-18
Mitigation Measures
GHG-1 CALGreen Tier 2 EV Requirements
Prior to issuance of building permits, the City Engineer and the Chief Building Official shall confirm that the applicant shall include the following design feature as part of the project to be consistent with CALGreen Tier 2 EV standards:

A minimum of 15 percent of the total number of parking spaces shall be equipped with EV charging stations.

Significance After Mitigation
Implementation of Mitigation Measure GHG-1 would ensure the project would be consistent with CALGreen Tier 2 EV standards, as well as 2.b of BAAQMD’s GHG thresholds. Impacts would be less than significant with mitigation.

Threshold 2: Would the project conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? Impact GHG-2 THE PROPOSED PROJECT WOULD BE CONSISTENT WITH GOALS AND POLICIES FROM CARB’S 2022 SCOPING PLAN, PLAN BAY AREA 2050, THE CITY’S CLIMATE ACTION FRAMEWORK, AND THE GENERAL PLAN. THEREFORE, THIS IMPACT WOULD BE LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT.

Applicable plans and policies to the project for reducing GHG emissions includes CARB’s 2022 Scoping Plan, Plan Bay Area 2050, the City’s Climate Action Framework, and the City’s General Plan.

The project would result in a potentially significant impact if it would conflict with these plans.

Project Consistency with 2022 Scoping Plan
The principal State plans and policies for reducing GHG emissions are SB 32 and AB 1279. The quantitative goal of SB 32 is to reduce GHG emissions to 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030; and the goal of AB 1279 is to achieve net zero greenhouse gas emissions no later than 2045, and reduce GHG emissions by 85 percent below 1990 levels no later than 2045. The 2022 Scoping Plan expands upon earlier plans to include the AB 1279 targets. The 2022 Scoping Plan’s strategies that are applicable to the proposed project include reducing fossil fuel use and vehicle miles traveled; decarbonizing the electricity sector, maximizing recycling and diversion from landfills; and increasing water conservation. The project would be consistent with these goals since future development would be required to comply with the latest Title 24 Green Building Code and Building Efficiency Energy Standards, as well as the AB 341 waste diversion goal of 75 percent and recycle organic wastes pursuant to SB 1383. The proposed project would be located within a half mile of Sonoma County Transit (SCT) Routes 20, 24, and 26, and would be located in proximity to several existing Class I, II, and III bikeway facilities, including the Class I multi-use bicycle and pedestrian West County- Trail and existing bicycle lanes along State Route 116 (SR 116) between the northern city limit and North Main Street, along Covert Lane between Ragle Road and SR 116, and along High School Road-North Main Street between Occidental Road and SR 116. The proposed project would include an all-electric design and would not include natural gas appliances or plumbing. Electricity to the project site would be provided by Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E), and the project would utilize renewable electricity through the use of solar panels. Homeowners also have the option to opt into the SCP program, which provides residents and businesses in Sonoma and Mendocino counties with Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

Environmental Impact Analysis
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.6-19
clean energy from more renewable resources, such as geothermal, wind, and solar. Therefore, the project would not conflict with the 2022 Scoping Plan and this impact would be less than significant.

Project Consistency with Plan Bay Area 2050
Table 4.6-1 shows the proposed project’s consistency with Plan Bay Area 2050.

Table 4.6-1 Project Consistency with Plan Bay Area 2050 Measure Project Consistency
H3. Allow a greater mix of housing
densities and types in Growth
Geographies. Allow a variety of housing
types at a range of densities to be built in
Priority Development Areas, select TransitRich Areas and select High-Resource Areas.

Consistent. The proposed project would include construction of 80 solar all-electric, three-story townhome-style condominiums, with the potential for up to 16 Americans with Disability Act (ADA) accessible accessory dwelling units (ADUs) in a neighborhood characterized by a mix of uses including residential, light industrial, commercial, and educational. The project would diversify housing densities and would be located near transit. The proposed project would be located within a half mile of SCT Routes 20, 24, and 26, and would be located in proximity to several existing Class I, II, and III bikeway facilities, including the Class I multi-use bicycle and pedestrian West County-Joe Rodota Trail and existing bicycle lanes along SR 116 between the north city limit and North Main Street, along Covert Lane between Ragle Road and SR 116, and along High School Road-North Main Street between Occidental Road and SR 116.

T8. Build a Complete Streets network.

Enhance streets to promote walking, biking
and other micro-mobility through sidewalk
improvements, car-free slow streets, and
10,000 miles of bike lanes or multi-use
paths.

Consistent. The proposed project would include a new, enhanced 6-footwide pedestrian pathway with public access to connect the West County Trail to Gravenstein Highway, 96 bicycle parking spaces, and a bicycle repair station to facilitate pedestrian and bicycle transportation and reduce the use of gasoline vehicles. The proposed project would also be located in proximity to several existing Class I, II, and III bikeway facilities, including the Class I multi-use bicycle and pedestrian West County-Joe Rodota Trail and existing bicycle lanes along SR 116 between the north city limit and North Main Street, along Covert Lane between Ragle Road and SR 116, and along High School Road-North Main Street between Occidental Road and SR 116 which would encourage future residents to bicycle.

EN4. Maintain urban growth boundaries.

Using urban growth boundaries and other
existing environmental protections, focus
new development within the existing urban
footprint or areas otherwise suitable for
growth, as established by local jurisdictions.

Consistent. The project would maintain urban growth boundaries through infill development on an underdeveloped site.

EN8. Expand clean vehicle initiatives.

Expand investments in clean vehicles,
including more fuel-efficient vehicles and
electric vehicle subsidies and chargers.

Consistent. The proposed project would include pre-wiring for EV charging in garages for all 80 units with solar battery backup and include 10 percent of EV charging parking spaces (6 spaces out of 41 spaces) for standard surface parking. As discussed above under Impact GHG-1, the proposed project would be required to implement Mitigation Measure GHG-1, which would ensure consistency with CALGreen’s Tier 2 EV requirements.

Source: ABAG 2021
Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

City of Sebastopol
The Canopy

4.6-20
Project Consistency with the City’s Climate Action Framework Table 4.6-2 shows the proposed project’s consistency with the City’s Climate Action Framework.

Table 4.6-2 Project Consistency with the City’s Climate Action Framework Goal Project Consistency
Goal T2: Reduce vehicle miles traveled
(VMT) by Sebastopol residents.

Consistent. The proposed project would include construction of 80 solar all-electric, three-story townhome-style condominiums, with the potential for up to 16 Americans with Disability Act (ADA) accessible accessory dwelling units (ADUs) in a neighborhood characterized by a mix of uses including residential, light industrial, commercial, and educational. The project would diversify housing densities and would be located near transit. The proposed project would be located within a half mile of SCT Routes 20, 24, and 26, and would be located in proximity to several existing Class I, II, and III bikeway facilities, including the Class I multi-use bicycle and pedestrian West County and existing bicycle lanes along SR 116 between the north city limit and North Main Street, along Covert Lane between Ragle Road and SR 116, and along High School Road-North Main Street between Occidental Road and SR 116. The proposed project would also include a new, enhanced 6-foot-wide pedestrian pathway with public access to connect the West County Trail to Gravenstein Highway, 96 bicycle parking spaces, and a bicycle repair station to facilitate pedestrian and bicycle transportation and reduce the use of gasoline vehicles.

Goal T5: Support a rapid, equitable
transition to electric vehicles (EVs) for
trips requiring a personal vehicle.

Consistent. The proposed project would include pre-wiring for EV charging in garages for all 80 units with solar battery backup and include 10 percent of EV charging parking spaces (6 spaces out of 41 spaces) for standard surface parking. As discussed above under Impact GHG-1, the proposed project would be required to implement Mitigation Measure GHG-1, which would ensure consistency with CALGreen’s Tier 2 EV requirements.

Goal LU1: Promote infill housing at
appropriate densities within
Sebastopol’s voter-approved urban
growth boundary that reduces VMT by
locating housing within walking or biking
distance of basic daily needs.

Consistent. The project would maintain urban growth boundaries through infill development on an underdeveloped site. The proposed project would be located within a half mile of SCT Routes 20, 24, and 26, and would be located in proximity to several existing Class I, II, and III bikeway facilities, including the Class I multi-use bicycle and pedestrian West County Trail and existing bicycle lanes along SR 116 between the north city limit and North Main Street, along Covert Lane between Ragle Road and SR 116, and along High School Road-North Main Street between Occidental Road and SR 116.

The proposed project would also include a new, enhanced 6-foot-wide pedestrian pathway with public access to connect the West County Trail to Gravenstein Highway, 96 bicycle parking spaces, and a bicycle repair station to facilitate pedestrian and bicycle transportation and reduce VMT.

Goal BE1: Reduce greenhouse gas (GHG)
emissions from buildings and support
better community health by eliminating
natural gas use in new buildings,
electrifying existing structures,
minimizing embodied carbon in new
construction and remodels, and making
all buildings more energy efficient.

Consistent. The proposed project would include an all-electric design and would utilize renewable electricity through the use of solar panels.

Goal BE3: Expand the installation of solar
panels and other renewable energy
sources, both locally and in partnership
with other entities in Sonoma County, to
further decarbonize Sebastopol’s
electricity supply.

Consistent. The proposed project would include an all-electric design and would utilize renewable electricity through the use of solar panels.

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

Environmental Impact Analysis
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.6-21
Goal Project Consistency
Goal BE4: Maximize water conservation
and reuse.

Consistent. The proposed project would include ultra-low flow water fixtures, low impact landscaping, and onsite stormwater capture.

Goal CW1: Reach Zero Waste by 2030 by
minimizing solid waste production,
increasing recycling, composting, and
food recovery, and supporting
community sharing, mending, and reuse.

Consistent. The proposed project would be consistent with the AB 341 waste diversion goal of 75 percent and would be required to recycle organic wastes pursuant to SB 1383.

Source: City of Sebastopol 2022
Project Consistency with the City’s General Plan
Table 4.6-3 shows the proposed project’s consistency with the City’s General Plan Circulation Element and Conservation and Open Space Element.

Table 4.6-3 Project Consistency with the City’s General Plan General Plan Policies Project Consistency
Circulation Element
Policy CIR 2-14: Provide secure bicycle
racks in places such as the Downtown, at
commercial areas, park and ride transit
facilities, schools, multiple unit residential
developments, and other locations where
there is a concentration of residents,
visitors, students, or employees.

Consistent. The proposed project would include 96 bicycle parking spaces and a bicycle repair station to facilitate bicycle transportation.

Policy CIR 3-3: Prioritize high-density and
mixed land use patterns that promote
transit and pedestrian travel along transit
corridors.

Consistent. The proposed project would include construction of 80 solar all-electric, three-story townhome-style condominiums, with the potential for up to 16 ADA-accessible ADUs. The proposed project would be located within a half mile of SCT Routes 20, 24, and 26, and would be located in proximity to several existing Class I, II, and III bikeway facilities, including the Class I multi-use bicycle and pedestrian West County Trail and existing bicycle lanes along SR 116 between the north city limit and North Main Street, along Covert Lane between Ragle Road and SR 116, and along High School Road-North Main Street between Occidental Road and SR 116. The proposed project would also include a new, enhanced 6-foot-wide pedestrian pathway with public access to connect the West County Trail to Gravenstein Highway, 96 bicycle parking spaces, and a bicycle repair station to promote transit and pedestrian and bicycle travel.

Policy CIR 3-4: Design developments to
include features that encourage walking,
bicycling, and transit use. Design features
shall include bus turnouts, transit shelters
and benches, and pedestrian access
points between subdivisions and between
adjacent related land uses.

Consistent. The proposed project would include a new, enhanced 6-footwide pedestrian pathway with public access to connect the West County Trail to Gravenstein Highway, 96 bicycle parking spaces, and a bicycle repair station to encourage walking and the use of bicycles.

Policy CIR 5-3: Support the establishment
and expansion of a regional network of
electric vehicle charging stations and
encourage the expanded use of electric
vehicles.

Consistent. The proposed project would include pre-wiring for EV charging in garages for all 80 units with solar battery backup and include 10 percent of EV charging parking spaces (6 spaces out of 41 spaces) for standard surface parking. As discussed above under Impact GHG-1, the proposed project would be required to comply with Mitigation Measure GHG-1 which would ensure consistency with CALGreen’s Tier 2 EV requirements.

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

City of Sebastopol
The Canopy

4.6-22
General Plan Policies Project Consistency
Conservation and Open Space Element
Policy COS 8-5: Encourage public transit,
ridesharing and van pooling, shortened
and combined motor vehicle trips to work
and services, use of bicycles, and walking.

Minimize single passenger motor vehicle
use.

Consistent. The proposed project would include a new, enhanced 6-footwide pedestrian pathway with public access to connect the West County Trail to Gravenstein Highway, 96 bicycle parking spaces, and a bicycle repair station to facilitate pedestrian and bicycle transportation and reduce the use of gasoline vehicles. The proposed project would also be located in proximity to several existing Class I, II, and III bikeway facilities, including the Class I multi-use bicycle and pedestrian West County- Trail and existing bicycle lanes along SR 116 between the north city limit and North Main Street, along Covert Lane between Ragle Road and SR 116, and along High School Road-North Main Street between Occidental Road and SR 116 which would encourage future residents to bicycle.

Policy COS 9-1: Require all new public and
privately constructed buildings to meet
and comply with CALGreen Tier 1, or
successor program, standards.

Consistent. The proposed project would be required to comply with the latest CALGreen standards and Building Energy Efficiency Standards, which would require implementation of energy-efficient light fixtures and building materials into the project design, and would ensure energy efficient performance for new buildings. The proposed project would also comply with CALGreen Tier 2 standards for EV charging spaces with implementation of Mitigation Measure GHG-1.

Policy COS 9-3: Support innovative and
green building best management
practices including, but not limited to,
LEED certification for new development,
and encourage project applicants to
exceed the most current “green”
development standards in the California
Code of Regulations (CCR), Title 24, if
feasible.

Consistent. As discussed in Section 4.16, Impacts Found to be Less Than Significant, the proposed project would exceed 2022 Title 24 Building Energy Efficiency Standards by approximately 5 to 10 percent and would include solar which would reduce demand on the electrical grid.

Policy COS 9-5: Promote the use of
sustainable and carbon-neutral energy
sources in new development.

Consistent. The proposed project would include an all-electric design and would utilize renewable electricity through the use of solar panels.

Policy COS 9-7: Promote efforts and
programs, including increased access to
clean technologies such as electric
vehicles and charging stations, to
encourage residents, businesses, and
local organizations to use clean energy
sources to supplant dirty technologies.

Consistent. The proposed project would include pre-wiring for EV charging in garages for all 80 units with solar battery backup and include 10 percent of EV charging parking spaces (6 spaces out of 41 spaces) for standard surface parking. As discussed above under Impact GHG-1, the proposed project would be required to implement Mitigation Measure GHG-1, which would ensure consistency with CALGreen’s Tier 2 EV requirements.

Policy COS 9-9: Promote water
conservation among water users.

Consistent. The proposed project would include ultra-low flow water fixtures, low impact landscaping, and onsite stormwater capture.

Policy COS 9-10: Continue to require new
development to incorporate water
efficient fixtures into design and
construction.

Consistent. The proposed project would include ultra-low flow water fixtures.

Policy COS 9-11: Promote the use of
reclaimed water and other non-potable
water sources.

Consistent. As discussed in Section 4.8, Hydrology and Water Quality, runoff from impervious surfaces on site would be detained in detention basins and recharged adjacent to the site. Additionally, runoff from all proposed impervious surfaces would be directed toward the proposed vegetated buffer strips and the existing detention pond that has enough retention capacity to meet the hydromodification requirement of 100 percent volume capture.

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

Environmental Impact Analysis
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.6-23
General Plan Policies Project Consistency
Policy COS 9-12: Encourage and support
the installation and use of rainwater
catchment systems and grey water
systems on private land and in public
projects.

Consistent. As discussed in Section 4.8, Hydrology and Water Quality, stormwater runoff from impervious surfaces would be directed toward vegetated buffer strips where runoff would be treated before entering the site storm drain network.

Policy COS 9-13: Continue the citywide
recycling program, actively encourage
recycling citywide, including the
recycling/composting of food waste, and
advocate for a regional composting
facility.

Consistent. The proposed project would be consistent with the AB 341 waste diversion goal of 75 percent and would be required to recycle organic wastes pursuant to SB 1383.

Source: City of Sebastopol 2016
As shown in the tables above, the project would be consistent with applicable GHG goals, policies, and strategies in State and regional plans such as CARB’s 2022 Scoping Plan and Plan Bay Area 2050 as well as local plans such as the City of Sebastopol’s Climate Action Framework and General Plan.

Therefore, the project would not conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions and this impact would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures would be required.

Significance After Mitigation
Impacts would be less than significant without mitigation.

4.6.4 Cumulative Impacts
The impact of GHG emissions generated by the proposed project is inherently cumulative. GHG emissions from one project cannot, on their own, result in changes in climatic conditions; therefore, the emissions from any project must be considered in the context of their contribution to cumulative global emissions, which is the basis for determining a significant cumulative impact. This is determined through the project’s consistency with applicable GHG emission thresholds and applicable plans, policies, or regulations adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of GHGs.

As discussed under Impact GHG-1, with implementation of Mitigation Measure GHG-1, GHG emissions from development facilitated by the project would be consistent with BAAQMD’s GHG thresholds for buildings and transportation. In addition, as discussed under Impact GHG-2, the proposed project would be consistent with CARB’s 2022 Scoping Plan, Plan Bay Area 2050, the City’s Climate Action Framework, and the General Plan. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in a significant cumulative impact related to GHG emissions.

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

City of Sebastopol
The Canopy

4.6-24
This page intentionally left blank.

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

Environmental Impact Analysis
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.7-1

4.7 Hazards and Hazardous Materials
This section evaluates the potential impacts relating to hazards and hazardous materials impacts associated with implementation of the proposed project.

4.7.1 Environmental Setting
The project site was previously used as agricultural land for apple orchards, and some remnants of apple trees exist on-site. According to the California Department of Toxic Substances Control’s (DTSC) online EnviroStor database, the project site is associated with an active Voluntary Agreement cleanup case with regulatory agency oversight by the DTSC (DTSC 2023a). a. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment – 2018
Stantec Consulting Services Inc. (Stantec) completed a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) for the project site on September 12, 2018 (Stantec 2018). The report provided an environmental summary that identified environmental conditions of concern at the project site: former agricultural use of the project site (orchards from at least 1942 to 1993), and former northern adjacent railroad tracks (from at least 1935 to 1980). Based on these findings, Stantec recommended conducting a shallow soil assessment at the subject property (Stantec 2018). b. Phase II Environmental Site Assessment – 2020
Stantec completed a Phase II ESA for the project site on July 30, 2020, which consisted of three rounds of soil sampling to evaluate potential agricultural and railroad impacts to the project site based on the findings identified in their 2018 Phase I ESA (Stantec 2020). The soil sampling results identified three general areas of the project site with “elevated co-mingled concentrations of arsenic, lead, and organochlorine pesticides (OCPs)” in soil at an approximate depth of 2 feet bgs to less than 5 feet bgs.

Three OCPs (4,4’-dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane [DDT], 4,4’-dichlorodiphenyldichloroethylene [DDE], and 4,4’-dichlorodiphenyldichloroethylene [DDD]), were reported to be present in soil at the project site at concentrations below their respective screening levels used for residential land use1 ,
but were above California hazardous waste levels at 11 boring locations (Stantec 2020). The report also indicated that arsenic and lead were detected at concentrations above their respective naturally occurring background concentrations in California soils, the residential screening levels used, and/or California hazardous waste levels at 20 boring locations (Stantec 2020). Stantec recommended engaging with the DTSC to oversee and approve any additional required assessment and remedial action at the project site (Stantec 2020). c. Supplemental Site Investigation – 2022
Based on DTSC review of the previous assessment reports, which identified data gaps in soil sample data, and at the request of the DTSC, Stantec prepared a Supplemental Site Investigation (SSI) Workplan (Stantec 2022) on behalf of City Ventures. The workplan was approved by the DTSC in September 2022, and Stantec completed the SSI Report in November 2022, which consisted of soil 1 “More conservative value between the DTSC HERO Note 3 screening levels for residential sites (DTSC 2019) and the USEPA Regional Screening Levels (RSL) for residential sites (USEPA 2019)” (Stantec 2020, Stantec 2022) Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

City of Sebastopol
The Canopy

4.7-2
sampling in the areas of the project site in which the DTSC requested additional characterization.

The sampling results indicated that similar to the 2020 Phase II ESA, 4,4’-DDD, 4,4’-DDE, and 4,4’- DDT were present in soil at concentrations below their respective screening levels used for residential land use, but above California hazardous waste levels at two boring locations within the existing trees’ driplines “to remain after redevelopment” (Stantec 2022). The report also indicated that arsenic and lead were detected at concentrations above their respective naturally occurring background concentrations in California soils, the residential screening levels used, and/or California hazardous waste levels at eight boring locations within the existing trees’ driplines “to remain after redevelopment” (Stantec 2022). Stantec concluded in their report that in general, the impacted soil within the existing trees’ driplines was “limited to the upper 2 feet of soil” (Stantec 2022).

Stantec’s SSI report identified 9,520 cubic yards of impacted soil onsite. Therefore, Stantec recommended a combination of excavation and burial of the impacted soil (in the non-protected tree areas) and capping impacted soil present below the protected tree driplines with 6 inches of soil. Burial of the soil would involve DTSC approval, a deed notification and land use covenant, and a clean cap placed over the buried soils “to ensure the placed material is not disturbed in the future by re-development activities” (Stantec 2022).
d. DTSC Standard Voluntary Agreements – 2021 and 2023
In September 2021, the former property owner (SEB, LLC) entered into a DTSC Standard Voluntary Agreement (DTSC 2021). In April 2023, City Ventures Homebuilding, LLC (City Ventures) entered into a similar Voluntary Agreement with DTSC (DTSC 2023b). The agreement incorporated the previous assessment reports and outlined remaining tasks to be completed per DTSC requirements, including a health risk assessment and remedial action documents (DTSC 2023b). e. Removal Action Workplan and Human Health Risk Assessment – 2023 Stantec prepared a Removal Action Workplan (RAW) for the project site dated May 22, 2023, which stated “the DTSC has determined that the prior assessment reports…have filled any data gaps and that no further investigation activities are required for the [project site] to address elevated levels of pesticides, arsenic, and lead in soil” (Stantec 2023).

The RAW included a Human Health Risk Assessment that Stantec completed for the project site in May 2022, which concluded that “no potential cancer risks or non-cancer hazards were identified” above the criteria used for OCPs, “remediation of lead in soil is not warranted,” and a cleanup goal of 11 milligrams per kilogram (mg/kg) was recommended for arsenic at the project site (Stantec 2023).

The cleanup goal recommendation for arsenic was thereby established as a Removal Action Objective for the project site, which was to remove arsenic-impacted soil that exceeds the project site cleanup level (naturally occurring background value of 11 mg/kg) (Stantec 2023). The RAW also included a comparative analysis of three removal action alternatives to achieve the Removal Action Objective – 1) no action, 2) soil excavation/off-site disposal, and 3) soil burial, capping, and deed restriction – in terms of effectiveness, ability to be implemented, and cost. Based on this evaluation, Stantec concluded that Alternative 3 (soil burial, capping, and deed restriction) was the preferred and recommended removal action alternative for the project site (Stantec 2023). The remainder of the RAW outlined the implementation of this removal action.

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

Environmental Impact Analysis
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.7-3
f. Offsite Hazardous Material Release Case Listings
According to the State Water Resources Control Board’s (SWRCB) online GeoTracker database and the DTSC’s online EnviroStor database, there is one known release site located within 1,000 feet of the project site as follows (SWRCB 2023a, DTSC 2023a):
 Former Homan Tire Service (840 North Gravenstein Highway): This facility is located approximately 400 feet south of the project site and is associated with one closed LUST case as of 2015. According to case documents available on GeoTracker, soil, soil vapor, and groundwater remediation was conducted at the site. During the most recent groundwater monitoring event in 2015, total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH) in the gasoline and diesel ranges and VOCs were not detected above the laboratory reporting limits in the nearest groundwater monitoring well to the project site (approximately 450 feet south). g. Potential Regional Hazards
Additional research was completed to determine if landfills, oil and gas wells, hazardous material pipelines, and per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) investigative sites are located onsite or could be affecting the project site.

Landfills
According to a review of the California Department of Resources, Recycling, and Recovery (CalRecycle) online Solid Waste Information System (SWIS) database, no landfills are located within 2,000 feet of the project site (CalRecycle 2023). The nearest landfill, Sebastopol Burn Dump (390 Morris Street), is located approximately 1 mile east of the project site (CalRecycle 2023). This facility is classified as a closed, solid waste disposal site.

Oil and Gas Wells/Fields
According to a review of California Department of Conservation, Geologic Energy Management Division (CalGEM) online oil and gas well and field records, the project site is not located within an oil/gas field and there are no oil and gas wells located within 1,000 feet of the project site (CalGEM 2023).

Hazardous Material Pipelines
According to a review of the United States Department of Transportation (U.S. DOT), Pipeline Hazardous Materials Safety Administration’s online National Pipeline Mapping System database, one hazardous material pipeline is located within 1,000 feet of the project site (U.S. DOT 2023):
 One active natural gas pipeline is located adjacent to the project site along North Gravenstein Highway (Pacific Gas & Electric Company Pipeline ID 9105). In 2018 an incident was reported in association with natural gas pipeline 9105 due to “material/weld/equipment failure.” The incident reportedly occurred approximately 850 feet northwest of the project site and has not impacted the project site.

Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances
Beginning in 2019, the SWRCB issued letters to property owners of sites that may be potential sources of PFAS. These sites currently include select landfills, airports, chrome plating facilities, publicly owned treatment works facilities, Department of Defense (DoD) sites, and bulk fuel storage Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

City of Sebastopol
The Canopy

4.7-4
terminals and refineries. The letters included a SWRCB Water Code Section 13267 Order (Investigative Order); an Investigative Order is a directive from the SWRCB to conduct on-site testing of groundwater and/or leachate. This does not mean that PFAS has been produced, used, or discharged at these sites. According to the SWRCB, “PFAS are a large group of human-made substances that do not occur naturally in the environment and are resistant to heat, water, and oil” (SWRCB 2023b).

According to a review of the California PFAS Investigations online map viewer, there are no current landfill, airport, chrome plating, publicly owned treatment works, DoD, or bulk fuel storage terminal/refinery PFAS orders at any facilities listed as located within 1 mile of the project site (SWRCB 2023b).

4.7.2 Regulatory Setting
Hazardous Materials and Waste
The term “hazardous material” is defined in the State of California’s Health and Safety Code (HSC), Chapter 6.95, Section 25501(n)(1) as:
“[Any material] that, because of its quantity, concentration, or physical or chemical characteristics, poses a significant present or potential hazard to human health and safety or to the environment if released into the workplace or the environment.” “Hazardous materials” include, but are not limited to, hazardous substances, hazardous waste, and any material that a handler or the administering agency has a reasonable basis for believing that it would be injurious to the health and safety of persons or harmful to the environment if released into the workplace or the environment.

Hazardous waste is hazardous material generated, intentionally or unintentionally, as a byproduct of some process or condition. Hazardous wastes are defined in California HSC Section 25141(b) as wastes that:
“…because of their quantity, concentration, or physical, chemical, or infectious characteristics, [may either] cause, or significantly contribute to an increase in mortality or an increase in [serious] illness [or] pose a substantial present or potential hazard to human health or the environment due to factors including, but not limited to, carcinogenicity, acute toxicity, chronic toxicity, bioaccumulative properties, or persistence in the environment, when improperly treated, stored, transported, disposed of, or otherwise managed.” According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), waste may be considered hazardous under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA, the primary Federal hazardous materials law) if it is specifically listed as known hazardous waste or if it meets the one or more of the following characteristics of a hazardous waste:
 Toxicity. Poisonous, harmful when ingested or absorbed  Ignitability. Capable of being ignited by open flame, liquids with flash points2 below 60 degrees Celsius, non-liquids that cause fire through specific conditions, ignitable compressed gases, and oxidizers
2 Flash point is the lowest temperature at which the vapors of a volatile combustible substance ignite in the air when exposed to flame.

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

Environmental Impact Analysis
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.7-5
 Corrosivity. Capable of corroding other materials, aqueous wastes with a pH of 2 or less or greater than or equal to 12.5
 Reactivity. May be unstable under normal conditions, may react with water, may give off toxic gases, or may be capable of detonation or explosion under normal conditions or when heated Waste which meets certain criteria included in 40 CFR 261.11 (a) (2), including being “fatal to humans in low doses” or having specified lethal dose levels in laboratory rats or rabbits is designated as “acute hazardous waste” under RCRA; Sections 261.31 and 261.33 set out lists of substances currently classified by USEPA as acutely hazardous. a. Federal Regulations
Primary Federal agencies with responsibility for hazardous materials management include the USEPA, U.S. Department of Labor’s Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), and the U.S. DOT. The major laws enforced by these agencies are described below.

Toxic Substances Control Act (1976) and the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 (RCRA)
These acts established a program administered by the USEPA for the regulation of the generation, transportation, treatment, storage, and disposal of hazardous waste. RCRA was amended in 1984 by the Hazardous and Solid Waste Act, which affirmed and extended the “cradle to grave” system of regulating hazardous wastes. Among other things, the use of certain techniques for the disposal of some hazardous wastes was specifically prohibited by the Hazardous and Solid Waste Act.

Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970
OSHA was created to assure safe and healthful working conditions by setting and enforcing standards and by providing training, outreach, education, and assistance. OSHA provides standards for general industry and construction industry on hazardous waste operations and emergency response. The Occupational Safety and Health Act, which is implemented by OSHA, contains provisions with respect to hazardous materials handling. Federal Occupational Safety and Health Act requirements, as set forth in Title 29 of the CFR Section 1910, et. seq., are designed to promote worker safety, worker training, and a worker’s right-to-know. OSHA has delegated the authority to administer OSHA regulations to the State of California.

Title 49 of the CFR, which contains the regulations set forth by the HMTA of 1975, specifies additional requirements and regulations with respect to the transport of hazardous materials. Title 49 of the CFR requires that every employee who transports hazardous materials receive training to recognize and identify hazardous materials and become familiar with hazardous materials requirements. Drivers are also required to be trained in function and commodity-specific requirements.

Hazardous Materials Transportation Act of 1975
The transportation of hazardous materials is regulated by the Hazardous Materials Transportation Act (49 CFR Section 101 et seq.), which is administered by the Office of Hazardous Materials Safety within the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Administration (PHMA) of U.S. DOT. The Hazardous Materials Transportation Act governs the safe transportation of hazardous materials by all modes.

The U.S. DOT regulations that govern the transportation of hazardous materials are applicable to Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

City of Sebastopol
The Canopy

4.7-6
any person who transports, ships, or causes to be transported or shipped hazardous materials, or who is involved in any way with the manufacture or testing of hazardous materials packaging or containers. The U.S. DOT regulations govern every aspect of the movement of hazardous materials including packaging, handling, labeling, marking, placarding, operational standards, and highway routing.

Lead-Based Paint Elimination Final Rule 24 Code of Federal Regulations Governed by the U.S. Housing and Urban Development, regulations for LBP are contained in the Lead-Based Paint Elimination Final Rule 24 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 33, which requires sellers and lessors to disclose known LBP and LBP hazards to perspective purchasers and lessees.

Additionally, all LBP abatement activities must follow federal occupational safety and health administrations (OSHA). Only LBP-trained and certified abatement personnel can perform abatement activities. All LBP removed from structures must be hauled and disposed of by a transportation company licensed to transport this type of material at a landfill or receiving facility licensed to accept the waste.

Other Hazardous Materials Regulations
In addition to the U.S. DOT regulations for the safe transportation of hazardous materials, there are other applicable federal laws that also address hazardous materials:
 Community Environmental Response Facilitation Act of 1992  Clean Water Act
 Clean Air Act
 Safe Drinking Water Act
 Atomic Energy Act
 Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act
b. State Regulations
The California Environmental Protection Agency’s (CalEPA) DTSC is the primary state agency governing the storage, transportation, and disposal of hazardous wastes. DTSC is authorized by the USEPA to enforce and implement federal hazardous materials laws and regulations. Regulation of hazardous material use and transport also occurs under a variety of state agencies and authorities, many of whom are partners in the CalEPA-administered Certified Unified Program Agency (CUPA) program discussed below. There are many state statutes and regulations governing hazardous materials and wastes, and they are contained within many different parts of the States’ codes, therefore only regulations relevant to this analysis are considered below.

California Hazardous Waste Control Law
The California Hazardous Waste Control Law (HWCL) is the primary hazardous waste statute in the State of California, and implements RCRA as a “cradle-to-grave” waste management system in the State of California for handling hazardous wastes in a manner that protects human health and the environment and would reduce potential resulting impacts. The law exceeds federal requirements by mandating source reduction planning, and a much broader requirement for permitting facilities that treat hazardous waste. It also regulates a number of types of waste and waste management activities that are not covered by federal law.

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

Environmental Impact Analysis
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.7-7
The hazardous waste management program enforced by DTSC was created by the Hazardous Waste Control Act (HSC Section 25100 et seq.), which is implemented by regulations described in California Code of Regulations (CCR) Title 26. The State program is similar to, but more stringent than, the federal program under RCRA. The regulations list materials that may be hazardous, and establish criteria for their identification, packaging, and disposal. Environmental health standards for management of hazardous waste are contained in CCR Title 22, Division 4.5.

Government Code Section 65962.5 requires CalEPA, via the DTSC, the State Department of Health Services, the SWRCB, and the California Department of Resources, Recycling, and Recovery (CalRecycle) to compile and annually update lists of hazardous waste sites and land designated as hazardous waste sites throughout the state (collectively known as the Cortese List). The Secretary for Environmental Protection consolidates the information submitted by these agencies and distributes it to each city and county where sites on the lists are located. Before the lead agency accepts an application for any development project as complete, the applicant must consult these lists to determine if the site at issue is included.

If any soil is excavated from a site containing hazardous materials, it would be considered a hazardous waste if it exceeded specific criteria in CCR Title 22. Remediation of hazardous wastes found at a site may be required if excavation of these materials is performed, or if certain other soil disturbing activities would occur. Even if soil or groundwater at a contaminated site does not have the characteristics required to be defined as hazardous waste, remediation of the site may be required by regulatory agencies subject to jurisdictional authority. Cleanup requirements are determined on a case-by-case basis by the agency taking jurisdiction.

California Health and Safety Code
HSC Section 25150 requires DTSC to adopt, and revise when appropriate, standards and regulations for the management of hazardous wastes to protect against hazards to the public health, domestic livestock, wildlife, or the environment. In adopting or revising standards and regulations pursuant to this chapter, the department shall, insofar as practicable, make the standards and regulations conform with corresponding regulations adopted by the USEPA pursuant to the federal act. This section does not prohibit the department from adopting standards and regulations that are more stringent or more extensive than federal regulations.

CalEPA, in cooperation with the DTSC and the SWRCB and the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment, publishes a list of screening numbers for select contaminants. Screening numbers are defined as the concentration of a contaminant published by CalEPA as an advisory number. In determining screening numbers, CalEPA considers the toxicology of the contaminant, risk assessments prepared by federal or state agencies, epidemiological studies, risk assessments or other evaluations of the contaminant during remediation of a site, and screening numbers that have been published by other agencies.

In January 2018, the DTSC’s Human and Ecological Risk Office (HERO) issued Human Health Risk Assessment Note Number 3. The document lists DTSC-modified screening levels (DTSC-SL) for select compounds in soil, tap water, and air for use in the human health risk assessment process at hazardous waste sites and permitted facilities, and the DTSC-SLs were last updated in 2022.

Certified Unified Program Agency
In accordance with Chapter 6.11 of HSC Section 25404, et seq., local regulatory agencies enforce six environmental and emergency response programs through the CUPA program, as listed below:

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

City of Sebastopol
The Canopy

4.7-8
 Hazardous Materials Release Response Plans and Inventories (Business Plans)  California Accidental Release Prevention (CalARP) Program  Underground Storage Tank (UST) Program
 Aboveground Petroleum Storage Tank Program (AST)
 Hazardous Waste Generator and Onsite Hazardous Waste Treatment (tiered permitting) Programs
 California Uniform Fire Code: Hazardous Material Management Plans and Hazardous Material Inventory Statements
The state agency partners involved in the Unified Program have the responsibility of setting program element standards, working with CalEPA on ensuring program consistency, and providing technical assistance to the CUPA. The following state agencies are involved with the Unified Program:
 CalEPA is directly responsible for coordinating the administration of the Unified Program. The Secretary of the CalEPA certifies CUPAs.
 DTSC provides technical assistance and evaluation for the hazardous waste generator program including onsite treatment (tiered permitting).
 The Office of Emergency Services is responsible for providing technical assistance and evaluation of the Hazardous Material Release Response Plan (Business Plan) Program and the CalARP Programs.
 The Office of the State Fire Marshal is responsible for ensuring the implementation of the Hazardous Material Management Plans and the Hazardous Material Inventory Statement Programs. These programs tie in closely with the Business Plan Program.  The SWRCB provides technical assistance and evaluation for the UST program in addition to handling the oversight and enforcement for the AST program.

The City of Healdsburg is the CUPA for the City of Healdsburg and the City of Sebastopol, and is responsible for implementing the federal and state laws and regulations pertaining to the handling of hazardous wastes and hazardous materials.

California Code of Regulations Title 8 (Workplace Safety Regulations) The California Division of Occupational Safety and Health (CalOSHA) assumes primary responsibility for developing and enforcing workplace safety regulations. These regulations concern the use of hazardous materials in the workplace, including requirements for employee safety training; availability of safety equipment; accident and illness prevention programs; hazardous-substance exposure warnings; and preparation of emergency action and fire prevention plans.

CalOSHA also enforces hazard communication program regulations, including procedures for identifying and labeling hazardous substances, and requires that safety data sheets (formerly known as material safety data sheets) be available for employee information and training programs.

CalOSHA standards are generally more stringent than federal regulations. Construction workers and operational employees within the plan area would be subject to these requirements.

CCR Title 8, Section 1529 authorizes CalOSHA to implement the survey requirements of CFR Title 29 relating to asbestos. These federal and state regulations require facilities to take all necessary precautions to protect employees and the public from exposure to asbestos. Workers who conduct Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

Environmental Impact Analysis
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.7-9
asbestos abatement must be trained in accordance with federal and State OSHA requirements. The Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) oversees the removal of regulated asbestoscontaining materials (ACM) in the San Francisco Bay Area.

CCR Title 8, Section 1532.1 includes requirements to manage and control exposure to LBP. These regulations cover the demolition, removal, cleanup, transportation, storage, and disposal of leadcontaining material. The regulations outline the permissible exposure limit, protective measures, monitoring, and compliance to ensure the safety of construction workers exposed to lead-based material. Loose and peeling LBP must be disposed of as a State and/or federal hazardous waste if the concentration of lead equals or exceeds applicable hazardous waste thresholds. Federal and State OSHA regulations require a supervisor who is certified with respect to identifying existing and predictable lead hazards to oversee air monitoring and other protective measures during demolition activities in areas where LBP may be present. Special protective measures and notification of CalOSHA are required for highly hazardous construction tasks related to lead, such as manual demolition, abrasive blasting, welding, cutting, or torch burning of structures, where LBP is present.

California Code of Regulations Title 22 (Environmental Health Standards for the Management of Hazardous Waste)
CCR Title 22, Division 4.5 contains the Environmental Health Standards for the Management of Hazardous Waste, which includes California waste identification and classification regulations. The HWCL, under CCR Title 22, establishes regulations that are similar to RCRA but more stringent in their application and empowers the DTSC to administer the State’s hazardous waste program and implement the federal program in California.

California Fire Code
The California Fire Code is Part 9 of CCR Title 24. It is the primary means for authorizing and enforcing procedures and mechanisms to ensure the safe handling and storage of any substance that may pose a threat to public health and safety. The California Fire Code regulates the use, handling, and storage requirements for hazardous materials at fixed facilities. The California Fire Code and the California Building Code use a hazard classification system to determine what protective measures are required to protect fire and life safety. These measures may include construction standards, separations from property lines and specialized equipment. To ensure that these safety measures are met, the California Fire Code employs a permit system based on hazard classification.

California Public Resources Code 21151.4
Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21151.4, projects that can be reasonably anticipated to produce hazardous air emissions or handle extremely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school must consult with the potentially affected school district and provide written notification not less than 30 days prior to the proposed certification or adoption of an environmental document. Where a school district proposes property acquisition or the construction of a school, the environmental document must address existing environmental hazards, and written findings must be prepared regarding existing pollutant sources.

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

City of Sebastopol
The Canopy

4.7-10
California Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan
The California Office of Emergency Services (CalOES) prepares the State of California Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan (SHMP). The SHMP identifies hazard risks and includes a vulnerability analysis and a hazard mitigation strategy. The SHMP is federally required under the Federal Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 for the State to receive Federal funding. The Federal Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 requires a State mitigation plan as a condition of disaster assistance.

California Emergency Plan
The foundation of California’s emergency planning and response is a Statewide mutual aid system, which is designed to ensure that adequate resources, facilities, and other support is provided to jurisdictions whenever their own resources prove to be inadequate to cope with a given situation.

The California Disaster and Civil Defense Master Mutual Aid Agreement (California Government Code Sections 8555–8561) requires signatories to the agreement to prepare operational plans to use within their jurisdiction, and outside their area. These plans include fire and non-fire emergencies related to natural, technological, and war contingencies. The State of California, all State agencies, all political subdivisions, and all fire districts signed this agreement in 1950.

Section 8568 of the California Government Code, the “California Emergency Services Act,” states that “the State Emergency Plan shall be in effect in each political subdivision of the State, and the governing body of each political subdivision shall take such action as may be necessary to carry out the provisions thereof.” The California Emergency Services Act provides the basic authorities for conducting emergency operations following the proclamations of emergencies by the Governor or appropriate local authority, such as a City Manager. The provisions of the California Emergency Services Act are reflected and expanded on by appropriate local emergency ordinances. The California Emergency Services Act further describes the function and operations of government at all levels during extraordinary emergencies, including war.

All local emergency plans are extensions of the State of California Emergency Plan. The State Emergency Plan conforms to the requirements of California’s Standardized Emergency Management System (SEMS), which is the system required by Government Code 8607(a) for managing emergencies involving multiple jurisdictions and agencies. The SEMS incorporates the functions and principles of the Incident Command System (ICS), the Master Mutual Aid Agreement, existing mutual aid systems, the operational area concept, and multi-agency or inter-agency coordination.

Local governments must use SEMS to be eligible for funding of their response-related personnel costs under State disaster assistance programs. The SEMS consists of five organizational levels that are activated as necessary, including: field response, local government, operational area, regional, and State. CalOES divides the State into several mutual aid regions. Contra Costa County is located in Mutual Aid Region II, which includes Del Norte, Humboldt, Mendocino, Sonoma, Lake, Napa, Marin, Solano, Contra Costa, San Francisco, San Mateo, Alameda, Santa Clara, Santa Cruz, San Benito, and Monterey Counties.3
3 CalOES. 2022. Coastal Region Operational Area Assignments. March 2022. Available:
https://www.caloes.ca.gov/RegionalOperationsSite/Documents/EMA_ESC_OA_Assignments_Coastal.pdf (accessed April 2023) Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

Environmental Impact Analysis
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.7-11
c. Regional and Local Regulations
Administration and enforcement of the major environmental programs were transferred to local agencies as CUPAs beginning in 1996. The purpose of this was to simplify environmental reporting by reducing the number of regulatory agency contacts a facility must maintain and requiring the use of more standardized forms and reports.

North Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board
The nine Regional Water Quality Control Boards (RWQCB) are authorized by the SWRCB to enforce provisions of the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act of 1969. This Act gives the RWQCBs authority to require groundwater investigations when the quality of groundwater or surface waters of the State is threatened and to require remediation of a site, if necessary. Both of these agencies are part of the CalEPA. In the City of Sebastopol, the CUPA handles most leaking underground storage tank cases, so the North Coast RWQCB may oversee cases involving other groundwater contaminants; i.e., Cleanup Program cases. In the case of hazardous material releases at a project site, the responsible party would notify the CUPA, RWQCB, or DTSC and a lead would be determined.

Bay Area Air Quality Management District Regulation 11, Rule 2 The BAAQMD regulates demolition and renovation operations involving ACM in the Bay Area through Rule 2, which applies to any planned renovation that involves 100 square feet, 100 linear feet, or 35 cubic feet or more of ACM, as well as to all demolitions regardless of ACM content. The requirements include a noticing period, the conducting of a pre-demolition survey for ACM materials by a certified inspector, and a general prohibition on demolition until ACM has been abated and removed from the location and requires that abatement be conducted by persons with specific asbestos certifications (primarily Asbestos Hazard Emergency Response Act [AHERA] certification).

Association of Bay Area Governments Hazard Mitigation Plan The Association of Bay Area Governments’ Multi-Jurisdictional Local Hazard Mitigation Plan for the San Francisco Bay Area was updated in 2010 in partnership with Bay Conservation and Development Commission Adapting to Rising Tides Program to support local governments in the regional plan for existing and future hazards of climate change. This detailed 5-year plan identifies potential natural and human-made hazards, assesses their potential risks, and includes mitigation methods to reduce risks. The potential hazards identified in the Plan include earthquakes and liquefaction, wildfires, floods, drought, solar storms, dam or levee failure, disease outbreak, freezes, wind, heat, thunder and lightning storms, siltation, tornadoes, hazardous materials, slope failure and mudflows, and other hazards. Similarly, Plan mitigation measures include hazard event planning, emergency preparedness coordination, education, facility upgrades, and monitoring actions. The Association of Bay Area Governments is currently in the process of updating the plan and released a draft of the 2021 Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Draft Plan in March 2021 but has not been formally adopted at the time of this report.

Sonoma County Operational Area Hazard Mitigation Plan
The Sonoma County Operational Area Hazard Mitigation Plan assesses the County’s vulnerabilities to various hazards and presents mitigation strategy, including goals, objectives, and actions that the Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

City of Sebastopol
The Canopy

4.7-12
County will strive to implement over the next five years. These mitigation actions are intended to reduce the disruption or loss of life, property, and economy that might result from a natural disaster. The hazard and risk assessment focuses on earthquake, flood, wildland fire, and landslide hazards, as these are considered to constitute the greatest risk to the County based on past disaster events, future probabilities, and degree of vulnerability. The 2021 update to this plan includes a multi-jurisdictional scope versus previous versions which were single-jurisdictional and only focused on the county. The 2021 plan includes updates such as repetitive loss areas, climate change implications on hazards trends, and mitigation best practices (County of Sonoma 2021).

City of Sebastopol Local Hazard Mitigation Plan
The City adopted a Local Hazard Mitigation Plan on June 7, 2022. This plan documents the City of Sebastopol’s hazard mitigation planning process and identifies relevant hazards and vulnerabilities and strategies the City will use to decrease vulnerability and increase resiliency and sustainability in Sebastopol.

City of Sebastopol General Plan
The City’s 2016-2035 General Plan (City of Sebastopol 2016b) contains goals and policies related to hazards and hazardous materials. The following policies are relevant to the project.

Goal SA 6: Reduce Hazards Associated with the Transportation, Use, Storage, and Disposal of Hazardous Wastes and Hazardous Materials
Policy SA 6-1: Require measures to protect the public health from the hazards associated with the transportation, storage and disposal of hazardous wastes (TSD Facilities).

Policy SA 6-2: Use the environmental review process to comment on Hazardous Waste Transportation, Storage and Disposal (TSD) Facilities proposed in the Sebastopol Planning Area and throughout the County to request a risk assessment and ensure that potentially significant, widespread, and long term impacts on public health and safety of these facilities are identified and mitigated, as such impacts do not respect jurisdictional boundaries.

Policy SA 6-3: Strictly regulate the storage of hazardous materials Policy SA 6-4: Develop, in cooperation with the County, Caltrans, and neighboring cities, regulations prohibiting through-transport by truck of hazardous materials through Downtown and identify alternate routes for the transport hazardous materials.

Policy SA 6-5: Continue to maintain Sebastopol as a Voluntary Toxics-Free Zone, as defined by City Resolution 5108.

City of Sebastopol Municipal Code
Title 8 of the Sebastopol Municipal Code (SMC) provides requirements for the health and safety of the city. Specifically, SMC Chapter 8.30 regulates the underground storage of hazardous substances and SMC Chapter 8.32 outlines the requirements for hazardous materials release response plans and inventory.

Environmental impacts related to hazards and hazardous materials and wildfire have been assessed using impact significance criteria from federal, State, and local regulations. The impact analysis is Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

Environmental Impact Analysis
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.7-13
based on available literature regarding the existing plans, policies, and resources in the General Plan area. Criteria used during this analysis are described below.

4.7.3 Impact Analysis
a. Significance Thresholds and Methodology
Based on Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, a hazards and hazardous materials impact is considered significant if:

1. Routine transport, use, and/or dispose of hazardous materials in a manner that would create a significant hazard to the public or the environment.

2. Regular transport of hazardous materials to/from the plan areas on an unsuitable road or use of highly volatile hazardous materials, which would create a significant hazard to the public or the environment.

3. Location of new development within 0.25 mile of an existing or proposed school in conjunction with hazardous emissions or handle hazardous materials, waste, or substances.

4. Location of the project on a site that is included on a list of hazardous material sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would create a significant hazard to the public or the environment.

5. Location of new development within an airport land use plan or within two miles of a public airport and reduction of safety of people working or residing in the plan areas.

6. Impairing implementation of or interfering with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan via blockage of an evacuation route or provision of only one access point for emergency vehicles.
b. Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Threshold 1: Would the project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? Threshold 2: Would the project 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?
Impact HAZ-1 THE PROPOSED PROJECT WOULD INCLUDE CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION WHICH COULD INVOLVE THE USE, STORAGE, DISPOSAL OR TRANSPORTATION OF HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. HOWEVER, COMPLIANCE WITH FEDERAL, STATE, AND LOCAL REGULATIONS WOULD REDUCE POTENTIAL IMPACTS. IMPACTS WOULD BE LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT.

Transport and use of hazardous materials for the proposed project could occur during the construction and operation of the proposed project. This section addresses impacts from aboveground hazardous material generation, handling, use, and transport; impacts from potential contaminated soil and soil vapor are discussed under Impact HAZ-3.

Construction Impacts
Construction associated with the proposed project may include the temporary transport, storage, and use of potentially hazardous materials including fuels, lubricating fluids, cleaners, or solvents. If Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

City of Sebastopol
The Canopy

4.7-14
the proposed project involves the removal of contaminated soil, grading or excavation, then the project would also result in the transport and disposal of hazardous materials as they are unearthed and removed from the project site. Potential impacts with respect to public and environmental exposure to soil, soil vapor, and groundwater contaminants are discussed further under Impact HAZ-3. Hazardous material transport may occur regularly throughout construction, as materials are brought to and from the project site. Any use and transport of hazardous materials, such as solvents or construction fuels, would comply with all local, State, and federal regulations regarding the handling of potentially hazardous materials, as discussed under the Regulatory Setting, above.

Hazardous materials would be transported by DTSC-registered transporters and be required to follow all U.S. DOT regulations under the Hazardous Materials Transport Act, in addition to CalEPA and local CUPA regulations regarding hazardous materials transport. In addition, construction activities that transport hazardous materials would be required to transport such materials along designated roadways in the city and county. Materials transported to and from the project site would be required to reach the closest designated transport route by the shortest path; US Highway 101, State Route 116 and State Route 12 are the closest designated routes. Therefore, transporters would spend a limited time in the local area, primarily on major transit thoroughfares and virtually no time in residential streets, limiting risk of upset near sensitive uses such as residences.

The requirements for licensed transportation of any hazardous materials along designated routes would minimize any risks from use, storage, or transport of hazardous materials during construction, ensuring that the proposed project would not present a significant risk to the public or the environment, and impacts would be less than significant.

Operation Impacts
Although new residential development at the project site could involve the use, storage, disposal, or transportation of minute quantities of hazardous materials, new residential uses would not be expected to involve large quantities of these materials. Normal residential activities do not generally present a significant threat to the public or the environment through the use, storage, disposal, or transportation of significant quantities of hazardous materials. Some materials considered hazardous may be used or stored on the project site, but these materials would be limited primarily to common household solvents, paints, chemicals used for cleaning and building maintenance, and landscaping supplies and would not be substantially different from household chemicals and solvents already in general and wide use throughout any residential area. Residents are anticipated to use limited quantities of products routinely for periodic cleaning, repair, and maintenance or for landscape maintenance/pest control that could contain hazardous materials. Those using such products would be required to comply with all applicable regulations regarding the disposal of household waste. Therefore, exposure of the public or environment to the routine use or accidental release of hazardous materials from operation of the proposed townhome development would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures
Impacts would be less than significant with required adherence to existing regulations; no mitigation measures would be required.

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

Environmental Impact Analysis
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.7-15
Threshold 3: Would the project emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within 0.25 mile of an existing or proposed school?
Impact HAZ-2 SEBASTOPOL INDEPENDENT CHARTER SCHOOL IS LOCATED WITHIN 0.25 MILE OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT. THE PROPOSED PROJECT WOULD NOT EMIT OR HANDLE HAZARDOUS OR ACUTELY HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. THIS IMPACT WOULD BE LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT.

The proposed project is located within 0.25 mile of one school: Sebastopol Independent Charter School, located adjacent to the north of the project site across a recreational trail. There are no other schools within 0.25 mile of the proposed site. Children are particularly susceptible to longterm effects from exposure to hazardous materials. Locations where children spend extended periods of time, such as schools, are considered sensitive to hazardous air emissions and accidental release associated with the handling of extremely hazardous materials, substances, or wastes.

As detailed under Impact HAZ-1, above, construction of the proposed project may involve the use of hazardous materials, including handling of soil or transport of hazardous wastes and materials.

Operation of the proposed residential development would not be reasonably expected to generate hazardous materials or waste, other than minor quantities typically used for cleaning or landscaping maintenance. Dust control to limit exposure of construction workers and public is included in Mitigation Measure 3b below.

As detailed under Impact HAZ-1, construction could involve both the use and transport of both hazardous materials and hazardous wastes and would be required to be managed by BMPs prescribed in the project RAW (discussed under Impact HAZ-3); in addition, the use of common construction hazardous materials and wastes in quantities needed for a residential development of this size would not be expected to present hazards to the school. The use of such materials would present a potential impact were they to be transported near the elementary school; however, as discussed under Impact HAZ-1 above, licensed hazardous materials transporters leaving the project site would take the shortest direct route. Therefore, it is unlikely transporters would be required to drive past the school while carrying hazardous materials. Therefore, impacts related to construction hazardous materials to the school would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures
Mitigation Measure 3b below would be applicable.

Significance After Mitigation
Mitigation Measure 3b would ensure that dust control measures in the project RAW are implemented through the soil management plan.

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

City of Sebastopol
The Canopy

4.7-16
Threshold 4: Would the project be located on a site that is included on a list of hazardous material 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? Impact HAZ-3 THE PROJECT SITE IS ASSOCIATED WITH AN OPEN VOLUNTARY AGREEMENT CLEANUP

CASE AND IS THEREFORE INCLUDED ON A LIST OF HAZARDOUS MATERIALS SITES COMPILED PURSUANT TO SECTION 65962.5. THERE ARE KNOWN HAZARDOUS MATERIAL IMPACTS TO SOIL AT THE PROJECT SITE.

HOWEVER, COMPLIANCE WITH APPLICABLE REGULATIONS AND MITIGATION FOR POTENTIAL SOIL AND/OR GROUNDWATER IMPACTS AT THE PROJECT SITE WOULD MINIMIZE HAZARDS FROM THE PROPOSED PROJECT. THIS IMPACT WOULD BE LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT WITH MITIGATION INCORPORATED.

As detailed under Environmental Setting, the project site is associated with an active Voluntary Agreement cleanup case with regulatory agency oversight by the DTSC (DTSC 2023a). Therefore, the project site is included on a list of hazardous material sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5.

Based on the results of soil investigations conducted at the project site, there is known OCP-, arsenic-, and lead-impacted soil present at the project site at concentrations exceeding the applicable regulatory screening levels for residential land use (DTSC-SLs and USEPA RSLs) and/or California hazardous waste levels. Additionally, the soil investigations conducted along the former northern adjacent railroad tracks did not include analysis for railroad-related contaminants of concern such as TPH (full range), VOCs, semi-volatile organic compounds (SVOCs), herbicides, or polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs). Therefore, unknown soil conditions exist along the northern boundary of the project site.

Construction Impacts
Groundwater at the project site has been measured at 28.5 feet bgs and has not been investigated for hazardous chemical impacts; therefore, groundwater conditions at the project site are unknown.

However, based on the relatively shallow depth of known soil impacts (less than 5 feet bgs) and planned depth of excavation for the proposed project (less than 10 feet bgs), groundwater is not expected to be encountered during construction activities at the project site. Additionally, impacted soil would be buried at six feet below ground surface, or hauled off-site for disposal.

With the unknown and known impacted soil at the project site, there is a potential for grading and construction workers to be exposed to contaminants (e.g., TPH, VOCs, SVOCs, PAHs, herbicides, OCPs, and metals) via dust and/or soil. Additionally, if offsite disposal of soils from the project site would occur during project construction, the soil may require special handling or disposal as a waste.

The existing conditions at this known release site would result in a potentially significant hazard to the public (construction workers on-site) or the environment during grading and construction at the project site. Therefore, construction impacts would be potentially significant.

Operation Impacts
The risk of hazardous materials creating a significant hazard to the public or the environment would primarily occur during construction of the project as on-site contamination is disturbed. Once the project is operational, the contaminated media would mostly be removed or covered and would no longer pose a risk. Therefore, operation impacts would be less than significant.

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

Environmental Impact Analysis
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.7-17
Mitigation Measures
HAZ-3a DTSC Regulatory Agency Submittal
The DTSC shall continue to be utilized for agency oversight of assessment and remediation of the project site through completion of construction activities. Prior to commencement of construction and grading activities at the project site, the project applicant shall submit the following documents to the DTSC project manager of the open Voluntary Agreement cleanup case:
 Current development plan and any modifications to the development plan  All environmental documents completed for the project, including this Initial Study document  All future environmental documents completed for the project Upon submittal of the information above, and in accordance with the 2023 DTSC Standard Voluntary Agreement, DTSC may require actions such as: development of subsurface investigation workplans; completion of soil, soil vapor, and/or groundwater subsurface investigations; installation of soil vapor or groundwater monitoring wells; soil excavation and offsite disposal; completion of human health risk assessments; and/or completion of remediation reports or case closure documents. Subsurface soil, soil vapor, and groundwater investigations, if required, shall be conducted in accordance with a sampling plan that shall be reviewed and approved by the DTSC.

The DTSC approval documents shall be submitted to and reviewed by the City prior to issuing grading permits.
4 HAZ-3b Soil Management Plan
Prior to commencement of construction and grading activities at the project site, the project applicant shall retain a qualified consultant (Professional Geologist [PG] or Professional Engineer [PE]) to prepare a Soil Management Plan (SMP) for the project site. The SMP shall address:

1. On-site handling and management of impacted soils or other impacted wastes (e.g., stained soil, and soil or groundwater with solvent or chemical odors) if such soils or impacted wastes are encountered, and

2. Specific actions to reduce hazards to construction workers and offsite receptors during the construction phase.

The SMP must establish remedial measures and soil management practices to ensure construction worker safety, the health of future workers and residents, and prevent the off-site migration of contaminants from the project site. These measures and practices may include, but are not limited to:
 Stockpile management, including stormwater pollution prevention and the installation of BMPs  Proper disposal procedures for contaminated materials  Investigation procedures for encountering known and unexpected odorous or visually stained soils, other indications of hydrocarbon piping or equipment, and/or debris during grounddisturbing activities 4 The DTSC may determine that the North Coast RWQCB or the City of Healdsburg (the CUPA for the City) may be best suited to perform the cleanup oversight agency duties for the assessment and/or remediation of the project. Should the cleanup oversight agency be transferred from the DTSC to the North Coast RWQCB or the CUPA, this and other mitigation measures shall still apply.

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

City of Sebastopol
The Canopy

4.7-18
 Monitoring and reporting
 A health and safety plan for contractors working at the project site that addresses the safety and health hazards of each phase of project site construction activities with the requirements and procedures for employee protection
 The health and safety plan shall outline proper soil handling procedures and health and safety requirements to minimize worker and public exposure to hazardous materials during construction.

The DTSC shall review and approve the SMP prior to construction (grading) activities at the project site. The City shall review and approve the DTSC-approved SMP prior to issuing grading permits. The project applicant shall implement the SMP during , grading and construction at the project site.

Significance After Mitigation
Implementation of Mitigation Measures HAZ-3a and HAZ-3b during grading and construction and operation of the project would reduce potential hazardous material impacts at the project site below applicable thresholds of significance by implementing proper management of hazardous materials and wastes, proper transportation of impacted materials, and/or site management practices. These practices would increase construction worker safety, the health of future workers and residents, and remediation of hazardous soils.

Threshold 5: 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?
Impact HAZ-4 THE PROJECT SITE IS NOT LOCATED IN AN AIRPORT LAND USE PLAN OR IN THE VICINITY OF A PRIVATE AIRSTRIP. NO IMPACTS RELATED TO AIRPORTS WOULD OCCUR.

The nearest airport to the project site is the Sonoma County Airport, located approximately 7 miles northeast. The project site is not located in or near an airport land use plan or in the vicinity of a private airstrip. Therefore, the project would not result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the area because there are no airports near or within the city. There would be no impact.

Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures would be required.

Significance After Mitigation
Impacts would be less than significant without mitigation.

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

Environmental Impact Analysis
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.7-19
Threshold 6: Would the project impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
Impact HAZ-5 THE PROJECT WOULD NOT IMPAIR IMPLEMENTATION OF OR PHYSICALLY INTERFERE WITH AN ADOPTED EMERGENCY RESPONSE PLAN OR EMERGENCY EVACUATION PLAN. IMPACTS WOULD BE LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT.

As required by State law, the City of Sebastopol has established emergency preparedness procedures and programs to be prepared for and respond to a variety of natural and manmade disasters that could affect the community. The City adopted a Local Hazard Mitigation Plan on June 7, 2022, which includes preparation of an Emergency Operation Plan. The City’s Emergency Operation Plan helps maintain the City’s ability to prepare, respond and recover from a variety of emergency incidents. During emergencies, the County of Sonoma and incorporated cities have established standardized evacuation zones. The project site is located in Evacuation Zone SEB-001, where the primary evacuation and emergency access routes in the vicinity of the project site would be State Route 116 and State Route 12, which connects to US Highway 101. The proposed project would not conflict with the Emergency Operations Plan and would not impair evacuation. For example, the proposed project does not envision closing major evacuation routes, such as State Route 116.

The proposed project does not include any characteristics (e.g., permanent road closures) that would physically impair or otherwise interfere with access to these critical routes or obstruct emergency response or evacuation in the project vicinity. As described in Section 4.13, Transportation, the project itself would not impair emergency access to structures in the immediate vicinity. In addition, standard traffic management practices related to construction staging and parking would ensure that temporary road closures during construction would not impair or interfere with emergency response or evacuation. Furthermore, industry practices require the notification of area emergency responders prior to any such closures, ensuring that in the event of an emergency, responders and managers would already be aware of any potential obstacles related to project construction. Accordingly, potential impacts related to interference with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures would be required.

Significance After Mitigation
Impacts would be less than significant without mitigation measures.

Threshold 7: Would the project expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires? Impact HAZ-6 THE PROJECT SITE IS IN AN URBAN AREA AND IS NOT NEAR WILDLANDS. NO IMPACT RELATED TO WILDLAND FIRES WOULD OCCUR.

As detailed in Section 4.16, Effects Found not to be Significant, the project site is not located within a Fire Hazard Severity Zone or within the Wildland-Urban Interface. The proposed project would not expose people or structures directly or indirectly to risk related to wildland fires. No impact would occur.

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

City of Sebastopol
The Canopy

4.7-20
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures would be required.

Significance After Mitigation
Impacts would be less than significant without mitigation measures.

4.7.4 Cumulative Impacts
Generally, hazards and hazardous materials impacts associated with individual developments are site specific in nature and must be addressed on a case-by-case basis. As such, the geographic scope for hazardous materials impacts is the project site and immediately surrounding parcels. Since hazards and hazardous materials are required to be examined as part of the permit application and environmental review process, potential impacts associated with individual projects will be adequately addressed prior to permit approval. Therefore, cumulative impacts related to hazardous materials would be less than significant.

The proposed project could result in potentially significant impacts because hazardous materials could be disturbed and released during grading and construction activities. However, with adherence to existing regulatory standards for hazardous materials, as well as Mitigation Measure HAZ-3a and HAZ-3b, project-specific impacts would be less than significant with mitigation. As such, the project would not result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to a significant cumulative impact related to hazards and hazardous materials.

The proposed project could result in potentially significant impacts related to disturbance of hazardous materials within 0.25 mile of a school. However, as discussed under Impact HAZ-1 above, licensed hazardous materials transporters leaving the project site would take the shortest direct route. As such, the project would not result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to a significant cumulative impact related to construction hazardous materials near a school.

The proposed project is not within an airport land use plan or within two miles of a public airport.

Therefore, cumulative impacts related to the safety of people working or residing in the project site and airport land use plan area would be less than significant.

The geographic scope for cumulative wildland fire hazard impacts is inclusive of projects within the City. As shown in Table 3-1 in Section 3.0, Environmental Setting, several projects are located with

2.8 miles of the project site and are comprised of residential, commercial, medical, and mixed-use developments. None of the cumulative projects fall within a FHSZ (CAL FIRE 2022). Therefore, cumulative wildland fire hazard impacts would be less than significant. The project site is not adjacent to any wildland areas and is surrounded by existing development or rural agricultural lands; large tracts of wildland fuels, such as forest or brushland, do not occur on or near the project site. As such, the project would not result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to a significant cumulative impact related to wildland fire hazards.

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

Environmental Impact Analysis
Hydrology and Water Quality
Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.8-1

4.8 Hydrology and Water Quality
This section presents the existing conditions, summarizes the regulatory and planning framework, and analyzes the impacts to the surface water and groundwater resources in Sonoma County, relative to the proposed project. Impacts to water supply and wastewater treatment are discussed in Section 4.15, Utilities and Service Systems. Extensive overlap exists in regulatory programs governing environmental aspects of water quality, drinking water quality, and the public health aspects of water supply protection. The analysis that follows relies in part on the Preliminary Drainage Analysis and Preliminary Storm Water Low Impact Development Submittal prepared for the project by Adobe Associates, Inc. in January 2023 (Appendix H).

4.8.1 Environmental Setting
Hydrologic Setting
The project site is approximately 192 feet above mean sea level (amsl) with uneven terrain. Existing slopes on the project site generally vary from 2% to 15%. Current runoff within the parcel on the southeastern portion of the site sheet flows to the northwest and there is a high point on the northwestern portion of the site where runoff sheet flows to the north, west, and south (Adobe Associates, 2023a). Based on the topography, surface water on the project site infiltrates the ground surface or flows into the gutter system along Gravenstein Highway.

The project site overlies the Santa Rosa Valley Groundwater Basin and the Santa Rosa Plain Subbasin (SGMA 2018). The Santa Rosa Plain Subbasin is one of three coastal alluvial subbasins of the Santa Rosa Valley Groundwater Basin (Santa Rosa Plain Groundwater Sustainability Agency 2023).

According to a groundwater monitoring report for Superior Cleaners located at 735 Gravenstein Highway North, which is approximately 1,200 feet to the south, depth to groundwater was reported between 21.36 and 32.34 feet below ground surface (bgs) with a groundwater flow towards the northeast in 2009 (Stantec, 2022). A groundwater boring on the project site in 2020 determined the depth to groundwater as 28.5 feet bgs (Stantec 2022).

Surface Water
The nearest surface water to the project site is Laguna de Santa Rosa Creek, located approximately one mile east of the project site. The project site is located within the North Coast Hydrologic Region. The North Coast hydrologic region covers approximately 19,500 square miles and includes all or portions of Modoc, Siskiyou, Del Norte, Trinity, Humboldt, Mendocino, Lake, and Sonoma counties, and small areas of Shasta, Tehama, Glenn, Colusa, and Marin counties (California Department of Water Resources 2023). The City of Sebastopol is in the Russian River Watershed which is a region of nearly 1,500 square miles of forests, agricultural lands and urban lands in Mendocino and Sonoma Counties (Russian River Watershed Association 2023).

Groundwater
The City of Sebastopol relies exclusively on groundwater as a water supply source and is located within the Santa Rosa Valley Groundwater Basin. The Santa Rosa Plain Groundwater Basin is one of the largest groundwater basins in the California Department of Water Resource’s North Coast Hydrologic Region. The Santa Rosa Plain Groundwater Basin has three sub-basins: Healdsburg, Santa Rosa Plain, and the Rincon Valley and Santa Rosa Plain Subbasin. The City of Sebastopol Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

City of Sebastopol
The Canopy

4.8-2
overlies the Santa Rosa Plain Subbasin. The groundwater system beneath the Santa Rosa Plain provides water to residents and municipal systems, irrigation water for agriculture, and baseflow to streams, surface water bodies and associated ecosystems. The Santa Rosa Plain is a large geologically complex groundwater basin, with multiple aquifers that exhibit wide variations in well yields and groundwater quality. In addition, the groundwater system is subdivided into several compartments that are separated by fault zones, including the Rodgers Creek Fault, the Sebastopol Fault, and the Trenton Fault.

4.8.2 Regulatory Setting
a. Federal Regulations
Clean Water Act
Congress enacted the CWA, formerly the Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, to restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the waters of the United States. The CWA requires states to set standards to protect, maintain, and restore water quality through the regulation of point source and non-point source discharges to surface water. Those discharges are regulated by the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit process (CWA Section 402). The SWRCB and its nine RWQCBs administer the NPDES permits. In Sonoma County, NPDES permits are administered by the North Coast RWQCB and San Francisco Bay RWQCB.

Individual projects that disturb one or more acres are required to obtain NPDES coverage under the California General Permit for Stormwater Discharges Associated with Construction and Land Disturbance Activities (Construction General Permit). The Construction General Permit requires the development and implementation of a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) describing best management practices (BMP) the discharger would use to prevent and retain stormwater runoff. The SWPPP must contain a visual monitoring program; a chemical monitoring program for “non-visible” pollutants to be implemented if BMPs fail; and a sediment monitoring plan if the site discharges directly to a waterbody listed on the 303(d) list for sediment.

Section 401 of the CWA requires any activity that would result in discharge into waters of the U.S. be certified by the RWQCB. This certification ensures the proposed activity would not violate State and/or federal water quality standards. Section 404 of the CWA authorizes the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to regulate the discharge of dredged or fill material to the waters of the U.S. and adjacent wetlands. Discharges to waters of the U.S. must be avoided where possible and minimized and mitigated where avoidance is not possible. Section 303(d) of the CWA requires states to establish TMDL programs for streams, lakes, and coastal waters that do not meet certain water quality standards.

Applicants of construction projects disturbing one or more acre of soil are required to file for coverage under the SWRCB, Order No. 99-08-DWQ, NPDES General Permit No. CAS000002 for Discharges of Storm Water Runoff Associated with Construction Activity (General Permit).

National Flood Insurance Act / Flood Disaster Protection Act The National Flood Insurance Act of 1968 made flood insurance available for the first time. The Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973 made the purchase of flood insurance mandatory for the protection of property located in Special Flood Hazard Areas. These laws are relevant because they led to mapping of regulatory floodplains and to local management of floodplain areas according to guidelines that include prohibiting or restricting development in flood hazard zones.

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

Environmental Impact Analysis
Hydrology and Water Quality
Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.8-3
b. State Regulations
Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act
The Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act of 1967 requires the SWRCB and the nine RWQCBs to adopt water quality criteria to protect State waters. These criteria include the identification of beneficial uses, narrative and numerical water quality standards, and implementation procedures.

The Water Quality Control Plan, or Basin Plan, protects designated beneficial uses of State waters through the issuance of waste discharge requirements and through the development of TMDLs.

Anyone proposing to discharge waste that could affect the quality of the waters of the State must make a report of the waste discharge to the RWQCB or SWRCB as appropriate, in compliance with the Porter-Cologne Act.

Sustainable Groundwater Management Act
In September 2014, Governor Brown signed legislation requiring that California’s critical groundwater resources be sustainably managed by local agencies. The Sustainable Groundwater Management Act gives local agencies the power to sustainably manage groundwater and requires Groundwater Sustainability Plans (GSP) to be developed for medium- and high-priority groundwater basins.

In September 2014, the governor signed legislation requiring that California’s critical groundwater resources be sustainably managed by local agencies. The Sustainable Groundwater Management Act gives local agencies the power to sustainably manage groundwater and requires groundwater sustainability plans to be developed for medium- and high-priority groundwater basins, as defined by the California Department of Water Resources.

The project site overlies the Santa Rosa Plain Subbasin of the Santa Rosa Valley Groundwater Basin..

The Santa Rosa Plain Groundwater Sustainability Agency is the Groundwater Sustainability Agency with authority over the Santa Rosa Plain Subbasin. The Santa Rosa Plain GSA was formed through a Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement (JPA) entered into by the cities of Cotati, Rohnert Park, and Santa Rosa; the Town of Windsor; Gold Ridge Resource Conservation District; Sonoma County (County); Sonoma County Water Agency (Sonoma Water); Sonoma Resource Conservation District; and an organized group of mutual water and Public Utilities Commission-regulated companies (Independent Water Systems). In August 2019 following an adjustment of the Subbasin boundaries, the JPA was amended to include the City of Sebastopol. The Groundwater Sustainability Plan (GSP) for the Santa Rosa Plain Subbasin was submitted to the California Department of Water Resources (DWR) in January, 2022 and approved by DWR on January 26, 2023 (Santa Rosa Plain Groundwater Sustainability Agency, 2023).

California Green Building Standards Code
The California Green Building Standards Code (California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 11) includes mandatory measures for residential and nonresidential development. For example, Section

4.106.2 requires residential projects that disturb less than one acre and are not part of a larger common plan of development to manage stormwater drainage during construction through on-site retention basins, filtration systems, and/or compliance with a stormwater management ordinance.

Section 5.106.1 requires newly constructed nonresidential projects and additions of less than one acre to prevent the pollution of stormwater runoff from construction through compliance with a local ordinance or implementing BMPs that address soil loss and good housekeeping to manage Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

City of Sebastopol
The Canopy

4.8-4
equipment, materials, and wastes. Section 5.303 sets measures for indoor water use for nonresidential development requiring metering devices to conserve water.

State Water Conservation Requirements
Executive Order B-37-16 established a new water use efficiency framework for California. The order bolstered the state’s drought resilience and preparedness by establishing longer-term water conservation measures that include permanent monthly water use reporting, new urban water use targets, reducing system leaks and eliminating clearly wasteful practices, strengthening urban drought contingency plans, and improving agricultural water management and drought plans. Based on monthly water use reporting, most urban water suppliers reported sufficient supplies to meet demand in three additional dry years and are not subject to state conservation mandates. On February 8, 2017, SWRCB adopted an emergency water conservation regulation to amend and extend the May 2016 regulation. The amended regulation allows certain suppliers the opportunity to submit or resubmit their water supply reliability assessments. c. Regional and Local
Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System
RWQCBs issue stormwater discharge permits, with a Phase I Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) (Order R1-2015-0030) applicable to the City of Sebastopol (SWRCB, 2022). The MS4 programs implement and enforce BMPs to reduce the discharge of pollutants from municipal separate storm sewer systems.

Low Impact Development Manual
The North Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board (NCRWQCB) issues the NPDES Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems (MS4) Permit (Permit) requiring Governing Agencies to implement a myriad of programs to prevent pollution, improve and protect storm water quality, reduce storm water runoff, and enhance the ecologic vitality of local creeks and waterways. The most recent permit update took effect January 6, 2016 and required that the previous version of this LID Technical Design Manual (LID Manual) be revised to meet the new permit requirements. The City of Cloverdale, City of Cotati, City of Healdsburg, City of Rohnert Park, City of Sebastopol, City of Ukiah, and Town of Windsor have been added to the County of Sonoma, Sonoma County Water Agency, and City of Santa Rosa as CoPermittees. The 2017 LID Manual provides technical guidance for project designs that require the implementation of permanent stormwater BMPs. This manual supersedes the 2005 Standard Urban Storm Water Mitigation Plan and satisfies Order R1-2015- 0030, NPDES Permit CA0025054 (LID Manual CoPermittees, 2017).

City of Sebastopol Water System Master Plan
In 2006, the City approved the Sebastopol Water System Master Plan, which is intended to assist with planning water system improvements necessary to comply with current City zoning ordinances, City Standard Details and Specifications, and federal fire regulations. The plan describes the existing water system and estimates water demand projections. Additionally, it makes recommendations for water system improvements across the city (City of Sebastopol, 2005).

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

Environmental Impact Analysis
Hydrology and Water Quality
Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.8-5
City of Sebastopol Water Shortage Contingency Plan
In June 2023, the City approved the Sebastopol Water Supply Contingency Plan (WSCP), which seeks to conserve the available water supply and ensure the integrity of the water system. The plan outlines drought response stages, triggers, and response actions (City of Sebastopol, 2023).

Sebastopol General Plan
The City’s 2016-2035 General Plan (City of Sebastopol 2016b) Community Services and Facilities Element includes goals and policies related to water. The following policies are relevant to the project.

Goal COS 3: Protect and Enhance Water Resources in Local Creeks, Riparian Habitat, Wetlands, the Laguna De Santa Rosa Watershed, Atascadero Creek, and Aquatic Habitat Policy COS 3-1 Protect and enhance streams, channels, seasonal and permanent marshland, wetlands, sloughs, riparian habitat, and vernal pools through sound land use planning, community design, and site planning.

Policy COS 3-2 Aggressively pursue a wide range of opportunities to protect water quality and manage local surface water resources.

Policy COS 3-3 Support rehabilitation of any culverted or open existing channelized waterways, as feasible, to remove concrete linings and allow for a connection between the stream channel and the natural water table. Avoid creating additional culverted or open channelized waterways, unless no other alternative is available to protect human health, safety, and welfare.

Policy COS 3-4 Where feasible, support restoration of any existing culverted or channelized waterways to a more natural condition. Restoration efforts should provide for naturalized hydraulic functioning. Restoration should also promote the growth of riparian vegetation to effectively stabilize banks, screen pollutants from runoff entering the channel, enhance fisheries, and provide other opportunities for natural habitat restoration.

Policy COS 3-5 Require discretionary projects, as well as new flood control and stormwater conveyance projects, to integrate best management practices (BMPs) and natural features to the greatest extent feasible, while ensuring that these features adequately convey and control stormwater to protect human health, safety, and welfare. New flood control projects should utilize the natural benefits of slowing and spreading surface water runoff through natural features in order to promote groundwater infiltration, natural removal of contaminants, and enhancing riparian habitat health.

Policy COS 3-6 Require the use and site design integration of natural features such as bioswales, vegetation, retention ponds, and other measures to remove surface water pollutants prior to discharge into surface waters.

Policy COS 3-7 Preserve the existing and future floodwater carrying capacity of creeks and channels during creek restoration.

Policy COS 3-8 Require new development to include maintained and managed setbacks and buffers along creeks, wetlands, riparian corridors, and adjacent to sensitive habitat.

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

City of Sebastopol
The Canopy

4.8-6
Policy COS 3-9 New development adjacent to creeks and streams should include opportunities for beneficial uses, such as flood control, ecological restoration activities, public access trails, and walkways.

Goal COS 5: Protect, Manage, and Enhance Groundwater as a Valuable and Limited Shared Resource Policy COS 5-1 Groundwater should be managed as part of a broader integrated approach that includes surface water, conservation, water quality, reuse, environmental stewardship, and other water management strategies.

Policy COS 5-2 Operate the City’s well system in such a manner as to not exceed the sustainable yield of the local groundwater aquifer.

Policy COS 5-3 Encourage new groundwater recharge opportunities and protect existing groundwater recharge areas throughout the Sebastopol Planning Area.

Policy COS 5-4 Promote the use of permeable surface materials and provide for ample areas of open space and naturalized land in order to decrease surface runoff and promote groundwater recharge.

Policy COS 5-5 Seek opportunities to expand the groundwater recharge capacity of Cityowned parcels throughout Sebastopol.

Policy COS 5-6 Implement water conservation measures as a key strategy in sustainably managing local groundwater supplies.

Policy COS 5-7 Implement greenhouse gas reduction measures and participate in regional efforts to study the effects of climate change on precipitation levels as a key strategy in sustainably managing local groundwater supplies.

Policy COS 5-8 Continue to encourage and support federal, state, and local research on and monitoring of local groundwater conditions, aquifer recharge, watersheds and streams where needed to assess groundwater quantity and quality.

Policy COS 5-9 Protect the water quality obtained from City wells.

Policy COS 5-10 Reduce agricultural and pharmaceutical contamination of potable water supplies in the local aquifer.

Goal CSF 3: Provide an Adequate, Clean, Safe, and Environmentally Sound Water Supply to All Existing and Future Water Users in Sebastopol.

Policy CSF 3-1 Prior to the approval of major new development, Specific Plans, major infrastructure improvements, or other projects that would result in increased demand for public water conveyance and treatment, such projects must demonstrate proof of adequate water supply (e.g., that existing services are adequate to accommodate the increased demand, or improvements to the capacity of the system to meet increased demand will be made prior to project implementation) and that potential cumulative impacts to water users and the environment will be addressed.

Policy CSF 3-2 Continue to implement a comprehensive water strategy that balances the need to supply water to all users served by the City with potable water use reduction measures.

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

Environmental Impact Analysis
Hydrology and Water Quality
Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.8-7
Policy CSF 3-3 Routinely assess the City’s ability to meet the demand for potable water by periodically updating the Water Master Plan.

Policy CSF 3-4 Ensure the water system and supply is adequate to match the rate of growth and future development.

Policy CSF 3-5 Priority shall be given to serving existing water uses over new water uses.

Policy CSF 3-6 Maintain and ensure adequate emergency water supplies.

Policy CSF 3-7 Continue to implement the City’s water conservation requirements established in the Municipal Code.

Policy CSF 3-8 Ensure safe drinking water standards are met throughout the community.

Policy CSF 3-9 The Public Works Department shall continue to test potable water on schedules dictated by the State and the U.S. Environmental Protection Goal CSF 4: Provide Adequate Sewer Service Capacity to Serve Existing and Future Demands Policy CSF 4-1 Maintain adequate sewage conveyance infrastructure to meet existing and projected demand throughout the buildout of the General Plan.

Policy CSF 4-2 Ensure sewage system capacity is adequate to match the rate of development.

Policy CSF 4-3 Work with the Santa Rosa Subregional Wastewater System to assist in the maintenance of an adequate sewage treatment and disposal system.

Policy CSF 4-4 Ensure adequate funding is available for needed improvements to the wastewater conveyance infrastructure, and to reduce stormwater infiltration to the greatest extent feasible.

Policy CSF 4-5 Comply with the current Statewide General Waste Discharge Requirements concerning the operation and maintenance of the City’s sanitary sewer collection system.

Policy CSF 4-6 Prior to the approval of development that would result in substantial increased demand for municipal sewage conveyance and treatment, require projects to demonstrate that existing services are adequate to accommodate the increased demand or that improvements to the capacity of the system to meet increased demand will be made prior to project implementation.

Policy CSF 4-7 Review new development for consistency with the Sewer Collection System Master Plan and require new development to pay fair-share payments towards implementation of system improvements identified in the Sewer Collection System Master Plan.

Policy CSF 4-8 Prioritize sewer service improvements to areas within the City that pose a threat to public health and the environment as a result of deficiencies in existing sewer or septic systems.

Policy CSF 4-9 Ensure future sewer and septic systems are designed to meet or exceed all applicable water quality standards and are located to protect waterways and groundwater resources.

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

City of Sebastopol
The Canopy

4.8-8
Goal SA 2: Reduce Risks to Human Life, Property, and Public Services Associated with Flood Hazards Policy
Policy SA 2-1 Support strong local and countywide measures to protect and increase the floodwater storage capacity in the Laguna de Santa Rosa.

Policy SA 2-2 Utilize the most recent Federal Emergency Management Agency’s Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM) to reduce risk of flooding, identify special flood hazard areas subject to 100-year flood inundation, and calculate flow rates within identified stream channels. Once available, also utilize Department of Water Resources 200- year floodplain maps to identify areas subject to potential 200-year flood inundation.

Policy SA 2-3 Continue to work with the Sonoma County agencies to ensure that additional storm drain runoff resulting from development occurring in unincorporated areas upstream from drainage channels in the Sebastopol Planning Area is adequately mitigated through improvements on-site and/or downstream.

Policy SA 2-4 Continue to coordinate with the Sonoma County Water Agency in pursuing all available sources of funding to finance improvements to storm drain facilities.

Policy SA 2-5 Reduce flood risk to development and infrastructure by maintaining effective flood drainage systems and regulating construction.

Policy SA 2-6 Maintain unobstructed water flow in the storm drainage system.

Policy SA 2-7 Locate new critical facilities and essential public buildings – including hospitals and health care facilities, emergency shelters, emergency command centers, and emergency communications facilities – outside of flood hazard zones to protect from any unreasonable risk of flooding.

Policy SA 2-8 Require all development projects to demonstrate how storm water runoff will be detained or retained on-site, treated, and/or conveyed to the nearest drainage facility as part of the development review process. Project applicants shall demonstrate that project implementation would not result in increases in the peak flow runoff to adjacent lands or drainage facilities that would exceed the design capacity of the drainage facility or result in an increased potential for offsite flooding.

Policy SA 2-9 Prohibit development in the 100-year flood zone unless requirements of the City’s Flood Damage Protection Ordinance criteria are met.

Policy SA 2-10 Ensure that the structural and operational integrity of critical facilities is maintained during flooding.

Policy SA 2-11 Monitor ongoing efforts by Federal and State agencies to update flood hazard maps, including 200-year flood plain mapping, that affect the City and Planning Area.

Policy SA 2-12 Ensure that flood control and management facilities are integrated with efforts to improve water supply and management. Consider factors such as groundwater recharge, surface water quality, and the protection of riparian Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

Environmental Impact Analysis
Hydrology and Water Quality
Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.8-9
habitat when implementing plans and improvements to construct and maintain flood control and management facilities.

Policy SA 2-13 Encourage and accommodate multipurpose flood control projects that incorporate recreation, resource conservation, preservation of natural riparian and biological habitat, and agricultural uses. Where appropriate and feasible, the City shall also encourage the use of flood and/or storm water retention facilities for use as groundwater recharge facilities.

Sebastopol Municipal Code
Title 13 of the Sebastopol Municipal Code (SMC) identifies the required City permits for the construction and operation of water and wastewater connections. In addition, SMC Chapter 13.20 incorporates the City’s stormwater ordinance.

4.8.3 Impact Analysis
a. Significance Thresholds and Methodology
According to Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, hydrology and water quality impacts related to the proposed project would be considered significant if the project would:

Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or groundwater quality;
Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin; 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:
a. Result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site; b. Substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or offsite;
c. Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems of provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff; or d. Impede or redirect flood flows;
In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to project inundation; or Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan.

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

City of Sebastopol
The Canopy

4.8-10
b. Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Threshold 1: Would the project violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality? Impact HYD-1 DEVELOPMENT FACILITATED BY THE PROJECT WOULD NOT VIOLATE WATER QUALITY

STANDARDS OR WASTE DISCHARGE REQUIREMENTS, OR OTHERWISE SUBSTANTIALLY DEGRADE SURFACE OR GROUNDWATER QUALITY. IMPACTS WOULD BE LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT WITH MITIGATION.

Construction
Construction activities could result in soil erosion due to earth-moving activities such as excavation, grading, soil compaction and moving, and soil stockpiling.

As described in Section 4.7, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, the project site is associated with an active Voluntary Agreement cleanup case with regulatory agency oversight by the Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) (DTSC 2023a). Sampling results indicated that organochlorine pesticides were present in soil at concentrations below their respective screening levels used for residential land use, but above California hazardous waste levels at two boring locations within the existing trees’ driplines “to remain after redevelopment” and arsenic and lead were detected at concentrations above their respective naturally occurring background concentrations in California soils (Stantec 2022).

The project would implement Mitigation Measure HAZ-3a which would require the DTSC continue to be utilized for agency oversight of assessment and remediation of the project site through completion of construction activities and Mitigation Measure HAZ-3b which requires the preparation of a Soil Management Plan (SMP) prior to commencement of construction and grading activities at the project site. A Removal Action Plan was prepared for the project site and determined soil burial, capping, and deed restriction was the recommended removal action for the project site (Stantec, 2023). Excavated contaminated soil would be buried under six feet of clean soil on top of the on-site burial cells. Based on the relatively shallow depth of known soil impacts (less than 5 feet bgs) and planned depth of excavation for the proposed project (less than 10 feet bgs), groundwater is not expected to be encountered during construction activities at the project site.

Construction activities would use hazardous materials such as diesel fuel, gasoline, lubricant oils, hydraulic fluid, antifreeze, transmission fluid, cement slurry, and other fluids required for the operation of construction vehicles or equipment. Runoff during storm events would follow the general topography of the project site, and after grading and excavation activities, runoff would be directed to flow in the same direction onto Gravenstein Highway. The project would be required to comply with State and local water quality regulations designed to control erosion and protect water quality during construction. This includes compliance with the requirements of the NPDES Construction General Permit, which requires preparation and implementation of a SWPPP for projects that disturb one acre or more of land. Since the project site area is greater than one acre, construction activities would be subject to the NPDES Construction General Permit and would be required to develop a SWPPP. The SWPPP must include erosion and sediment control BMPs that would meet or exceed measures required by the NPDES Construction General Permit. Construction BMPs could include inlet protection, silt fencing, fiber rolls, stabilized construction entrances, stockpile management, solid waste management, and concrete waste management.

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

Environmental Impact Analysis
Hydrology and Water Quality
Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.8-11
The Sebastopol Municipal Code also includes construction requirements intended to prevent the degradation of water quality during construction. SMC Chapter 15.08 adopts California Building Code Appendix J Section J110, Erosion Control which would require preparation of erosion control plans in conformance with the Erosion and Sediment Control Field Manual published by the San Francisco Regional Water Quality Control Board, and the State Water Quality Control Board Construction General Permit (WQO 99-08-DWQ or latest adopted order). SMC Chapter 13.20 requires the reduction of pollutants in stormwater discharge to the maximum extent practicable and prohibits non-stormwater discharge to the storm drain system.

Compliance with the regulations and required permits discussed above, and implementation of Mitigation Measures HAZ-3a and HAZ-3b, would reduce the risk of water degradation from soil erosion and other pollutants related to construction activities. Because violations of water quality standards would be minimized through existing regulations, project construction would not violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or groundwater quality. Impacts from construction activities under the proposed project would be less than significant.

Operation
The project would be required to manage stormwater treatment in accordance with the North Coast RWQCB Order No. R1-2015-0030. Pursuant to SMC Chapter 13.20, which requires the reduction of pollutants in stormwater discharge to the maximum extent practicable and prohibits non-stormwater discharge to the storm drain system. In addition to stormwater runoff, polluted wastewater could be discharged by development facilitated by the project but pollution would be limited primarily to common household solvents, paints, chemicals used for cleaning and building maintenance, and landscaping supplies and would not be substantially different from household chemicals and solvents already in general and wide use throughout any residential area. Once the project is operational, the contaminated media described above would mostly be removed or covered and would no longer pose a risk.

Development facilitated by the project would increase wastewater flows to the applicable local wastewater purveyor. The SMC Chapter 13.20 also prohibits the discharge of industrial waste or any garbage, except shredded garbage, or any solids, semi-solid or liquid substances resulting from any garbage, service station, or automobile wash-rack into the sanitary sewer system. Required compliance with the Code would ensure that wastewater discharges to the sanitary sewer system and local wastewater treatment plants are properly and effectively treated to meet or exceed discharge requirements of the NPDES/Waste Discharge Requirement permit.

Runoff from all proposed impervious surfaces would be directed toward the proposed vegetated buffer strips and the existing detention pond that has enough retention capacity to meet the hydromodification requirement of 100 percent volume capture. Storm water treatment would be achieved in the vegetated buffer strips prior to discharge from the site to the detention pond through a stormdrain network (Appendix H).

In addition, wastewater purveyors collect monthly fees from system users for wastewater flows.

Development associated with the proposed project would be subject to user fees, which would in turn fund any necessary operating and capacity infrastructure needs for wastewater flows.

Implementation of the regulations, permit requirements, BMPs, Mitigation Measures HAZ-3a and HAZ-3b and policies described above would prevent or minimize impacts related to water quality and ensure that development facilitated by the project would not cause or contribute to the Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024