Sebastopol City Council
April 2, 2024

City of Sebastopol
The Canopy

4.8-12
degradation of water quality in receiving waters. Development facilitated by the project would not violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade water quality, and water quality impacts would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures
Mitigation Measures HAZ-3a and HAZ-3b would apply.

Significance After Mitigation
With implementation of HAZ-3a and HAZ-3b, impacts would be less than significant.

Threshold 2: Would the project substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin?
Impact HYD-2 DEVELOPMENT FACILITATED BY THE PROJECT WOULD NOT INTERFERE SUBSTANTIALLY WITH

GROUNDWATER RECHARGE SUCH THAT THE PROJECT MAY IMPEDE SUSTAINABLE GROUNDWATER MANAGEMENT OF LOCAL GROUNDWATER BASINS. IMPACTS WOULD BE LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT.

As discussed in Section 4.8.1, Setting, water was detected under the site at 28.5 feet below ground surface (Stantec, 2022). Although specific designs of foundation systems are not available at this time, project construction is not anticipated to exceed depths of 20 feet below ground surface, based on typical construction for residences with no basements. Therefore, groundwater dewatering is not anticipated to be necessary during project construction activities, as groundwater below the project site is not likely to be encountered during excavation activities.

Water demand during construction activities would be temporary and limited to the construction period. The majority of demand would result from dust suppression spraying, which would only be required for exposed soil during certain construction activities and wind exposure conditions. Water demand during construction would be temporary, and only small amounts of water would be required. The total amount of water used for construction activities would be minimal and would not deplete groundwater sources. Impacts would be less than significant during construction.

This project site catchment area has been broken into seven drainage areas where runoff would be collected in separate storm drain systems during project operation. Surface runoff from impervious surfaces would be directed toward vegetated buffer strips where runoff would be treated before entering the site storm drain network. The new storm drain network would connect to the existing storm drain of the office park neighboring the project site to the west, which ultimately discharges to the public storm drain system on Gravenstein Highway.

The office park drainage system includes an existing detention pond that provides detention volume and keeps the peak flow discharged from that project site to the 10-year pre-construction level. This detention pond is located adjacent to the western boundary of the project site, to the northwest of the existing office park development. As part of the project, modifications to the inlet and outlet structures of this pond to increase its detention volume and provide additional storage volume as required by the Low Impact Development manual would also be completed.

Although the project would increase both impervious surfaces and demand for groundwater on site, runoff from impervious surfaces would be detained in detention basins and recharged adjacent to the site, resulting in the same amount of groundwater recharge post-project as under existing 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 4.8-13
conditions. Therefore, the project would not substantially interfere with groundwater recharge at the project site.

Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is required.

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

Threshold 3a: Would the project 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 result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site?
Impact HYD-3 THE PROPOSED PROJECT WOULD ALTER DRAINAGE PATTERNS AND INCREASE RUNOFF IN THE AREA BUT WOULD NOT RESULT IN SUBSTANTIAL EROSION OR SILTATION ON- OR OFF- SITE. IMPACTS WOULD BE LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT.

Development of the proposed project would result in a net increase of impervious surfaces on the project site, as the site is currently undeveloped. New impervious surfaces would increase the rate and/or amount of surface runoff, redirect runoff to different discharge locations, and concentrate runoff from sheet flow to channelized flow. As described under Impact HYD-1, the project would be required to implement erosion and sedimentation controls as part of required NPDES Construction General Permit BMPs, would be required to maintain disturbed surfaces during construction for erosion control pursuant to SMC Chapter 13.20, and would be required to prepare and implement an erosion control plan. The proposed project would also be subject to the North Coast RWQCB Post-Construction Requirements related to erosion control. Additionally, stormwater runoff would be captured and controlled by proposed on-site stormwater detention facilities. This would ensure no increase in off-site runoff or associated erosion or siltation due to substantially increased runoff.

Through implementation of these regulatory requirements, the project would not result in substantial erosion or siltation on or off site. Impacts 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

4.8-14
Threshold 3b: Would the project 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 substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site?
Threshold 3d: Would the project 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 impede or redirect flood flows?
Threshold 4: In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, would the project risk release of pollutants due to project inundation?
Impact HYD-4 THE PROPOSED PROJECT WOULD ALTER DRAINAGE PATTERNS AND INCREASE RUNOFF IN THE AREA BUT WOULD NOT RESULT IN INCREASED FLOODING ON OR OFF SITE. IMPACTS WOULD BE LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT.

According to maps from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), the project site is not located within a flood zone (Map #06097C0715E, effective December 2, 2008). There would be no new fill material deposited in a mapped floodplain; and 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. Stormwater detention analyses conducted by Adobe Associates Inc. confirm that the existing detention facility has sufficient capacity to limit the 10-year peak discharge flow from the combined watershed of the proposed project site and existing Office Park site under post-construction conditions to no more than runoff from the combined watershed under predevelopment conditions (Appendix H). 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). Therefore, although the project would result in increased impervious surface area on site, the project would not result in increased flooding on or off site. Impacts would be less than significant.

The project site is not within a Tsunami Hazard Zone (California Department of Conservation, 2022).

The project site is not located within close proximity to a confined water body that would pose a significant risk from a seiche. Impacts related to risk of pollutant release in tsunami or seiche zones would be less than significant.

The project site is located approximately 2.5 miles southwest of the Delta Pond, which has a significant downstream dam inundation hazard (Department of Water Resources, 2020). In addition, Warm Springs Dam is located in northern Sonoma County approximately 30 miles north of the City.

The project site is in an area where development already exists and would not increase dam inundation hazards. The City’s Local Hazard Mitigation Plan categorizes the overall significance of dam inundation in the City as Low (City of Sebastopol 2021). Based on the dam capacity of Delta Pond and the distance of Warm Springs Dam, it is unlikely that much risk would be imposed on those areas near Sebastopol, and based on the dam inundation mapping for the Delta Pond dam, failure or breach of this dam will not impact the City of Sebastopol (City of Sebastopol 2021).

Impacts regarding dam inundation would be less than significant.

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 4.8-15
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is required.

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

Threshold 3c: Would the project 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 that would create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? Impact HYD-5 THE PROPOSED PROJECT WOULD ALTER DRAINAGE PATTERNS AND INCREASE RUNOFF IN

THE AREA BUT WOULD NOT EXCEED THE CAPACITY OF EXISTING OR PLANNED STORMWATER DRAINAGE SYSTEMS OR PROVIDE SUBSTANTIAL ADDITIONAL POLLUTED RUNOFF. IMPACTS WOULD BE LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT WITH MITIGATION.

An office park is located directly southwest of the project site. Drainage design for this office park includes the storm drain system and an onsite detention basin at the northwestern most corner of the site. The proposed project includes onsite drainage improvements with bioretention facilities (vegetated buffers and bioswale) and a storm drain network. Runoff from impervious surfaces would drain through the onsite bioretention facilities and storm drain network before discharging to the existing storm drain network of the office park. As part of the project, the existing detention pond and its inlet and overflow structures would be modified to detain and control drainage from the office park and project site in order to not exceed pre-development drainage levels.

In the Preliminary Drainage Report by Adobe Associates Inc. (Appendix H), peak runoff from the combined office park and proposed project site in undeveloped condition was calculated as 15.48 cubic feet per second (cfs) for 10-yr storm events with total runoff volume of 95,024 cubic feet (ft).

The proposed rebuilt detention pond and its inlet/outlet and overflow structures were included in the post-construction analysis model. The total (unmitigated) peak runoff from the combined office park and proposed project site in developed condition was calculated as 29.21 cubic feet per second (cfs) with a total runoff of 154,119 cubic feet (ft) for 10-yr storm events. The rebuilt detention pond was found to be sufficient to regulate the peak discharge flow to 15.38 cubic feet per second (cfs) at the off-site outfall (Appendix H).

Additionally, as described under Impact HYD-1, the project would implement stormwater quality controls as required by the RWQCB and SMC, and Mitigation Measures HAZ-3a and HAZ-3b which would ensure the project does not result in polluted runoff exiting the project site during both construction and operation. The proposed project would not exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or result in substantial additional sources of polluted runoff.

Impacts would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures
HAZ-3a and HAZ-3b
Significance After Mitigation
With implementation of HAZ-3a and HAZ-3b, impacts 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

4.8-16
Threshold 5: Would the project conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan?
Impact HYD-6 THE PROPOSED PROJECT WOULD NOT CONFLICT WITH OR OBSTRUCT THE NORTH COAST

RWQCB BASIN PLAN OR SANTA ROSA PLAIN SUBBASIN GSP, PURSUANT TO COMPLIANCE WITH APPLICABLE WATER QUALITY REGULATIONS. IMPACTS WOULD BE LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT WITH MITIGATION.

Water Quality Control Plan
Development of the proposed project could affect water quality through construction and operational activities. The Basin Plan identifies beneficial uses for surface water and groundwater and establishes water quality objectives to attain those beneficial uses. The identified beneficial uses and the water quality objectives to maintain or achieve those uses are together known as water quality standards. A conflict with the Basin Plan would occur if the project would degrade the water quality of surface water or groundwater within the planning area such that the designated beneficial uses are no longer attainable.

As discussed under Impact HYD-1, compliance with relevant water quality regulations and policies, including NPDES Construction General Permit, North Coast RWQCB Order No. R1-2015-0030, Mitigation Measures HAZ-3a and HAZ-3b, and SMC requirements, would reduce the risk of water degradation from soil erosion and other pollutants related to project construction and operational activities. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in water quality impacts to nearby surface waters protected by the Basin Plan, would maintain the identified beneficial uses of nearby surface and groundwater, and would not conflict with the Basin Plan during construction or operation. Impacts would be less than significant.

Sustainable Groundwater Management Plan
The Santa Rosa Plain Groundwater Sustainable Agency (SRPGSA) is the GSA with authority over the Santa Rosa Valley Groundwater Basin. SRPGSA adopted the Santa Rosa Plain Subbasin Groundwater Sustainability Plan (GSP) in January 2023. The GSP includes projects and management actions intended to ensure sustainable management of the basin, including recharge projects, demand management strategies, and implementation actions associated with groundwater extraction. While the GSP does not provide specific requirements for new development within the basin, the project includes on-site stormwater capture and detention, which would be consistent with the GSP goals related to groundwater recharge in the basin.

Consistent with the goals of the GSP, the project would comply with established regulations and requirements for stormwater control, including through the implementation of post-construction stormwater management controls, and the upgrade of stormwater detention areas, as described under Impact HYD-1. The GSP states that the Basin has historically been stable. As described in Impact HYD-2, the project would not interfere with sustainable management of the groundwater basin. Therefore, the project would not impair the implementation of the GSP, and impacts would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures
Mitigation Measures HAZ-3a and HAZ-3b would apply.

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 4.8-17
Significance After Mitigation
With implementation of HAZ-3a and HAZ-3b, impacts would be less than significant.

4.8.4 Cumulative Impacts
The geographic scope for cumulative hydrology and water quality impacts is the North Coast Hydrologic Unit and Santa Rosa Valley Basin in which the project site is located. This geographic scope is appropriate for hydrology and water quality because water quality impacts can affect the entirety of the watershed and groundwater basin where the impact occurs. Cumulative development within this geographic scope includes development associated with cumulative projects within nearby portions of Sebastopol.

Cumulative development would generally increase impermeable surface area in the watershed.

Development would potentially increase peak flood flows, alter drainage patterns, reduce groundwater recharge, and increase pollutants in the regional stormwater. However, as with the proposed project, cumulative development would be required to adhere to all applicable State and local regulations designed to control erosion and protect water quality, including applicable Municipal Codes, the NPDES Construction General Permit, and grading permit requirements, and Mitigation Measures HAZ-3a and HAZ-3b. All construction sites larger than one acre in size would be required to prepare and submit a SWPPP, thereby reducing the risk of water degradation on- and off-site from soil erosion and other pollutants. In addition, the North Coast RWQCB postconstruction requirements for stormwater management encourage and require for certain projects, on-site treatment and infiltration of stormwater runoff. This would reduce the quantity of stormwater runoff that enters the storm drainage system and discharges to surface waters.

Therefore, cumulative impacts to peak runoff, flooding, groundwater recharge, or water quality would be less than significant. As described under Impacts HYD-1 through HYD-6, the proposed project’s water quality and groundwater recharge impacts would be less than significant with mitigation. Implementation of the proposed project would not contribute to cumulative impacts to peak runoff, flooding, groundwater recharge, or water quality. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in a considerable contribution to a significant cumulative impact.

As discussed under Impacts HYD-2 and HYD-6, the proposed project would increase the demand for water, which would be derived solely from groundwater sources. Cumulative development would also increase demand for groundwater supplies. It is anticipated that cumulative development would result in a significant cumulative impact. The proposed project includes the upgrade of stormwater detention areas, which would be consistent with GSP goals for groundwater recharge, and as described under Impact HYD-2, the project would allow for a net recharge to groundwater and would not interfere with sustainable management of the groundwater basin. Consequently, the proposed project would not result in a considerable contribution to a significant cumulative impact related to groundwater.

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

City of Sebastopol
The Canopy

4.8-18
This page intentionally left blank.

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

Environmental Impact Analysis
Land Use and Planning
Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.9-1

4.9 Land Use and Planning
This section analyzes the proposed project’s consistency with applicable land use plans, policies, and regulations, including the City of Sebastopol General Plan and the City of Sebastopol Municipal Code (SMC) and identifies whether potential environmental effects could arise from any inconsistencies.

Potential impacts related to the proposed project and its neighboring land uses are discussed in greater detail in other sections of the EIR.

4.9.1 Environmental Setting
The project site encompasses approximately 6.1 acres across two parcels, identified by Assessor’s Parcel Numbers (APN) 060-261-028 and 060-261-026. The project site is currently undeveloped but includes existing vegetation and mature trees. The project site is generally flat and includes numerous mature trees across the parcel. The elevation is approximately 200 feet above mean sea level.

An informal pedestrian pathway bisects the site to connect the existing O’Reilly Media Center parking lot to the West County Trail, allowing use of the trail. To the east, the site is directly adjacent to the West County Trail, a paved trail that links Sebastopol with areas to the Northwest, including Graton and Forestville, and connects in downtown Sebastopol to the Joe Rodota Trail, which connect downtown Santa Rosa and Sebastopol. These trails run parallel to Highway 116 to the North of the site and along Highway 12 from eastern Sebastopol to Santa Rosa and is a popular route for cyclists and pedestrians.

The project site is in a neighborhood characterized by a mix of uses including residential, educational, commercial, and recreational. The Sebastopol Charter School and single-family residential uses are located north of the site, across the West County Trail. Uses to the east include primarily single-family neighborhoods as well as the West County Trail. South of the project site uses are comprised of primarily commercial uses, including an automotive store, mixed commercial and residential, and several single-family residences. The existing O’Reilly Media Center directly abuts the site to the west, and a mix of residential uses are located further west, across Gravenstein Highway North.

As discussed in Section 2, Project Description, the project site is designated as Office/Light Industrial (OLI) in the 2016 City of Sebastopol General Plan. The General Plan OLI designation is intended “to promote well planned, integrated business parks, which will serve as major employment center within the community” (Sebastopol 2015). The Office/Light Industrial designations only apply to sites of three (3) acres or larger and must be implemented through the PC-Planned Community zoning process. Residential uses are allowed at a density of 12.1 to 25 units per acre as a secondary use to the primary office/light industrial uses allowed in this land use designation.

The project site is designated as Office/Light Industrial (OLM) by the City of Sebastopol Zoning Ordinance. According to Section 17.25.010 of SMC, the purpose of the OLM District is to implement the “Office/Light Industrial” land use category of the General Plan and to provide areas for wellplanned, integrated business parks that may include office and related uses. Section 17.25.020 of SMC lists the allowed uses of the OLM district which includes R7-Multifamily Residential (12.1-25 du/ac) with Planning Commission review.

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

City of Sebastopol
The Canopy

4.9-2

4.9.2 Regulatory Setting
a. State Regulations
Planning and Zoning Law
State law requires each city and county in California to adopt a general plan for the physical development of the land within its planning area (Government Code Sections 65300-65404). The general plan must contain land use, housing, circulation, open space, conservation, noise, and safety elements, as well as any other elements that the city or county may otherwise be required to, or wish to, adopt. The circulation element of a local general plan must be correlated with the land use element.

Zoning authority originates from city and county police power and from the State’s Planning and Zoning Law, which sets minimum requirements for local zoning ordinances. The city or county zoning code is the set of detailed requirements that implement the general plan policies at the level of the individual parcel. The zoning code presents standards for different uses and identifies which uses are allowed in the various zoning districts of the jurisdiction. Since 1971, State law has required the city or county zoning code to be consistent with the jurisdiction’s general plan. b. Regional Regulations
Plan Bay Area 2050
Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG)/Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) Plan Bay Area 2050, adopted in October 2021, is a long-range, integrated transportation and land-use plan for the nine-county San Francisco Bay Area. The Plan is the combined Sustainable Communities Strategy and Regional Transportation Plan (also referred to as the RTP/SCS) that describes where and how the region can accommodate the projected 1.4 million new households and 5.4 million new jobs between 2015 and 2050. The Plan also details the regional transportation investment strategy over the next 28 years. Growth in the plan area is promoted in Priority Development Areas and limited in Priority Conservation Areas to promote preservation of key resources. The Plan contains one main vision that is driven by five guiding principles focused on affordability, connectedness, diversity, physical health, and community vibrancy (ABAG 2021). c. Local Regulations
City of Sebastopol General Plan
The City of Sebastopol General Plan identifies the community’s vision for the future and provides a framework that will guide decisions on growth, development, and conservation of open space and resources in a manner that is consistent with the quality of life desired by the city's residents and businesses (City of Sebastopol 2016).

Land Use Element
The Land Use Element demonstrates the City’s commitment to protecting and enhancing Sebastopol’s unique character and small-town feel, while providing for economic development opportunities. The Land Use Element includes provisions aimed at providing a range of housing types that promote a safe and family-oriented living environment. Residential and commercial Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

Environmental Impact Analysis
Land Use and Planning
Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.9-3
growth is focused within the city limits, with higher density uses focused within the Central Core (City of Sebastopol 2016). The Land Use Element of the Sebastopol General Plan (2016) contains the following objectives and policies most relevant to the proposed project:

Goal LU 1: Maintain Sebastopol as a Unique, Charming, and Environmentally Sensitive Small Town that Provides Residents, Businesses, and Visitors with Opportunities to Enjoy a High Quality of Life Policy LU 1-1 Through appropriate land use practices, maintain a supply of developable mixed use, commercial, industrial, and residential lands sufficient to meet desired growth and economic needs over the planning period.

Policy LU 1-2 Avoid urban sprawl by concentrating development within the City limits; favor infill development over annexation.

Policy LU 1-3 Require new development to occur in a logical and orderly manner, focusing growth on infill locations and areas designated for urbanization on the Land Use Map and be subject to the ability to provide urban services, including paying for any needed extension of services.

Policy LU 1-4 Assign the following range of land use designations throughout the City and to parcels within the UGB, as shown in the Land Use Map (Figure 2.1): Very Low Density Single Family Residential, Low Density Single Family Residential, Medium Density Residential, This designation is suitable for duplexes, apartments, townhouses, and other attached dwelling units.

Commercial/Office, Central Core, Light Industrial, Open Space, Parkland, Community Facilities, High Density Residential, Office/Light Industrial.

High Density Residential: Designates areas suitable for multifamily dwellings at a density of 12.1 to 25 units per acre. This designation is suitable for duplexes, apartments, townhouses, and other attached dwelling units.

Office/Light Industrial: This designation synthesizes Office and Light Industrial classifications and is intended to promote well planned, integrated business parks, which will serve as major employment center within the community. The Office/Light Industrial designations only applies to sites of three (3) acres or larger and must be implemented through the PC-Planned Community zoning process. Land uses within business parks shall be limited to non-polluting, “clean” industries and businesses with primary permitted uses including corporate and administrative offices and research development uses. Ancillary uses shall be allowed under this designation, which may include warehousing and distribution, exercise facilities, child care uses, and food service uses which provides support services to primary uses. Residential uses are allowed as a secondary use to the primary office/light industrial uses allowed in this land use designation at a density of

12.1 to 25 units per acre. Maximum FAR shall not exceed 1.5 (not including the residential use).

Policy LU 1-6 Where appropriate, encourage clustered development and the clustering of housing so that larger areas of open space may be permanently preserved.

Clustered development may provide flexibility in site design and layout to allow for smaller lot sizes, but shall not allow a project to exceed the gross density ranges established under Policy LU 1-4.

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

City of Sebastopol
The Canopy

4.9-4
Policy LU 1-7 Encourage new development to be contiguous to existing development, whenever possible.

Policy LU 1-8 Do not allow development in areas not served by municipal utilities.

Goal LU 5: Preserve the Unique Character and Ambiance of Residential Areas and Maintain Residential Neighborhoods as Safe and Attractive Places to Live With Convenient Access to Services, Recreation, and Employment
Policy LU 5-1 Locate residences away from areas of excessive noise, smoke, dust, odor, and lighting, and ensure that adequate provisions, including buffers or transitional uses, are made to ensure the health and well-being of existing and future residents.

Policy LU 5-4 Require the design of new residential development to be consistent with the City’s design guidelines, to ensure harmony with Sebastopol’s unique, smalltown character and compatibility with existing land uses.

Policy LU 5-5 Strongly encourage residential development in a balanced and efficient pattern that reduces sprawl, preserves open space, and creates convenient connections to other land uses.

Goal LU 6: Promote a Range of Housing Options to Provide Affordability for Families, Seniors, and Low Income Households, Consistent with the Demographic Profile of the Area Policy LU 6-1 Promote increased residential densities.

Policy LU 6-3 Encourage and support the construction and occupation of very small houses and micro apartments.

Policy LU 6-4 Provide for a variety of residential products, through the General Plan and Zoning Code, to accommodate the housing needs of all segments of the City’s population.

Policy LU 6-2 Promote compact urban form that provides residential opportunities in close proximity to jobs, services, and transit.

City of Sebastopol Municipal Code
The SMC serves as an implementing tool for the General Plan by establishing detailed development regulations and standards in each area of the City. State law mandates that zoning regulations be consistent with the General Plan maps and policies. The Zoning Ordinance can be found in Chapter 17 of the Municipal Code and contains the regulations that pertain to land use in the City. Included in the Zoning Ordinance are the requirements regarding use, density, intensity, setbacks, signs, accessory structures and uses and other land use matters. In addition, SMC Chapter 8.12, Tree Protection, establishes regulations for the installation, maintenance, preservation, and selected removal of trees within the City.

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

Environmental Impact Analysis
Land Use and Planning
Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.9-5

4.9.3 Impact Analysis
a. Significance Thresholds and Methodology
Based on Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, a land use and planning impact is considered significant if the proposed project would:

Physically divide an established community; or
Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect.
b. Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Threshold 1: Would the project physically divide an established community? Impact LU-1 THE PROJECT WOULD NOT PHYSICALLY DIVIDE AN ESTABLISHED COMMUNITY. NO IMPACT WOULD OCCUR.

The proposed project would involve construction of a new residential development on a currently undeveloped project site. The project would not separate connected neighborhoods or land uses from each other. Access to the project site would be provided via new internal roadways. The project would include construction of landscaped internal walkways throughout the site, and direct public access to an enhanced 6-foot-wide pedestrian pathway to connect the West County Trail to Gravenstein Highway along the south border of the site.

No new roads, linear infrastructure, or other development features are proposed that would divide an established community or limit movement, travel, or social interaction between established land uses. No impact would occur.

Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures would be required.

Threshold 2: Would the project cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?
Impact LU-2 THE PROJECT WOULD NOT CONFLICT WITH THE GOALS OR POLICIES IN THE CITY’S GENERAL PLAN OR THE SMC. THIS IMPACT WOULD BE LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT.

City of Sebastopol General Plan
The project site is designated as Office/Light Industrial (OLI) in the 2016 City of Sebastopol General Plan. The General Plan OLI designation is intended “to promote well planned, integrated business parks, which will serve as major employment center within the community.” Residential uses are allowed at a density of 12.1 to 25 units per acre as a secondary use to the primary office/light industrial uses allowed in this land use designation. Because the project involves residential uses at a density of 13.1 units per acre, the project would be consistent with the OLI designation.

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

City of Sebastopol
The Canopy

4.9-6
The project would result in a potentially significant impact if it would obstruct the implementation of the goals and policies within the City of Sebastopol General Plan that were adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. Table 4.9-1 provides an evaluation of project consistency with applicable land use goals and policies.

Table 4.9-1 Project Consistency with the City of Sebastopol General Plan Measure Project Consistency
Land Use
Policy LU 1-2: Avoid urban sprawl by concentrating
development within the City limits; favor infill
development over annexation.

Policy LU 1-3: Require new development to occur in a
logical and orderly manner, focusing growth on infill
locations and areas designated for urbanization on the
Land Use Map, and be subject to the ability to provide
urban services, including paying for any needed extension of services.

Policy LU 1-8: Do not allow development in areas not
served by municipal utilities.

Consistent. The project would be within Sebastopol City Limits and would connect to existing municipal services including water, wastewater, and electricity. The project would be consistent with the OLI designation indicated on the Land Use Map with approval of a Conditional Use
Permit.

Policy LU 1-7: Encourage new development to be
contiguous to existing development, whenever possible.

Consistent. As discussed in Section 4.9.1, Environmental Setting, the project site is in a neighborhood characterized by a mix of uses including residential, educational,
commercial, and recreational. The existing O’Reilly Media Center directly abuts the site to the west, schools and residential uses are located north of the site,
neighborhoods and the West County Trail are located east of the site, and commercial and residential uses are
located south of the project site.

Policy LU 5-1: Locate residences away from areas of
excessive noise, smoke, dust, odor, and lighting, and
ensure that adequate provisions, including buffers or
transitional uses, are made to ensure the health and wellbeing of existing and future residents.

Consistent. Refer to Sections 4.2, Air Quality, 4.11,
Aesthetics, and 4.10, Noise. The proposed project would not generate objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people. The project would be required to
implement Mitigation Measure AES-4 to reduce impacts
regarding outdoor lighting. Mitigation Measure NOI-1
would reduce project operational stationary noise
impacts.

Policy LU 5-4: Require the design of new residential
development to be consistent with the City’s design
guidelines, to ensure harmony with Sebastopol’s unique, small-town character and compatibility with existing land uses.

Consistent. Pursuant to SMC Chapter 17.450, project
design would undergo review by the Design Review Board
to ensure consistency with neighborhood character.

Policy LU 5-5: Strongly encourage residential
development in a balanced and efficient pattern that
reduces sprawl, preserves open space, and creates
convenient connections to other land uses.

Consistent. As discussed in Section 4.9.1, Environmental Setting, the project site is in a neighborhood characterized by a mix of uses including residential, educational,
commercial, and recreational. The project includes direct public access to a new, enhanced pedestrian pathway
connecting Gravenstein Highway to the West County Trail.

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

Environmental Impact Analysis
Land Use and Planning
Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.9-7
Measure Project Consistency
Policy LU 6-1: Promote increased residential densities.

Policy LU 6-3: Encourage and support the construction
and occupation of very small houses and micro
apartments.

Policy LU 6-4: Provide for a variety of residential products, through the General Plan and Zoning Code, to
accommodate the housing needs of all segments of the
City’s population.

Consistent. The project would have a residential density of

13.1 units per acre and include diverse residential uses, including accessible ground-floor ADUs, that add diversity to the City of Sebastopol's ownership housing supply and meet a variety of residents’ needs by encouraging inherent affordability and providing housing opportunities for
households at a variety of income levels and life stages.

The project would include accessible and adaptable
features in every building to provide ADA accessibility beyond what is required by the building code.

Policy LU 6-2: Promote compact urban form that provides residential opportunities in close proximity to jobs,
services, and transit.

Consistent. The project site is within Sebastopol City limits and in a neighborhood characterized by a mix of uses
including residential, educational, commercial, and
recreational. Private internal streets would provide access to Gravenstein Highway North, and internal walkways
would connect to the West County trail. There are four
public transit stops within 0.5 miles of the project site.

Circulation
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 project would include 96 bicycle parking spaces (80 in garages and 16 in on-site bicycle racks).

Policy CIR 2-15: Ensure that all crossings where trails and roads meet include best practices for crossing design for these conflict points.

Consistent. Refer to Section 4.13, Transportation.

Mitigation Measure TRA-1 requires a new pedestrian path to be added through the center of the project site in order to link the project and mixed commercial office park to the new HAWK (Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon) crossing across the north leg of the intersection of SR 116/Danmar Drive after Caltrans constructs the HAWK crossing and before an
occupancy permit is issued.

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 Occidental Road to the north and the southern city limits at Lynch Road, 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.

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

City of Sebastopol
The Canopy

4.9-8
Measure Project Consistency
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-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 encourage walking and the use of bicycles.

Policy CIR 4-2: Require new development to contribute its proportional cost of circulation improvements necessary to address cumulative transportation impacts on
roadways throughout the city, as well as the bicycle and pedestrian network.

Consistent. The project would be required to pay traffic impact fees or construct facilities pursuant to SMC Chapter

3.36. Community Services and Facilities
Policy CSF 2-2: Ensure park and trail facilities are
accessible to various segments of the population
including: specific age groups, persons with special
physical requirements, and groups interested in particular activities.

Policy CSF 2-4: Encourage and support the development
of an integrated trails and routes network extending and connecting local and regional trails and routes to schools, open space areas, park and recreation facilities, and
residential areas to serve both recreational and utilitarian travel.

Consistent. The project would include 107,200 square feet of common open space and construction of landscaped
internal walkways throughout the site, including direct access to a new pedestrian pathway connecting the West
County Trail to Gravenstein Highway along the south
border of the site. The project would include units with accessible and adaptable features in every building, and an accessible path of travel will connect all buildings. The project would be required to pay park impact fees or
construct facilities pursuant to SMC Chapter 3.32.

Policy CSF 2-5: Preserve and enhance public access
through new and existing development to facilitate access to the local trail network.

Policy CSF 2-13: Require major new development to
provide direct pedestrian connections, such as sidewalks, trails and other rights-of-way improvements to the
existing and planned network of parks and trails,
wherever feasible and appropriate. For smaller
development projects, the City shall explore and pursue partnership opportunities to provide cost-effective
connections.

Consistent. The project would include direct public access to a new, enhanced pedestrian pathway connecting
Gravenstein Highway to the West County Trail.

Additionally, Mitigation Measure TRA-1 requires a new
pedestrian path to be added through the center of the
project site in order to link the project and mixed
commercial office park to the new HAWK (Pedestrian
Hybrid Beacon) crossing across the north leg of the
intersection of SR 116/Danmar Drive after Caltrans
constructs the HAWK crossing and before an occupancy
permit is issued.

Policy CSF 5-4: Ensure that new development is served
with adequate water volumes and water pressure for fire protection.

Consistent. As discussed in Section 4.15, Utilities and Service Systems, the City adopted a Water Supply
Contingency Plan in June 2023 that seeks to conserve the available water supply and protect the integrity of public water system supply facilities, with particular regard for fire protection, to protect and preserve public health, welfare, and safety.

Policy CSF 6-14: Consider the needs of seniors and people with disabilities when reviewing future development
applications and land use plans.

Consistent. The project will have units with accessible and adaptable features in every building, and an accessible path of travel will connect all buildings. Select for-sale homes will have the option for personal elevators and will provide additional ADA accessibility beyond what is
required by the building code.

Conservation and Open Space
Policy COS 2-1: Protect and enhance sensitive habitats, which include creek corridors, wetlands, vernal pools,
riparian areas, wildlife and fish migration corridors, native plant nursery sites, waters of the United States, sensitive natural communities, and other habitats designated by
State and Federal agencies.

Consistent. As discussed in Section 4.3, Biological
Resources, no sensitive natural communities or wetlands are present on the project site. No adverse effect on
sensitive natural communities or wetlands would occur as a result of project activities.

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

Environmental Impact Analysis
Land Use and Planning
Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.9-9
Measure Project Consistency
Policy COS 2-2: Preserve and enhance Sebastopol’s and
the region’s natural habitats and rich biodiversity
including, but not limited to, grasslands, freshwater
marshes, wetlands, vernal pools, riparian areas, aquatic habitat, oak woodlands, and agricultural lands.

Policy COS 2-6: Maintain Zoning Ordinance provisions to ensure that development proposals for land which is
located within, or adjacent to, an environmentally
sensitive area include a resources analysis that contains all of the information required in order for the City to
determine that impacts to sensitive habitat and natural resources have been reduced, avoided, or mitigated to
the greatest extent feasible. The required content for the resources analysis is detailed in Action COS-2a.

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 3-11: Where feasible, for major development
or substantial public works projects, encourage and
support multipurpose detention basins that provide water quality protection, storm water detention, open space
amenities, and recreational amenities.

Consistent. The proposed project design includes
bioretention swales, a bioretention facility, modifications to the adjacent office park detention pond, and vegetated buffer zones.

Policy COS 6-1: Conserve existing native vegetation where possible and integrate regionally native plant species into development and infrastructure projects where
appropriate.

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

Consistent. The project applicant would be required to
comply with the Sebastopol Municipal Code Chapter 8.12, Tree Protection, which would include a review of tree
removal plans, landscape plans, and specification of a tree replacement ratio by the Planning staff or the City Arborist during the project design review. Pending approval,
removed trees must be replaced with an approved tree
species on the approved tree List.

Policy COS 6-3: Avoid removal of large, mature trees that provide wildlife habitat or contribute to the visual quality of the environment through appropriate project design
and building siting. If full avoidance is not possible, prioritize planting of replacement trees on-site over offsite locations. Replacement trees for high-quality mature trees should generally be of like kind, and provide for comparable habitat functionality, where appropriate site conditions exist.

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

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

Consistent. As discussed in Section 4.3, Biological
Resources, existing oak trees and redwoods would be
preserved to the maximum extent possible. The project
applicant would be required to comply with the SMC
Chapter 8.12, Tree Protection, which would include a
review of tree removal plans, landscape plans, and
specification of a tree replacement ratio by the Planning staff or the City Arborist during the project design review.

Mitigation measure BIO-2 would require compliance with
the Sebastopol Municipal Code Section 8.12.

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

City of Sebastopol
The Canopy

4.9-10
Measure Project Consistency
Policy COS 7-2: Minimize exposure of sensitive receptors to concentrations of air pollutant emissions and toxic air contaminants.

Policy COS 7-4: Continue to cooperate with the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) in
implementing the regional Clean Air Plan.

Policy COS 7-5: Continue to enforce air quality standards in collaboration with the BAAQMD.

Policy COS 7-6: Require new development or significant
remodels to install fireplaces, stoves, and/or heaters
which meet current BAAQMD standards and the
standards established in Chapter 15.70 of the SMC.

Policy COS 7-7: Continue to require all construction
projects and ground disturbing activities to implement
BAAQMD dust control and abatement measures.

Consistent. Refer to Section 4.4, Air Quality. The project would not result in exceedances of BAAQMD thresholds
for criteria air pollutants and thus would not conflict with the 2017 Clean Air Plan goal to attain air quality standards.

With the incorporation of Mitigation Measure AQ-1
construction activities would not expose sensitive
receptors to substantial toxic air contaminant
concentrations. Mitigation Measure AQ-1 would also
require the City Engineer and the Chief Building Official monitoring staff to monitor requirements of the
construction emissions reduction measures and promptly
investigate and respond to fugitive dust and toxic air
complaints. The project would not include natural gas
appliances or natural gas plumbing, and no wood burning appliances are proposed.

Policy COS 7-3: Implement the portfolio of policies and programs contained in the Circulation Element to reduce vehicle trips, vehicle miles travelled, and increase the use of non-vehicular modes of transportation such as
bicycling, walking, and the use of shared transit.

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-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. 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
Occidental Road to the southern city limit at Lynch Road, 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.

Policy COS 9-2: Make energy conservation an important
criterion in the development review process.

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 9-4: Encourage publicly-constructed projects to exceed CalGreen Tier 1, or successor program,
standards.

Consistent. According to information from the project
applicant, the project is anticipated to exceed California Building Energy Efficiency Standards by five to ten percent.

The project would be all electric and include solar panels, ultra-low flow water fixtures, low-impact landscaping and energy star appliances.

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

Policy COS 9-6: Promote regional efforts and partnerships, such as Sonoma Clean Power, to increase opportunities
for residential and business customers across the county to access environmentally friendly power generated by
renewable sources (like solar, wind, and geothermal) at competitive rates.

Consistent. As discussed in Section 4.16.2, Energy, the project would utilize renewable electricity through the use of solar panels, and homeowners would 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.

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

Environmental Impact Analysis
Land Use and Planning
Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.9-11
Measure Project Consistency
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 9-8: Incorporate innovative green building
techniques and best management practices in the site
design, construction, and renovation of all public projects.

Consistent. The project would include pre-wiring for
electric vehicles in all garages and 10 percent of onsite surface parking spaces. All units would be all-electric and include solar.

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.

Consistent. The proposed project also includes waterconserving features. As described in Section 2, Project Description, future residences would include waterefficient appliances and water-efficient landscaping.

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.

Consistent. Refer to Section 4.8, Hydrology and Water
Quality. As described therein, runoff from impervious
surfaces would be retained in retention basins and
recharged on 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.

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.

Policy COS 10-1: Review proposed developments and
work in conjunction with the California Historical
Resources Information System, Northwest Information
Center (NWIC) at Sonoma State University, to determine
whether project areas contain known archaeological
resources, either prehistoric and/or historic-era, or have the potential for such resources.

Consistent. Refer to Section 4.4, Cultural Resources, which includes determinations that the project does not contain known archaeological resources.

Policy COS 10-2: If found during construction, ensure that human remains are treated with sensitivity and dignity, and ensure compliance with the provisions of California Health and Safety Code and California Public Resources
Code.

Consistent. Refer to Section 4.4, Cultural Resources,
regarding the potential for human remains on-site.

Policy COS 10-3: Work with Native American
representatives to identify and appropriately address,
through avoidance or mitigation, impacts to Native
American cultural resources and sacred sites during the development review process. Policy COS 10-4: Consistent with State local and tribal intergovernmental consultation requirements, the City shall consult with Native American tribes that may be interested in proposed new
development and land use policy changes.

Consistent. Refer to Section 4.14, Tribal Cultural Resources regarding the Native American consultation that occurred for the project.

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

City of Sebastopol
The Canopy

4.9-12
Measure Project Consistency
Policy COS 11-7: Restrict outdoor light and glare from
development projects to retain the quality of night skies by minimizing light pollution.

Policy COS 11-8: All outdoor lighting shall be constructed with full shielding and/or recessed to reduce light trespass to adjoining properties and to reduce illumination of the night sky. Each fixture shall be directed downward and
away from adjoining properties and public rights-of-way, so that no light fixture directly illuminates an area outside of the site.

Consistent. Refer to Section 4.11, Aesthetics, while there are no municipal code requirements that implement the
General Plan policies related to outdoor lighting, or the design guidelines related to site lighting, the project would be required to implement Mitigation Measure AES-4 to
reduce impacts.

Policy COS 12-2: Preserve open space for conservation,
recreation, and agricultural uses in order to enhance the quality of life and the quality of the environment in
Sebastopol.

Policy COS 12-4: Where possible, integrate open space
and stream corridors with trails and other recreational open space in an environmentally sustainable manner
that provides opportunities for public access and
enjoyment, without compromising or threatening
ecological protection efforts.

Policy COS 12-7: Encourage public and private efforts to preserve open space.

Policy COS 12-8: Common or private open space that is
not City property shall be privately maintained.

Policy COS 12-10: Facilitate public access to open space and environmentally sensitive areas in a manner that
ensures protection of biotic resources.

Policy COS 12-11: Require usable open space for
residential and major commercial developments.

Policy COS 12-12: Encourage clustered development that
preserves a sense of openness, particularly in areas
adjacent to open spaces and scenic resources.

Consistent. The proposed project includes 107,200 square feet (2.46 acres) of common open space and construction of landscaped internal walkways throughout the site,
including a new pedestrian pathway to connect the West
County Trail to Gravenstein Highway along the south
border of the site. Existing oak trees and redwoods would be preserved throughout the site. Additional trees, such as native maples, madrone and dogwood, are proposed to
create onsite ecosystems that attract birds and butterflies.

Proposed landscaping would include new plantings
throughout the open spaces, including the paseo, at the setbacks along drive aisles, roadways, and streets, and surrounding the proposed buildings. Other amenities,
including gardens, active and passive seating areas,
children’s play areas, and a meditation hammock garden
are also proposed.

Policy COS 12-3: Conversion of open space, as defined
under Policy COS 12-1, to developed residential,
commercial, industrial, or other similar types of uses, shall be prohibited. Undeveloped land that is designated for
urban uses may be developed, if the proposed
development is consistent with the General Plan Land Use Map and has undergone environmental review.

Consistent. The project site is undeveloped land
designated for as Office/Light Industrial (OLI) in the 2016 City of Sebastopol General Plan. Residential uses are
allowed at a density of 12.1 to 25 units per acre as a
secondary use to the primary office/light industrial uses allowed in this land use designation. Development of
residential as the primary or only use on a parcel with this designation is allowed with approval of a Conditional Use Permit.

Policy COS 12-9: Encourage the protection and
incorporation of existing, native, mature, nonorchard
trees and areas of natural vegetation as part of new
development.

Consistent. As discussed in Section 4.3, Biological
Resources, existing oak trees and redwoods would be
preserved to the maximum extent possible. The project
applicant would be required to comply with the SMC
Chapter 8.12, Tree Protection, which would include a
review of tree removal plans, landscape plans, and
specification of a tree replacement ratio by the Planning staff or the City Arborist during the project design review.

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

Environmental Impact Analysis
Land Use and Planning
Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.9-13
Measure Project Consistency
Noise
Policy N 1-2: Require development and infrastructure
projects to be consistent with the Land Use Compatibility for Community Noise Environments standards indicated in Table N-1 to ensure acceptable noise levels for existing and future development.

Policy N 1-3: Require new development to mitigate
excessive noise through best practices, including building location and orientation, building design features,
placement of noise generating equipment away from
sensitive receptors, shielding of noise-generating
equipment, placement of noise-tolerant features between noise sources and sensitive receptors, and use of noisereducing materials.

Policy N 1-6: Require acoustical studies for new
developments, projects seeking use permits related to
activities that would increase noise levels, and
transportation improvements that affect noise-sensitive uses such as schools, hospitals, libraries, group care
facilities, convalescent homes, and residential areas.

Policy N 1-14: Ensure that new development does not
result in indoor noise levels exceeding 45 dBA Ldn for
residential uses.

Consistent. Refer to Section 4.10, Noise. Mitigation
Measure NOI-1 would reduce project operational
stationary noise impacts.

Policy N 1-15: Require construction activities to comply with standard best practices (see Action N 1f).

Policy N 1-16: Require new development to minimize
vibration impacts to adjacent uses during demolition and construction. For sensitive historic structures, a vibration limit of 0.08 in/sec PPV (peak particle velocity) will be used to minimize the potential for cosmetic damage to
the building. A vibration limit of 0.30 in/sec PPV will be used to minimize the potential for cosmetic damage at
buildings of normal conventional construction.

Consistent. Refer to Section 4.10, Noise. Construction
noise levels would not exceed the FTA construction noise threshold of 80 dBA Leq at residential receptors and the project would include the implementation of Action N1f
from the Sebastopol General Plan. Vibration levels from project construction activities would not exceed the
significance threshold of 0.3 in/sec PPV at the nearest offsite building.

Community Design
Policy CD 1-1: Ensure that new development is
constructed in a manner consistent with the City’s Design Guidelines, and any design guidelines for specific areas or types of development.

Policy CD 1-2: Ensure that new residential and commercial development is sensitive to the surrounding architecture, topography, landscaping, character, scale, and ambiance of the surrounding neighborhood.

Policy CD 1-3: Discourage repetitive designs in residential and commercial areas, while establishing a cohesive visual relationship between structures and their surroundings.

Policy CD 1-12: Require the design of new residential
development to be consistent with the City’s design
guidelines, to ensure that new development contributes
to the small town character of Sebastopol.

Consistent. Implementation of Sebastopol Design
Guidelines and compliance with SMC Chapter 17.450
which requires Design Review of the proposed project
prior to approval, and Chapter 16.40 would ensure that
development would be consistent with design guidelines
through design review and would ensure that the project would be consistent with existing surrounding
development.

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

City of Sebastopol
The Canopy

4.9-14
Measure Project Consistency
Policy CD 1-7: Promote a compact urban form and infill
development with increased densities to be located in
areas that are readily accessible by pedestrians and
bicyclists, served by transit, and allow for convenient access to daily services.

Policy CD 1-11: Encourage and support the inclusion of
public and quasi-public spaces in new developments by
offering incentives such as increased densities or
decreased height/setback restrictions, where feasible and compatible with the surrounding neighborhoods.

Consistent. The project would be within Sebastopol City Limits and would connect to existing municipal services.

The project would include direct public access to a new, enhanced pedestrian pathway connecting Gravenstein
Highway to the West County Trail. The project would
require approval of a State Density Bonus law waiver to increase building height from two stories to three stories.

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

Consistent. Refer to Section 4.4, Cultural Resources, which includes determinations that the project does not contain known archaeological or historic resources.

Safety
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 shrinkswell, liquefaction, and landslides.

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 1-7: 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.

Consistent. Refer to Section 4.5, Geology and Soils. The project site is in a seismically active area. SMC Chapter

16.40 requires that all recommendations included in the Geotechnical Investigation be incorporated into the design of the project and each of the proposed residences.

Incorporation of the design features related to
liquefaction and soil stability recommended in the
Geotechnical Investigation would reduce impacts.

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.

Consistent. Refer to Section 4.8, Hydrology and Water
Quality and Appendix H. As part of the project, an existing detention pond for the adjacent office park and its inlet and overflow structures would be modified to detain and control drainage from the office park and project site in order to not exceed preconstruction drainage levels.

Runoff from impervious surfaces would drain through the onsite bioretention facilities and storm drain network
before discharging to the existing storm drain network of the office park. The project would not result in stormwater runoff that would exceed existing or planned off-site
stormwater drainage systems.

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.

Consistent. Refer to Section 4.8, Hydrology and Water
Quality. According to maps from the Federal Emergency
Management Agency (FEMA), the project site is not
located within a flood zone (Map #06097C0715E, effective December 2, 2008).

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

Environmental Impact Analysis
Land Use and Planning
Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.9-15
Measure Project Consistency
Policy SA 4-1: Review all development proposals for fire risk and require mitigation measures to reduce the
probability of fire.

Policy SA 4-2: Continue to enforce the California Building and Fire Standards Codes for all new construction and
renovation and when occupancy or use changes occur.

Consistent. As discussed in section 4.12, Public Services, the project would be required to meet the standard fire code safety and access requirements administered by the City of Sebastopol Building and Safety Department and
specified by the CBC. In accordance with standard
practices, Sebastopol Fire Department (SVFD) would
review project plans before permits are issued to ensure compliance with all applicable fire and building code
standards and ensure adequate emergency access is
provided to the site. In addition, the project would be required to pay impact fees as detailed in Chapter 3.34 of the SMC for the provision of resources for the SVFD.

Policy SA 5-2: Review development proposals for their
demand for police services and implement mitigating
measures to maintain the current high standard for police services.

Consistent. As discussed in section 4.12, Public Services, the addition of new residents may increase the number
and frequency of calls to the police department. The
project would be required to pay impact fees pursuant to Chapter 3.38 of the SMC for the provision of additional supplies and staff at the police station.

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).

Consistent. Refer to Section 4.7, Hazardous Materials. 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, in Section 4.7. 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. Mitigation Measures HAZ-3a and HAZ-3b would
be required reduce potential hazardous material impacts.

New Housing Production
Policy C-4: The City will encourage development of new
housing to meet a range of income levels, including
market-rate housing, and a variety of housing sizes and types.

Consistent. The project would include diverse residential uses, including accessible ground-floor ADUs, that add
diversity to the City of Sebastopol's ownership housing supply and meet a variety of residents’ needs by
encouraging inherent affordability and providing housing opportunities for households at a variety of income levels and life stages. The project would include accessible and adaptable features in every building to provide ADA
accessibility beyond what is required by the building code.

Source: City of Sebastopol 2016
As shown in Table 4.9-1, the project would be generally consistent with the applicable goals and policies in the Sebastopol General Plan. Therefore, the project would not conflict with the Sebastopol General Plan.

City of Sebastopol Municipal Code
As discussed above in Setting, the purpose of the OLM District is to implement the “Office/Light Industrial” land use category of the General Plan and to provide areas for well-planned, integrated business parks that may include office and related uses. Section 17.25.020 of SMC lists the allowed Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

City of Sebastopol
The Canopy

4.9-16
uses of the OLM district which includes R7-Multifamily Residential (12.1-25 du/ac) with Planning Commission review.

The purpose of the R7 District is to implement the “High Density Residential” land use category of the General Plan. This district is applicable to those lands within that category which are appropriate for densities from approximately 12.1 to 25 units per acre. Some of the permitted uses in the R7 district include accessory dwelling (ADU), single-family dwelling (attached), two-family dwelling, multi-family dwelling, community garden, and community park.

The project would require the City’s approval of a Conditional Use Permit for 80 townhouse units within the OLM zoning district, site development review, and a Vesting Tentative Map. In addition, the project applicant proposes the use of a State Density Bonus to allow for a waiver to increase the building height to three stories.

The project would be consistent with the uses and development standards allowed within the R7 district with the requested waiver for building height. Table 4.9-2 shows the project’s consistency with SMC R7 development standards. The project would be consistent with the land use and zoning designations and would not conflict with the General Plan or Municipal Code.

Table 4.9-2 Project Consistency with SMC R7 Development Standards Project Characteristics R7 Requirements1 Proposed by Project Project Compliance
with R7 Requirements
Maximum Residential
Density
25 DU/acre 13.1 DU/acre Complies
Minimum Residential
Density

12.1 DU/acre 13.1 DU/acre Complies
Maximum lot coverage 40%2 26% Complies
Building Height 30 ft, 2 stories (maximum) 40 feet +/- and 3 stories Density bonus waiver of maximum building
height required
Detached Accessory
Building Height
17 ft.(maximum) n/a
Deed restricted affordable
housing
40 ft., 3 stories (maximum) n/a
Open Space 50 square feet/dwelling unit
(minimum)
107,200 square feet (1,340
square feet/dwelling unit)
Complies
Setbacks R7 Requirements Proposed by Project
Interior Side Yard 10% of lot width, or 5 ft.,
whichever is greater, not to
exceed 9 ft.
9’ Complies
Front Yard 10’ 10’ Complies
Rear Yard 20% of the lot depth, no less
than 20 ft. nor greater than 25
ft.
20-25’ Complies
Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

Environmental Impact Analysis
Land Use and Planning
Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.9-17
Parking R7 Requirements Proposed by Project
Parking Spaces 218
(0) Required for Accessory
Dwelling Units
(22) 3 bedroom x 2 spaces = 44
spaces
(58) 4 bedroom x 3 spaces =
174 spaces
218 spaces Complies
Garage Parking – 160 spaces (2 per
residential unit)
Surface Parking – 41 spaces
Compact Surface Parking Up to 40% of parking 17 spaces Complies Electric Vehicle Pre-wire
per CalGreen
15% of onsite surface parking
(24 spaces)
160 Complies with
incorporation of
Mitigation Measure
GHG-1
Bicycle Parking Spaces .5 spaces per unit (40 spaces) 96 spaces Complies 1 Per SMC Section 17.20.030, development standards for the R7 district. 2 The Planning Commission may approve up to a 10 percent increase in the allowable lot coverage where it is found that sufficient open spaces and recreation areas can be provided through efficient and well-organized use of the land or where it is necessary to promote an affordable housing project.

Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures would be required.
c. Cumulative Impacts
All other pending and future projects in Sebastopol would be required to adhere to the City zoning and development regulations and General Plan policies to mitigate environmental impacts where feasible. In addition, all pending and future projects would be reviewed for consistency with the Sebastopol General Plan and all other applicable regulatory land use actions prior to approval.

Therefore, it is not anticipated that a cumulative land use and planning impact would occur. The proposed project would not result in significant cumulative impacts with respect to consistency with land use plans. Impacts would not be cumulatively considerable.

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

City of Sebastopol
The Canopy

4.9-18
This page intentionally left blank.

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

Environmental Impact Analysis
Noise
Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.10-1

4.10 Noise
This section analyzes the project’s potential noise impacts. The analysis contains a description of the existing noise setting, regulatory setting, a discussion of both the temporary noise and vibration impacts related to construction activity and long-term impacts associated with project operations, and mitigation measures to reduce project noise and vibration impacts. The findings of this section are based in part on The Canopy Environmental Noise Assessment prepared by Veneklasen Associates (Appendix I).

4.10.1 Setting
a. Fundamentals of Noise
Sound is a vibratory disturbance created by a moving or vibrating source, which is capable of being detected by the hearing organs (e.g., the human ear). Noise is defined as sound that is loud, unpleasant, unexpected, or undesired and may therefore be classified as a more specific group of sounds. The effects of noise on people can include general annoyance, interference with speech communication, sleep disturbance, and, in the extreme, hearing impairment (California Department of Transportation [Caltrans] 2013).

Noise levels are commonly measured in decibels (dB) using the A-weighted sound pressure level (dBA). The A-weighting scale is an adjustment to the actual sound pressure levels so that they are consistent with the human hearing response, which is most sensitive to frequencies around 4,000 Hertz (Hz) and less sensitive to frequencies around and below 100 Hz (Kinsler, et. al. 1999).

Decibels are measured on a logarithmic scale that quantifies sound intensity in a manner similar to the Richter scale used to measure earthquake magnitudes. A doubling of the energy of a noise source, such as a doubling of traffic volume, would increase the noise level by 3 dBA; similarly, dividing the energy in half would result in a decrease of 3 dBA (Crocker 2007). Common outdoor and indoor noise sources and their typical corresponding A-weighted noise levels are shown in Figure 4.10-1.

Human perception of noise has no simple correlation with sound energy. The perception of sound is not linear in terms of dBA or in terms of sound energy. Two sources do not “sound twice as loud” as one source. It is widely accepted that the average healthy ear can barely perceive an increase (or decrease) of up to 3 dBA in noise levels (i.e., twice [or half] the sound energy); that a change of 5 dBA is readily perceptible; and that an increase (or decrease) of 10 dBA sounds twice (or half) as loud (Crocker 2007).

Sound changes in both level and frequency spectrum as it travels from the source to the receiver.

The most obvious change is the decrease in sound level as the distance from the source increases.

The manner by which noise declines with distance depends on factors such as the type of sources (e.g., point or line), the path the sound will travel, site conditions, and obstructions. Noise levels from a point source (e.g., construction, industrial machinery, ventilation units) typically attenuate, or drop off, at a rate of 6 dBA per doubling of distance. Noise from a line source (e.g., roadway, pipeline, railroad) typically attenuates at about 3 dBA per doubling of distance (Caltrans 2013). The propagation of noise is also affected by the intervening ground, known as ground absorption. A hard site, such as a parking lot or smooth body of water, receives no additional ground attenuation and the changes in noise levels with distance (drop-off rate) result simply from the geometric spreading Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

City of Sebastopol
The Canopy

4.10-2
Figure 4.10-1 Examples of Typical Noise Levels
Source: Caltrans 2013
Noise Level
(dBA)
Common Indoor
Noise Levels
Common Outdoor
Noise Levels
Rock band
Inside subway train
Food blender at 3 ft.

Garbage disposal at 3 ft.

Shouting at 3 ft.

Vacuum cleaner at 10 ft.

Normal speech at 3 ft.

Large business office
Dishwasher next room
Small theater, conference
room (background)
Library
Bedroom at night
Concert hall (background)
Broadcast and
recording studio
Threshold of hearing
Jet flyover at 1,000 ft.

Gas lawnmower at 3 ft.

Diesel truck at 50 ft.

Noisy urban daytime
Gas lawnmower at 100 ft.

Commercial area
Heavy traffic 300 ft.

Quiet urban daytime
Quiet urban nighttime
Quiet suburban nighttime
Quiet rural nighttime
110
100
90 80
70 60
50 40
30 20
10 0
Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

Environmental Impact Analysis
Noise
Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.10-3
of the source. An additional ground attenuation value of 1.5 dBA per doubling of distance applies to a soft site (e.g., soft dirt, grass, or scattered bushes and trees) (Caltrans 2013).

Noise levels may also be reduced by intervening structures. The amount of attenuation provided by this “shielding” depends on the size of the object and the frequencies of the noise levels. Natural terrain features, such as hills and dense woods, and man-made features, such as buildings and walls, can alter noise levels. Generally, any large structure blocking the line of sight will provide at least a 5 dBA reduction in source noise levels at the receiver (Federal Highway Administration [FHWA] 2011).

Structures can substantially reduce occupants’ exposure to noise as well. The FHWA’s guidelines indicate that modern building construction generally provides an exterior-to-interior noise level reduction of 20 to 35 dBA with closed windows.

Noise levels may also be reduced by intervening structures. The amount of attenuation provided by this “shielding” depends on the size of the object and the frequencies of the noise levels. Natural terrain features, such as hills and dense woods, and man-made features, such as buildings and walls, can alter noise levels. Generally, any large structure blocking the line of sight will provide at least a 5 dBA reduction in source noise levels at the receiver (Federal Highway Administration [FHWA] 2011).

Structures can substantially reduce occupants’ exposure to noise as well. The FHWA’s guidelines indicate that modern building construction generally provides an exterior-to-interior noise level reduction of 20 to 35 dBA with closed windows.
b. Descriptors
The impact of noise is not a function of loudness alone. The time of day when noise occurs, its frequency, and the duration of the noise are also important. In addition, most noise that lasts for more than a few seconds is variable in its intensity. Consequently, a variety of noise descriptors have been developed.

One of the most frequently used noise metrics that considers both duration and intensity is the equivalent noise level (Leq). The Leq is defined as the single steady A-weighted level that is equivalent to the same amount of energy as that contained in the actual fluctuating levels over a period of time. Typically, Leq is equivalent to a one-hour period, even when measured for shorter durations as the noise level of a 10- to 30-minute period would be the same as the hour if the noise source is relatively steady. Lmax is the highest Root Mean Squared (RMS) sound pressure level within the sampling period, and Lmin is the lowest RMS sound pressure level within the measuring period (Crocker 2007). Normal conversational levels at three feet are in the 60- to 65-dBA Leq range and ambient noise levels greater than 65 dBA Leq can interrupt conversations (Federal Transit Administration [FTA] 2018).

Noise that occurs at night tends to be more disturbing than that which occurs during the day.

Community noise is usually measured using Day-Night Average Level (Ldn or DNL), which is a 24-hour average noise level with a +10 dBA penalty for noise occurring during nighttime (10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.) hours, or Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL), which is the 24-hour average noise level with a +5 dBA penalty for noise occurring from 7:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. and a +10 dBA penalty for noise occurring from 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. (Caltrans 2013). Noise levels described by DNL and CNEL usually differ by about 0.5 dBA. Quiet suburban areas typically have a CNEL in the range of 40 to 50 dBA, while areas near arterial streets are typically in the 50 to 70+ CNEL range.

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

City of Sebastopol
The Canopy

4.10-4
c. Overview of Groundborne Vibration
Groundborne vibration of concern in environmental analysis consists of the oscillatory waves that move from a source through the ground to adjacent structures. The number of cycles per second of oscillation makes up the vibration frequency, described in terms of Hertz. The frequency of a vibrating object describes how rapidly it oscillates. The normal frequency range of most groundborne vibration that can be felt by the human body is from a low of less than 1 Hertz up to a high of about 200 Hertz (Crocker 2007). Typically, groundborne vibration generated by human activities attenuates rapidly with distance from the source of the vibration.

While people have varying sensitivities to vibrations at different frequencies, in general they are most sensitive to low-frequency vibration. Vibration in buildings, such as from nearby construction activities, may cause windows, items on shelves, and pictures on walls to rattle. Vibration of building components can also take the form of an audible low-frequency rumbling noise, referred to as groundborne noise. Groundborne noise is usually only a problem when the originating vibration spectrum is dominated by frequencies in the upper end of the range (60 to 200 Hertz), or when foundations or utilities, such as sewer and water pipes, physically connect the structure and the vibration source (FTA 2018).

Vibration energy spreads out as it travels through the ground, causing the vibration level to diminish with distance away from the source. High-frequency vibrations diminish much more rapidly than low frequencies, so low frequencies tend to dominate the spectrum at large distances from the source. Discontinuities in the soil strata can also cause diffractions or channeling effects that affect the propagation of vibration over long distances (Caltrans 2020). When a building is impacted by vibration, a ground-to-foundation coupling loss will usually reduce the overall vibration level.

However, under rare circumstances, the ground-to-foundation coupling may amplify the vibration level due to structural resonances of the floors and walls.

Vibration amplitudes are usually described in terms of the peak particle velocity (PPV). PPV, measured in inches persecond, is the maximum instantaneous peak of the vibration signal. PPV is appropriate for evaluating potential building architectural damage (Caltrans 2020). d. Existing Conditions
Sensitive Receptors
Noise exposure goals for various types of land uses reflect the varying noise sensitivities associated with those uses. Sensitive receptors are defined as places where noise could interfere with regular activities such as sleeping, talking, and recreating, which include hospitals, residences, convalescent homes, schools, churches, libraries, parks, and religious institutions. The closest noise sensitive receptors near the site are single-family residences immediately adjacent to the project site to the northeast on Winona Lane and the Sebastopol Charter School approximately 70 feet to the north of the northernmost project boundary.

Vibration sensitive receptors are similar to noise sensitive receptors, such as residences, and institutional uses, such as schools, churches, and hospitals.

Project Noise Setting
The most common source of noise in the project site vicinity is vehicular traffic from State Route (SR) 116/Gravenstein Highway North. Noise monitoring in the project area was conducted by Veneklasen Associates in May of 2023 (Veneklasen Associates 2023). To characterize ambient noise Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

Environmental Impact Analysis
Noise
Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.10-5
levels in the project vicinity, one short-term (15 minute) and two long-term (24 hour) noise level measurements were conducted on May 9 and May 10, 2023. The approximate noise measurement locations are shown in Figure 4.10-2. Shown in Table 4.10-1, short-term noise measurement (ST-1) was conducted approximately 100 feet west of Hurlbut Avenue in the project site. (LT-1) was conducted Approximately 300 feet west of Hurlbut Avenue. Long-term noise measurement (LT-2) was conducted along the northwest boundary of the commercial use to the west of the project site.

Table 4.10-1 Project Vicinity Noise Monitoring Results
Measurement
Location Measurement Location Sample Times
Daytime Noise
Level
Leq (dBA)
Nighttime
Noise Level
Lmax (dBA)
24-hour Noise
Level Ldn
(dBA)
ST-1 Approximately 100 feet west
of Hurlbut Avenue
2:55 – 3:10 p.m. 50 N/A N/A
LT 1 Approximately 300 feet west
of Hurlbut Avenue
4:00 – 3:00 p.m. 46 38 57
LT 2 Approximately 210 feet
northeast of Highway
116/Gravenstein Hwy N
4:00 – 3:00 p.m. 55 48 57
Source: Veneklasen Associate, Inc. 2023 (Appendix I)

4.10.2 Regulatory Setting
a. State Regulations
California regulates freeway noise, sets standards for sound transmission, provides occupational noise control criteria, identifies noise standards, and provides guidance for local land use compatibility. California law requires each county and city to adopt a General Plan that includes a Noise Element prepared based on guidelines adopted by the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research. The purpose of the Noise Element is to limit the exposure of the community to excessive noise levels. CEQA requires known environmental effects of a project to be analyzed, including environmental noise impacts.

California Building Code
California Code of Regulations Title 24, Building Standards Administrative Code, Part 2, Chapter 12, and the California Building Code codify the State noise insulation standards. These noise standards apply to new construction in California to control interior noise levels as they are affected by exterior noise sources and interior noise sources from separate areas. The regulations specify that interior noise levels shall not exceed 45 dB CNEL/Ldn in any habitable room, as well as specifying sound transmission class requirements for walls, floors, and ceilings around sleeping units.

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

City of Sebastopol
The Canopy

4.10-6
Figure 4.10-2 Approximate Noise Monitoring Locations
Source: Veneklasen Associates 2023
Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

Environmental Impact Analysis
Noise
Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.10-7
California General Plan Guidelines
The California General Plan Guidelines, published by the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research, indicate acceptable, specific land use types in areas with specific noise exposure. The guidelines also offer adjustment factors that may be used to arrive at noise acceptability standards that reflect the noise control goals of the community, the particular community’s sensitivity to noise, and the community’s assessment of the relative importance of noise pollution. These guidelines are advisory, and local jurisdictions have the responsibility to set specific noise standards based on local conditions. Please refer to the discussion below, under the Sebastopol General Plan Noise Element, for the compatibility guidelines adopted by the City of Sebastopol. b. Local Regulations
City of Sebastopol General Plan
The Noise section of the General Plan identifies noise and land use compatibility standards for various land uses. The City’s goal is to address major noise sources and to promote safe and comfortable noise levels throughout Sebastopol. The Land Use Compatibility for Community Noise Environment from the Noise Element of the General Plan (Sebastopol 2016) is shown in Table 4.10-2 and is used to determine the compatibility of land uses when evaluating proposed development projects.

Table 4.10-2 Land Use Compatibility for Community Noise Environments Exterior Noise Exposure (Ldn, dB)
Land Use Category
Normally
Acceptable
Conditionally
Acceptable
Normally
Unacceptable
Clearly
Unacceptable
Residential 50-60 60-70 70-75 >75
Transient Lodging – Motels, Hotels 50-60 60-75 75-80 >80 Schools, Libraries, Churches, Hospitals, Nursing
Homes
50-60 60-70 70-80 >80
Auditoriums, Concerts, Halls, Amphitheaters 50-70 – 70-80 >87 Playgrounds, Neighborhood Parks 50-63 63-70 70-75 >75
Golf Course, Stables, Water Recreation, Cemetery 50-63 63-70 70-80 >80 Office Buildings, Businesses Commercial and
Professional
50-70 70-77 77-87 >87
Industrial, Manufacturing Utilities, Agriculture 50-70 70-75 75-87 >87 Normally Acceptable: Specified land use is satisfactory, based upon the assumption that any buildings involved are of normal conventional construction, without any special noise insulation requirements.

Conditionally Acceptable: New construction or development should be undertaken only after a detailed analysis of the noise reduction requirements is made and needed noise insulation features included in the design. Conventional construction, but with closed windows and fresh air supply systems or air conditioning will normally suffice.

Normally Unacceptable: New construction or development should generally be discouraged. If new construction or development does proceed a detailed analysis of the noise reduction requirements must be made and needed noise insulation features included in the design.

Clearly Unacceptable: New construction or development should not be undertaken. dBA = A-weighted sound pressure level; DNL = Day-Night Average Level Source: Sebastopol General Plan, 1994
Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

City of Sebastopol
The Canopy

4.10-8
For a residential development, the City’s land use compatibility indicates that the maximum “normally acceptable” exterior noise level is 60 Ldn. For a residential development with exterior noise levels up to 70 Ldn, the land use is “conditionally acceptable,” in which the specified land use may be permitted only after detailed analysis of the noise reduction requirements and noise insulation features included in the design. This study will review the exterior noise levels to verify it is within the range of acceptability per the City’s land use compatibility.

The City’s General Plan has also established noise standards for residential land uses impacted by stationary (non- transportation) sources, such as mechanical equipment or similar. The standards do not apply to transportation sources, such as car pass-bys or emergency vehicles. See Table 4.10-3 for the criteria for stationary (non-transportation) sources.

Table 4.10-3 Stationary (Non-Transportation) Noise Source Standards Exterior Noise-Level Standard (dBA)
Daytime (7am-10pm) Nighttime (10pm-7am)
Land Use Receiving the Noise Leq Lmax Leq Lmax
Residential1 55 70 45 65
1 The residential standards apply to all properties that are zoned for residential use. The exterior noise level standard Source: Sebastopol General Plan 1994.

The following policies from the Noise Element are relevant to the proposed project:

Policy N-1.1 Require development and infrastructure projects to be consistent with the Land Use Compatibility for Community Noise Environments standards (see Table 2) to ensure acceptable noise levels for existing and future development.

Policy N-1.2 Require development and infrastructure projects to be consistent with the Land Use Compatibility for Community Noise Environments standards (see Table 2) to ensure acceptable noise levels for existing and future development.

Policy N-1.3 Require development and infrastructure projects to be consistent with the Land Use Compatibility for Community Noise Environments standards (see Table 2) to ensure acceptable noise levels for existing and future development.

Policy N-1.6 Require acoustical studies for new developments, projects seeking use permits related to activities that would increase noise levels, and transportation improvements that affect noise-sensitive uses such as schools, hospitals, libraries, group care facilities, convalescent homes, and residential areas.

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

Environmental Impact Analysis
Noise
Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.10-9
Policy N-1.7 For projects that are required by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) to analyze noise impacts, the following criteria shall be used to determine the significance of those impacts:

Stationary and Non-Transportation Noise Sources
 A significant impact will occur if the project results in exceedance of the noise level standards contained in the Noise Element, or the project will result in an increase in ambient noise levels by more than 3 dB, whichever is greater. This does not apply to construction activities which are conducted according to the best practices outlined in Action N-1f.

Compliance with the requirements outlined in Action N-1f shall be sufficient to reduce construction-related noise impacts to a less than significant level.

Transportation Noise Sources
 Where existing traffic noise levels are lessthan 60 dB Ldn at the outdoor activity areas of noise- sensitive uses, a +5 dB Ldn increase in roadway noise levels will be considered significant; and
 Where existing traffic noise levels range between 60 and 65 dB Ldn at the outdoor activity areas of noise-sensitive uses, a +3 dB Ldn increase in roadway noise levels will be considered significant; and  Where existing traffic noise levels are greater than 65 dB Ldn at the outdoor activity areas of noise-sensitive uses, a +1.5 dB Ldn increase in roadway noise will be considered significant.

Policy N-1.11 Ensure that existing development is protected, to the greatest extent feasible, from noise impacts due to construction on adjacent or nearby properties through implementation of best practices, as outlined in Action N-1f.

Policy N-1.13 Control non-transportation related noise from site specific noise sources to the standards shown in Error! Reference source not found.

Policy N-1.14 Ensure that new development does not result in indoor noise levels exceeding 45 dBA Ldn for residential uses.

Policy N-1.15 Require construction activities to comply with standard best practices (see Action N-1f).

Action N-1f Require construction projects that may generate excessive noise impacts to implement the following types of standard best practices, as applicable, to reduce construction noise impacts to the extent feasible:
 Noise-generating construction activities, including truck traffic coming to and from the construction site for any purpose, shall be limited as specified in the Noise Ordinance.
 All equipment driven by internal combustion engines shall be equipped with mufflers, which are in good condition and appropriate for the equipment.

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

City of Sebastopol
The Canopy

4.10-10
 The construction contractor shall utilize “quiet” models of air compressors and other stationary noise sources where technology exists.
 At all times during project grading and construction, stationary noisegenerating equipment shall be located asfar as practicable from sensitive receptors and placed so that emitted noise is directed away from residences.
 Unnecessary idling of internal combustion engines shall be prohibited.  Construction staging areas shall be established at locations that will create the greatest distance between the construction-related noise sources and noise-sensitive receptors nearest the project site during all project construction activities, to the extent feasible.  Neighbors located adjacent to the construction site shall be notified of the construction schedule in writing.
 The construction contractor shall designate a “noise disturbance coordinator” who will be responsible for responding to any local complaints about construction noise. The disturbance coordinator shall be responsible for determining the cause of the noise complaint (e.g., starting too early, poor muffler, etc.) and instituting reasonable measures as warranted to correct the problem. A telephone number for the disturbance coordinator shall be conspicuously posted at the construction site
Policy N-1.16 Require new development to minimize vibration impacts to adjacent uses during demolition and construction. A vibration limit of 0.30 in/sec PPV (peak particle velocity) will be used to minimize the potential for cosmetic damage at buildings of normal conventional construction.

Policy N-1.18 Ensure that an acceptable noise environment is maintained in residential areas and areas with sensitive uses by ensuring that uses, operations, and fixed equipment maintain compliance with City standards and by providing for the regulation of short-term increases in non-transportation noise levels through the Municipal Code.

City of Sebastopol Municipal Code
The goal of the City’s Noise Ordinance is to prohibit unnecessary, excessive, and annoying noises, subject to its police power. There are various sections of the Noise Ordinance that are directly related and applicable to the project. Section 8.25.060 establishes the noise level standards for residential land uses as provided in Table 4.10-4, which are consistent with the standards from the Noise Element within the City’s General Plan (see Table 4.10-3).

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

Environmental Impact Analysis
Noise
Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.10-11
Table 4.10-4 City of Sebastopol Noise Level Standards
Exterior Noise Standards
Location of Measurement Daytime Nighttime
Monday through Friday 8:00 a.m. - 10:00 p.m. 10:00 p.m. – 8:00 a.m.

Exterior 55 dBA 45 dBA
Saturday and Sunday before Observed Holiday 9:00 a.m. - 10:00 p.m. 10:00 p.m. – 9:00 a.m.

Exterior 55 dBA 45 dBA
Sunday 9:00 a.m. - 7:00 p.m. 10:00 p.m. – 9:00 a.m.

Exterior 55 dBA 45 dBA
a) Basic noise level for a cumulative period of not more than 15 minutes in any one hour; or b) Basic noise level plus five dBA for a cumulative period of not more than 10-minutes in any one hour; or c) Basic noise level plus 14 dBA for a cumulative period of not more than 5 minutes in any one hour; or d) Basic noise level plus 15 dBA at any time.

Source: City of Sebastopol Municipal Code Section 8.25.060.

Item 4 within section 8.25.060 is specifically for areas with high background noise and impulse noise. It states in cases where the background noise levels caused by sources not subject to these regulations exceed the standards listed in Table 4.10-4, a source shall be considered to cause excessive noise if the noise emitted by such source exceeds the background noise levels by 5 dBA, provided that no source subject to the provisions of the Noise Ordinance shall emit noise in excess of 80 dBA at any time. Item 4 also states no person shall cause or allow the emission of impulse noise in excess of 80 dB peak sound pressure level during the nighttime to any residential zone or in excess of 100 dB peak sound pressure level at any time in any zone.

Item 6 within section 8.25.060 lists exemptions to the Noise Ordinance, which are as follows:
 Noise generated by any construction equipment which is operated during daytime hours, defined for the purposes of this section as from 7:00 am to 8:00 pm, Monday through Friday, 8:00 am to 5:00 pm on Saturdays, and from 8:00 am to 5:00 pm on Sundays.  Noise from demolition work conducted during daytime hours (see Table 4.10-4). When considered emergency work, demolition shall be exempted at all times from the noise levels in the Noise Ordinance.
 Noise created by refuse and solid waste collection; provided, that the activity is conducted during daytime hours (see Table 4.10-4).

4.10.3 Impact Analysis
a. Significance Thresholds and Methodology
Significance Thresholds
The following significance criteria for noise were derived from the Environmental Checklist in State CEQA Guidelines Appendix G. An impact of the Project would be considered significant and would require mitigation if it would meet one of the following criteria:

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

City of Sebastopol
The Canopy

4.10-12

1. Generate a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the Project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies;

2. Generate excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels; or

3. For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, expose people residing or working in the Project area to excessive noise levels.

Construction Noise Thresholds
As described above, the City of Sebastopol Municipal Code provides noise standards for different land use types with the exception of temporary construction work. Noise generated by temporary construction work associated with the project would be exempt from the City of Sebastopol Municipal Code noise standards. While the City does not have specific noise level criteria for assessing construction noise impact, FTA has developed guidance for determining if construction of a project would expose various land uses to significant noise levels or if a project would result in a substantial temporary increase in noise levels (FTA 2018). Based on FTA guidance, a significant impact would occur if project-generated construction noise exceeds 80 dBA Leq noise limit at the nearest residences or school.

Operational Stationary Source Noise Thresholds
The City has adopted exterior noise standards in the SMC and the General Plan Noise Element regulating operational stationary noise sources in the City. The proposed project would result in a significant impact if noise from project stationary operational noise sources exceeds 45 dBA Leq at a residential property line during nighttime hours between 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. or 55 dBA Leq during daytime hours between 7:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m.

Traffic Noise Thresholds
A project would normally have a significant effect on the environment related to traffic noise if it would substantially increase the ambient noise levels for adjoining areas. The following thresholds of significance from Policy N-1.7 in the Sebastopol General Plan (Sebastopol 2016) are used to assess traffic noise impacts at sensitive receptor locations. A significant impact would occur if traffic noise increases the existing noise environment by the following:
 Greater than 1.5 dBA Ldn for ambient noise environments of 65 dBA Ldn and higher.  Greater than 3 dBA Ldn for ambient noise environments of 60 to 64 Ldn  Greater than 5 dBA Ldn for ambient noise environments of less than 60 dBA Ldn Groundborne Vibration Thresholds
The City of Sebastopol General Plan (Sebastopol 2016) has adopted quantified limits to assess vibration impacts during construction and operation of 0.3 in/sec PPV at any sensitive receptor. For example, impacts would be significant if vibration levels exceed 0.3 in/sec PPV for residential structures and 0.3 in/sec PPV for commercial structures, which is the limit where minor cosmetic (i.e., non-structural) damage may occur to these buildings.

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

Environmental Impact Analysis
Noise
Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.10-13
Methodology
The following describes the methodology, including models, used to evaluate the significance of potential noise and vibration impacts related to the proposed project.

Construction Noise
Construction noise was estimated using the FHWA Roadway Construction Noise Model (RCNM) (FHWA 2006). RCNM predicts construction noise levels for a variety of construction operations based on empirical data and the application of acoustical propagation formulas. Using RCNM, construction noise levels were estimated at noise sensitive receptors near the project site. RCNM provides reference noise levels for standard construction equipment, with an attenuation of 6 dBA per doubling of distance for stationary equipment.

Variation in power imposes additional complexity in characterizing the noise source level from construction equipment. Power variation is accounted for by describing the noise at a reference distance from the equipment operating at full power and adjusting it based on the duty cycle of the activity to determine the Leq of the operation (FTA 2018). Each phase of construction has a specific equipment mix, depending on the work to be accomplished during that phase. Each phase also has its own noise characteristics; some will have higher continuous noise levels than others, and some have high-impact noise levels. Construction noise would typically be higher during the heavier periods of initial construction (i.e., grading) and would be lower during the later construction phases. Construction equipment would not all operate at the same time or location. In addition, construction equipment would not be in constant use during the 8-hour operating day.

Over the course of a typical construction day, construction equipment could be located adjacent to the nearest residential uses but would typically be located at an average distance further away due to the nature of construction where equipment is mobile throughout the site during the day.

Construction activity would result in temporary noise in the project area, exposing surrounding sensitive receptors to increased noise levels. The project would involve demolition, site preparation, grading, building construction, paving, and architectural coating. Construction equipment is typically dispersed in various areas of the site, with only a limited amount of equipment operating near a given location at a particular time. The FTA 2018 Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment document recommends evaluating construction noise impacts from the center of the construction site, stating that the distance variable in its recommended construction noise calculation “assumes that all equipment operates at the center of the project.” Therefore, it is common, industrystandard practice to analyze average construction noise from the center of the site because this is the approximate center of where noise would be generated as equipment moves around the site throughout the workday. In accordance with FTA recommendations, construction noise was measured from the approximate center of each phase.

For demolition, site preparation, grading, building construction and architectural coating, from the center of the western portion of the project site, the nearest noise-sensitive receptors include single-family residence located approximately 130 feet east on Winona Lane and the Sebastopol Charter School at 250 feet north on Gravenstein Highway North. From the center of the eastern portion of the project site, the nearest noise-sensitive receptors include a single-family residence on Winona Lane located approximately 135 feet to the north. For paving, from the center of the proposed parking lot located between the western and eastern portion of the site, the nearest noise-sensitive receptors include single-family residence located approximately 125 feet north on Winona Lane and Sebastopol Charter School 250 feet north of the center of the western portion of the project site. Therefore, construction noise was modeled at these distances. Attenuation from Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

City of Sebastopol
The Canopy

4.10-14
intervening structures or topography was conservatively not included in the calculations. Equipment assumed for each phase of construction was modeled consistent with Section 4.3, Air Quality.

Operational Stationary Noise

MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT
The primary on-site operational noise source from the project would be from split-system outdoor condensing units (HVAC) that are anticipated to be on the ground floor of various buildings and transformers (less than 2,000 kVA). Based on principles of distance attenuation, HVAC and transformer noise levels are estimated at nearby sensitive receptors. Typical HVAC equipment generates noise levels ranging up to 55 dBA at a distance of 15 feet and less than 45 dBA at 60 feet.

For transformers no greater than 2,000 kVA, the noise level is expected to be less than 55 dBA at 30 feet and less than 45 dBA at approximately 120 feet (Veneklasen Associates 2023).

OPERATIONAL TRAFFIC NOISE
Noise levels affecting the proposed project site would be primarily influenced by traffic noise from SR 116, Hurlbut Avenue and Mill Station Road. SR 116 is a two to four-lane roadway with a posted speed limit of 30 miles per hour (mph). Hurlbut Avenue and Mill Station Road are two lane roadways with a posted speed limit of 25 mph. Traffic volumes used for the noise analysis are shown in Table 4.10-7, which are based on the intersection turning movement data provided in the project traffic report (W-Trans 2023). To analyze the increase in traffic noise levels the formula of 10 x LOG (future traffic volume/existing traffic volume) and the assumption that the daily volume is approximately ten times the peak hour volume were used.

Groundborne Vibration
The greatest vibratory source during construction would be a vibratory roller. Neither blasting nor pile driving would be required for construction of the proposed project. Table 4.10-5 shows typical vibration levels for various pieces of construction equipment.

Vibration limits used in this analysis to determine a potential impact to local land uses from construction activities are based on information and recommend procedures contained in the FTA Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual (FTA 2018).

Table 4.10-5 Typical Vibration Levels for Construction Equipment Equipment PPV (in/sec) at 25 Feet
Vibratory Roller 0.21
Large Bulldozer 0.089
Loaded Trucks 0.076
Small Bulldozer 0.003
Static Roller 0.05
Sources: FTA 2018
Impact of the Environment on the Project
As a result of the Supreme Court decision regarding the assessment of the environment’s impacts on projects (California Building Industry Association [CBIA] v. Bay Area Air Quality Management Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

Environmental Impact Analysis
Noise
Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.10-15
District [BAAQMD], 62 Cal. 4th 369 [No. S 213478] issued December 17, 2015), it is generally not considered the purview of the CEQA process to evaluate the impact of existing environmental conditions on a proposed project. Therefore, this environmental analysis does not consider the potential impacts of the environment (i.e., existing noise) on the project. b. Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Threshold 1: Would the project result in generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies?
Impact NOI-1 CONSTRUCTION OF THE PROJECT WOULD TEMPORARILY INCREASE AMBIENT NOISE LEVELS, BUT NOISE LEVELS WOULD NOT EXCEED APPLICABLE STANDARDS. AMBIENT NOISE IN THE PROJECT VICINITY WOULD INCREASE FROM ON-SITE ACTIVITIES AND INCREASED TRAFFIC. TRAFFIC NOISE INCREASES WOULD BE LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT. OPERATIONAL STATIONARY SOURCE NOISE WOULD EXCEED STANDARDS ESTABLISHED BY THE CITY. IMPACTS WOULD BE LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT WITH MITIGATION.

The project-specific noise analysis focuses on the construction and operational impacts to determine if the project would expose persons to or generate noise levels in excess of established standards or cause a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity.

Construction
Project construction activities are anticipated to occur in two phases. Phase 1 would occur over the course of 24 months, from June 2024 through June 2026. Phase 2 would occur the course of 23 months, from March 2025 through February 2027. Construction noise would be generated during the demolition, site preparation, grading, building construction, paving and architectural coating phases of construction. Distances and equipment assumed are discussed under Methodology.

Table 4.10-6 identifies the estimated noise levels at nearby sensitive receptors from the center of each phase based on the conservatively assumed combined use of all construction equipment during each phase of construction.

Table 4.10-6 Estimated Noise Levels by Construction Phase at Sensitive Receptors Leq dBA
Construction Activity Phase
RCNM Reference
Noise Level
Single Family
Residential on
Winona Lane
Single Family
Residential on
Hurlbut Avenue
Sebastopol
Charter School
Distance in feet 50 1301 1602 2503
Demolition 76 67 66 62
Site Preparation 84 75 74 70
Grading 84 75 74 70
Building Construction 77 68 67 63
Architectural Coating 77 68 67 63
Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

City of Sebastopol
The Canopy

4.10-16
Leq dBA
Construction Activity Phase
RCNM Reference
Noise Level
Single Family
Residential on
Winona Lane
Single Family
Residential on
Hurlbut Avenue
Sebastopol
Charter School
Distance in feet 50 1254 2804 2503
Paving 84 76 69 70
Notes: Calculations performed with the FHWA’s RCNM software are included in Appendix J.

Noise levels rounded to the nearest whole number.
1 Distance from the center of the western and eastern portion of the site. 2 Distance from the center of the eastern portion of the site. 3 Distance from the center of the western portion of the site. 4 Distance from the center of parking lot at the southwest end of the eastern portion of site.

As shown in Table 4.10-6, construction noise could be as high as approximately 76 dBA Leq at residences of Winona Lane. Therefore, construction noise levels would not exceed the FTA construction noise threshold of 80 dBA Leq at residential receptors.

Additionally, pursuant to SMC Section 8.25.060 noise generated by construction activities is exempt from compliance with the noise level limits contained in the City’s General Plan if the project construction activities occur between the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, and 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. on Saturdays and Sundays. As discussed in Chapter 2, Project Description, project construction hours would be limited to the allowable hours pursuant to SMC. Although the noise generated by project construction would be higher than the ambient noise levels, which may result in a temporary increase in ambient noise levels, construction noise would be temporary and cease once project construction is completed. Information provided by the client, construction activities would not occur during nighttime hours. While construction noise may cause short-term annoyance to adjacent uses, it would be temporary and restricted to the hours permitted by the City’s noise ordinance. Therefore, noise from construction activities would result in a less than significant impact.

Operation
Operational Stationary Noise
The primary on-site operational noise source from the project would be from HVAC units and 2,000 kVA transformers that are anticipated to be on the ground floor of various buildings and around the project site and anticipated to run for a period of 24-hours. HVAC units would be located as close as approximately 60 feet and transformers would be located as close as approximately 120 feet from the sensitive receptors to the east of the project site. Typical HVAC equipment generates noise levels up to 55 dBA at a distance of 15 feet. At a distance of 60 feet, noise levels from HVAC noise would attenuate to approximately 45 dBA. A transformer no greater than 2,000 kVA is expected to generate noise levels up to 55 dBA at 30 feet and less than 45 dBA at approximately 120 feet. The site plan provided by the client indicates that these units will be located closer than the minimum distance (i.e., 60 feet) within which noise would be compliant with the City’s nighttime exterior standard of 45 dBA. Therefore, if uncontrolled, project operational stationary noise would be considered significant. Implementation of Mitigation Measure NOI-1 would reduce this impact to a level of less than significant.

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

Environmental Impact Analysis
Noise
Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.10-17
Operational Traffic Noise
The project would generate new vehicle trips that would use area roadways. The traffic noise increases caused by project traffic are shown in Table 4.10-7. As shown in Table 4.10-7, the project traffic noise increase would be up to 0.1 dBA Ldn on all study roadway segments. Project traffic noise increases would be less than 1.5 dBA Ldn (the most stringent threshold) along all roadway study segments. Therefore, project traffic noise impacts would be less than significant. Cumulative traffic noise impacts are discussed in Section 4.10.4, Cumulative Impacts.

Mitigation Measures
NOI-1 Mechanical Equipment Noise Reduction
For outdoor condensing units (HVAC) and transformers directly adjacent to noise-sensitive receptors, provide a solid barrier with a height blocking the line-of-sight to the nearby noisesensitive receptors. The minimum density of the barrier shall be 2 pounds per square foot with no holes or gaps. Once final equipment selection is made, an acoustical analysis of the noise from project mechanical and electrical equipment to surrounding properties must be completed by a qualified acoustical consultant prior to final design to verify compliance with the City’s nighttime exterior noise standard of 45 dBA.

Significance After Mitigation
With implementation of Mitigation Measure NOI-1, the noise levels from HVAC and on-site transformers would be attenuated to a level below the City’s nighttime exterior noise standard of 45 dBA. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant with mitigation.

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

City of Sebastopol
The Canopy

4.10-18
Table 4.10-7 Off-site Project Traffic Noise Increases
Roadway Segment Volumes (ADT) dBA (Ldn)
Roadway Segment Existing
Existing
+ Project Future
Future +
Project
Project
Noise
Increase
Cumulative
Increase
Project
Cumulative
Contributio
n
Gravenstein Highway
116 north of Mill Station
Road
13,970 14,170 17,440 17,640 0.1 1.0 <0.1
Gravenstein Highway
116 between Mill
Station Road and
Hurlbut Avenue
12,530 12,820 16,790 17,080 0.1 1.6 0.3
Gravenstein Highway
116 between Hurlbut
Avenue and Covert Lane
13,070 13,400 17,690 18,020 0.1 1.4 0.1
Gravenstein Highway
116 between Hurlbut
Avenue and Covert Lane
13,070 13,400 17,690 18,020 0.1 1.4 0.1
Mill Station, west of
Gravenstein Highway
116
4,560 4,600 4,700 4,740 <0.1 0.2 <0.1
Hurlbut Avenue, east of
Gravenstein Highway
116
1,430 1,430 1,370 1,370 <0.1 -0.2 <0.1
Hurlbut Avenue, west of
Gravenstein Highway
116
2,960 2,960 3,710 3,710 <0.1 1.0 <0.1
Notes: ADT = average daily traffic. The estimated traffic noise increase is based on the following formula: 10xLOG(future traffic volume/existing traffic volume).

ADT estimated based on the peak hour volume times ten.

Source: W-Trans 2023 (Appendix G)
Threshold: Would the project result in generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels?
Impact NOI-2 PROJECT CONSTRUCTION WOULD INTERMITTENTLY GENERATE GROUNDBORNE VIBRATION

ON A SITE WHICH MAY AFFECT SENSITIVE RECEPTORS NEAR THE PROJECT SITE, BUT PROJECT VIBRATION WOULD NOT CREATE EXCESSIVE LEVELS OF VIBRATION THAT COULD CAUSE ARCHITECTURAL DAMAGE. IMPACTS WOULD BE LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT.

Project construction would not involve activities typically associated with excessive groundborne vibration such as pile driving or blasting. The greatest anticipated source of vibration during general project construction activities would be from vibratory roller, which may be used at a distance of 25 feet or greater from the nearest residential structures to the east. A vibratory roller creates a vibration level of approximately 0.210 in/sec PPV at a distance of 25 feet. At a distance of 35 feet from the nearest commercial building to the west, vibration levels would attenuate to 0.127 in/sec PPV or less, which is lower than the threshold of 0.3 in/sec PPV stated in the Sebastopol General Plan (Sebastopol 2004). Therefore, temporary impacts associated with construction would be less Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

Environmental Impact Analysis
Noise
Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.10-19
than significant. In addition, the project does not include any substantial vibration sources associated with operation.

Table 4.10-8 lists groundborne vibration levels from various types of construction equipment at nearby sensitive receptors.

Table 4.10-8 Construction Equipment Vibration Levels
Approximate Vibration Level (in/sec PPV)
Equipment
Reference Level
25 Feet
from Source
Single Family
Residential on
Winona Lane
(60 feet)
Single Family
Residential on
Hurlbut Avenue
(40 feet)
Commercial to the
West
(35 feet)
Vibratory Roller 0.210 0.056 0.104 0.127
Large Bulldozer 0.089 0.024 0.044 0.054
Loaded Truck 0.076 0.020 0.038 0.046
Small Bulldozer 0.003 0.001 0.001 0.002
Source: FTA 2018.

Vibration levels from project construction activities would not exceed the significance threshold of

0.3 in/sec PPV at the nearest off-site building. Therefore, construction vibration impacts would be less than significant. In addition, the project does not include any substantial vibration sources associated with operation. Thus, operational vibration impacts would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures
None required.

Threshold: For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?
Impact NOI-3 THE PROJECT WOULD NOT EXPOSE PEOPLE RESIDING OR WORKING IN THE PROJECT AREA TO EXCESSIVE NOISE LEVELS RELATED TO AIRSTRIP/AIRPORT OPERATION. NO IMPACT WOULD OCCUR.

There are no airports within two miles of the project. The nearest airport to the project site is the Sonoma County Airport, which is located approximately 6.4 miles north. Therefore, the proposed project would not expose people working in the project area to excessive noise levels. There would be no impact.

Mitigation Measures
None required.

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

City of Sebastopol
The Canopy

4.10-20

4.10.4 Cumulative Impacts
Construction Noise
Cumulative noise assessment considers development of the project in combination with ambient growth and development projects within the vicinity of the project site. As discussed in Chapter 3, Environmental Settings, there are several cumulative project sites in the city. Noise from construction of development projects is typically localized and has the potential to affect noisesensitive uses within approximately 500 feet from the construction site. Thus, noise from construction activities for two projects within 1,000 feet of each other can contribute to a cumulative noise impact for receptors located midway between the two construction sites. Of the cumulative projects, the 845 Gravenstein Highway North low-income residential project is the only project located within 1,000 feet. Construction for 845 Gravenstein Highway North project was completed and the Horizon Shine RV Village opened on February 1, 2022. Therefore, cumulative construction noise impacts would be less than significant.

Operational Noise
Cumulative development would result in stationary (non-traffic) operational noise and vibration increases in the project vicinity. Each cumulative project would be required to complete projectand site-specific noise and vibration assessments for operational impacts and mitigate each project accordingly since operational noise and vibration impacts would be greatest on each project site.

Cumulative development in the project area would increase noise levels along local roadways as a result of additional vehicle trips. A cumulative traffic noise increase would be considered significant if the cumulative noise increase was found to be potentially significant and the project’s contribution to the cumulative increase is greater than 1 dBA Ldn. As shown in Table 4.10-7, the cumulative traffic noise increase would be up to 1.6 dBA Ldn, which exceeds the most stringent threshold of 1.5 dBA Ldn. Therefore, cumulative traffic noise increase on Gravenstein Highway 116 would be significant. However, the project’s contribution to the cumulative increase would be 0.3 dBA Ldn or less. Therefore, the project’s contribution to a cumulative traffic noise impact would be less than significant.

Groundborne Vibration
Although there could be other cumulative projects simultaneously under construction near the proposed project, the potential for construction groundborne vibration impacts is within relatively close distances (e.g., within approximately 25 feet for a vibratory roller). Since no two construction cumulative projects would both be within 25 feet of a given sensitive structure, cumulative groundborne vibration impacts would be less than significant.

Airport Noise
Neither the project nor any of the cumulative projects would directly add airport capacity or change flights patterns. There would be no cumulative airport noise impact.

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

Environmental Impact Analysis
Population and Housing
Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.11-1

4.11 Population and Housing
This section summarizes existing and projected population and housing in the city of Sebastopol and analyzes the impacts on population and housing due to the project.

4.11.1 Setting
a. Population
The city of Sebastopol is located in Sonoma County, approximately 15 miles east of the Pacific Ocean, and 52 miles north of San Francisco. Sebastopol was incorporated as a city on June 13, 1902 and is now considered the hub of West Sonoma County (Sebastopol Area Chamber of Commerce 2023). In 2022, the city had a population of approximately 7,400 residents (Department of Finance [DOF] 2023).

In 2010, the population of Sebastopol was approximately 7,379 residents (DOF 2021). By 2015, the population had increased to 7,624 residents and reached a ten-year period peak high population of 7,830 in 2019 (DOF 2021). However, by 2021, growth in the city had slowed and the population decreased to 7,482 residents and then further to 7,433 residents in 2022 (DOF 2023). The recent data show a growing trend of incremental population loss in the city.

Housing
A household is defined as a group of people who occupy a housing unit (US Census Bureau 2021). A household differs from a dwelling unit because the number of dwelling units includes both occupied and vacant dwelling units. Typically, not all the population in a given area lives in households. A portion of the population lives in group quarters, such as board and care facilities, while others are homeless.

Housing Units
Table 4.11-1 shows the growth in number of housing units in the city, County, and State between 2010 and 2022. As shown in Table 4.11-1, between 2010 and 2022, 141 units were added to the city’s housing inventory resulting in an overall growth of approximately four percent during this period. Between 2010 and 2022, the County grew at a slower rate of one percent. The State also grew at a slower rate of 6.7 percent.

Table 4.11-1 Housing Inventory in the City, County, and State Sebastopol Sonoma County California
2010 2022 2010 2022 2010 2022
Total Housing Units 3,465 3,606 204,572 206,637 13,670,304 14,583,998 Occupied 3,276 3,453 185,825 189,406 12,568,167 13,612,650 Vacancy Rate 5.5% 4.2% 9.2% 8.3% 8.1% 6.7%
Percent Change in Total Housing
Units from 2010 to 2022
4% 1% 6.7%
Source: DOF 2021 (for 2010 data) and DOF 2023 (for 2022 data) Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

City of Sebastopol
The Canopy

4.11-2
In 2022, approximately 2,256 of the housing units in the city were single-family detached homes, approximately 361 units were single-family attached homes, approximately 920 units were multifamily units (buildings of at least two units), and approximately 69 units were mobile homes (DOF 2023).

Household Size
Small households (one to two persons per household [pph]) traditionally occupy units with zero to two bedrooms; family households (three to four pph) normally occupy units with three to four bedrooms. Large households (five or more pph) typically occupy units with four or more bedrooms.

The number of units in relation to the household size may reflect preference and economics. Many small households obtain larger units, and some large households live in small units, for economic reasons. Table 4.11-2 compares the size of households in the city, county, and State in 2010 and 2022.

Table 4.11-2 Household Size in the City, County, and State Sebastopol Sonoma County California
2010 2022 2010 2022 2010 2022
Household Size (pph) 2.21 2.12 2.55 2.49 2.90 2.81
Percent Change from 2010 to 2022 -4.07% -2.35% -3.1%
Source: DOF 2021 (for 2010 data) and DOF 2023 (for 2022 data) As shown in Table 4.11-2, the average household size in Sebastopol was approximately 2.21 pph in 2010 and reduced to roughly 2.12 pph by 2022. Sonoma County saw a similar reduction in household size from 2.55 pph in 2010 to 2.49 pph in 2022. Overall, both the city and county have followed a similar trend in decreasing household size as the State, which saw a reduction from 2.90 in 2010 to 2.81 in 2022.
b. Projections
Table 4.11-3 presents population, dwelling units, and employment projections by DOF and ABAG through 2050 for Sonoma County. A city-specific breakdown for population projections is not available at this time, so county projections presented within the Association of Bay Area Governments’ (ABAG) Plan Bay Area 2050 have been utilized instead. As one of the smaller cities within Sonoma County, Sebastopol only accounts for a portion of the projected growth. However, the total county projections are provided as a conservative estimation of growth trends within the city of Sebastopol.

Table 4.11-3 Sonoma County Estimated Population and Employment Sonoma County1 2022 2050
Change
2022 to 2050
Percent Change
2022 to 2050
Households 206,637 220,000 13,363 6%
Jobs 240,5002 251,000 10,500 4%
1 A city-specific breakdown for population projections is not available through ABAG, so the County region as determined by Plan Bay Area 2050 has been utilized instead.
2 Data is from most recent projections for number of employed persons in Sonoma County for the year 2022 (EDD 2023) Source: ABAG 2021, DOF 2022b, EDD 2023
Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

Environmental Impact Analysis
Population and Housing
Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.11-3
It is estimated the population of Sonoma County will grow approximately six percent between 2022 and 2050 (DOF 2023, ABAG 2021). This translates to an estimated 13,363 new residents by 2050.

Jobs are expected to increase four percent between 2022 and 2050 resulting in more employment opportunities for existing and new residents. The available data shows an overall growth trend within the county; however, it is unlikely that most of the projected growth would occur within Sebastopol. As discussed above, Sebastopol is one of the smallest cities within Sonoma County and accounts for just 1.5 percent of the total county population (DOF 2023). It can reasonably be assumed that a majority of the projected growth would occur within larger cities such as Santa Rosa, Petaluma, Rohnert Park, and Windsor.

Furthermore, the City’s Housing Element has been updated based on the 6th Cycle State requirements for the 2023-2031 planning horizon. According to the City’s updated Housing Element, Sebastopol is required by their Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) to plan for a total of 213 new housing units through 2031 (City of Sebastopol 2023). The City has identified a majority of the projected units through RHNA Credits (Projected ADU development and pending, approved, or permitted projects) to meet its 6th Cycle, including the proposed project.

4.11.2 Regulatory Setting
a. Federal Regulations
There are no federal regulations that would be applicable to the project. b. State Regulations
Housing Element Law
First enacted in 1969, housing element law (Government Code Sections 65580–65589.8) mandates that local governments adequately plan to meet the existing and projected housing needs of all economic segments of the community. The law acknowledges that in order for the private market to adequately address housing needs and demand, local governments must adopt land use plans and regulatory systems that provide opportunities for, and do not unduly constrain, housing development. As a result, housing policy in the State rests largely upon the effective implementation of local general plans and, in particular, local housing elements. Housing element law also requires the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) to review local housing elements for compliance with State law and to report its written findings to the local government.

California Government Code Section 65583 specifies the State Housing Element requirements. The Housing Element is one of the State-mandated elements of the General Plan and is updated every eight years. HCD is responsible for reviewing Housing Elements to ensure compliance with State law. c. Local Regulations
City of Sebastopol Housing Element
The Housing Element is one of the seven State-mandated elements of the General Plan (Government Code Sections 65300 through 65303.4). The Housing Element serves as a tool to identify and provide for the housing needs of the community. It identifies recent demographic and employment trends that may affect existing and future housing demand and supply. California law requires the Housing Element to establish policies and programs that will support the provision of Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

City of Sebastopol
The Canopy

4.11-4
an adequate housing supply for citizens of all income levels. The Housing Element is the only element that requires review by the State Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD). The element addresses the city’s ability to meet the regional housing needs as determined by the State of California. Sebastopol’s 6th cycle Housing Element was adopted on January 3, 2023, and Certified by HCD on March 7, 2023.

City of Sebastopol Growth Management Ordinance
The City’s Growth Management Ordinance (GMO), which is part of the Sebastopol Municipal Code (SMC 17.500), was adopted to allow the City to manage and balance new residential growth so as not to exceed available resources including public infrastructure capacity, public services, and fiscal resources; and to protect the character and quality of life for existing and future residents of Sebastopol. The current adopted Ordinance establishes a residential development limit of 50 units per year. Certain types of residential development, such as ADUs, are exempt, while affordable housing units and downtown units are not subject to the 50-unit annual limit but do count towards the overall growth limit of 750 new units from 2017 to 2035. The General Plan allows for the carryover of the two previous years’ allocations. As of January 1, 2023, the City’s current available allocation for non-exempt units is 149 units.

4.11.3 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 population and housing if it would:

Induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area either directly or indirectly; or Displace substantial number of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere.

For purposes of this analysis, substantial population growth is defined as growth exceeding population growth outlined in the City’s 6th Cycle Housing Element. Substantial displacement would occur if implementation of the project would displace more residences than would be accommodated through growth accommodated by the project.

Methodology
Population and housing trends in the City were evaluated by reviewing the most current data available from the DOF, ABAG, and the City’s Housing Element. Impacts related to population are generally social or economic in nature. Under CEQA, a social or economic change generally is not considered a significant effect on the environment unless the changes are directly linked to a physical change.

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

Environmental Impact Analysis
Population and Housing
Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.11-5
b. Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Threshold 1: Would the project induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? Impact POP-1 THE PROPOSED PROJECT WOULD CONSTRUCT 80 NEW SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCES AND UP TO 16 ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS, WHICH WOULD INCREASE THE POPULATION IN SEBASTOPOL.

HOWEVER, THE GROWTH ANTICIPATED AS A RESULT OF THE PROJECT IS ACCOUNTED FOR IN THE CITY’S HOUSING ELEMENT. IMPACTS WOULD BE LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT.

The proposed project would construct 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). According to the California Department of Finance’s population estimates, the average persons per household in Sebastopol was 2.12 in 2022 (DOF 2023). Assuming

2.12 persons per household, the 80 new single family residential units could generate approximately 170 new residents within the city. The project also includes the potential for up to 16 ADUs to be constructed as well. To conservatively estimate a maximum buildout which includes the construction of all 16 ADUs, the project would include 96 residential units in total, resulting in approximately 204 new residents within the city. In 2022, the total population of the city was 7,433 residents. The increase of 170 new residents would result in a total population of approximately 7,603 residents and a population increase of roughly 2.2 percent.

As described in Section 4.9.1, Setting, the City of Sebastopol is expected to plan for a total of 213 new units through the 2023-2031 RHNA planning period (City of Sebastopol 2023). Through the Housing Element, the City has identified meeting this goal through primarily projected ADU development and pending, approved, or permitted projects. As shown on Table 16 of the Housing Element, the proposed project is considered within the City’s pending project list which would count for RHNA credit (City of Sebastopol 2023). The Housing Element underwent separate CEQA review and was ultimately approved by the City of Sebastopol in January 2023.

As discussed above under Regulatory Setting, the City’s GMO was adopted to allow the City to manage and balance new residential growth. As of January 1, 2023, the City’s current available allocation for non-exempt units is 149 units. Of the proposed 80 units, 68 would be market rate, while 12 would be deed-restricted as affordable (moderate income level). The deed-restricted units, along with any potential ADUs that are developed, are exempt from the GMO allocations.

Therefore, the proposed project’s 68 market rate units would fall under the available allocation of 149 units available and comply with the City’s GMO. Furthermore, given that the State is currently in an ongoing housing crisis due to an insufficient housing supply, the additional residential units under the project would further assist in addressing the existing crisis and meeting the housing needs of the City’s communities.

Therefore, because the project is designed for planned and orderly growth, as mandated by the State, development in accordance with the project would not indirectly induce growth in the City.

Impacts would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures would be required.

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

City of Sebastopol
The Canopy

4.11-6
Significance After Mitigation
Impacts would be less than significant without mitigation.

Threshold 2: Would the project displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? Impact POP-2 THE PROPOSED PROJECT WOULD NOT RESULT IN THE DISPLACEMENT OF SUBSTANTIAL NUMBERS OF HOUSING OR PEOPLE. THE PROJECT WOULD FACILITATE THE DEVELOPMENT OF NEW HOUSING IN SEBASTOPOL IN ACCORDANCE WITH STATE AND LOCAL HOUSING GOALS. THERE WOULD BE NO IMPACT.

As described in Impact POP-1, the conservative estimate of the maximum residential buildout for the project is an additional 96 housing units, resulting in approximately 204 new residents within the city. The project site is currently vacant, and construction of the proposed project would not result in the demolition or removal of existing housing which would necessitate replacement housing elsewhere. It is not anticipated that operation of the proposed project would displace any existing people or housing. On the contrary, the proposed project would provide new housing opportunities for Sebastopol residents. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in the net loss or displacement of housing and would not require the construction of replacement housing elsewhere. There would be no impact.

Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures would be required.

Significance After Mitigation
There would be no impact without mitigation.

4.11.4 Cumulative Impacts
The cumulative impacts assessment area for population and housing is the area within the limits of the City of Sebastopol. This is an appropriate cumulative impacts assessment area because the proposed project and the other reasonably foreseeable future projects listed in Table 3-1 would occur in the city limits and not contribute to growth beyond city limits.

The reasonably foreseeable future projects would include growth in the form of new structures and development as well as population growth from construction of new residential units. Some of the reasonably foreseeable future projects would not contribute to growth. For example, the 6828 Depot Street project would allow the construction of a hotel but would not include residential development or increase the number of people in Sebastopol. However, other reasonably foreseeable future projects would increase population, such as the 7621 Healdsburg Avenue townhomes, which would add residential units to cumulative impacts assessment area. Another example, the Woodmark Apartments project which is currently under construction and would likely finish Phase II of construction in the next five years. However, the City continues to refer to its General Plan and zoning ordinance to permit and plan development, including the reasonably foreseeable future projects.

A key part of this is the City’s GMO, which allocates 50 dwelling units per year (plus exempt units), with carryover provisions. Once a residential project has obtained final discretionary approval, then needed allocations can be issued on a first come, first served basis by the Planning Director for the remaining allocations available that year in accordance with SMC 17.500.030(B). These dwelling Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

Environmental Impact Analysis
Population and Housing
Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.11-7
allocations are valid until the discretionary approval expires. As of January 1, 2023, there are currently 149 unit allocations available for non-exempt units, of which the proposed project would need 68. Given the current development pipeline of anticipated projects, and timeline for construction for the proposed project, it is anticipated that adequate allocations would be available for the project.

Additionally, the reasonably foreseeable future projects do not include development projects that would result in substantial growth, but rather are relatively small projects that would incrementally increase population. The reasonably foreseeable future projects also are generally on sites without existing housing units, and therefore, would not displace substantial numbers of people or housing.

Cumulative impacts related to substantial unplanned growth or displacement would be less than significant.

Implementation of the proposed project would contribute to increasing population and housing units within the City. Because the City’s Housing Element plans for this growth it would not result in substantial unplanned growth, even when combined with the other reasonably foreseeable future projects. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to unplanned growth.

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

City of Sebastopol
The Canopy

4.11-8
This page intentionally left blank.

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

Environmental Impact Analysis
Public Services
Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.12-1

4.12 Public Services
This section assesses impacts associated with public services, including fire and police protection, public schools, libraries, and parks and recreation associated with project implementation. Impacts to water and wastewater infrastructure and solid waste collection and disposal are discussed in Section 4.18, Utilities and Service Systems. Impacts regarding wildland fires are discussed in Section

4.19, Wildfire.

4.12.1 Setting
a. Fire Protection
Fire protection, emergency medical services, and technical rescue services in the City of Sebastopol are provided by Sebastopol Fire Department (SFD) with mutual aid from the Gold Ridge Fire Protection Department (Gold Ridge FPD) and Graton Fire Protection District (Graton FPD). The station is located at 7425 Bodega Avenue in Sebastopol, approximately 1.1 miles southeast of the project site. In addition, the Sonoma County Fire District contracts with Sebastopol to provide fire and emergency services to an area immediately adjacent to the city on its eastern boundary, and northeast along State Route 12 (SR-12). The SFD provides a wide range of programs, including fire suppression, training, emergency medical services, hazardous materials cleanup, public education, and urban search and rescue. The SFD provides a response to an approximately 1.9 square mile area that includes the Sebastopol city limits and an unincorporated area of Sonoma County (City of Sebastopol 2023a).

The SFD operates as a volunteer department within the City government. It has one full-time chief, one full-time 40-hour fire engineer, and the remaining positions are staffed with 22 volunteer firefighters and six reserve firefighters (City of Sebastopol 2023a). The SFD responds to approximately 1,000 calls annually, with the heaviest demand being along SR-12 and State Route 116 (SR-116). Travel times are relatively low, with 90 percent of all emergency calls being responded to within three minutes and 16 seconds on average. However, turnout time is as long as five minutes and 47 seconds for 90 percent of emergency calls since 2019 (City of Sebastopol 2023b). b. Police Protection
The Sebastopol Police Department (SPD) provides police protection services within the City. SPD is a full-service law enforcement agency tasked with providing public safety services to the Sebastopol community. SPD officers serve a variety of roles including patrol, K-9, drug disposal services, code violations, pet return for lost and found pets, Animal Control services, issuances of various permits, investigations, communications, and school resources.

The SPD operates out of one station located at 6850 Laguna Park Way, approximately 1.1 miles east of the project site. As of 2020, the SPD was staffed with 14 full-time sworn officers, which includes the police chief, police lieutenant, four (4) police sergeants, and eight (8) police officers. SPD has six (6) non-sworn support staff, which included a dispatch/records supervisor, five (5) communication dispatchers, and a part-time police technician to conduct parking and animal control functions and assist with fingerprinting services. SPD also has four (4) reserve police officers, and four community service volunteers (City of Sebastopol 2021a). The average response for all Priority 1 (emergencies) calls in 2020 was 2 minutes and 58 seconds, from the time of dispatch to the time of arrival of officers at the scene of emergency. The average time for the communications dispatcher to answer Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

City of Sebastopol
The Canopy

4.12-2
an emergency call for service, gather required information from the caller, and dispatch necessary resources to the scene was 51 seconds (City of Sebastopol 2021). The standard for police service in the city is a response time of three minutes for 70 percent of emergency calls (City of Sebastopol 2016).
c. Schools
Sebastopol Union School District (SUSD) provides elementary school (kindergarten through 12th grade. There are three schools in SUSD, two of which are in the city: Park Side Elementary School and Brook Haven School. The SUSD had a total of 438 students in the 2021-22 school year with an average student to teacher ratio of 19.47 (National Center for Education Statistics [NCES] 2022a).

The City of Sebastopol is also supported by the West Sonoma County High School District (WSCHSD), which contains two schools, Analy High School, located in the eastern portion of Sebastopol, and Laguna High School, located north of Sebastopol in Forestville. Between the two high schools, there were a total of 1,664 students enrolled in the 2021-22 school year with an average student to teacher ratio of 18.17 (NCES 2022b).
d. Parks and Recreation
Sebastopol has multiple recreational opportunities, including some provided by local nonprofits and private developments. Parks, recreational and open spaces within the city include: the town Plaza; the Laguna Wetlands Preserve; the Laguna Skategarden Park; the Laguna Uplands; the Railroad Forest bike path connector; Tomodachi Park; and the Barlow green. Sebastopol has approximately

36.3 acres of developed parkland, and approximately 240 acres of undeveloped park space. Much of the undeveloped park space contains developed trails that count toward developed parkland within the city. A summary of existing parks within the city and notable amenities, including locations and acreages is provided in Table 4.12-1.

Table 4.12-1 Existing Park Facilities
Park Location Acreage Facilities
Ives Park 7400 Willow Street 6.4 Swimming pool, baseball field, play structure, ponds, stage area, grass fields, picnic areas, restrooms, and 3 bridges
Laguna de Santa Rosa
Wetlands Preserve
Adjacent to Laguna
Youth Park
81 Passive recreation uses: Trails, outdoor classroom for 50, and wildlife observation areas
Laguna Youth Park Adjacent to
Community Center

6.0 Two baseball fields, play structure, and picnic areas.

Gold Ridge Experiment
Farm
777 Bodega Avenue 3.2 Cottage, walking trails, and historical plantings Skategarden Park 6750 Laguna Park Way 1.1 Skate structure, 23 garden plots, art wall, and chess table
Spooner Park 910 South Main Street 0.5 Grass, solar panels, and ‘welcome’ sign Tomodachi Park 6665 Sebastopol
Avenue

8.7 Picnic area, short walking trail in Oak Woodland area Mario Savio Free
Speech Town Plaza
6901 McKinley Street 0.9 Gazebo, fountain, benches, and restrooms Libby Park 7985 Valentine Avenue 5.5 Parks Play structure, bocce ball court, volleyball court, gazebo, pond, and Garzot Community Building
Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

Environmental Impact Analysis
Public Services
Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.12-3
Park Location Acreage Facilities
Laguna Uplands Adjacent to the former
Palm Drive Hospital

8.0 Natural Laguna landscape, short walking trail, and
outdoor classroom/helicopter landing area
Ragle Ranch Regional
Park
500 Ragle Road 155.9 Regional park with soccer fields, tennis courts, play structure, pond, picnic areas, dog park, extensive
walking trails
Total Park Acreage 277.2
Source: City of Sebastopol. 2025. 2016 Sebastopol General Plan EIR. Accessed August 2023.

In addition to the parks in Table 4.12-1, Sebastopol has several trails located within the Laguna de Santa Rosa Wetlands, the Railroad Forest, and in West County Trail. West County Trail is the nearest trail to the project site, located directly adjacent to the north of the project site.

There are several parks located near the project site that may be used by future residents. Ragle Ranch Regional Park is located approximately 0.6 mile southwest of the project site, Libby Park is located approximately 0.7 mile south of the project site, and Ives Park is located 1.2 miles southeast of the project site. While not a park, the Ceres Community Garden is also located approximately 0.1 mile southeast of the project site.
e. Library Services
The Sebastopol Library is the only public library located in the City of Sebastopol. The Sebastopol Library is part of the Sonoma County Library system, which enables the relatively small Sebastopol Library to access all of the other libraries that are part of the Sonoma County Library system. The Sebastopol Library is located at 7140 Bodega Avenue. The library is open from 10 a.m. to 6 p.m.

Tuesdays, Thursday, and Fridays, from 10 a.m. to 8 p.m. on Wednesdays, and from 10 a.m. to 4 p.m. on Saturdays. The library collection includes materials in both Spanish and English. It also offers a wide variety of media, including DVDs, CDs and audiobooks, as well as a large print collection. The library offers a number of programs for all ages, including families, children, teens, and adults. This library is located approximately 1.1 miles southeast of the project site. The Sonoma County Library system serves more than 485,000 residents in Sonoma County. The Sebastopol Regional Library averaged approximately 17,884 monthly visits between 2014 and 2015 (Sonoma County Library 2016).

4.12.2 Regulatory Setting
a. Federal Regulations
There are no federal regulations that would be applicable to the project. b. State Regulations
California Fire and Building Codes
The State of California provides minimum standards for building design through the California Building Code (CBC), which is located in Part 2 of Title 24, California Building Standards Code, of the California Code of Regulations. The CBC is based on the International Building Code but has been amended for California conditions. It is generally adopted on a jurisdiction-by-jurisdiction basis, subject to further modification based on local conditions. Commercial and residential buildings are Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

City of Sebastopol
The Canopy

4.12-4
plan-checked by local building officials for compliance with the CBC. Typical fire safety requirements of the CBC include: the installation of sprinklers in all high-rise buildings; the establishment of fire resistance standards for fire doors, building materials, and particular types of construction; and the clearance of debris and vegetation within a prescribed distance from occupied structures in wildfire hazard areas.

California Code of Regulations
The California Code of Regulations, Title 5 Education Code, governs all aspects of education within the State. California State Assembly Bill 2926 (AB 2926) – School Facilities Act of 1986 – was enacted by the State of California in 1986 and added to the California Government Code (Section 65995). It authorizes school districts to collect development fees, based on demonstrated need, and generate revenue for school districts for capital acquisitions and improvements. It also established that the maximum fees which may be collected under this and any other school fee authorization are $1.50 per square foot for residential development and $0.25 per square foot for commercial and industrial development. AB 2926 was expanded and revised in 1987 through the passage of AB 1600, which added Section 66000 et seq. of the Government code. Under this statute, payment of statutory fees by developers serves as total mitigation under CEQA to satisfy the impact of development on school facilities. However, subsequent legislative actions have alternatively expanded and contracted the limits placed on school fees by AB 2926.

California Senate Bill 50
As part of the further refinement of the legislation enacted under AB 2926, the passage of SB 50 in 1998 defined the Needs Analysis process in government Code Sections 65995.5-65998. Under the provisions of SB 50, school districts may collect fees to offset the costs associated with increasing school capacity as a result of development. SB 50 generally provides for a 50/50 State and local school facilities match. SB 50 also provides for three levels of statutory impact fees. The application level depends on whether State funding is available; whether the school district is eligible for State funding; and whether the school district meets certain additional criteria involving bonding capacity, year-round schools, and the percentage of moveable classrooms in use.

California Government Code sections 65995-65998 sets forth provisions to implement SB 50.

Specifically, in accordance with section 65995(h), the payment of statutory fees is “deemed to be full and complete mitigation of the impacts of any legislative or adjudicative act, or both, involving, but not limited to, the planning, use, or development of real property, or any change in governmental organization or reorganization…on the provision of adequate school facilities.” The school district is responsible for implementing the specific methods for mitigating school impacts under the Government Code.

Pursuant to Government Code section 65995(i), “A State or local agency may not deny or refuse to approve a legislative or adjudicative act, or both, involving, but not limited to, the planning, use, or development of real property, or any change in governmental organization or reorganization as defined in section 56021 or 56073 on the basis of a person's refusal to provide school facilities mitigation that exceeds the amounts authorized pursuant to this section or pursuant to section 65995.5 or 65995.7, as applicable.”
California Education Code section 17620(a)(1) states that the governing board of any school district is authorized to levy a fee, charge, dedication, or other requirement against any construction within the boundaries of the district, for the purpose of funding the construction or reconstruction of Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

Environmental Impact Analysis
Public Services
Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.12-5
school facilities. The City of Sebastopol has developed a school impact fee which requires a payment of $2.41 per square foot of residential development (City of Sebastopol 2021b). c. Regional and Local Regulations
City of Sebastopol General Plan
The City’s Community Services and Facilities Element of the 2016 General Plan includes the following goals (City of Sebastopol 2016):

Goal CSF 1: Provide high quality community services, facilities, and infrastructure to all residents, businesses, and visitors in Sebastopol.

Goal CSF 2: Provide a diversified and high-quality public park and trail system that provides active and passive recreational opportunities for all segments of the community and provides enhanced connectivity between key residential, commercial, and recreational areas of the city.

Goal CSF 3: Provide an adequate, clean, safe, and environmentally sound water supply to all existing and future water users in Sebastopol.

Goal CSF 4: Provide adequate sewer service capacity to serve existing and future demands.

Goal CSF 5: Provide effective, high quality, and responsive police and fire services to all areas of the city.

Goal CSF 6: Enhance the quality of life for all city residents through the provision of cultural and social resources including quality schools, libraries, and other community services and facilities.

Impact Fees
City of Sebastopol Municipal Code (SMC)
SMC CHAPTER 3.34 FIRE FACILITIES FEE
SMC Chapter 3.34 requires that fire facilities fee is paid to finance and to fund fire facilities that are required to mitigate the impacts of new development on the City’s infrastructure in order to meet required response times. Fire facilities fees collected are utilized to fund new fire facilities necessary to maintain the existing level of service the City provides, to include equipment such as fire engines and fire station building facilities.

SMC CHAPTER 3.38 GENERAL GOVERNMENT FACILITIES IMPACT FEE SMC Chapter 3.38 requires that a general government facilities impact fee is paid to finance and to fund expansion of government facilities that are required to mitigate the impacts of new development on the City’s infrastructure. Through the City’s capital improvement plan process, these funds go towards the expansion of government facilities to maintain the existing level of service the City provides. “General government facilities” includes city hall, corporation yard, senior centers, police stations, museums, youth centers, and any other government facilities not addressed by other impact fees.

SMC CHAPTER 3.50 IN-LIEU FEES FOR SCHOOL FACILITIES
SMC Chapter 3.50 requires that an in-lieu of fee for school facilities is paid to finance and fund the expansion of school facilities that are required to mitigate the impacts of new development. Every Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

City of Sebastopol
The Canopy

4.12-6
owner or developer of a residential development situated or served by an attendance area where overcrowding exists must dedicate land, pay fees in-lieu thereof, or a combination of both for classroom facilities for elementary and/or high schools as a condition to the approval of a residential development.

SMC CHAPTER 17.280 PARK AND RECREATION LAND DEDICATION AND FEES SMC Chapter 17.280 requires that all new development projects and subdivisions shall provide park and recreation space at a minimum of five acres for each 1,000 persons within the City. A developer would be required to dedicate land, pay a fee in lieu thereof, or both, for neighborhood or community parks or recreational facilities. Funds collected through the in lieu of fee will be used only for the purposes of developing new and rehabilitating existing parks or recreational facilities to serve new development, pursuant to Government Code Section 66477(a)(3). The City has an adopted Development Impact Fee Study (2021) which outlines the impact fee paid to finance and to fund expansion of parkland and development of facilities within parkland within the City.

4.12.3 Impact Analysis
a. Significance Thresholds and Methodology
Significance Thresholds
CEQA Guidelines Appendix G identifies the following criteria for determining whether a proposed project’s impacts would have a significant impact related to public facilities. Would the proposed project:

1. Result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for any of the following public services:

Fire Protection
Police Protection
Schools
Parks
Other public facilities
Methodology
Impacts on fire and police protection services are considered significant if an increase in population or development levels would result in inadequate staffing levels, response times, and/or increased demand for services that would require the construction or expansion of new or altered facilities that have an adverse physical effect on the environment. Impacts on schools are determined by analyzing the project’s effect on the capacity at existing SUSD schools. The analysis considers whether an increase in use of the City’s parks and recreation facilities resulting from the project would cause the substantial physical deterioration of those facilities (e.g., disturbance of vegetation, accelerated wear on sports facilities and fields, erosion along trails, and an increased potential for increased graffiti and litter) or in the need for new or expanded facilities. The analysis further considers whether the project would diminish or otherwise adversely affect recreational Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

Environmental Impact Analysis
Public Services
Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.12-7
opportunities and existing facilities in the vicinity of the project site, based on existing issues with facility capacity. Impacts on library services are considered significant if an increase in population or development levels would result in an increased demand for library services that would require the need for new or physically altered library facilities to maintain acceptable service ratios, the construction of which could result in substantial adverse environmental effects. b. Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Threshold 1a: Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered fire protection facilities, or the need for new or physically altered fire protection facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives?
Impact PS-1 THE PROPOSED PROJECT WOULD NOT RESULT IN SUBSTANTIAL ADVERSE PHYSICAL IMPACTS

ASSOCIATED WITH THE PROVISION OF NEW OR PHYSICALLY ALTERED FIRE PROTECTION FACILITIES, OR NEED NEW OR PHYSICALLY ALTERED FIRE PROTECTION FACILITIES. IMPACTS WOULD BE LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT.

As discussed in Section 4.11, Population and Housing, the project would result in approximately 204 new residents within the city. Development of the proposed project would increase the city’s population from 7,733 to 7,637 residents. This would represent an increase of approximately 2.7 percent. The addition of new residents may increase the number and frequency of calls to the fire department. Development facilitated by the project would increase calls for service at the project site for issues including (but not limited to) emergency medical service, structure or vegetation fires, and traffic collisions. Since the proposed project is within 1.1 miles of the SFD station, emergencies on the project site would generally be responded to within current response times.

The project would be required to meet the standard fire code safety and access requirements administered by the City of Sebastopol Building and Safety Department and specified by the CBC. In accordance with standard practices, SFD would review project plans before permits are issued to ensure compliance with all applicable fire and building code standards and ensure adequate emergency access is provided to the site. In addition, the City of Sebastopol has developed impact fees for new development as detailed in Chapter 3.34of the SMC. The fee is utilized for the provision of resources for the SFD. Since the project would be served by existing services, and because the applicant would pay the required development fee, which would provide funding to support SFD operations, a new or physically altered fire station would not be required due to the project. As such, impacts on fire services because of the project would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures would be required.

Significance After Mitigation
Impacts would be less than significant with no mitigation required.

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

City of Sebastopol
The Canopy

4.12-8
Threshold 1b: Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered police protection facilities, or the need for new or physically altered police protection facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives? Impact PS-2 THE PROPOSED PROJECT WOULD NOT RESULT IN SUBSTANTIAL ADVERSE PHYSICAL IMPACTS

ASSOCIATED WITH THE PROVISION OF NEW OR PHYSICALLY ALTERED POLICE PROTECTION FACILITIES OR NEED NEW OR PHYSICALLY ALTERED POLICE PROTECTION FACILITIES. IMPACTS WOULD BE LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT.

The addition of 204 new residents may increase the number and frequency of calls to the police department. Development of the proposed project would increase the city’s population from 7,733 to 7,637 residents. This would represent an increase of approximately 2.7 percent. Development facilitated by the project would increase the number of annual incidents. Since the project site is within SPD’s existing service area and 1.1 miles from the SPD police station, emergencies on these sites would generally be responded to within current response times.

The City has adopted a general government facilities fee pursuant to Chapter 3.38 of the SMC. The project would be required to pay this impact fee. The fee is utilized for the provision of additional supplies and staff at the police station. Applying required development impact fees to the project would minimize incremental impacts caused by the project. Since the project would be served by existing services, and because future applicants would pay the General Government Facilities Fee, which would provide funding to support SPD operations, a new or physically altered police station would not be required due to the project. As such, impacts on police services because of the project would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures would be required.

Significance After Mitigation
Impacts would be less than significant with no mitigation required.

Threshold 1c: Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered schools, or the need for new or physically altered schools, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios or other performance objectives?
Impact PS-3 THE PROPOSED PROJECT WOULD NOT RESULT IN SUBSTANTIAL ADVERSE PHYSICAL IMPACTS

ASSOCIATED WITH THE PROVISION OF NEW OR PHYSICALLY ALTERED SCHOOLS OR NEED NEW OR PHYSICALLY ALTERED SCHOOLS. IMPACTS WOULD BE LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT.

The project would slightly increase the number of school-aged children in Sebastopol. In 2021, the SUSD enrolled 463 students. Based on the City’s current population of 7,433 residents, this would account for a six percent enrollment rate. Assuming the proposed project will have a similar proportion of school-aged children, the anticipated number of new students is approximately 13.1 1 463 students/ 7,433 residents = 0.06 or six percent. 204 new residents x 0.06 = 12.7 (rounded up to a whole person value).

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

Environmental Impact Analysis
Public Services
Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.12-9
Given that the City experienced a reduction in the number of students enrolled in recent years, following State and federal trends, the SUSD should be able to accommodate a slight increase in the total number of students induced by the project.

In addition, to offset a future project’s potential impact to schools, Government Code 65995 (b) establishes the base amount of allowable developer fees a school district can collect from development projects located within its boundaries. The fees obtained by SUSD and WSCHSD are used to maintain the desired school capacity and the maintenance and/or development of new school facilities. The project would be required to pay the SUSD and WSCHSD school impact fees.

Pursuant to Section 65995 (3)(h) of the California Government Code (Senate Bill 50, chaptered August 27, 1998), the payment of statutory fees “is deemed to be full and complete mitigation of the impacts of any legislative or adjudicative act, or both, involving, but not limited to, the planning, use, or development of real property, or any change in governmental organization or reorganization.” Therefore, existing laws and regulations would require funding for the provision or expansion of new school facilities to offset impacts from the project and impacts would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures would be required.

Significance After Mitigation
Impacts would be less than significant with no mitigation required.

Threshold 1d: Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered parks, or the need for new or physically altered parks, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios or other performance objectives? Impact PS-4 THE PROPOSED PROJECT WOULD NOT RESULT IN SUBSTANTIAL ADVERSE PHYSICAL IMPACTS

ASSOCIATED WITH THE PROVISION OF NEW OR PHYSICALLY ALTERED PARKS OR NEED NEW OR PHYSICALLY ALTERED PARKS. IMPACTS WOULD BE LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT.

As required by Chapter 17.28 of the SMC, all new residential development projects and subdivisions are required to provide park and recreation property at a minimum of five acres for each 1,000 persons within the City. In-lieu of fees for multifamily developments are calculated from the maximum density permitted in the proposed district, including any density bonus. For tentative parcel maps in multifamily districts, a condition may be added to the tentative parcel map stating that the number of dwelling units may be calculated using the density tentatively approved.

Payment of the in-lieu of fees or dedication of parkland or open space to maintain the minimum park to resident ratio would sufficiently mitigate any growth and impacts to parks induced by the proposed project.

In order to maintain the required level of service, the project would be required to provide a minimum of 1.02 acre of open space for the 204 new residents induced by the project. The proposed project would provide approximately 107,200 square feet (2.5 acres) of common open space and 216 square feet of private open space per dwelling unit. Payment of an in lieu of fee or dedication of land for recreational facilities would also be required in order to accommodate future expansion of open space facilities. Funds collected through the in lieu of fee would be used only for the purposes of developing new and rehabilitating existing parks or recreational facilities to serve Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

City of Sebastopol
The Canopy

4.12-10
new development, pursuant to Government Code Section 66477(a)(3). Therefore, new or physically altered parks would not be required for the project and impacts would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures would be required.

Significance After Mitigation
Impacts would be less than significant with no mitigation required.

Threshold 1e: Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered public facilities, or the need for new or physically altered public facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives?
Impact PS-5 THE PROPOSED PROJECT WOULD NOT RESULT IN SUBSTANTIAL ADVERSE PHYSICAL IMPACTS

ASSOCIATED WITH THE PROVISION OF NEW OR PHYSICALLY ALTERED PUBLIC FACILITIES OR NEED NEW OR PHYSICALLY ALTERED PUBLIC FACILITIES. IMPACTS WOULD BE LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT.

Development facilitated by the project would be expected to increase demand for library services.

Pursuant to the City’s General Government Facilities Fee, the project would be required to pay a per-unit fee (City of Sebastopol 2021b). These fees are collected and used to provide library services in the City, among other services. While library services demand may increase slightly because of the project, the project would not require the expansion of library facilities. Thus, impacts would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures would be required.

Significance After Mitigation
Impacts would be less than significant with no mitigation required.

4.12.4 Cumulative Impacts
The geographic scope of the cumulative public services analysis is the service area for the City of Sebastopol. Cumulative development projects would all place a demand on police, fire, school, and library services. The City has developed impact fees that help fund police, fire, school, and library services and which help ensure that these services have sufficient equipment and capacity to meet the incremental demand from each cumulative project. As such, cumulative impacts on these public services would be less than significant. In addition, a cumulative impact on police, fire, school, and library services would only be significant if an expanded or new facility would be needed, such that it resulted in a physical impact on the environment. At this time, no plans have been identified for expanded police, school, or library facilities. When plans for an expanded or new facility are identified for any public service, CEQA review would be conducted and the potential physical impacts on the environment would be assessed.

The geographic scope of the cumulative recreation analysis is the City. Cumulative development projects, especially residential projects, would increase residences in the City, which could place an Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

Environmental Impact Analysis
Public Services
Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.12-11
additional demand on recreational facilities. The City has developed a Parks and Recreation fee and land dedication process, which requires the applicants for new residential projects to pay this fee or dedicate land, which will fund park acquisition, park development, community gym, and the aquatic center. Payment of the Parks and Recreation fee would help ensure sufficient recreational resources for any new growth associated with the project. Furthermore, it is expected that open space would be included for cumulative residential projects to comply with zoning requirements. Overall, cumulative recreational impacts 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

4.12-12
This page intentionally left blank.

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

Environmental Impact Analysis
Transportation
Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.13-1

4.13 Transportation
This section analyzes the potential impacts of the project on transportation, including conflicts with transportation plans, vehicle miles traveled (VMT), project-related transportation hazards, and emergency access, associated with the implementation of the proposed project. For informational purposes, effects to the local transportation and circulation system are also addressed. The analysis in this section is primarily based on a Transportation Impact Study prepared for the project by WTrans (W-Trans 2023), which is included as Appendix G to this EIR.

4.13.1 Setting
a. Existing Local Roadway Network
Roadways in proximity to the project site include:

1. SR 116 (Gravenstein Highway North)/Occidental Road is a four-way signalized intersection located outside of the Sebastopol City limits. Crosswalks with pedestrian phasing are present on all but the south leg. Protected left-turn phasing is present on the northbound and southbound approaches and the eastbound and westbound approaches are split-phased.

2. SR 116 (Gravenstein Highway North)/Mill Station Road is a four-way signalized intersection with marked crosswalks and pedestrian phasing on all but the south leg. Protected left-turn phasing is present on the northbound and southbound approaches and the eastbound and westbound approaches are split-phased.

3. SR 116 (Gravenstein Highway North)/Hurlbut Avenue is a signalized four-way intersection with marked zebra crosswalks on all four legs. Protected left-turn phasing is present on the northern and southern approaches and pedestrian phasing is present on all four legs. Class II bike lanes are available on the north and south legs of the intersection.

4. SR 116 (Gravenstein Highway North-Healdsburg Avenue)/Covert Lane is a T-intersection with stop controls on the Covert Lane approach. Covert Lane runs east-west, but it curves to the north as it approaches SR 116. East of Covert Lane, SR 116 runs east-west, but it curves to the north to the west of Covert Lane. Class II bike lanes exist on both sides of the north leg of SR 116 and exist on the southwest side of SR 116 on the south leg. There are no marked crosswalks on any legs of the intersection.

5. SR 116 (Healdsburg Avenue)/Murphy Avenue is a three-way intersection with the stop control on the northbound Murphy Avenue approach. Marked crosswalks exist on the west and south legs of the intersection. Class II bike lanes exist on the east and west legs of the intersection, while there are sharrow markings on the south leg. Yield markings are on the east and west legs approaching the intersection and Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacons (RRFB) are present on the west leg.

6. SR 116 (Healdsburg Avenue-North Main Street)/North Main Street is a signalized Tintersection with zebra crosswalks and pedestrian phasing on the north and east legs. Protected left-turn phasing exists on the eastern approach of the intersection. North Main Street curves to the west as it approaches Healdsburg Avenue and continues north. Class II bike lanes are present on the north side of the east leg, both sides of the west leg, and Class II bike lanes are present on both sides of the north leg.

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

City of Sebastopol
The Canopy

4.13-2
b. Traffic Conditions
Analysis Methodology
This section uses the metric of VMT, as described below, to analyze transportation-related impacts consistent with Senate Bill 743 and the state CEQA guidelines. Pursuant to California Public Resources Code section 21099(b)(2) and CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3, “a project’s effect on automobile delay shall not constitute a significant environmental impact.” Because the City of Sebastopol has updated its CEQA thresholds in accordance with state regulations, this analysis does not make significance conclusions with respect to impacts related to automobile delay, which is typically described as “Level of Service” (LOS). Although LOS is no longer the City’s metric for analyzing traffic impacts under CEQA, Appendix G describes traffic operations at the studied intersections in terms of LOS for informational purposes.

Vehicle Miles Traveled
“Vehicle miles traveled” refers to the amount and distance of automobile travel “attributable to a project.” VMT re-routed from other origins or destinations as the result of a project would not be attributable to a project except to the extent that the re-routing results in a net increase in VMT.

Daily VMT per resident is the average number of vehicle miles that a resident in a given area travels per day. One factor that leads to a higher relative daily VMT per resident is an imbalance of jobs and housing availability in an area. The project site is located within traffic analysis zone (TAZ) 803, which has a baseline VMT per capita of 15.57 miles.
c. Transit and Access Circulation
Sonoma County Transit
Sonoma County Transit (SCT) provides fixed-route bus service in Sebastopol and surrounding areas.

SCT Route 20, Route 24, and Route 26 all have stops within a half mile of the project site. Route 20 runs from the Coddingtown Mall in the City of Santa Rosa to Monte Rio in the Russian River Area.

Route 24 runs from the Sebastopol Transit Hub in downtown Sebastopol to the intersection of SR 116/Mill Station Road (at the project site frontage), and Route 26 operates on school days only with one bus run in each direction per day, at 7:22 a.m. and 3:38 p.m. Existing transit routes and details regarding their operation are summarized in Table 4.13-1.

Table 4.13-1 Transit Routes
Transit
Agency Route
Distance to
Stop (mi)1
Service
Connections
Days of
Operation Time Frequency
Sonoma County Transit
Route #20 <0.1 Mon-Fri
Sat-Sun
6:30 a.m. – 9:30 p.m.
6:30 a.m. – 9:30 p.m.
50 – 80 min
50 – 105 min
Monte Rio
Coddington/Santa Rosa
Route #24 <0.1 Mon-Fri
Sat
7:45 a.m. – 6:30 p.m.
7:45 a.m. – 5:30 p.m.
45 – 55 min
45 – 55 min
Sebastopol
SR 116/Mill Station Road
Route #26 <0.1 School Days 7:22 a.m.
3:38 p.m.
1 run
1 run
Mirabel Park
Sonoma State Univ.

Sources: W-Trans 2023; Appendix G
Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

Environmental Impact Analysis
Transportation
Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.13-3
Two bicycles can be carried on most SCT buses, and bike rack space is provided on a first-come, firstserved basis. Additional bicycles are allowed on SCT buses at the discretion of the bus operator.

Dial-a-ride, also known as paratransit or door-to-door service, is available for those who are unable to independently use the transit system due to a physical or mental disability. SCT Paratransit is designed to serve the needs of individuals with disabilities within the City of Sebastopol and the greater Sonoma County area.
d. Pedestrian Conditions
Pedestrian facilities include sidewalks, crosswalks, pedestrian signal phases, curb ramps, curb extensions, and various streetscape amenities such as lighting, benches, etc. Existing pedestrian facilities along the proposed project site frontage as well as within a one-quarter mile distance of the project site were reviewed.

A generally connected pedestrian network currently exists along SR 116 near the project site.

However, there is no sidewalk on the west side of SR 116 north of its intersection with Danmar Drive. Sidewalks are present on the east side of SR 116 south of its intersection with Mill Station Road, and the West County Trail follows the east side of SR 116 north of Mill Station Road. As part of the project, pedestrian paths would be built to connect the project site to the existing pedestrian network on the east side of SR 116. One pedestrian path would be located along the southeastern boundary of the project site and connect to the existing sidewalk on SR 116, and one would be located on the north side of the project site and connect to the West County Trail.

Caltrans has recently solicited bids for a project to install a new crosswalk with a HAWK (Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon) signal across the north leg of the intersection of SR 116/Danmar Drive. It is expected that this Caltrans-funded improvement will be installed before the end of 2023. e. Bicycling Conditions
The Highway Design Manual 7th Edition, Caltrans, 2020, classifies bikeways into four categories:
 Class I Multi-Use Path. A completely separated right-of-way for the exclusive use of bicycles and pedestrians with cross flows of motorized traffic minimized.  Class II Bike Lane. A striped and signed lane for one-way bike travel on a street or highway.  Class III Bike Route. Signing only for shared use with motor vehicles within the same travel lane on a street or highway.
 Class IV Bikeway. Also known as a separated bikeway, a Class IV Bikeway is for the exclusive use of bicycles and includes a separation between the bikeway and the motor vehicle traffic lane.

The separation may include, but is not limited to, grade separation, flexible posts, inflexible physical barriers, or on-street parking.

In the project vicinity there are several existing Class I, II, and III bikeway facilities, including the Class I multi-use bicycle and pedestrian West County Trail, which runs between Occidental Road and North Main Street. There are existing bicycle lanes along SR 116 between the north city limit and North Main Street, along Covert Lane between Ragle Road and SR 116, and along High School RoadNorth Main Street between Occidental Road and SR 116. There are also several Class III bike routes in the project vicinity, most of which feature sharrow pavement markings.

According to the Sebastopol Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan (2011), bike lanes are planned along Bodega Avenue between the City limits at Ragle Road east to High Street. These facilities are being Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

City of Sebastopol
The Canopy

4.13-4
constructed in two phases; with the eastern section (Phase 1) between High Street to Robinson/Nelson Ave scheduled for construction between 2023-2024; and Phase 2, from Robinson/Nelson to Pleasant Hill Road scheduled for construction between 224-2025, pending grant funding. Bike lanes are also planned along Mill Station and Ragle roads between SR 116 and Covert Lane. Class I facilities are planned adjacent to Occidental Road and Bodega Avenue, and a Class III route is planned on Mill Station Road west of Ragle Road. Bicyclists ride in the roadway and/or on sidewalks along all other streets within the project study area. Table 4.13-2 summarizes the existing and planned bicycle facilities in the project vicinity, as contained in the Countywide Active Transportation Plan.

Table 4.13-2 Bicycle Facilities in Project Vicinity
Facility Class Length (miles) Begin Point End Point
Existing
West County Trail I 1.68 Occidental Road North Main Street Occidental Road II 1.83 Mill Station Road High School Road Covert Lane II 0.50 Ragle Road SR 116
SR 116 (Gravenstein Highway) II 0.52 North City Limit Covert Lane SR 116 (Healdsburg Avenue) II 0.64 Covert Lane North Main Street SR 116 II 0.95 Occidental Road North City Limit
High School Road/North Main Street II 1.56 Occidental Road SR 116 Valentine Avenue III 0.60 Ragle Road Murphy Avenue
Danmar Drive/Norlee Street III 0.48 SR 116 Covert Lane
Washington Avenue III 0.56 Willard Libby Park Bodega Avenue Ragle Road III 0.52 Covert Lane Bodega Avenue
Pleasant Hill Avenue III 0.50 Covert Lane Bodega Avenue Zimpher Drive III 0.21 Covert Lane Valentine Avenue
Murphy Avenue III 0.38 SR 116 Valentine Avenue
Planned
West County/Rodota Trail I 0.91 West County
(west segment)
SR 116
Bodega Avenue I 0.29 Atascadero Creek Ragle Road
Mill Station Road II 0.26 Ragle Road SR 116
Bodega Avenue II 0.87 Ragle Road Dutton Avenue-Jewell Avenue SR 116 (Gravenstein Highway) II 0.95 Occidental Road North City Limit Ragle Road II 0.41 Mill Station Road Covert Lane
Mill Station Road III 1.91 Occidental Road Ragle Road
Sources: W-Trans 2023; Appendix G
Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

Environmental Impact Analysis
Transportation
Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.13-5

4.13.2 Regulatory Setting
This section describes applicable state, regional, and local laws, ordinances, regulations, and standards governing transportation and traffic, which must be adhered to before and during project implementation.
a. Federal Regulations
The US Department of Transportation (USDOT) provides a number of grant programs, primarily for the construction and upgrading of major highways and transit facilities. Many of these grants are administered by the State and local governments. Use of federal grant funding also invokes the National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA) in some cases. The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) sets design standards (such as interchange spacing) for interstate highways, such as I-80.

The Federal Railroad Administration within the USDOT establishes safety rules regarding the operation of railroads (e.g., maximum train speeds, maximum allowed highway crossing blockage time).
b. State Regulations
State Senate Bill 375
Senate Bill (SB) 375, signed in August 2008, directs each of the state’s 18 major Metropolitan Planning Organizations to prepare a “sustainable communities strategy” (SCS) that contains a growth strategy to meet emission targets for inclusion in the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP). On September 23, 2010, the California Air Resources Board (CARB) adopted final regional targets for reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from 2005 levels by 2020 and 2035.

The intent of SB 375 is to use the Regional Transportation Plan and Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS) to integrate regional land use, regional housing need allocations (RHNA), environmental, and transportation planning to ensure efficient regional planning in the future that leads to reduced greenhouse gas emissions from transportation and stationary sources. As a result of SB 375, preparation of local RHNA Plans are required to be coordinated and consistent with the RTP/SCS for the length of the housing element cycle. Local governments play a large role in helping to develop the transportation and land use scenarios used in the SCS development process.

State Senate Bill 743
Senate Bill (SB) 743 was signed into law by California Governor Jerry Brown in 2013 and tasked the State Office of Planning and Research (OPR) with establishing new criteria for determining the significance of transportation impacts under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). SB 743 requires the new criteria to “promote the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, the development of multimodal transportation networks, and a diversity of land uses.” It also states that alternative measures of transportation impacts may include “vehicle miles traveled, vehicle miles traveled per capita, automobile trip generation rates, or automobile trips generated.” On September 27, 2013, Governor Brown signed SB 743 into law and started a process that changes transportation impact analysis as part of CEQA compliance. SB 743 requires the Governor’s OPR to identify new metrics for identifying and mitigating transportation impacts within CEQA. In January 2018, OPR transmitted its proposed CEQA Guidelines implementing SB 743 to the California Natural Resources Agency for adoption, and in January 2019 the Natural Resources Agency finalized updates to the CEQA Guidelines, which incorporated SB 743 modifications, and are now in effect. SB 743 Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

City of Sebastopol
The Canopy

4.13-6
changed the way that public agencies evaluate the transportation impacts of projects under CEQA, recognizing that roadway congestion, while an inconvenience to drivers, is not itself an environmental impact (Public Resource Code, § 21099 (b)(2)). In addition to new exemptions for projects consistent with specific plans, the CEQA Guidelines replaced congestion-based metrics, such as auto delay and level of service, with VMT as the basis for determining significant impacts, unless the Guidelines provide specific exceptions.

CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3
Originating from SB 743, Section 15064.3 of the CEQA Guidelines establishes VMT as the most appropriate measure of transportation impacts, shifting away from the level of service (LOS) analysis that evaluated a project’s impacts on traffic conditions on nearby roadways and intersections. Section 15064.3 does the following:
 Identifies VMT (amount and distance of automobile traffic attributable to a project) as the most appropriate measure of transportation impacts;
 Declares that a project’s effect on automobile delay shall not constitute a significant environmental impact (except for projects increasing roadway capacity);  Creates a rebuttable presumption of no significant transportation impacts for (a) land use projects within 0.5 mile of either an existing major transit stop or a stop along an existing high quality transit corridor, (b) land use projects that reduce VMT below existing conditions, and (c) transportation projects that reduce or have no impact on VMT;  Allows a lead agency to qualitatively evaluate VMT if existing models are not available; and  Gives lead agencies discretion to select a methodology to evaluate a project’s VMT but requires lead agencies to document that methodology in the environmental document prepared for the project.

In December 2018, OPR issued a Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA (OPR 2018). The technical advisory contains technical recommendations regarding assessment of VMT, thresholds of significance, and mitigation measures. The technical advisory suggests a significance threshold for VMT that is based on state mandated GHG emission reduction targets.

The technical advisory recommends a quantitative per capita or per employee VMT that is 15 percent below that of existing development as a possible threshold of significance that would comply with the state’s long-term climate goals.

California Building Code
California provides minimum standards for building design through the California Building Code (CBC), which is located in Part 2 of Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations. The CBC is based on the 1997 Uniform Building Code with modifications specific for California conditions. The CBC provides fire and emergency equipment access standards for public roadways, which include specific width, grading, design and other specifications for roads which provide access for fire apparatus. Street modifications in the City of Sebastopol are subject to these and other modified State standards. The City of Sebastopol adopted the 2022 edition of the CBC in 2022.

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

Environmental Impact Analysis
Transportation
Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.13-7
c. Regional and Local Regulations
2016 Sebastopol General Plan
The City of Sebastopol General Plan (2016) sets forth the following guiding and implementing policies relevant to transportation and circulation:

Goal CIR 1: Provide a transportation system that promotes the use of alternatives to the singleoccupant vehicle and facilitates the efficient and environmentally responsible movement of people and goods within and through the City of Sebastopol.

Policy CIR 1-2 Ensure that the City’s circulation network is a well-connected system of streets, roads, sidewalks, multi-use trails, routes, and paths that effectively accommodates vehicular and non-vehicular traffic in a manner that considers the context of surrounding land uses and the needs of all roadway users.

Policy CIR 1-5 When analyzing impacts to the circulation network created by new development or roadway improvements, consider the needs of all users, including those with disabilities, ensuring that pedestrians, bicyclists, and transit riders are considered preeminent to automobile drivers.

Policy CIR 1-6 In evaluating circulation improvement needs, and in reviewing major development proposals, consider impacts for all modes of transportation, including pedestrians, bicyclists, transit, and vehicles.

Policy CIR 1-7 Projects that would substantially impact circulation conditions shall provide a circulation impact report. This report will serve as a decision-making tool for the City, recognizing that maintaining and improving the community’s social fabric and economic vitality includes consideration of a project’s effects on pedestrians, bicyclists, and transit as well as the overall effect of improvements associated with achieving appropriate Level of Service. LOS is not intended to be used as the primary method to limit the size or density of a project, but rather to provide decisionmakers with a picture of the impacts associated with a project and allow decision-makers to determine appropriate improvements to alleviate traffic impacts, to the extent appropriate and feasible. The Planning Department will determine whether a circulation impact report is required as part of the initial project application review process.

Circulation impact reports shall evaluate:
 Project effects on all modes of travel, including pedestrians, bicycles, transit, and vehicles;
 Improvements to accommodate the project with a focus on access and safety; and
 Impacts to vehicle travel, as determined by the Transportation Research Board’s Highway Capacity Manual. This analysis is intended to provide a menu of potential improvements but should not mitigate LOS by reducing project size, either by intensity or density.

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

City of Sebastopol
The Canopy

4.13-8
Decision-makers shall evaluate projects based on the merits of a project, including contribution to City character, and shall determine whether the City is best served by either implementing improvements to address potential circulation impacts or, if improvements are determined to not be appropriate or feasible, ensuring that a project provides a certain level of density and intensity, as envisioned by Figure 2-2 (Land Use Map) to contribute to the social fabric of the community and meet the City’s goals for economic development, economic vitality, and adequate housing.

Multimodal improvements, traffic calming improvements, or other systemwide transportation network improvements may be required in lieu of requiring mitigations to the impacted road or intersection in order to reduce the overall impacts to mobility. This approach could apply to the use of traffic impact fees collected from developments as well.

Policy CIR 1-8 Establish multi-modal LOS objectives that would facilitate review of transit, bicycle and pedestrian impacts, in addition to motor vehicles when these methods are more available and useful.

Policy CIR 1-9 Through the development review process, CEQA process, and through longrange infrastructure planning efforts, identify circulation network improvements and mitigation measures necessary to maintain the City’s vehicle, transit, bicycle and pedestrian objectives.

Policy CIR 1-14 Maintain and improve critical transportation facilities to provide logical emergency vehicle access and emergency evacuation needs.

Action CIR 1f As part of the development review process, the Planning Department, Public Works Department, Police Department, and Fire Department shall review development projects to ensure that developers:
 Construct transportation improvements along property frontages when appropriate
 Address the project’s proportional-share of impacts to the City’s circulation network through payment of traffic mitigation fees  Provide for complete streets to the extent feasible; facilitating walking, biking, and transit modes
 Provide appropriate on-site pedestrian and bicycle features  Fund traffic impact studies that identify on-site and off-site project effects and mitigation measures
 Provide adequate emergency vehicle access
 Minimize driveway cuts consistent with access and site planning considerations
Plan Bay Area 2050
The Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) and the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) are jointly responsible for long range planning in the San Francisco Bay Area, which includes Sonoma County and eight other counties. ABAG and MTC developed the Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS), a long-range regional transportation plan, Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

Environmental Impact Analysis
Transportation
Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.13-9
required by state and federal law. The RTP/SCS, titled Plan Bay Area 2050, focuses on the sectors of housing, economic growth, transportation, and the environment and contains goals and policies regarding a compatible, regional transportation and transit system.

4.13.3 Impact Analysis
a. Significance Thresholds and Methodology
Significance Thresholds
Consistent with Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines, the project would have a significant impact on transportation if it would:

Conflict with a program, plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities;
Conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision (b); Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible use (e.g., farm equipment); or Result in inadequate emergency access.

Methodology
The OPR Technical Advisory provides VMT threshold guidance for several land use types. Residential uses are assessed using a home-based VMT per capita metric, with VMT significance thresholds set at a level of 15 percent below the citywide or regional average. The Technical Advisory indicates that it may be appropriate to apply a countywide, rather than regional, average if most people both live and work within the smaller geographic area. According to data contained in the Sonoma County Travel Behavior Study, Sonoma County Transportation Authority (SCTA), 2020, approximately 98 percent of Sebastopol’s vehicle trips remain within Sonoma County. Use of a common model to produce both project level and threshold values also allows for a clear “apples to apples” assessment. Accordingly, the applied significance threshold was based on the Sonoma County per-capita VMT average rather than the nine-County Bay Area regional average.

SCTA operates and maintains the regional travel demand model that produces baseline VMT estimates. The VMT thresholds and projections applied in this analysis reflect the SCTM19 model updated in December 2021, which remains the current version as of the August 2023 timeframe of this analysis. Based on output from the SCTA model, the existing average residential VMT per capita in the County of Sonoma is 16.60 miles. VMT significance thresholds are set at 15 percent below this level, or 14.11 miles. Accordingly, the project would have a potentially significant impact on VMT if its projected residential VMT per Capita exceeds 14.11 miles.

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

City of Sebastopol
The Canopy

4.13-10
b. Project Impacts and Mitigation
Threshold 1: Would the project conflict with a program, plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities? Impact TRA-1 THE PROJECT WOULD CONFLICT WITH GENERAL PLAN ACTION CIR 1F RELATING TO PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES. INCORPORATION OF MITIGATION MEASURE TRA-1 WOULD ENSURE COMPLIANCE WITH ALL RELEVANT PLANS, PROGRAMS, ORDINANCES AND POLICIES. IMPACTS WOULD BE LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT WITH MITIGATION INCORPORATED.

Transit Facilities
Given the size of the proposed project, there would not be substantial new demand for transit service generated by the development, though some residents or visitors may choose to use transit.

The existing pedestrian facilities are adequate to provide access to the project site from the transit stops, and there are sufficient routes and headways to accommodate the nominal additional demand (Appendix G).

Existing public transit routes (refer to Section 4.13.1 above) are adequate to accommodate the additional demand generated by the project, and existing bus stops are accessible via continuous sidewalks. Transit facilities serving the project site are considered to be adequate, and the project would not conflict with any programs or policies regarding transit (Appendix G). Furthermore, the additional population and associated use by the project residents may contribute to the sustainability of ridership on these lines.

The proposed project would have a less than significant impact relative to transit facilities, as it would be consistent with existing plans, policies, and programs for these modes.

Roadway Facilities
The proposed project complies with Policy CIR 1-2 as the project does not inhibit any existing roadways within the vicinity of the project area. In addition, the proposed project enhances the roadway network by providing connectivity between the proposed project and the new HAWK crossing at SR 116/Danmar Drive. Thus, the proposed project is also compliant with General Plan Policies CIR 1-5, 1-6, 1-9, and General Plan Action CIR 1f. As discussed below under Impact TRA-4, site access and circulation would function acceptably for emergency response vehicles. Since emergency responders can claim the right-of-way through use of their lights and sirens, the addition of project-generated traffic would be expected to have little to no impact on emergency response times. Therefore, the proposed project would be in compliance with General Plan Policy CIR 1-14.

As noted previously, pursuant to Section 15064.3 of the CEQA Guidelines, traffic delay, which is what LOS measures and describes, shall not constitute a significant environmental impact for land use projects. However, General Plan Policy CIR1-7 requires projects with potentially significant impacts to circulation to provide a circulation impact report to provide decisionmakers with a picture of the impacts associated with a project and allow decision-makers to determine appropriate improvements to alleviate traffic impacts. In addition, General Plan Policy CIR 1-8 requires review of multi-modal LOS objectives where applicable. While that information may not be used to justify a significant impact, an LOS study has been provided in detail in the Transportation Impact Study (appendix G) for reference. Therefore, the proposed project would be consistent with all applicable General Plan policies and 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
Transportation
Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.13-11
Bicycle Facilities
The proposed project 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 Occidental road and the southern city limits, 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 96 bicycle parking spaces and a bicycle repair station to promote bicycle travel, as well as multi-use path connections on the north side of the development to the West County Trail and on the east side of the project to Hurlbut Avenue and its easterly access to the West County Trail.

The project would not result in the construction of any new bicycle facilities. Existing and planned bicycle facilities would provide adequate access for bicyclists traveling to and from the project. The project would not conflict with any policies or plans for bicycle facilities (Appendix G).

Pedestrian Facilities
Pedestrian facilities serving the project site are adequate. The paths proposed and recommended as part of the project would provide adequate access to the existing pedestrian facilities, with the exception of connectivity to the new HAWK crossing across the north leg of the intersection of SR 116/Danmar Drive. General Plan Action CIR 1f requires that development projects “provide complete streets to the extent feasible; facilitating walking, biking, and transit modes” and requires that development projects “provide appropriate on-side pedestrian and bicycle features.” For this project, an appropriate feature would be a connection to the HAWK crossing. Therefore, the project would conflict with General Plan Action CIR 1f.

In order to adequately comply with Action CIR 1f, Mitigation Measure TRA-1 is required. Mitigation Measure TRA-1 would ensure that the proposed project include a new pedestrian path through the center of the site to link the project and mixed commercial office park to the new HAWK crossing.

Mitigation Measures
TRA-1 Pedestrian Connectivity and Safety
A new pedestrian path would be added through the center of the project site in order to link the project and mixed commercial office park to the new HAWK crossing across the north leg of the intersection of SR 116/Danmar Drive after Caltrans constructs the HAWK crossing and before an occupancy permit is issued.

Significance After Mitigation
Implementation of Mitigation Measure TRA-1 would ensure that the project would not result in a conflict with General Plan policies addressing the circulation system and would provide a safe crossing location for pedestrians. Impacts would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated.

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

City of Sebastopol
The Canopy

4.13-12
Threshold 2: Would the project conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision (b)?
Impact TRA-2 VEHICLE MILES TRAVELED (VMT) ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT WOULD NOT EXCEED THE COUNTY’S THRESHOLDS FOR RESIDENTIAL PROJECTS. THEREFORE, THE IMPACT RELATED TO VMT WOULD BE LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT.

The SCTA model includes TAZs covering geographic areas throughout Sonoma County. Based on the model, for the project to achieve the applied threshold of 15 percent below the Countywide average, its projected VMT per capita would need to be reduced by 9.4 percent (Appendix G).

The residential density of the proposed project is 13.1 dwelling units per acre, and therefore, a reduction to the model’s VMT was applied to capture VMT reductions associated with an increase in residential density over 9.69 units per acre.1 Making VMT adjustments to account for characteristics such as density and affordability are standard practice and have been verified for applicability in Sonoma County by SCTA. The publication Handbook for Analyzing Greenhouse Gas Emission Reductions, Assessing Climate Vulnerabilities, and Advancing Health and Equity, California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA), 2021, includes a methodology to determine the VMT reductions associated with increases in residential density.

Applying the CAPCOA density methodology results in a VMT reduction of 9.69 percent, or 1.51 VMT.

Applying this percentage reduction yields an adjusted VMT value of 14.06, which is below the threshold of 14.11. Table 4.13-3 shows a summary of the VMT analysis in Appendix G. As shown therein, the project would have a less than significant impact on VMT as the project’s VMT would be below the threshold of 15 percent below the Countywide average.

Table 4.13-3 Vehicle Miles Traveled Analysis Summary
Project VMT per Capital
VMT Metric Baseline VMT Rate
Significance
Threshold
Project Site
TAZ 8031
Meets
Threshold?
Residential VMT per Capita
(Countywide baseline)

16.60 14.11 15.57 No
Applicable VMT Reduction
Baseline Density
(Countywide Average)
Project
Density
Calculated VMT
Reduction Adjusted VMT
Higher Density Residential 9.1 du/acre 13.1 du/acre 16.05 percent 14.06 Notes: VMT Rate is measured in VMT per Capita, or the number of daily miles driven per resident; TAZ = Traffic Analysis Zone1; du/acre = dwelling units per acre
Sources: W-Trans 2023; Appendix G
1 In Section 2, Project Description, Table 2-1 states the project density is 13.1 dwelling units per acre. This density does not assume full buildout of the proposed ADUs..

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

Environmental Impact Analysis
Transportation
Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.13-13
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation would be required.

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

Threshold 3: Would the project substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible use (e.g., farm equipment)?
Impact TRA-3 THE PROPOSED PROJECT WOULD NOT INTRODUCE DESIGN FEATURES OR INCOMPATIBLE USES THAT COULD INCREASE TRAFFIC HAZARDS. THIS IMPACT WOULD BE LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT.

Primary access to the site would be provided at two locations: by an existing private drive that links the existing office development adjacent to the project to Mill Station Road and via the southernmost drive aisle of the office development’s parking lot. A new curb cut and driveway would be created at the southernmost point of this drive aisle to provide more direct access to SR 116.

Sight distances along SR 116 at the proposed new project driveway at the southernmost parking lot drive aisle were evaluated based on sight distance criteria contained in the Highway Design Manual published by Caltrans. Based on a posted speed of 35 mph for SR 116, the minimum stopping sight distance needed is 250 feet (Appendix TRA). Field measurements indicate that sight distance at the driveways on SR 116 is over 300 feet in each direction and exceeds the stopping sight distance needed for vehicles traveling five mph above the posted speed limit of 35 mph. The sight distance at the private driveway location on Mill Station Road was field measured at 100 feet in each direction and does not meet the stopping sight distance requirement of 200 feet in each direction for five mph over the posted speed limit of 25 mph. This is an existing condition of the roadway and would not change as a result of the proposed project. Therefore, it is not an impact caused by the project.

As landscaping and signage can impede sight lines, it is recommended in Appendix TRA, any landscaping or signage placed within the vision triangle at the driveway should be less than three feet or more than seven feet above the pavement surface to maintain a clear line of sight (Appendix TRA). Nevertheless, these 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

4.13-14
Threshold 4: Would the project result in inadequate emergency access? Impact TRA-4 THE PROPOSED PROJECT WOULD NOT RESULT IN INADEQUATE EMERGENCY ACCESS. THIS IMPACT WOULD BE LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT.

The project site would be accessed by an existing private road that connects to Mill Station Road to the northwest of the project site and by the access easement via the southernmost drive aisle of the parking lot of the adjacent development as well as a new driveway on SR 116 at the end of the project access drive aisle to provide direct access from the project to the street. The project would include a small private internal street network with a minimum travel width of 24 feet. This network and the parking stalls located therein are in accordance with City design standards. Site access and circulation would function acceptably for emergency response vehicles (Appendix TRA).

The proposed project is expected to generate an average 684 trips per day, including 44 a.m. peak hour trips and 54 trips during the p.m. peak hour on a typical day (Appendix TRA). The increase in traffic volumes resulting from the project can reasonably be expected to result in similarly nominal changes to traffic delays in the area. Since emergency responders can claim the right-of-way through use of their lights and sirens, the addition of project-generated traffic would be expected to have little to no impact on emergency response times. The project would have a less than significant impact on emergency response (Appendix TRA).

Mitigation Measures
No mitigation would be required.

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

4.13.4 Cumulative Impacts
The cumulative impacts assessment area for transportation include the City of Sebastopol and roadway network in proximity to the proposed project.

Individual planned and pending projects in Sebastopol would be assessed under CEQA for consistency with existing plans and programs related to pedestrian, transit, and roadway policies, which would ensure no significant cumulative impact would occur.

Cumulative projects would result in increased vehicle use on area roadways. The increased use of vehicles in the area would result in a correlating increase in VMT. Development of cumulative projects would increase VMT above existing conditions; therefore, cumulative impacts may be significant. For the purposes of determining consistency with SB 743, the project’s potential VMT impacts are considered in the context of baseline conditions using a VMT per capita efficiency metric. With respect to cumulative impacts, the OPR Technical Advisory states, “A project that falls below an efficiency-based threshold that is aligned with long-term environmental goals and relevant plans would have no cumulative impact distinct from the project impact. Accordingly, a finding of a less than significant project impact would imply a less than significant cumulative impact. The proposed project would contribute to this cumulative impact by adding to countywide VMT alongside other planned development nearby. As described under Impact TRA-2, the implementation of the project would not significantly increase the City’s VMT. Therefore, the Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

Environmental Impact Analysis
Transportation
Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.13-15
project would not result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to significant cumulative VMT impacts.

Impacts related to design hazards and emergency access are generally site specific, and cumulative impacts from planned development would not be significant. As described under Impacts TRA-3 and TRA-4, impacts related to these topics resulting from the proposed project 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

4.13-16
This page intentionally left blank.

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

Environmental Impact Analysis
Tribal Cultural Resources
Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.14-1

4.14 Tribal Cultural Resources
This section analyzes the proposed project’s impacts on tribal cultural resources. Tribal cultural resources are those resources identified by California Native American tribes in consultation with lead agencies during tribal consultation [also referred to as Assembly Bill (AB) 52 consultation].

4.14.1 Regulatory Setting
a. Federal Regulations
National Historic Preservation Act
The National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) was passed in 1966 to protect and preserve the nation's historical and cultural heritage. It established the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP), a comprehensive list of significant sites, buildings, and objects. The NHPA requires federal agencies to consider the impact of their activities on historic properties through a Section 106 review process. The Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) was created to advise the President and Congress on preservation matters. State Historic Preservation Offices (SHPOs) work with the federal government to implement preservation programs at the state level. The NHPA provides tax incentives to encourage the rehabilitation of historic properties and supports tribal consultation for the preservation of Native American cultural heritage. Overall, the NHPA works to identify, protect, and enhance historic resources across the United States. b. State Regulations
California Senate Bill 18 of 2004
California Government Code Section 65352.3 (adopted pursuant to the requirements of Senate Bill [SB] 18) requires local governments to contact, refer plans to, and consult with tribal organizations prior to making a decision to adopt or amend a general or specific plan. The tribal organizations eligible to consult have traditional lands in a local government’s jurisdiction, and are identified, upon request, by the NAHC. As noted in the California Office of Planning and Research’s Tribal Consultation Guidelines (2005), “The intent of SB 18 is to provide California Native American tribes an opportunity to participate in local land use decisions at an early planning stage, for the purpose of protecting, or mitigating impacts to, cultural places.” SB 18 refers to PRC Sections 5097.9 and 5097.995 to define cultural places as a Native American sanctified cemetery, place of worship, religious or ceremonial site, or sacred shrine (PRC Section 5097.9) and Native American historic, cultural, or sacred site that is listed or may be eligible for listing in the CRHR pursuant to PRC Section 5024.1, including any historic or prehistoric ruins, any burial ground, and any archaeological or historic site (PRC Section 5097.995).

California Assembly Bill 52 of 2014
California Assembly Bill 52 (AB 52) expanded CEQA by defining a new resource category, “tribal cultural resources.” AB 52 establishes that “a project with an effect that may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource is a project that may have a significant effect on the environment” (PRC Section 21084.2). It further states the lead agency shall establish measures to avoid impacts that would alter the significant characteristics of a tribal cultural resource, when feasible (PRC Section 21084.3).

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

City of Sebastopol
The Canopy

4.14-2
PRC Sections 21074(a)(1)(A) and (B) define tribal cultural resources as “sites, features, places, cultural landscapes, sacred places, and objects with cultural value to a California Native American tribe” and are:

Listed or eligible for listing in the CRHR, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in PRC Section 5020.1(k), or
A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in PRC Section 5024.1(c). In applying these criteria, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe.

AB 52 also establishes a formal consultation process for California tribes regarding tribal cultural resources. The consultation process must be completed before a CEQA document can be adopted or certified. Under AB 52, lead agencies are required to begin consultation with California Native American tribes that are “traditionally and culturally affiliated with the geographic area of the proposed project.” Native American tribes to be included in the process are those that have requested notice of projects proposed within the jurisdiction of the lead agency.

California Register of Historical Resources
The California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR) is a state-level listing of significant historical and cultural resources in California. Administered by the California Office of Historic Preservation (OHP). The CRHR was created to identify historical resources deemed worthy of preservation on a state level and was modeled closely after the NRHP. The criteria are nearly identical to those of the NRHP but focus on resources of statewide, rather than national, significance. The CRHR automatically includes any resource listed, or formally designated as eligible for listing in the NRHP, including tribal resources.
c. Local Regulations
Sebastopol Municipal Code 2016
Chapter 17.150 Cultural Heritage of the City of Sebastopol Municipal Code Ordinance authorizes the Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal, to designate (or remove) local landmarks and sites of historic interest by the procedures outlined in the ordinance. Tribal cultural resources are not addressed.
2016 Sebastopol General Plan
The Sebastopol General Plan, adopted in 2016, provides a comprehensive framework that guides the City’s development. The Conservation and Open Space Element establishes goals and policies to protect cultural resources that could be considered tribal cultural resources within Sebastopol.

Goal COS 10: Protect and Preserve Sebastopol’s Historic and Cultural Resources Policy COS 10-1: Review proposed developments and work in conjunction with the California Historical Resources Information System, Northwest Information Center at Sonoma State University, to determine whether project areas contain known archaeological resources, either prehistoric and/or historic-era, or have the potential for such resources.

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

Environmental Impact Analysis
Tribal Cultural Resources
Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.14-3
Policy COS 10-2: If found during construction, ensure that human remains are treated with sensitivity and dignity, and ensure compliance with the provisions of California Health and Safety Code and California Public Resources Code.

Policy COS 10-3: Work with Native American representatives to identify and appropriately address, through avoidance or mitigation, impacts to Native American cultural resources and sacred sites during the development review process.

Policy COS 10-4: Consistent with State local and tribal intergovernmental consultation requirements, the City shall consult with Native American tribes that may be interested in proposed new development and land use policy changes.

Ac�ons in Support of Goal COS 10
Action COS 10a: Work with the Federated Indians of the Graton Rancheria to prepare a narrative description of the Native American background of the Sebastopol area and request the Federated Indians of the Graton Rancheria provide pictorial examples of the types of Native American resources present in the vicinity. Place this description on the City’s website as a link under the History of Sebastopol section.

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

Action COS 10c: Require all development, infrastructure, and other ground-disturbing projects to comply with the following conditions in the event of an inadvertent discovery of cultural resources or human remains:
 If construction or grading activities result in the discovery of significant historic or prehistoric archaeological artifacts or unique paleontological resources, all work within 100 feet of the discovery shall cease, the Planning Department shall be notified, the resources shall be examined by a qualified archaeologist, paleontologist, or historian for appropriate protection and preservation measures; and work may only resume when appropriate protections are in place and have been approved by the Planning Department.  If human remains are discovered during any ground disturbing activity, work shall stop until the Planning Department and the County Coroner have been contacted; if the human remains are determined to be of Native American origin, the 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 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 Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

City of Sebastopol
The Canopy

4.14-4
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 10j: Seek funding for the restoration and preservation of archaeological and historical resources.

4.14.2 Environmental Setting
Ethnographic Context
Prior to Euro-American settlement, the project vicinity was primarily inhabited by the Southern Pomo and the Coast Miwok.

Southern Pomo
The project site is located primarily within an area traditionally occupied by the Southern Pomo people. Pomo is a term used to describe a linguistically related group of tribes or communities of north coast central California (Kennedy 1955). The main Pomo area covers portions of four natural divisions: the coast, the redwood belt, the valley, and the lake regions (Barrett 1908). Specifically, Southern Pomo territory extends roughly from Gualala south to Duncan’s Point, and east to the Russian River (Barrett 1908; McLendon and Oswalt 1978). This territory includes the mountainous terrain typical of the redwood belt of the Coast Range and a narrow coastal shelf (Kennedy 1955).

The Pomo language has been assigned to the Hokan language family. Southern Pomo is one of several distinct Pomo dialect groups.

The Pomo were organized societies largely based on kinship. These societies consisted of independent tribelets ranging in size from 100 to 2,000 people, with the most significant social unit being the kin group (Bean and Theodoratus 1978). This also allowed them to travel for trade between villages and ceremonial networks (McLendon and Oswalt 1978). Pomo political organization is focused on a consensus of expectations and behaviors for the group unit that were passed down by the elders. The political organization depended on the community and did not value one more than another, as they were continually reminded by the group leader through their actions and behaviors (McLendon and Oswalt 1978).

Pomo houses consisted of slabs of redwood bark and wood placed against a center pole to form a conical structure with a smoke hole at the top of the cone. The houses were generally between 8-12 feet in diameter and 6-8 feet in height. These small house sizes limited house occupancy to the biological family group, contrasting with the extended family dwellings of the valley Pomo (Kennedy 1955). Other important structures include sweathouses and assembly or dance houses. The sweathouse, or men’s house, was an earth covered conical structure. These were built over pits where the Pomo would pour water over hot rocks to make steam. This was used for purification and relaxation. The dance house was a semi-subterranean with a center pole, tunnel entrance, and rear door. During winter, the Southwestern Pomo lived in villages withdrawn from the ocean, but the necessities of obtaining food caused the population to move back and forth from the coast to the interior seasonally (Kennedy 1955).

Pomo subsistence was finely adapted to the environment around them for which they based their patterns on hunting, gathering, and fishing, with acorns, grains, pepperwood nuts, and buckeyes as a primary staple to be stored year-round (Bean and Theodoratus 1978; McLendon and Oswalt Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

Environmental Impact Analysis
Tribal Cultural Resources
Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.14-5
1978). The pestle was manufactured and utilized by the Pomo to grind acorns and other foodstuffs.

Although the streams and lakes were abundant with fish throughout the year, the Pomo focused their fishing efforts during spawning season when resources were in more shallow waters with larger quantities, often between February to April (McLendon and Oswalt 1978). Important plant resources included berries and seeds. Tule grass had many different uses including basketry for cooking, boats for fishing, and material for shelter, sleeping and sitting mats, clothing, and dance regalia (Lake County 2023).

Material culture included obsidian and chert tools, intricate basketry, and bone and shell implements (Bean and Theodoratus 1978). A unique aspect of Pomo basketry was the creation of small and sometimes feathered baskets. These baskets were coiled and made use of colorful feathers from woodpeckers, orioles, ducks, and other birds. Some of these baskets included polished abalone shell ornaments and topknots from California quail with a clamshell string attached to the rim with which such baskets might have been hung from the ceilings of Pomoan houses (Walker 2013). The Pomo also participated in a clamshell bead exchange system internally and among other tribal groups (Bean and Theodoratus 1978) as a form of currency, as evidenced by their use and each clamshell bead held a different monetary value (McLendon and Oswalt 1978).

The Pomo were invaded by Russian fur-traders who established a based in Fort Ross on Bodega Bay in 1812 (Santa Clara University 2023). This base was devastating to the Pomo people, who used that site as their main hunting and gathering grounds in the summer. The Pomo were also drawn into the mission system in the early 1800s, where native labor built the mission and other structures.

Within a generation or two, direct conflict and exposure to European diseases nearly decimated them. Today about 5,000 Pomo descendants, who still occupy parts of their ancestral lands, gather the raw materials to make traditional Native American baskets and to pass on this ancient skill to the next generation of artisans (California Department of Parks and Recreation 2022).

Coast Miwok
The project site also lies just north of the traditional tribal territory of the Coast Miwok. Coast Miwok territory is centered on Marin and Sonoma Counties, extending roughly from Duncan’s Point south to Point Bonita, with the inland boundary east of the Sonoma River (Kelly 1978:414; Kroeber 1925:443). The Miwok Language consists of two dialect groups: the southern, or Marin group, and the western, or Bodega group (Kelly 1978:414).

The pre-contact Coast Miwok inhabited villages made up of conical dwellings, semi-subterranean sweathouses, and dance houses (Kelly 1978:417). Each village had a chief to oversee village affairs and social and ceremonial life was organized around moieties, or dichotomous groups, classed as either Land or Water (Kelly 1978:419).

Coast Miwok subsistence was based on hunting, gathering, and fishing (Kelly 1978: 415-417). Dried acorns and kelp were primary food sources during the winter and early spring when food was scarce. Coast Miwok relied heavily on nearshore fish and shellfish and on fish from rivers, marshes, and the bay. Hunting focused on deer, elk, bear, and small game. The material culture of the Coast Miwok included clamshell disk beads as currency, and a variety of stone tools, shell ornaments, ceremonial artifacts, and baskets (Kelly 1978: 417-418).

The Coast Miwok were exploited for labor by Mission Dolores, established in 1800 in San Francisco, and later by the Mexican land grant holders. As a direct result of the establishment of the mission system, the Coast Miwok population dramatically declined. After the establishment of the United States, the Coast Miwok were legally prevented from owning land in their traditional territories.

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

City of Sebastopol
The Canopy

4.14-6
Despite this, the Coast Miwok continued to populate the Marin area, often working as farm workers or in the fishing industry (Milliken et al. 2009; Federated Indians of Graton Rancheria 2016).

Federated Indians of Graton Rancheria
In 1920, the Graton Rancheria was formed when the Bureau of Indian Affairs purchased a 15.45- acre tract of land in the unincorporated community of Graton in Sonoma County, approximately four miles north of Sebastopol, which was put into a federal trust. The development of the Graton Rancheria effectively consolidated the Coast Miwok and Southern Pomo groups into one entity, establishing them as a federally recognized tribe (Federated Indians of Graton Rancheria 2016).

However, in 1958 Congress passed the California Rancheria Act of 1958 which led to the termination of 41 California Rancherias, including the Graton Rancheria. Graton Rancheria was removed from federal trust and federal recognition of the tribe was terminated. Despite this setback, tribal members continued to protect their cultural identity, preserving important tribal and archaeological sites within their traditional and ancestral territory. Between 1990 and 1992 tribal members traveled to Washington, D.C., in effort to restore their federal status, until 2000, when President Clinton signed legislation restoring federal recognition to the tribe, which had been renamed the Federated Indians of Graton Rancheria. The tribe was able to purchase 254 acres of land in 2005 for its reservation located just outside Rohnert Park (ten miles south of Sebastopol) where they now operate the Graton Resort and Casino, and in doing so, the tribe is able to provide programs and services to Tribal Citizens (Federated Indians of Graton Rancheria 2016).

4.14.3 Impact Analysis
a. Significance Thresholds and Methodology
Significance Thresholds
The proposed project would have a potentially significant impact if it were to result in one or more of the following:

Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code Section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is:
a. Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in PRC Section 5020.1(k), or b. A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of PRC Section 5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of PRC Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe.

Methodology
Sacred Lands File Search
The City contacted the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) on May 25, 2023, to request a search of the Sacred Lands File (SLF), as well as a contact list of Native Americans culturally affiliated with the project site vicinity.

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

Environmental Impact Analysis
Tribal Cultural Resources
Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.14-7
Assembly Bill 52
As part of its Tribal Cultural Resource identification process pursuant to California Assembly Bill (AB) 52, the City sent letters via certified mail on January 27, 2023, to ten Native American tribal contacts identified by the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) and the City as being traditionally and culturally affiliated with the project vicinity. The tribal contacts included the following.  Patricia Hermosillo, Chairperson of the Cloverdale Rancheria of Pomo Indians  Sherrie Smith-Ferri, Tribal Historic Preservation Officer of the Dry Creek Rancheria of Pomo Indians
 Greg Sarris, Chairperson of the Federated Indians of Graton Rancheria  Donald Duncan, Chairperson of the Guidiville Indian Rancheria  Dino Franklin, Chairperson of the Kashia Band of Pomo Indians of the Stewarts Point Rancheria  Loren Smith, Tribal Historic Preservation Officer of the Kashia Band of Pomo Indians of the Stewarts Point Rancheria
 Marjorie Mejia, Chairperson of the Lytton Rancheria
 Jose Simon, Chairperson of the Middletown Rancheria of Pomo Indians  Leona Willams, Chairperson of the Pinoleville Pomo Nation  Beniakem Cromwell, Chairperson of the Robinson Rancheria of Pomo Indians Under AB 52, tribes have 30 days to respond and request consultation. The results of the tribal consultation were utilized for the analysis of impact related to tribal cultural resources below. b. Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Threshold 1: Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource as defined in Public Resources Code Section 21074 that is listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code Section 5020.1(k)?
Threshold 2: Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource as defined in Public Resources Code Section 21074 that is a resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1?
Impact TCR-1 GRADING AND EXCAVATION REQUIRED FOR THE PROPOSED PROJECT WOULD HAVE POTENTIAL TO UNEARTH AND IMPACT OR DAMAGE TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES. IMPACTS WOULD BE LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT WITH IMPLEMENTATION OF MITIGATION.

The NAHC responded to the request on June 20, 2023, stating that the results of the SLF search were positive for sacred sites within the project vicinity. Additionally, on June 27, 2023, the City sent AB 52 consultation letters via certified mail to ten Native American tribal contacts. The City received one response from the Kashia Band of Pomo Indians of Stewarts Point which stated that the tribe had no comments or concerns. To date, the City has not received any additional responses under AB

52. Though there are no known tribal cultural resources present within the project site, it is possible that ground disturbance during project construction could encounter previously unknown tribal Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

City of Sebastopol
The Canopy

4.14-8
cultural resources. Therefore, the project has the potential to significantly impact tribal cultural resources through ground disturbance and subsequent damage of encountered resources.

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.

Although Action COS 10c states that work must stop within 100 feet of an inadvertent discovery of cultural resources, it does not specifically address how the find will be evaluated and how it relates to tribal cultural resources. Therefore, additional mitigation is required. With adherence to Action COS 10c and Mitigation Measure TCR-1 below, the potential impacts to tribal cultural resources are reduced to a less than significant level.

Mitigation Measures
TCR-1 Suspension of Work Around Tribal Cultural Resources If cultural resources of Native American origin are identified during implementation of the proposed project, all earth-disturbing work within 50 feet of the find shall cease and desist until an archaeologist has evaluated the nature and significance of the find as a cultural resource and an appropriate local Native American representative is consulted. Staking of the area of discovery will be implemented with stakes no more than 10 feet apart, forming a circle having a radius of no less than 100 feet from the point of discovery. If the City, in consultation with local Native American tribes, determines that the resource is a tribal cultural resource and thus significant under CEQA, a mitigation plan shall be prepared and implemented in accordance with state guidelines and in consultation with local Native American group(s). The plan shall include avoidance of the resource or, if avoidance of the resource is infeasible, the plan shall outline the appropriate treatment of the resource in coordination with the appropriate local Native American tribal representative and, if applicable, a qualified archaeologist. Examples of appropriate mitigation for tribal cultural resources include, but are not limited to, protecting the cultural character and integrity of the resource, protecting traditional use of the resource, protecting the confidentiality of the resource, or heritage recovery.

Significance After Mitigation
By implementing Mitigation Measure TCR-1, the City would evaluate and require steps to protect or treat significant tribal cultural 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
Tribal Cultural Resources
Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.14-9

4.14.4 Cumulative Impacts
The geographic scope for cumulative tribal cultural resources 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 tribal 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 tribal cultural resources. Impacts to these resources would most likely be mitigated on a project-by-project basis. However, permanent losses of tribal cultural resources would have a potentially significant cumulative impact.

As described under Impact TCR-1, the project has the potential to impact previously unidentified tribal cultural resources located in the project site. Mitigation Measure TCR-1 would ensure that project-level impacts to unknown tribal cultural resources are adequately mitigated. Therefore, the project’s contribution to cumulative impacts to tribal cultural resources would not be cumulatively considerable.

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

City of Sebastopol
The Canopy

4.14-10
This page intentionally left blank.

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

Environmental Impact Analysis
Utilities and Service Systems
Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.15-1

4.15 Utilities and Service Systems
This section analyzes the environmental effects related to utilities and service systems associated with implementation of the proposed project. It discusses infrastructure and facilities related to water supply, wastewater treatment, stormwater, electricity, natural gas, telecommunications, and solid waste.

4.15.1 Setting
a. Water
The City of Sebastopol has owned, operated, and maintained its own water production and distribution system since approximately 1915 (Sebastopol 2005). The City relies exclusively on groundwater as a water supply source. Water is produced via a series of five permitted wells located throughout the City, three of which are currently active for potable water uses, non-potable water uses, irrigation, and industrial uses (City of Sebastopol 2014). All of the City’s available water is groundwater from these three active wells. The City also owns two reservoir facilities to provide water storage capacity.

The City serves approximately 2,650 water service customers and the predominant use over the last 10 years has been potable use (City of Sebastopol 2014). During calendar year 2012 single-family and multifamily residential customers accounted for 70 percent of water consumption, followed by 21 percent for commercial/industrial uses, 8 percent for landscape and irrigation, and 1 percent for other uses. Total production for 2012 equated to an average production of 1 million gallons per day (mgd). According to the City’s General Plan EIR, the average total per capita water production between 2006 and 2015, as shown in Table 4.15-1, was 129 gallons per person per day, equaling approximately 29.2 percent of maximum production.

Table 4.15-1 City of Sebastopol Water Production
The City adopted a Water System Master Plan (Master Plan) in September 2005 as an instrument for planning water system improvements necessary to comply with current City zoning ordinances, City Standard Details and Specifications, and federal fire regulations (City of Sebastopol 2005). The Master Plan analyzes the existing water system, makes recommendations for system improvements or necessary updates, and assesses water demand projects for the service area. The City Council has adopted a policy that the City be able to produce two times the water demand necessary to ensure that the City has sufficient redundancy in the event of a facility malfunction or shutdown for maintenance, upgrade or repair.

Production 10-Year Average
Total Annual Production (mg)1 361
Maximum Production (mg) 1,237
Average Production Per Capita Per Day (gallons) 129
Percent of Total Production to Max Production 29.18%
1 mg = million gallons
Source: City of Sebastopol 2016a
Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

City of Sebastopol
The Canopy

4.15-2
Existing City water infrastructure is located along Gravenstein Highway North, which serves the surrounding development and residences. The proposed project would connect to this existing infrastructure.
b. Wastewater
The City owns and operates its own wastewater collection and conveyance system and contracts with the City of Santa Rosa Subregional Water Reclamation System for wastewater treatment. All of the City’s wastewater is conveyed via pipeline to the City of Santa Rosa Wastewater Treatment Facility’s Laguna Treatment Plant on Llano Road. The City’s wastewater collection system consists of approximately 152,000 linear feet of pipe, ranging from 6 inches to 22 inches in diameter, and two lift stations, the Morris Street Lift Station and the Green Valley Vista Lift Station (City of Sebastopol 2016a).

From the stations the wastewater is pumped to the Laguna Treatment Plant through a 14-inch diameter force main. As a partner in the Subregional System, Sebastopol has an entitlement for treatment capacity up to 840,000 gallons, or 0.84 million gpd Average Daily Dry Weather Flow (ADDWF) (City of Sebastopol 2016a). As of 2022, ADDWF was 0.393 mgd, or about 47 percent of the City’s treatment entitlement (City of Sebastopol 2023a). According to the City of Santa Rosa’s 2007 Update to the Recycled Water Master Plan, the City of Santa Rosa’s current National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit allows the City to treat, reuse, and discharge the annual flow resulting from receiving a daily average dry weather flow (ADWF) of 21.34 million gallons per day (mgd) at the Laguna Plant (City of Santa Rosa 2007).

Existing wastewater facilities are located along Gravenstein Highway North which serve the surrounding development and residences. The proposed project would connect to these existing wastewater facilities.
c. Stormwater
The City of Sebastopol owns and operates a storm water conveyance system located primarily within public streets and roads, and on public lands within the City of Sebastopol. The storm drain system includes an underground network of pipes connecting surface inlets in streets and elsewhere, where storm water collects. The majority of the City’s storm drain system flows in an easterly direction and discharges into the Laguna de Santa Rosa along the City’s eastern boundary. A small area in the westerly portion of the City drains to Atascadero Creek at the Western City boundary.

The City adopted a Stormwater Management Plan (SWMP) in 2006 to comply with the Federal Storm Water Phase II Final Rule which requires operators of small municipal separate storm sewer systems (MS4s) to obtain a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit and a SWMP (City of Sebastopol 2006). The Sebastopol Engineering Department is responsible for the development and implementation of the SWMP, including measurable goals and best management practices (BMPs).

There are currently no stormwater facilities available on the project site. Stormwater currently follows natural drainages within the site that generally flow from east to west. The project would install stormwater detention pond on the northern boundary of the site adjacent to the West County Trail. Bioretention facilities are proposed along the north, northeast, west, and southern project boundaries which would hold stormwater prior to discharge into existing drainages.

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

Environmental Impact Analysis
Utilities and Service Systems
Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.15-3
d. Solid Waste
The City of Sebastopol contracts with Recology for solid waste, recyclable and compostable materials collections as well as street sweeping services. The current contract was approved on December 5, 2008 and will end at midnight on December 31, 2024. The City is also a member of the Sonoma County Waste Management Agency (SCWMA), which is comprised of the nine incorporated cities in Sonoma County as well as the County of Sonoma. SCWMA is responsible for the development, operation and management of the county’s recycling programs. An additional effort the City is participating in is the Sonoma County/City Solid Waste Advisory Group (SWAG). This effort is focused on developing long term strategies for addressing Sonoma County’s waste management needs.

Recology deposits solid waste at the Central Disposal Site at 500 Mecham Road in Petaluma, approximately 9.3 miles southeast of the project site. The Central Disposal Site has a maximum permitted throughput of 2,500 tons per day and a maximum permitted capacity of 32,650,000 cubic yards (California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery [CalRecycle] 2023). The landfill has a remaining capacity of 9,181,519 tons and an anticipated closure date of June 1, 2043 (CalRecycle 2023).
e. Electricity and Natural Gas
Homes and businesses in Sebastopol use electricity from various sources, including wind, solar, hydroelectric, nuclear, coal, and natural gas. The main electricity provider in the region is Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E). In addition, the City joined Sonoma Clean Power (SCP), a regional public clean energy provider which utilizes renewable resources, such as geothermal, wind, and solar.

PG&E is responsible for providing electric power supply to the city. PG&E is one of the nation’s largest electric and gas utility companies, and it maintains 106,681 circuit miles of electric distribution lines and 18,466 circuit miles of interconnected transmission lines (PG&E 2022). In 2019, PG&E’s power mix, including all PG&E-owned generation plus the company’s power purchases, consisted of 29 percent renewable resources (wind, geothermal, biomass, solar, and small hydroelectric), 44 percent nuclear generation, and 27 percent large hydroelectric facilities (PG&E 2020). PG&E also provides natural gas service to the project site and surrounding areas. f. Telecommunications
In California, approximately 98 percent of households have access to telecommunication infrastructure, including telephone and cable access (California Cable & Telecommunications Association 2019). Telecommunications infrastructure within Sebastopol includes overground telephone wires, underground optical fibers, cell towers, and standard phone equipment and internet routers. Telecommunications providers own and operate infrastructure, such as cellphone towers and fiber optic cables, within the city. The site would be served by existing telecommunications providers within the area, including AT&T and Xfinity.

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

City of Sebastopol
The Canopy

4.15-4

4.15.2 Regulatory Setting
a. Federal Regulations
Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 258
Title 40 of the CFR, Part 258 (Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, Subtitle D), contains regulations for municipal solid waste landfills and requires states to implement their own permitting programs incorporating the Federal landfill criteria.
b. State Regulations
California Plumbing Code
The California Plumbing Code is codified in Title 24 CCR Part 5. The Plumbing Code contains regulations including, but not limited to, plumbing materials, fixtures, water heaters, water supply and distribution, ventilation, and drainage. More specifically, Part 5, Chapter 4, contains provisions requiring the installation of low flow fixtures and toilets. Existing development will also be required to reduce its wastewater generation by retrofitting existing structures with water efficient fixtures (Senate Bill [SB] 407 [2009] Civil Code Sections 1101.1 et seq.).

California Green Building Standards Code
The California Green Building Standards Code—Part 11, Title 24, California Code of Regulations— known as CALGreen, is the first-in-the-nation mandatory green building standards code. In 2007, CBSC developed green building standards in an effort to meet the goals of California’s landmark initiative AB 32, which established a comprehensive program of cost-effective reductions of greenhouse gases (GHG) to 1990 levels by 2020. CALGreen sets regulations regarding energy efficiency, water efficiency and conservation, material conservation, resource efficiency, and environmental quality. The code sets mandatory provisions for commercial, residential, and public school buildings.

Assembly Bill 341 and Senate Bill 1383
The purpose of Assembly Bill (AB) 341 of 2011 (Chapter 476, Statutes of 2011) is to reduce GHG emissions by diverting commercial solid waste to recycling efforts and to expand the opportunity for additional recycling services and recycling manufacturing facilities in California. In addition to Mandatory Commercial Recycling, AB 341 sets a statewide goal for 75 percent disposal reduction by the year 2020.

In addition, SB 1383 of 2016 (Chapter 395, Statutes of 2016) established the following goals: a 50- percent reduction in the level of the statewide disposal of organic waste from 2014 levels by 2020, and a 75-percent reduction in the level of the statewide disposal of organic waste from 2014 levels by 2025. This bill also authorized CalRecycle to adopt regulations, to take effect on or after January 1, 2022, to achieve these targets.

Assembly Bill 939
AB 939 (PRC 41780) requires cities and counties to prepare integrated waste management plans and to divert 50 percent of solid waste from landfills beginning in calendar year 2000 and each year thereafter. AB 939 also requires cities and counties to prepare source reduction and recycling Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

Environmental Impact Analysis
Utilities and Service Systems
Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.15-5
elements as part of the integrated waste management plans. These elements are designed to develop recycling services to achieve diversion goals, stimulate local recycling in manufacturing, and stimulate the purchase of recycled products.

Assembly Bill 1826
AB 1826 of 2014 (Chapter 727, Statutes of 2014) requires businesses that generate a specified amount of organic waste per week to arrange for recycling services for that waste, and for jurisdictions to implement a recycling program to divert organic waste from businesses subject to the law, as well as report to CalRecycle on their progress in implementing an organic waste recycling program.

Senate Bill 1016
SB 1016 of 2007 (Chapter 343, Statutes of 2007) requires that the 50 percent solid waste diversion requirement established by AB 939 be expressed in pounds per person per day. SB 1016 changed the CalRecycle review process for each municipality’s integrated waste management plan. After an initial determination of diversion requirements in 2006 and establishing diversion rates for subsequent calendar years, the Board reviews a jurisdiction’s diversion rate compliance in accordance with a specified schedule. The Board is required to review a jurisdiction’s source reduction and recycling element and hazardous waste element once every two years. c. Local Regulations and Plans
City of Sebastopol Water System Master Plan
In 2005, 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 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 Storm Water Management Plan
In September 2005, the City approved the Sebastopol Stormwater Management which was developed to comply with the federal Storm Water Phase II Final Rule, which requires operators of small municipal separate storm sewer systems (MS4s) to obtain a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit. The plan includes an overview of the watershed, storm sewer system, and pollutants of concern. It outlines minimum control measures and monitoring evaluations to ensure proper implementation of the plan.

Sonoma County Local Agency Formation Commission
In 1963, the State Legislature created a local agency formation commission (LAFCO) for each county, with the authority to regulate local agency boundary changes. Subsequently, the State has Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

City of Sebastopol
The Canopy

4.15-6
expanded the authority of a LAFCO. The goals of the LAFCO include preserving agricultural and open space land resources and providing for efficient delivery of services. The Sonoma County LAFCO has authority over land use decisions in Sonoma County affecting local agency boundaries and its authority extends to the incorporated cities. In addition, the Sonoma County LAFCO conducts Municipal Service Reviews (MSRs) for services within its jurisdiction. An MSR typically includes a review of existing municipal services provided by a local agency and its infrastructure needs and deficiencies. It also evaluates financing constraints and opportunities, management efficiencies, opportunities for rate restructuring and shared facilities, local accountability and governance, and other issues (City of Sebastopol 2016a).

City of Sebastopol General Plan
The City’s 2016-2035 General Plan (City of Sebastopol 2016b) contains utility provision and resource policies intended to preserve the City’s water, wastewater, and other utility resources. The following policies are relevant to the project.

Policy CSF 1-1: Ensure that new growth and development participates in the provision and expansion of community services and facilities, and does not exceed the City’s ability to provide them.

Policy CSF 1-2: Require new development to demonstrate that the City’s community services and facilities can accommodate the increased demand for said services and facilities associated with the project.

Policy CSF 1-3: Require new development to offset or mitigate impacts to community services and facilities to ensure that service levels for existing users are not degraded or impaired by new development, to the satisfaction of the City.

Policy CSF 1-4: Provide adequate public infrastructure (i.e., street, sewer, water, and storm drain) to meet the needs of existing and future development.

Policy CSF 1-5: Require development, infrastructure, and long-term planning projects to be consistent with all applicable City infrastructure plans, including the Water Master Plan, the Sanitary Sewer System Utility Master Plan, Stormwater Management Plan, and the Capital Improvement Program.

Policy CSF 1-6: When appropriate, require development projects to install off-site infrastructure or pay appropriate in-lieu fees.

Policy CSF 1-7: Require the payment of impact fees for all new development.

Policy CSF 1-8: Continue to require new utility infrastructure, including water lines, sewer lines, telecommunications infrastructure, and electrical utility lines to be constructed underground, except where allowed aboveground as set forth in the Municipal Code.

Policy CSF 1-9: Require new utility infrastructure to avoid sensitive natural and cultural resources to the greatest extent feasible.

Policy CSF 1-10: Require new utility infrastructure to be designed and constructed to meet the most current State standards for seismic safety.

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

Environmental Impact Analysis
Utilities and Service Systems
Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.15-7
Policy CSF 1-11: Require new underground electrical and data transmission infrastructure to include adequate conduit space to accommodate additional, expanded, and/or upgraded data and electrical conveyance lines and wires.

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 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 4-6: 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.

Sebastopol Municipal Code
Title 13 of the Sebastopol Municipal Code (SMC) provides requirements for public services including domestic water systems, sewage disposal, and underground utility facilities. This chapter identifies the required City permits for the construction and operation of water and wastewater connections.

In addition, SMC Chapter 13.16 specifically addresses solid waste collection and disposal, and Chapter 13.20 incorporates the City’s stormwater ordinance.

4.15.3 Impact Analysis
a. Significance Thresholds and Methodology
Assessment of impacts is based on review of site information and conditions, City information regarding utility-related issues, including water supply and facilities, wastewater facilities, electricity, natural gas, telecommunication facilities, and solid waste.

According to Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, an impact is considered significant if development under the proposed project would result in one or more of the following conditions:

Require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or stormwater drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunication facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects.

Have insufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry and multiple dry years.

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

City of Sebastopol
The Canopy

4.15-8
Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has inadequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand, in addition to the provider’s existing commitments.

Generate solid waste in excess of State or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals.

Conflict with Federal, State, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste.
b. Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Threshold 1: Would the project require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or storm water drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects?
Threshold 3: Would the project result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments? Impact UTIL-1 THE PROPOSED PROJECT WOULD NOT REQUIRE THE RELOCATION OR CONSTRUCTION OF

NEW OR EXPANDED WATER, WASTEWATER TREATMENT OR STORM WATER DRAINAGE, ELECTRIC POWER, NATURAL GAS, OR TELECOMMUNICATIONS FACILITIES. THE PROPOSED PROJECT WOULD BE ADEQUATELY SERVED BY EXISTING FACILITIES TO MEET THE PROJECT’S PROJECTED DEMANDS. IMPACTS WOULD BE LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT.

Water
The proposed project would connect to existing service lines for water service. The project would be served by existing City water infrastructure in the area, and no improvements to the existing off-site infrastructure would be required to serve the project. The construction of on-site infrastructure, including water lines, is analyzed throughout this EIR, as described in Section 2, Project Description.

Any future infrastructure improvements constructed by the City would be subject to its own CEQA review, and such improvements would not be necessitated by the proposed project. Impacts of the proposed project would be less than significant.

Wastewater
Sebastopol maintains a sanitary sewer collection system and pumping stations that transfer wastewater from Sebastopol to the Sub-regional Water Reclamation System Treatment Plant operated by the City of Santa Rosa on Llano Road. The project would connect to existing wastewater infrastructure along Gravenstein Highway North and would not require the expansion or construction of new wastewater facilities. Furthermore, the project applicant would be required to conduct a flow analysis prior to project approval to confirm flow capacities will not be exceeded by the additional project wastewater flows. Sebastopol has an entitlement to treatment capacity up to 840,000 gallons, or 0.84 million gallons per day (mgd) Average Daily Dry Weather Flow (ADDWF) (Sebastopol 2016a). ADDWF is computed using metered wastewater flows through the Morris Street Lift Station during the dry-weather months of each year (typically between May and September) with the lowest rainfall (City of Sebastopol 2016a).

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