Sebastopol City Council
April 2, 2024

The Canopy Environmental Impact Report – CEQA Noise Report September 12, 2023
17 Figure 3 – Noise Zones
Mitigation 1. Provide STC 28 rated glazing for windows and doors for the Zone A area, as marked in Figure 3, to meet the criteria mentioned in Table 5. With the above mitigation, the impact is less than significant.

3.2.4 Operational Noise
An illustrative site plan has been developed for the project, which can be seen in Figure 4 below. Although specific details of the project have not been finalized, there are multiple design elements that can be assumed from the project’s site plan. The assumptions are as follows:
• An outdoor common area will be located at the northeast portion of the project site that will generate activities anticipated to generate noise levels beyond typical conversation. • Mechanical and electrical equipment, such as split-system outdoor condensing units and transformers (less than 2000 kVA), will be located at grade.
• General walkways and other small convening areas will be located throughout the project site wherein levels are not anticipated to be any greater than typical conversation.

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

The Canopy Environmental Impact Report – CEQA Noise Report September 12, 2023
18 Figure 4 – Illustrative Site Plan of The Canopy
At the location of the common area (shown in blue in Figure 4 above), Veneklasen anticipates that activities will generate noise levels beyond typical conversation; however, the drawing shows every house has a courtyard; therefore, it is not expected large gatherings at the common spaces and noisy playing activities. Therefore, this impact is not significant.

For the mechanical and electrical equipment, split-system outdoor condensing units and transformers (less than 2000 kVA) are anticipated consistent with similar residential construction. Based on published sound power data for outdoor condensing units typically used in residential applications, the noise level is expected to be less than 55 dBA at 15 feet from the equipment and less than 45 dBA at 60 feet. For transformers no greater than 2000 kVA, the noise level is expected to be less than 55 dBA at 30 feet and less than 45 dBA at approximately 120 feet. The site plan suggests that condensing units will be located within 60 feet of noise-sensitive receptors and that transformers will be located within 120 feet of noise-sensitive receptors. Considering that the condensing units will run simultaneously during the summer months, a boundary wall is required to minimize the impact to adjacent noise-sensitive receivers.

The barrier height must be tall enough such that it limits any line-of-sight to the nearby residences to the west and south of the project site. The minimum density of the barrier shall be 2 lbs./sq. ft with no holes or gaps. An acoustical analysis shall be completed once final equipment selection is made to verify compliance with the City’s Exterior Noise Standards at noise-sensitive receptors.

Mitigation 2: For outdoor condensing and mechanical units directly adjacent to noise-sensitive receptors, provide a solid barrier with a height blocking line-of-sight to the nearby noise-sensitive receptors. The minimum density of the Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

The Canopy Environmental Impact Report – CEQA Noise Report September 12, 2023
19 barrier shall be 2 lbs./sq. ft 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 Exterior Noise Standards.

This impact is anticipated to be less than significant with mitigation.

3.2.5 Temporary increase in ambient noise levels
The construction of the proposed project would increase noise levels in the area. The construction noise impacts were analyzed for long-term noise exposure due to all anticipated construction equipment operating during each phase of construction, as well as for short-term noise exposure from equipment operating along the project site perimeter. Typical construction equipment utilized for each type of activity is indicated in Appendix B. The specific project construction phases have not been decided yet; however, the client has provided a tentative construction equipment list that can be used in the project.

Table 8 shows the typical construction equipment list and noise levels for each equipment at 50 feet with its utilization factor. The equipment used in each construction phase are shown in Table 9.

Table 8 - Typical Construction Equipment Noise
Equipment Type FHWA
Lmax @ 50 ft. Usage Factor (%)
Excavator 81 40
Loader 79 40
Grinder 80 40
Rubber Tired Dozer 82 40
Tractor/Loader/Backhoe 84 40
Grader 85 40
Forklifts 84 40
Generator Sets 81 50
Welder 74 40
Paver 77 50
Paving Equipment 82 20
Rollers 80 20
Air Compressors 78 40
Considering the similar type of projects, Veneklasen assumes this project consists of five construction phases, as shown in Table 9, and Table 10 shows the distance to each receiver from the project area, center of Zone A and B Table 9 – Construction Equipment used in Construction Phases Phase Equipment Number of Units
Site Preparation Dozer 2
Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

The Canopy Environmental Impact Report – CEQA Noise Report September 12, 2023
20 Truck 2
Scraper 2
Backhoe 2
Grading
Grader 2
Dozer 3
Scraper 1
Backhoe 2
Building Construction
Front End Loader 2
Generator 3
Backhoe 2
Welder/torch 1
Compressor 5
Architectural Coating -- --
Paving
Paver 2
Roller 3
Table 10 - Distance to the Sensitive Receivers from the Center of Project Site Receptor Group
for Analysis Address Cardinal Direction from Project Site Type of Receptor Distance from
Center of Project
Site (ft)
NVSR-1 1005 Gravenstein Hwy N South Commercial 141 (Zone A) NVSR-2
Oreily Media, 1005
Gravenstein Hwy N South Commercial 277 (Zone A)
NVSR-3 7066 Winona Ln Southeast Residential 255 (Zone A) NVSR-4 7605 Winona Ln East Residential 338 (Zone A)
NVSR 5 1090 CA 116 West Residential 408 (Zone A)
NVSR-6
Oreily Media, 1005
Gravenstein Hwy Southwest Commercial 388 (Zone B)
NVSR-7 1003 Gravenstein Hwy N North Commercial 247 (Zone B) NVSR-8 896 Hurlbut Ave South Residential 163 (Zone B)
NVSR-9 939 Hurlbut Ave East Residential 215 (Zone B)
NVSR-10 970 Hurlbut Ave Northeast Residential 177 (Zone B) NVSR-11 7589 Winona Ln North Residential 182 (Zone B)
NVSR-12 7605 Winona Ln North-northwest Residential 263 (Zone B) The nearest off-site residential sensitive receivers are located to the west (NVSA 5) and east (NVSA-9) of the project site. Veneklasen assumed that all the equipment is located at the center of the project site Zone A and Zone B, as shown in Figure 5, and used simultaneously to represent worst case scenario. Figure 5 also shows the sensitive receiver locations surrounding the project site.

The maximum predicted hourly average noise levels at these sensitive receptors due to construction operations are shown in Table 11 below.

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

The Canopy Environmental Impact Report – CEQA Noise Report September 12, 2023
21 Table 11 – Construction Noise Levels at the Sensitive Receivers Receptor
Construction Noise Level at the Boundaries of Sensitive Receivers, Leq dBA
NVSR 1NVSR 2NVSR 3NVSR
4 NVSR 5NVSR 6NVSR 7NVSR 8NVSR 9
NVSR 10NVSR 11NVSR 12
Site Preparation 81 75 76 74 72 72 76 80 78 79 79 76
Grading 80 74 75 73 71 71 75 79 76 78 78 75
Building Construction 77 71 72 69 68 68 72 76 74 75 75 72 Architectural Coating -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- Paving 80 74 75 72 70 71 75 78 76 78 77 74
Figure 5 – Noise Sensitive Receptor Locations
According to the provided equipment list, the construction maximum noise level at NVSR 1 during the site preparation, grading and paving phase is 80-81 dBA. According to the City Noise Regulation, there is no decibel criterion for construction noise, and the activities are controlled by limiting the hours of the day for construction.

Therefore, for the general compatibility of surrounding sensitive receivers, these activities should be scheduled to limit the number of heavy construction machines operating simultaneously.

Mitigation 3. The impact is less than significant with mitigation. The following measures are identified to reduce the potential effects of construction noise on adjacent properties.

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

The Canopy Environmental Impact Report – CEQA Noise Report September 12, 2023
22 • Limit construction activity to the hours listed in Table 5 (7:00 am to 8:00 pm Monday through Friday and 8:00am to 5:00 pm Saturday and Sundays).

Additional recommendations:
• Schedule highest noise-generating activity and construction activity away from noise-sensitive land uses. • Equip internal combustion engine-driven equipment with original factory (or equivalent) intake and exhaust mufflers which are maintained in good condition.
• Prohibit and post signs prohibiting unnecessary idling of internal combustion engines. • Locate all stationary noise-generating equipment such as air compressors and portable generators as far as practicable from noise-sensitive land uses.
• Utilize “quiet” air compressors and other stationary equipment where feasible and available. • Designate a noise disturbance coordinator who would respond to neighborhood complaints about construction noise by determining the cause of the noise complaints and require implementation of reasonable measures to correct the problem. Conspicuously post a telephone number for the disturbance coordinator at the construction site.

3.3 Impact 2. Excessive ground-borne vibration
Would the project result in exposure of persons to or generation of excessive ground-borne vibration or groundborne noise levels? Construction equipment associated with building the project would be the only vibration-generating source introduced by the project, as there are no vibration sources from operations that will introduce vibration into the environment. Vibration generated by construction equipment, unless specified otherwise through permitting, would only occur during approved work hours in the City of Sebastopol, 7:00 am to 8:00 pm Monday through Friday and 8:00 am to 5:00 pm Saturday and Sunday.

Table 12 below shows the construction equipment proposed by the project planning group and the typical vibration levels generated during operation. It is understood that for this project, pile drivers will not be used. The vibration levels for some of the equipment used in the construction phase are unavailable, and Veneklasen utilized the vibration levels of similar equipment for the analysis.

Table 12 –Vibration Levels (PPV in./sec.) of Typical Construction Equipment at 25 ft.

Equipment Reference PPV at 25 ft. in/sec
Vibratory roller 0.21
Large bulldozer 0.089
Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

The Canopy Environmental Impact Report – CEQA Noise Report September 12, 2023
23 Equipment Reference PPV at 25 ft. in/sec
Caisson drilling 0.089
Loaded trucks 0.076
Small bulldozer 0.003
Source: Federal Transit Administration (except Hanson 2001 for Vibratory rollers), 1995.

The predicted vibration levels of the proposed construction equipment at the sensitive receivers are shown in Table

13. Based on the above results construction equipment vibration levels at the sensitive receivers will not exceed the criteria per Section 2.4 shown in Table 5. Therefore, the impact is less than significant, and no mitigation is required.

Table 13 – Construction Vibration Levels at the Sensitive Receivers Receptor
Construction Vibration Level at Sensitive Receivers,
PPV, in./sec.

NVSR 1NVSR 2NVSR 3NVSR
4 NVSR 5NVSR 6NVSR 7NVSR 8NVSR 9
NVSR 10NVSR 11NVSR 12
Site Preparation 0.001 0.0003 0.0004 0.0002 0.0002 0.0002 0.0003 0.0004 0.0005 0.0006 0.0006 0.0004 Grading 0.014 0.005 0.006 0.004 0.003 0.003 0.006 0.110 0.007 0.010 0.009 0.005 Building Construction 0.006 0.002 0.002 0.002 0.001 0.001 0.003 0.005 0.003 0.004 0.004 0.002 Architectural Coating -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- Paving 0.016 0.006 0.007 0.004 0.003 0.004 0.007 0.013 0.009 0.011 0.011 0.006

3.4 Impact 3. Airport noise exposure
For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?
The project is not within two miles of a public airport or public use airport. Therefore, there is no noise impact.

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

The Canopy Environmental Impact Report – CEQA Noise Report September 12, 2023
24 4.0 SUMMARY

4.1 Summary of significance of impacts
CEQA Noise Impact Question No Impact Less Than
Significant
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Potentially
Significant
1 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.

X
2 Generation of excessive ground-borne vibration
or ground-borne noise levels. X
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,
would the project expose people residing or
working in the project area to excessive noise
levels
X
Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

The Canopy Environmental Impact Report – CEQA Noise Report September 12, 2023
25 4.2 Summary of Mitigation Measures
Mitigation 1. Provide STC 28 rated glazing for windows and doors for the Zone A area, as marked in Figure 3, to meet the criteria mentioned in Table 5. With the above mitigation, the impact is less than significant.

Mitigation 2: For outdoor condensing and mechanical units directly adjacent to noise-sensitive receptors, provide a solid barrier with a height blocking line-of-sight to the nearby noise-sensitive receptors. The minimum density of the barrier shall be 2 lbs./sq. ft 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 Exterior Noise Standards.

Mitigation 3. The impact is less than significant with mitigation. The following measures are identified to reduce the potential effects of construction noise on adjacent properties. • Limit construction activity to the hours listed in Table 5 (7:00 am to 8:00 pm Monday through Friday and 8:00am to 5:00 pm Saturday and Sundays).

We trust this meets the project’s needs. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call.

Sincerely,
Veneklasen Associates, Inc.

Elias Montoya
Associate
Sanath Hapuarachchi
Associate
Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

The Canopy Environmental Impact Report – CEQA Noise Report September 12, 2023
26 APPENDIX A
Table A.1 – Definitions of Noise-Related Terms
Term Definition
Decibel, dB A unit describing the amplitude of sound equivalent to 20 times the logarithm, to the base 10, of the ratio of the pressure of the sound to the reference pressure of 20 Pa.

Frequency, Hz The number of complete pressure fluctuations per second above and below atmospheric pressure.

A-Weighted Sound
Level, dBA
The sound pressure level in decibels as measured in an A-weighting filter network. The A-weighting de-emphasizes the very low frequency components of the sound in a manner similar to the frequency response of the human ear and correlates well with subjective reactions to noise. All sound levels in this report are in the A-weighted scale.

L0 (Lmax ), L2, L8, L25,
L50
The A-weighted noise levels that are exceeded 0 percent (maximum noise level), 2 percent, 8 percent, 25 percent, and 50 percent of the time during the measurement period.

Equivalent Noise
Level, Leq
The average A-weighted noise level during the stated measurement period.

Community Noise
Equivalent Level,
CNEL
The average A-weighted noise level during a 24-hour day, obtained after addition of 5 decibels in the evening from 7:00 P.M. to 10:00 P.M., and after addition of 10 decibels to noise levels in the night between 10:00 P.M. and 7:00 A.M.

Day-Night Noise
Level, DNL, Ldn
The average A-weighted noise level during a 24-hour day, obtained after addition of 10 decibels to levels measured in the night between 10:00 P.M. and 7:00 A.M.

Ambient Noise Level The composite of noise from all sources near and far. The normal or existing level of environmental noise at a given location.

Impulsive Noise Sound of short duration. Typically associated with an abrupt onset and rapid decay (i.e., gun-shots, etc.).

Pure Tones A sound wave, residing over a small range of frequencies, which has a sinusoidal behavior over time.

VdB Unit of measurement used by FHWA to describe ground-borne vibration. Equivalent to 20 times the logarithm, to the base 10, of the ratio of the root mean square groundborne velocity to the reference of reference of 1x10-6 in/sec.

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

The Canopy Environmental Impact Report – CEQA Noise Report September 12, 2023
27 APPENDIX B
Traffic Noise Modeling Parameters
Source:.W-trans, Memorandum of Assumptions for The City Ventures Canopy Traffic Study Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

The Canopy Environmental Impact Report – CEQA Noise Report September 12, 2023
28 AADT Traffic Counts Year 2020
Source: Caltrans website
Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

The Canopy Environmental Impact Report – CEQA Noise Report September 12, 2023
29 AADT Traffic Counts Year 2013
Source: Caltrans website
Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

The Canopy Environmental Impact Report – CEQA Noise Report September 12, 2023
30 FHWA Traffic Noise Prédiction Model Predicted Future noie Level Location L1 FHWA Traffic Noise Prédiction Model Predicted Future noie Level Location L2 Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

The Canopy Environmental Impact Report – CEQA Noise Report September 12, 2023
31 APPENDIX C
In order to meet the predicted interior noise levels described in Section 3.2.3, the glazing shall meet the following requirements:

Table 14 – Acoustical Glazing Requirements: Minimum Octave Band Transmission Loss and STC Rating Nominal Thickness
Minimum Transmission Loss
Octave Band Center Frequency (Hz)
Min.

STC
125 250 500 1000 2000 4000 Rating
1” dual 21 18 24 32 36 31 28
The transmission loss values in the table above can likely be met with the following glazing assemblies:
• Up to STC 35: nominal 1” insulated glazing unit
An assembly’s frame and seals may limit the performance of the overall system. Therefore, the window and door systems selected for the project shall not be selected on the basis of the STC rating of the glass alone, but on the entire assembly including frame and seals. Additionally, the assemblies given above are provided as a basis of design, but regardless of construction, the octave band Transmission Loss (TL) and STC value of the system selected must meet the minimum values in Table 14 above.

Independent laboratory acoustical test reports should be submitted for review by the design team to ensure compliance with glazing acoustical performance requirements. Laboratories shall be accredited by the Department of Commerce National Voluntary Laboratory Accreditation Program (NVLAP). Labs shall be pre-approved by Veneklasen Associates. Tests shall be required to be performed in North America. Lab tests and lab reports shall be in compliance with ASTM standard E90 and be no more than 10 years old from the date of submission for this project.

If test reports are not available for a proposed assembly, the assembly, including frame, seals and hardware, shall be tested at an independent pre-approved NVLAP-accredited laboratory to demonstrate compliance with the requirements of this report. Veneklasen shall be invited to witness acoustical testing completed and reserves the right to exclude test reports from laboratories that are not pre-approved by Veneklasen
Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

Appendix J
Noise Calculations
Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

Construction Noise
Construction Vibration
Noise Level @ 50 ft Single Family Residential on Winona Lane Single Family Residential on Hurlbut Avenue Sebastopol Charter School Distance 130 160 250
Demolition 76 67.701 65.897 62.021
Site Preparation 84 75.701 73.897 70.021
Grading 84 75.701 73.897 70.021
Building Construction 77 68.701 66.897 63.021
Architectural Coating 77 68.701 66.897 63.021
Noise Level @ 50 ft Single Family Residential on Winona Lane Single Family Residential on Hurlbut Avenue Sebastopol Charter School Distance 125 280 250
Paving 84 76.041 69.036 70.021
Vibration @ 25 ft Single Family Residential on Winona Lane Single Family Residential on Hurlbut Avenue Commercial to the South Equipment 60 40 35
Vibratory Roller 0.21 0.056 0.104 0.127
Large Bulldozer 0.089 0.024 0.044 0.054
Loaded Trucks 0.076 0.020 0.038 0.046
Small Bulldozer 0.003 0.001 0.001 0.002
Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

The Canopy
Final Environmental Impact Report/
Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR
SCH#2023070072
prepared by
The City of Sebastopol
Planning Department
7120 Bodega Avenue
Sebastopol, California 95472
Contact: John Jay, Associate Planner, Planning Department prepared with the assistance of
Rincon Consultants, Inc.
449 15th Street, Suite 303
Oakland, California 94612
February 2024
Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

Table of Contents
Final Environmental Impact Report i
Table of Contents
1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................... 1

1.1 Purpose of the Final EIR ........................................................................................................ 1

1.2 Environmental Review Process............................................................................................. 1

1.3 Document Organization........................................................................................................ 1

1.4 EIR Certification Process and Project Approval..................................................................... 2

1.5 Draft EIR Recirculation Not Required.................................................................................... 2 2 Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR..................................................................................... 4 3 Public Hearing Comments and Responses...................................................................................65 4 Revisions to the Draft EIR ............................................................................................................71 Appendices
Appendix B Biological Resources Study
Appendix D Tree Inventory Reports
Appendix G Transportation Impact Study
Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

The City of Sebastopol
The Canopy
Final Environmental Impact Report ii
This page intentionally left blank.

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

Introduction
Final Environmental Impact Report 1
1 Introduction

1.1 Purpose of the Final EIR
This document is the Final EIR which contains responses to comments received on the Draft Environmental Impact Report (Draft EIR) and revisions to the Draft EIR prepared for The Canopy Project (project). The Draft EIR identifies the likely environmental consequences associated with development facilitated by the proposed project and recommends mitigation measures to reduce potentially significant impacts.

1.2 Environmental Review Process
Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), lead agencies are required to consult with public agencies having jurisdiction over a proposed project and to provide the general public with an opportunity to comment on the Draft EIR.

The City of Sebastopol distributed a Notice of Preparation (NOP) of the Program EIR for a 30-day agency and public review period commencing July 6, 2023 to August 7, 2023. In addition, the City held a virtual Scoping Meeting on July 18, 2023. The meeting, held at 3:00 PM, was aimed at providing information about the proposed project to members of public agencies, interested stakeholders and residents/community members. The meeting was held at Sebastopol Community Center at 425 Morris Street, Sebastopol, CA and online via Zoom. The City received letters from two agencies in response to the NOP during the public review period, as well as various verbal comments during the EIR Scoping Meeting.

The Draft EIR was made available for public review for a 48-day public review period that began on December 7, 2023 and ended on January 24, 2024. The Notice of Availability of a Draft EIR was posted with the County Clerk, sent to the State Clearinghouse, mailed to local and state agencies, published in the newspaper, and emailed to interested parties. In addition, the Planning Commission received verbal comments on the Draft EIR during the public meeting held on January 23, 2024.

The City received 13 individual written comments on the Draft EIR and one written memo of comments received verbally via phone call. Copies of written comments received during the comment period are included in Chapter 2 of this document and comments received during the public meeting are included in Chapter 3 of this document.

1.3 Document Organization
This document consists of the following chapters:
 Chapter 1: Introduction. This chapter discusses the purpose and organization of this Final EIR and summarizes the environmental review process for the project.  Chapter 2. Written Comments and Responses. This chapter contains reproductions of all comment letters received on the Draft EIR. A written response for each CEQA-related written comment received during the public review period is provided. Each response is keyed to the corresponding comment.

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

The City of Sebastopol
The Canopy
Final Environmental Impact Report 2
 Chapter 3: Public Hearing Comments and Responses. This chapter contains a summary of comments received during the public meeting held on January 23, 2024.  Chapter 4: Revisions to the Draft EIR. Changes to the Draft EIR that have been made in light of the comments received are contained in this chapter.

1.4 EIR Certification Process and Project Approval
Before adopting the proposed project, the lead agency is required to certify that the EIR has been completed in compliance with CEQA, that the decision-making body reviewed and considered the information in the EIR, and that the EIR reflects the independent judgment of the lead agency.

Upon certification of an EIR, the lead agency makes a decision on the project analyzed in the EIR. A lead agency may: (a) disapprove a project because of its significant environmental effects; (b) require changes to a project to reduce or avoid significant environmental effects; or (c) approve a project despite its significant environmental effects, if the proper findings and statement of overriding considerations are adopted (CEQA Guidelines Sections 15042 and 15043).

In approving a project, for each significant impact of the project identified in the EIR, the lead or responsible agency must find, based on substantial evidence, that either: (a) the project has been changed to avoid or substantially reduce the magnitude of the impact; (b) changes to the project are within another agency's jurisdiction and such changes have or should be adopted; or (c) specific economic, social, or other considerations make the mitigation measures or project alternatives infeasible (CEQA Guidelines Section 15091). Pursuant to PRC Section 21061.1, feasible means capable of being accomplished in a successful manner within a reasonable period of time, taking into account, economic, environmental, legal, social, and technological factors.

If an agency approves a project with unavoidable significant environmental effects, it must prepare a written Statement of Overriding Considerations that sets forth the specific social, economic, or other reasons supporting the agency’s decision and explains why the project’s benefits outweigh the significant environmental effects (CEQA Guidelines Section 15093).

When an agency makes findings on significant effects identified in the EIR, it must adopt a reporting or monitoring program for mitigation measures that were adopted or made conditions of project approval to mitigate significant effects (CEQA Guidelines Section 15091[d]).

1.5 Draft EIR Recirculation Not Required
CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5 requires Draft EIR recirculation when comments on the Draft EIR or responses thereto identify “significant new information.” Significant new information is defined as including:

1. A new significant environmental impact would result from the project or from a new mitigation measure proposed to be implemented.

2. A substantial increase in the severity of an environmental impact would result unless mitigation measures are adopted that reduce the impact to a level of insignificance.

3. A feasible project alternative or mitigation measure considerably different from others previously analyzed would clearly lessen the significant environmental impacts of the project, but the project's proponents decline to adopt it.

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

Introduction
Final Environmental Impact Report 3

4. The draft EIR was so fundamentally and basically inadequate and conclusory in nature that meaningful public review and comment were precluded.

The comments, responses, and Draft EIR revisions presented in this document do not constitute such “significant new information;” instead, they clarify, amplify, or make insignificant modifications to the Draft EIR. For example, none of the comments, responses, and Draft EIR revisions disclose new or substantially more severe significant environmental effects of the proposed project, or new feasible mitigation measures or alternatives considerably different than those analyzed in the Draft EIR that would clearly lessen the proposed project’s significant effects.

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

The City of Sebastopol Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR The Canopy
Final Environmental Impact Report
2 Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR
This section includes comments received during public circulation of the Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) prepared for The Canopy Project (Project).

The Draft EIR was circulated for a 48-day public review period that began on December 7, 2023 and ended on January 24, 2024. The City of Sebastopol received 13 written comment letters on the Draft EIR and one memo summarizing verbal comments received via phone call. The commenters and the page number on which each commenter’s letter appear are listed below.

Letter No. and Commenter Agency Page No.

Public Comment
1 Linda Berg 5
2 Tor Allen 7
3 Joan Schwan and Geoffrey Skinner 10
4 Paul Fritz 21
5 Seth Hanley 27
6 Tennis Wick Permit Sonoma 33
7 Dave Kereazis Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) 38 8 Linda Berg 44
9 Janet Waring 47
10 Sandy Mathews 50
11 Jacob Harris 52
12 Kate Haug 56
13 Kathy Oetinger 58
14 Yunsheng Luo California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) 61 The comment letters and responses follow. The comment letters are numbered sequentially and each separate issue raised by the commenter, if more than one, has been assigned a number. The responses to each comment identify first the number of the comment letter, and then the number assigned to each issue (Response 1.1, for example, indicates that the response is for the first issue raised in Comment Letter 1).

Where a comment resulted in a change to the Draft EIR text, a notation is made in the response indicating that the text is revised. Changes in text are signified by strikeout font (strikeout font) where text was removed and by underlined font (underlined font) where text was added. These changes in text are also included in Section 4, Revisions to the Draft EIR. 4 Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

City Hall, 7120 Bodega Avenue, Sebastopol, CA 95472
T 707-823-6167 / www.ci.sebastopol.ca.us
City of Sebastopol
Planning Department
December 20, 2023
To: Katie Green, Rincon Consultants
Re: Canopy Draft EIR public comments.

Hello Katie,
I received a phone call from Linda Berg on December 18th, 2023 and her comments are listed below for the project.
• How and why is there no significant impact to traffic and emergency services from this project.
• How are they estimating only 684 trips per day for this project. • Adding vehicles to the Healdsburg corridor is not a good idea. • Why is the cumulative congestion used and does this account for the new 22 units proposed at 845 Gravenstein Highway North.

Sincerely,
John Jay, Associate Planner
[email protected]
Letter 1

1.1 5
Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

The City of Sebastopol Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR The Canopy
Final Environmental Impact Report
Letter 1
COMMENTER: Linda Berg
DATE: December 18, 2023
Response 1.1
The commenter asks how less than significant traffic and emergency services impacts were determined, how trips per day were estimated, and why cumulative congestion is used in the analysis, and whether it accounts for 22 new units proposed at 845 Gravenstein Highway North. The commenter also opines that adding vehicles to the Healdsburg corridor is not a good idea.

Transportation and emergency service impacts are discussed in Section 4.13, Transportation, of the Draft EIR. As described on Page 4.13-14 of the Draft EIR, the proposed internal network and the parking stalls located therein were determined to be in accordance with City design standards. Site access and circulation were determined to function acceptably for emergency response vehicles.

Furthermore, analysis on Page 4.13-14 of the Draft EIR determined that 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. Therefore, the project would have a less than significant impact on emergency response.

Impacts related to vehicle miles traveled (VMT) and hazards related to geometric design features were also determined to be less than significant. Furthermore, as described in Section 4.12-7, Public Services, pursuant to Chapters 3.34 and 3.38 of the Sebastopol Municipal Code (SMC), the project would be required to pay fees that would be used to support Sebastopol Fire Department operations and the provision of additional resources and staff at the Sebastopol Police Department’s police station and impacts to public services such as emergency services would be less than significant.

While not required by CEQA, trips per day and level of service (LOS) analysis is provided in Appendix TRA to the Draft EIR. Calculations used to determined trips per day are provided in Appendix B of Appendix TRA. Cumulative impacts regarding consistency with existing plans and programs related to pedestrian, transit, and roadway policies, and vehicle miles traveled (VMT) impacts are discussed on pages 4.13-14 through 4.13-15 of the Draft EIR. As stated therein, 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.” The proposed project would contribute to this cumulative impact by adding to countywide VMT alongside other planned development nearby. However, as described under Impact TRA-2, the implementation of the project would not significantly increase the City’s VMT. Therefore, the Draft EIR determined that the project would not result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to significant cumulative VMT impacts. As shown on

commenter was included in the cumulative projects list considered for cumulative analysis. 6 Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

1 John Jay
From: Tor Allen <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, January 8, 2024 9:23 PM
To: John Jay; Kari Svanstrom
Cc: Steven Pierce
Subject: Observation @ Canopy Project.... solar related Hi John, Kari,
I was just reviewing the Draft EIR for the Canopy project https://www.cityofsebastopol.gov/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/Canopy-DEIR-with-Appendices.pdf I wanted to share 2 observations regarding this development for consideration.

1. pg. 46, front facade of the building. shows an architectural roof 'feature' that renders much of the solar viable roof space unusable or not ideal. the architecture 'feature' is just that - it's something the architect thinks makes the building look better. I'm hoping that this can be modified such that the south and west facing roof space can be maximized for solar array placement. One would think that by now architects that claim their development is 'solar' would at least make an attempt at optimizing the roof. Title 24 solar requires a bare minimum solar array size. One should really design a solar array that allows for adding modules if a homeowner wishes, beyond the bare minimum that the developer will install initially.

2. roof vents - while this report might not show this detail, it's important. One can reference Barlow Crossing for how NOT to do it. All vents can be placed on the north or east side of the roof leaving the south and west facing roof space free of obstructions. It's really not that hard to do. Habitat for Humanity projects know how to do this, so ...

3. require a Battery per unit. With the change in Net Metering law, dramatically lowering the value of any exported solar electrons to the grid, new residential solar systems are considered incomplete without a battery to help store energy for use during peak afternoon/evening periods - especially with an all electric home. City of Sebastopol is allowing a waiver for this project for the 3 story height. Perhaps it can require an appropriate sized battery as well? Thanks!
Tor
--
Letter 2

2.1 2.2

2.3 7
Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

2 Tor Allen
The Rahus Institute rahus.org
Solar Schoolhouse solarschoolhouse.org
Sebastopol Carbon Conversations
rahus.org/scc
Sebastopol, California
ph: 707-829-3154 fax:707-827-8361
[email protected]
8 Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

The City of Sebastopol Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR The Canopy
Final Environmental Impact Report
Letter 2
COMMENTER: Tor Allen
DATE: January 8, 2024
Response 2.1
The commenter suggests that an architectural roof feature shown in Figure 2-5 of the EIR could be modified to optimize future use of solar panels.

The comment has been noted and passed to decisionmakers. This comment does not relate to the adequacy of the EIR, but rather comments about design features on the project chosen for analysis.

Response 2.2
The commenter recommends placing roof vents on the north or east side of the roof.

The comment has been noted and passed to decisionmakers. This comment does not relate to the adequacy of the EIR, but rather comments about design features on the project chosen for analysis.

Response 2.3
The commenter recommends requiring a battery unit.

The comment has been noted and passed to decisionmakers. This comment does not relate to the adequacy of the EIR, but rather comments about design features on the project chosen for analysis. 9 Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

1 John Jay
From: John Jay
Sent: Tuesday, January 9, 2024 10:24 AM
To: John Jay
Subject: FW: Comments on "The Canopy" proposed development Hello Kari,
Please share our comments below with the Planning Commission members. Thank you! ----------
Dear Planning Commission members,
We live on Hurlbut Avenue and would like to offer input on the proposed high-density housing development in our neighborhood. We generally support providing housing on appropriate sites where equitable housing opportunities are needed, but this project appears primarily aimed at a specific higher-end market, with no units fewer than three bedrooms and few belowmarket units. The project as proposed is out of character with the neighborhood in terms of density and scale. We would like to see reduced housing density, reduced building height, confirmation that there will not be impacts on groundwater supply, and a solid plan for mitigating the impacts of lost native oak trees. Following are our additional comments and questions. Thank you for your consideration.

Trees:
• The biological section of the CEQA document indicates that 41 native trees are being removed. Please clarify the plan for mitigating those losses. If it will be off-site, is the City confident that $75 is adequate to purchase, plant, and maintain through establishment trees of similar value to those that are being removed? Where will these be planted? Would the trees be replaced in kind (i.e., native oaks for native oaks), or would they more likely be small street trees such as crape myrtles or ornamental pears, which provide much reduced biological and shade values? • Will project grading (cut and/or fill) and soil capping have any negative impact on trees to be preserved? The root protection zone for native trees is typically considered to extend 1.5 times the width of the canopy; grading within that zone often leads to tree loss. If additional trees will be impacted by grading, they should be included in the count of trees lost and mitigated for.
• The plan indicates that one of the few mature oaks to be protected within the site will be permanently lit with multiple lanterns. Please consider omitting that lighting as it would reduce the habitat value of the heritage oak for birds and other wildlife, as well as contribute to light pollution.
• The project description notes that native trees will be used for landscaping, and mentions maple, dogwood, and madrone.

Madrone is appropriate for the site. Big-leaf maple is a riparian tree (needing significant water) and we suggest it be replaced with black or Oregon oak, which are drought-tolerant and would occur naturally on the site. Dogwood is also a riparian tree/shrub not suitable for this site without ongoing irrigation; we suggest it be removed from the palette. Many of the shrubs and perennials listed are native, drought-tolerant, and appropriate to the site. The plant palette also lists birch, which is not native and requires high water input; we suggest that species be removed. Plans appear to call for turf grass around one of the preserved heritage oaks; summer irrigation can kill native oaks, so lawns should be avoided within the oaks' root protection zone.

Wildlife:
• The biology report does not address current wildlife use of the site and lacks a list of wildlife species observed on-site during the assessment. We live in a similar nearby setting of an aging apple orchard with scattered oak trees and know that this setting is heavily used by many bird, bee, and butterfly species, as well as deer, foxes, coyotes, and other native Letter 3

3.1 3.2

3.3 3.4

3.5 3.6
10 Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

2 wildlife. With urbanization expanding across our town, state, and globe, protecting remnant habitat elements within urban areas is increasingly essential for wildlife to persist. • The report indicates that the site has no value for wildlife movement, and suggests that it is surrounded by commercial and residential development. We see it differently; the site is bounded by the corridor of the regional trail on one side, which provides a narrow but valuable strip of largely native oak habitat stretching from the edge of town through town, to the Laguna. Currently, from a wildlife perspective, the site serves as a portion of that corridor. We have seen deer and foxes use the nearby path as a movement corridor and many birds nesting along it. In recent years, a bear was observed on the O'Reilly property and used the path as a movement corridor as evidenced by scat. The fact that the CERES garden required a deer fence also reflects the regular use of the site by deer. • The report doesn't mention USFWS-listed Birds of Conservation Concern likely to make use of the property, such as oak titmice. Mature oaks, and even aging apple trees, provide valuable resources in this neighborhood to titmice and other birds such as western bluebirds, swallows, northern flickers, sapsuckers, and many others. The populations of many previously common bird species have declined dramatically just since the 1960s-1970s; for example, USFWS states that the oak titmouse population across California declined by 46% from 1966 to 2010, with urban and suburban development being one of the primary causes.
• Reducing the project density to retain more native oaks and provide more space for the native shrub plantings listed on the plant palette would reduce the project's negative impact on local wildlife, supporting birds and pollinators in particular.

Traffic:
• The traffic report notes that the project would significantly impact traffic at intersections that are already failing to meet standards for service. It suggests traffic light timing adjustment as a mitigation. How much improvement in traffic impacts would result from adjusting light timing? Is that adequate to offset project traffic to less-than-significant? Water and Energy:
• The hydrology section does not state anticipated project water demand/groundwater use during operation. What will this be? Has it been determined that this new demand will not overdraft groundwater supplies? Does the analysis consider climate change? Please provide information on this analysis. • The cumulative impacts section does acknowledge that the project "would increase the water demand, which would be derived solely from groundwater sources. Cumulative development would also increase the 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." However, we did not find any data or rationale provided for the assertion that a net recharge to groundwater would result from the project. Please provide that information. The Santa Rosa Plain Groundwater Sustainability Plan notes that “the amount of groundwater stored in the shallow and deep aquifer systems is declining on average by about 2,100 acre-feet per year.” How do the cumulative impacts envisioned by residential development address or worsen this situation? • What portion of the project's energy use will be provided by the proposed solar panels? Does the proposed system meet Sebastopol's requirements?
Population and Housing:
• Will there be deed restrictions in place to ensure that units are not converted to short-term rentals? A significant portion of the housing in the neighborhood is already devoted to short-term rentals or second homes. We support the goal of finding housing for Californians in need, but not necessarily facilitating new development for increased vacation rentals or second homes.

Aesthetics and Noise:
• The Aesthetics section indicates that the project is surrounded by "residential and commercial land uses." This obscures the fact that much of the site borders a regional trail corridor/regional park, as well as a school site with significant open space.

3.7 3.8

3.9 3.10

3.11 3.12

3.13 3.14
11 Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

3 Hundreds of people experience this trail corridor every day, enjoying its quiet, natural, tree-lined setting away from the urban realm, and these values should be considered in analyzing the project's impact. The dense development of 40+' tall buildings and parking immediately along the trail could change the experience of that stretch of trail from that of a wooded linear park to more of an urban sidewalk. The human health benefits of walking in natural settings are increasingly welldocumented by researchers and worth protecting from incremental losses. We would like to see an increased setback from the trail, lowered building heights, and a commitment to a screen of native trees here. • This project is proposed in the transition zone between the developed corridor of 116 and rural residential areas. Contrary to statements in the report, the proposal is not consistent with the existing residential scale of the neighborhood. Dense, extensive 40'+ tall residential buildings represent a dramatic visual change in the neighborhood. That height is consistent only with the O'Reilly buildings, and those were also out of character and highly controversial when built (and now stand underutilized). Please consider reducing the height and density of the project, particularly on the edges meeting the West County Trail, the surrounding residences, and Hurlbut.
• The noise section indicates that solid, eye-level walls will be needed to prevent significant ongoing noise impacts from equipment. Please identify these on project drawings and details. How much will existing noise in the adjacent neighborhoods be increased by the project? The report does not clearly state this. • Plans indicate that the site will be surrounded by fencing, but the fencing is not shown on the elevation drawings or Highway 116 views. Extensive fencing has a significant impact on neighborhood views, social interactions, and aesthetics.

Please provide view illustrations that include the proposed fencing, as well as the solar panels and other project infrastructure not currently shown.
• Fencing along Hurlbut Avenue is shown as 42" tall. Does this exceed the allowable fence height in Sebastopol within the setback from the road centerline?
• Will there be deed restrictions to prevent residents from installing security or other lighting that conflicts with Dark Sky guidelines? Being able to see many stars is one of the great pleasures of living here, often noted by friends and family who visit from other regions.
• We suggest omitting the art features such as fog catchers and using that space instead to incorporate native landscape plantings, helping to offset the loss of native trees and improving bird and pollinator habitat on-site while also providing a beautiful setting for residents.

In the future we hope the City is able to encourage redevelopment of existing developed but under-utilized sites, like the largely empty and neglected strip mall across 116 from the site, or the O’Reilly building itself, while protecting some remnant fragments of open space within town.

We understand that there are many considerations to weigh for the City and the Planning Commission. Thank you for including our input, and that of other project neighbors, as part of the process.

Joan Schwan and Geoffrey Skinner
1293 Hurlbut Avenue

3.14 cont.

3.15 3.16

3.17 3.18
12 Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

The City of Sebastopol Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR The Canopy
Final Environmental Impact Report
Letter 3
COMMENTER: Joan Schwan and Geoffrey Skinner
DATE: January 9, 2024
Response 3.1
The commenter states that they would like to see reduced housing density, reduced building heights, and requests additional clarification regarding groundwater supplies and mitigation measures for native oak trees.

This comment has been passed to decisionmakers for review. Please see Response 3.11 regarding groundwater supply and Response 3.2 regarding oak tree mitigation measures.

Response 3.2
The commenter requests clarification regarding mitigation measures for trees that would be removed on the project site including where new trees will be planted, and what types of trees would be planted.

Impacts to trees protected by the City’s Municipal Code are discussed in Section 4.3.3. As described therein, 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 protected trees must be replaced with an approved tree species on the approved tree List, as described in Mitigation Measure BIO-2 on Page

4.3-17 of the Draft EIR. The project proposes planting replacement trees on site, including big leaf maple, madrone, sycamore, and California bay. Through approval of the tree removal permit and corresponding tree mitigation requirements, the project would not conflict with local policies or ordinances regarding trees. The biological value of replacement trees is not evaluated, or required, under this threshold.

An updated Tree Impact Summary by Horticultural Associates was provided on January 23, 2024 and will be available as an appendix to the Final EIR. A total of 43 on-site trees will be removed, including 29 protected trees. Mitigation Measure BIO-2 would continue to apply. With implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-2, impacts would be reduced to less than significant. The information contained within the Draft EIR, in conjunction with the updated Tree Impact Summary that is provided in the Final EIR, would not constitute the addition of substantial new information and would not require recirculation of the Draft EIR.

Page ES-3 of the Draft EIR has revised with the following (changes shown in strikeout/underline):

There are currently 133134 trees within the project site (including 92 protected trees), and the proposed project would involve the removal of 2243 trees (including 29 protected trees) while preserving the remaining 11191 trees (including 63 protected trees) primarily along the perimeter of the site. An existing large, mature coast live oak tree would be retained at the primary entrance to the project entry. 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 13 Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

The City of Sebastopol Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR The Canopy
Final Environmental Impact Report
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.

Response 3.3
The commenter asks if any trees to be protected, or their root systems, would be affected by project grading.

A Tree Protection Plan prepared for the proposed project is discussed in Section 4.3.2. A Tree Protection Plan is required as a part of the materials submitted with applications for a tentative map, use permit, variance, design review, encroachment permit, grading permit, or building permit where the proposed work will be located within the dripline of any tree for which a tree removal permit would be required. Project demolition plans include tree protection zones encompassing the drip lines of protected trees.

Response 3.4
The commenter recommends omitting the proposed use of lanterns on mature oak trees to be protected.

Impacts to special-status wildlife is discussed in Section 4.3.3. Based on the existing conditions of the project site within the developed area of the City and former use as an apple orchard, habitat value for special-status wildlife is generally low. Lighting impacts are discussed on page 4.1-7 of the Draft EIR. As described therein, Mitigation Measure AES-4 would require the project to amend the final lighting plan to include the identification of all types, sizes, and intensities of wall mounted building lights and landscape accent lighting, and a photometric map. Implementation of Mitigation Measure AES-4 would reduce impacts to a less than significant level. Lighting concepts shown in the site plans, including the image used of the oak with lanterns, are design concept ideas and the project, including the final lighting plan, will be required to undergo appropriate design review and adhere to City standards related to lighting.

Response 3.5
The commenter recommends updating the proposed landscaping to replace Big-leaf Maple with Oregon Oak, and removing dogwood, Birch, and turf grass within Oak root protecting zones.

This comment has been passed on to decision makers. Please see Response 3.2 regarding the City’s Municipal Code tree removal permit requirement.

Response 3.6
The commenter states that the Biological Resources Assessment does not include a list of wildlife species observed on the project site.

The commenter is correct that the BRA does not include a list of wildlife species observed during field surveys. However, the potential for special-status wildlife and wildlife corridors does not depend on species observations; rather, it is evaluated based on a habitat assessment. A brief description of each of these species is included within Table A-1 of the BRA, including the species’ status, habitat, and probability of occurring on the project site. No special-status species were observed onsite during general surveys.
14 Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

The City of Sebastopol Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR The Canopy
Final Environmental Impact Report
Response 3.7
The commenter states that the project site is bounded by a trail that acts as a corridor for wildlife and claims that they have observed wildlife along the path.

Impacts to wildlife movement are discussed in Section 4.3.3. The West County Trail is outside of the project site and would not be affected by the proposed project. This trail may provide opportunities for local wildlife movement, but it does not contain suitable natural areas that would contribute to a migratory corridor for wildlife.

Response 3.8
The commenter states that the report does not mention USFWS-listed birds of conservation concern.

Impacts to special-status wildlife are discussed in Section 4.3.3 of the EIR. USFWS-listed birds of conservation concern are not typically included as special-status species under CEQA since they are already addressed under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. Impacts to native birds would be less than significant with implementation of a nesting bird survey (Mitigation Measure BIO-1[c]).

Response 3.9
The commenter recommends reducing the project density to retain native oaks and provide more space for native shrubs.

Please see Response 3.4, regarding impacts to special-status wildlife. Note also that with mitigation, impacts to biological resources were found to be less than significant under the proposed project.

Response 3.10
The commenter asks if proposed traffic light timing adjustments would be adequate to reduce traffic impacts to a less than significant level.

Prior to SB 743, CEQA analysis typically treated automobile delay and congestion as an environmental impact. Instead, SB 743 requires the CEQA Guidelines to prescribe an analysis that better accounts for transit and reducing greenhouse gas emissions. In November 2017, the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR) released the final update to CEQA Guidelines consistent with SB 743, which recommend using vehicle miles traveled (VMT) as the most appropriate metric of transportation impact to align local environmental review under CEQA with California’s long-term greenhouse gas emissions reduction goals. The Guidelines required all jurisdictions in California to use VMT-based thresholds of significance by July 2020. Because LOS impacts are no longer considered significant impacts under CEQA, therefore, traffic congestionrelated mitigation measures are not required. Therefore, traffic congestion was not analyzed in the Draft EIR based on this state law.

Refer to Section 4.13, Transportation, of the EIR for more transportation analysis. As noted therein, 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.
15 Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

The City of Sebastopol Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR The Canopy
Final Environmental Impact Report
While that information may not be used to justify a significant impact under CEQA (and thus in the Draft EIR), an LOS study has been provided in detail in the Transportation Impact Study (Appendix G) for reference, which includes a discussion of recommended traffic light timing adjustments. As stated therein, the project would result in a greater than a five percent increase in average delay at SR 116/North Main Street, which would operate unacceptably at LOS E during the p.m. peak hour with or without the project. As a result, this is considered an adverse project impact under the City’s standards. The Transportation Impact Study determined that optimizing the signal’s cycle length and splits to accommodate project trips would result in an improved LOS D. Therefore, the project applicant’s recommended contributions to the City’s Traffic Impact Fee (TIF) could be utilized to adjust the signal’s timing, resulting in LOS D which would be an improvement compared to existing conditions. With this improvement, the intersection would operate in accordance with City standards.

Response 3.11
The commenter requests information regarding the project’s operational water demand and groundwater recharge including how climate change and cumulative development may impact declining groundwater stores in the future.

The commenter is correct that the anticipated water demand during operation is not discussed in the hydrology section; that is because for CEQA analysis, water demand is discussed in Section 4.15, Utilities and Service Systems. As described therein, the City relies exclusively on groundwater as a water supply source. As stated on page 4.15-10, according to the City’s General Plan, the average total per capita water production between 2006 and 2015 was 129 gallons per person per day.

Utilizing the water usage rate of 129 gallons per capita per day, the total annual water demand of the proposed project was calculated to be approximately 9.6 mg1 , or 0.77 percent of the 1,237 mg
maximum production for the city. The Draft EIR determined that the projected water supply currently available for production by the City of Sebastopol exceeds the projected water demand associated with the proposed project and the project would not exceed the City’s available water production capabilities. Compliance with existing regulations and inclusion of the proposed waterconserving project features would also help ensure that an adequate supply of water is provided to the proposed project during normal, dry, and multi-dry year conditions. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.

Groundwater recharge is addressed on pages 4.8-12 through 4.8-13 of the Draft EIR. As described therein, 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 conditions. Therefore, the project would not substantially interfere with groundwater recharge at the project site.

Cumulative impacts regarding water demand and groundwater recharge are discussed on page 4.8-17. As described therein, 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 Groundwater Sustainability Plan (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. 1 2 9.6 mg = 204 residents * 129 mg * 365
16 Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

The City of Sebastopol Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR The Canopy
Final Environmental Impact Report
Consequently, the proposed project would not result in a considerable contribution to a significant cumulative impact related to groundwater. Cumulative impacts pertaining to utility availability are discussed on page 4.15-12. As described therein, cumulative projects would rely on the City for their water supply and the City’s water supply is expected to be available for normal, dry, and multi-dry year conditions. Therefore, cumulative impacts related to water demand were determined to be less than significant.

Regarding the commenter’s question about climate change, climate change scenarios were incorporated into the modeling used in the Santa Rosa Plain Groundwater Subbasin GSP referenced in Section 4.8, Hydrology and Water Quality of the Draft EIR. As stated in the GSP, the Santa Rosa Plain Groundwater Sustainability Agency (GSA) chose a climate change scenario that provides for several very dry years through 2025; normal and wetter years through 2050; and then a long-term drought after the mid-twenty-first century. This climate scenario allows for a significant stress test for groundwater resources planning during the GSP implementation horizon (Sonoma Water 2021).

The analysis in the GSP accounts for growth planned in the City’s 2016 General Plan Update, which includes the addition of 750 housing units. Approximately 170 housing units were constructed in the City from 2015 until 2023, and along with the 96 units (80 units with the potential for up to 16 ADUs) contemplated in the proposed project this does not exceed the 750 housing units considered in the 2016 General Plan Update and in the GSP referenced in the Draft EIR for the project.

Therefore, water demand from new housing units, like the housing proposed by this project, was already accounted for in the future water demand determined in the GSP, and would not be an unanticipated use of groundwater.

Potential future impacts to water supply from climate change are provided on page 4.6-4 of the Draft EIR for additional context.

Response 3.12
The commenter asks what portion of the project’s energy use will be provided by the proposed solar panels and if they meet Sebastopol’s requirements.

The exact portion of energy that would be provided by solar panels has not yet been determined.

Energy impacts are discussed in Section 4.16, Impacts Found to Be Less Than Significant. As described therein, no conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of renewable energy or energy efficiency is anticipated and there would be no impact. As described on Page 4.2-5 of the Draft EIR, the proposed project would exceed the energy efficiency measures with the 2022 Title 24 Building Efficiency Standards by 5 to 10 percent. For example, the project would dedicate circuitry for electric vehicle charging stations for all townhome garages, which is beyond the requirement of the 2022 Title 24 Standards. The CALGreen standards are updated every three years and become increasingly more stringent over time. The building official has also confirmed that this project would meet these requirements.

Energy sources for the project are discussed in Section 4.6, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, of the EIR.

Electricity would be provided to the project site by Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E), and the project would utilize renewable electricity through the use of solar panels. Homeowners also have the option to opt into the SCP program, which provides residents and businesses in Sonoma and Mendocino counties with renewable resources, such as geothermal, wind, and solar. All garages would be wired for EV charging and solar battery backup, and the project would include energy star appliances and Nest thermostats.
17 Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

The City of Sebastopol Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR The Canopy
Final Environmental Impact Report
Response 3.13
The commenter questions if there will be deed restrictions regarding short-term rentals and second homes.

The comment regarding deed restrictions does not pertain to the analysis presented in the Draft EIR. Future owners or residents of housing units are not determined through CEQA.

Response 3.14
The commenter claims that describing the site as surrounded by residential and commercial uses insufficiently describes that the site is also adjacent to a trail, open space, and a school. The commenter expresses concerns regarding visual changes to the community and recommends increased setbacks from the trail, and reducing the height and density of the project, and the inclusion of native trees. The commenter also claims the project is not consistent with the existing residential scale of the neighborhood.

This comment has been noted and passed on to decision makers. Impacts related to aesthetics are discussed in Section 4.1, Aesthetics, of the Draft EIR. As stated on page 4.1-1 of the EIR, the project site is described as being located in a neighborhood characterized by a mix of uses including residential, educational, commercial, and recreational. It also states that the project site is directly adjacent to the West County Trail, that the Sebastopol Charter School is located north of the site, and that the project site is undeveloped and is characterized by mature trees. Regarding the commenter’s concerns about visual changes to the neighborhood, as described in Section 4.1, Aesthetics, implementation of Sebastopol Design Guidelines and compliance with Sebastopol Municipal Code (SMC) Chapters 17.450 and 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. As described on page 4.1-6, the Draft EIR found that the project, which requires approval of a Conditional Use Permit, would be consistent with existing land use designation and zoning. As discussed on Page 2-4 of the Draft EIR, the project would comply with the height limitations and setback requirements in the SMC through the use of a State Density Bonus to allow a waiver to increase the building height to three stories, which would ensure the sensitive design and siting of future residences in a way that is visually compatible with the development scale and style of the surrounding area. The project’s consistency with SMC R7 Development Standards is shown in detail in Table 4.9-2. The commenter is correct that the height of the proposed project is consistent with the height of the adjacent office park buildings, which are now included in the baseline conditions for visual character surrounding the project site.

Regarding the commenter’s request to retain native trees, an updated tree impact summary provided by Horticultural Associates on January 23, 2024 states that 91 of the trees on-site would be preserved, including 63 protected trees. Furthermore, as described on Page 4.1-5, 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 protected trees must be replaced with an approved tree species on the approved tree List, as described in Mitigation Measure BIO-2. 18 Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

The City of Sebastopol Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR The Canopy
Final Environmental Impact Report
Response 3.15
The commenter requests an update to site plans to include eye-level walls proposed to reduce noise, fences, and solar panels. The commenter asks how much noise will increase in neighborhoods adjacent to the project site, and if proposed fences along Hurlbut Avenue are within the allowable height.

The request regarding updated plans has been passed on to decision makers for consideration.

Impacts related to noise are addressed in Section 4.10, Noise, of the Draft EIR. As discussed therein, impacts related to temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project would be less than significant with implementation of Mitigation Measure NOI-1, which requires a solid barrier with a height blocking the line-of-sight to the nearby noise sensitive receptors to reduce noise due to mechanical equipment. Once the final equipment selection is made, Mitigation Measure NOI-1 also requires the completion of an acoustical analysis of the noise from project mechanical and electrical equipment to surrounding properties prior to final design to verify compliance with the City’s nighttime exterior noise standard of 45 dBA.

Response 3.16
The commenter requests additional information regarding fencing. The commenter requests illustrations that include the proposed fencing, as well as the solar panels and other project infrastructure not currently shown. The commenter asks if a 42-inch fence is allowable by the City.

The request regarding updated plans has been passed on to decision makers for consideration.

Fences up to 6 feet are allowable at the rear of the property, and front yard fencing is allowed up to 42 inches. Fencing already exists in residential neighborhoods adjacent to the project site and the proposed fencing would not impact views from the project site; therefore, it would not result in a significant visual impact. A conceptual wall and fence plan is included on page 36 of the Project Plans and Drawings available on the City’s website via this link:
https://www.cityofsebastopol.gov/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/The-Canopy-DR-SubmittalDrawings-compressed.pdf Response 3.17
The commenter asks if there will be restrictions to prevent conflicts with dark sky guidelines and recommends omitting art features to incorporate more native landscaping.

This comment has been noted and passed on to decision makers. Impacts regarding nighttime lighting are discussed on Page 4.1-7 of the Draft EIR. As described therein, the proposed project would introduce nighttime light sources associated with lighting of the proposed buildings and the project could affect nighttime views in the area. General Plan Policy COS 11-8 requires all outdoor lighting to be constructed with full shielding and/or recessed to reduce light trespass to adjoining properties and to reduce illumination of the night sky and 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. Policy COS 11-7 restricts outdoor lighting and glare from development projects to retain the quality of night skies by minimizing light pollution. However, there are no municipal code requirements that implement the General Plan policies related to outdoor lighting, or the design guidelines regarding site lighting. Therefore, Mitigation Measure AES-4 requires exterior lighting installed on the project site to be of low intensity, low glare design, and hooded to direct light downward onto the subject parcel and prevent spill-over onto adjacent parcels and to 19 Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

The City of Sebastopol Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR The Canopy
Final Environmental Impact Report
otherwise meet dark night sky requirements. Impacts were determined to be less than significant with implementation of Mitigation Measure AES-4.

Response 3.18
The commenter encourages redevelopment of existing developed but underutilized sites including an empty strip mall across the 116 from the project site or the O’Reilly building.

This comment will be noted and passed on to decision-makers. However, expressions of opinion relating to the proposed project are not related to the adequacy of the analysis and conclusions in the EIR.
20 Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

1 John Jay
From: Paul Fritz <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 9, 2024 11:32 AM
To: Kari Svanstrom; John Jay
Subject: RE: tonight's Planning Commission meeting - cancellation Hi Kari and John,
I’m sending my quesons/comments about the Canopy dra
EIR. A lot of these are just clarificaons. The numbers are the page numbers of the pdf document.
- 10 – I’m not understanding the FAR calculaon. Note 1 says the FAR is calculated by dividing the allowed lot coverage by the total ground floor area. This is not the way FAR is typically calculated. - 12 – contaminated soil is to be buried with 6” of new soil. On page 160 the 6” is also menoned, but on page 174 it says contaminated soil will be buried with 6’ of new soil. - 13 – due alternaves 2 and 3 assume minimum and maximum allowed density? Just wondering how these unit numbers were arrived at.
- 24 – HYD-1 – it says impacts would be less than significant with migaon, but no migaon measures are proposed.
- 27 – TRA-1 states the proposed path is at the center of the site, but the plan and other parts of the document note the path connecon to 116 is at the south end of the site as the O’Reilly owner did not want to grant the easement through the center of the property. This is also menoned on page 265. - 40 – Many of the site descripons menon Hwy 116 as being north of the property. This is one example. This one also states the West County Trail is to the east, but really it is north, as is the Charter School, which is not o
en menoned as an adjacent use.
- 61 – In the third paragraph of the discussion of climate and topography, I’m wondering if the second sentence is describing the summer condions rather than winter. The third sentence also menons winter months. - 223 – Policy N-1.13 – Error! Reference source not found. This should be fixed or removed. - 229 – Table 4.10-6 has a Construcon Acvity Phase of ‘Architectural Coang’. I’m not familiar with this construcon phase. What is this supposed to be?
- 532 – exisng site condions menons a sports facility to the north. I think this is probably the Charter School. - 624 – residenal density is noted as 15.7 du/ac. Table ES-1 on page 10 states the density as 13.1 du/ac. If the

13.1 du/ac is correct, does this impact the VMT reducon calculaon? - 636 – The sight distance at the Mill Staon Rd entrance is noted as being inadequate. Is migaon not required as this is an exisng condion?
Thanks!
Paul
P.O. Box 1074
Sebastopol, CA 95473
707.975.6220
Letter 4

4.1 4.2

4.3 4.4

4.5 4.6

4.8 4.7

4.9 4.10

4.11 21 Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

1 John Jay
From: Kari Svanstrom
Sent: Tuesday, January 9, 2024 4:28 PM
To: John Jay
Subject: FW: tonight's Planning Commission meeting - cancellation From: Seth Hanley <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 09, 2024 1:08 PM
To: Kari Svanstrom <[email protected]>; Nzuzi Mahungu <[email protected]> Subject: Re: tonight's Planning Commission meeting - cancellation Hi Kari, Nzuzi.

I appreciate the hard work that went into preparing this comprehensive report, my thanks to the Planning Dept. I will be present on Jan. 23rd.

Admittedly, I haven't reviewed every page in detail, and I'm also playing catch up since I wasn't party to any earlier applications or discussions. Hence, some of these questions, comments, observations may be redundant, but will facilitate my own learning here with respect to the project and the process.

1. I don't see a recommendation (neg dec, or mit neg dec, etc.). Does this only come after public comments on the draft report?

2. I'm curious as to why the development doesn't connect to Hurlbut Ave. It seems like an easy connection to make, and would facilitate funnelling traffic from the Canopy site to two intersections along Grav N. with existing stop lights (rather than adding the new driveway from the existing O'Reilly parking lot.

3. Has the FD weighed-in on access and driveway design as part of the EIR? I see the engineer has, but unclear on the FD (just curious).

Some other thoughts(and to be clear - I'm not sure if this in our remit as commissioners or not, so feel free to tell me these are out of our scope):
-Page ES-4: It is noted that 4 alternatives were studied, but only 3 are noted (is this a typo or is one missing?). -Page ES-4: Alternative 2 is noted as 'environmentally superior', but it seems like it's worth noting that the developer is able to build what they're proposing (and could in fact build more - per Alt. 3 if I'm reading this correctly). -Page 19-3: Under BIO-1, should the heading include wording "has the potential to impact", or, "if identified on site"? The current heading reads like there's a significant problem, and the body text suggests that a problem is not anticipated (just for clarity).
-Page 6.3: In Alt 2, it's not clear to me how the reduced number of 73 residential units was arrived at (based on what methodology/calc?). Can you clarify, if only for my own insight (my apologies if this is described elsewhere and I'm missing it).
-Page 6-10: In Alt 3, it's not clear to me how the increased number of 103 residential units was arrived at (based on what methodology/calc?). Can you clarify, if only for my own insight (my apologies if this is described elsewhere and I'm missing it).
-Page 6-2 (Integral Report): Page ES-3 of the EIR notes that 22 trees need to be removed to accommodate the new project, whereas the Integral report notes 41. Has the project been modified since the Integral report to reduce the number of removed trees (maybe it relates to tree radius)? Best,
Seth.
22 Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

The City of Sebastopol Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR The Canopy
Final Environmental Impact Report
Letter 4
COMMENTER: Paul Fritz
DATE: January 9, 2024
Response 4.1
The commenter requests clarification about how the Floor Area Ratio (FAR) is calculated.

Table ES-1 has been updated to replace the reference to FAR with the lot coverage, as FAR is not used in the R7 zone.

Table ES-1 Proposed Residential Development Summary
Feature Details
Townhome Project Characteristics
Residential area 69,317 square feet
Lot Coverage Allowed: 40% or 106,333 sf
Proposed: 26% or 69,317 sf +/-
Floor Area Ratio (FAR) 1.531
Density Allowed: 12.1 to 25 dwelling units/acre
Proposed: 13.1 dwelling units/acre
Building Height Allowed: 30 feet and 2 stories
Proposed: 40 feet +/- and 3 stories with Density Bonus Waiver Response 4.2
The commenter requests clarification about whether contaminated soil would be buried with 6” or 6’ of new soil.

The on-site burial cells for excavated contaminated soil would be capped with six feet of new soil, and impacted soil to remain within the driplines of trees to be retained would be capped with six inches of new soil. Refer to Section 4.7, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, for more information.

Response 4.3
The commenter requests clarification about how alternatives 2 and 3 determined unit numbers, and if they assume minimum and maximum allowed density.

The numbers for Alternative 3 were derived from a previously proposed version of the same project.

Alternative 2 was calculated using the minimum density allowed of 12.1 DU/acre. 12.1*6.1 acres =

73.81 but was rounded down to 73 units since it is not possible to build a portion of a unit. 23 Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

The City of Sebastopol Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR The Canopy
Final Environmental Impact Report
Response 4.4
The commenter notes that HYD-1 states impacts would be less than significant with mitigation, but no mitigation measures are listed.

The commenter is correct that there is a typo on Page ES-16. As discussed in Section 4.8, Hydrology and Water Quality, implementation of Mitigation Measures HAZ-3a and HAZ-3b would reduce impacts to less than significant.

Page ES-16 has been revised with the following (changes shown in strikeout/underline):

Hydrology and Water Quality
Impact HYD-1. Development
facilitated by the project would not
violate water quality standards or
Waste Discharge Requirements, or
otherwise substantially degrade
surface or groundwater quality.

Impacts would be less than significant
with mitigation.

None required. Mitigation Measure HAZ-3(a) and HAZ3(b). Less than Significant with
Mitigation
Response 4.5
The commenter requests clarification about the location of Highway 116, West County Trail, and the Charter School in relation to the project site.

Regarding the commenter’s question pertaining to Mitigation Measure TRA-1, the following changes have been made to Mitigation Measure TRA-1 for clarification:

TRA-1 Pedestrian Connectivity and Safety. A new pedestrian path shall 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.

Changes to Mitigation Measure TRA-1 do not rise to the level of “new information” as defined in Section 15088.5 of the CEQA Guidelines, and thus recirculation of the Draft EIR is not required.

Regarding the commenter’s suggested correction, Page 2-4 has been revised with the following correction (changes shown in strikeout/underline):

The project site is currently undeveloped but includes existing vegetation and mature trees. 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 eastnorth, 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. In addition, the trail 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 (Sonoma County 2023). (Sonoma County 2023). 24 Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

The City of Sebastopol Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR The Canopy
Final Environmental Impact Report
Response 4.6
The commenter asks if climate conditions described refer to winter or summer conditions.

The sentence on Page 4.2-1 described by the commenter describes summer climate conditions.

The major large-scale weather feature controlling climate in Sebastopol is a large high-pressure system located in the eastern Pacific Ocean, known as the Pacific High. During wintersummer months, marine air trapped in the lower atmosphere is often condensed into fog by the cool Pacific Ocean. Stratus-type clouds usually form offshore and move into the area during the evening hours.

During winter months, the Pacific High becomes weaker and shifts south, allowing weather systems associated with the polar jet stream to affect the region. Low pressure systems produce periods of cloudiness, strong shifting winds, and precipitation. High-pressure systems are also common in winter, with low-level inversions that produce cool stagnant conditions.

Response 4.7
The commenter requests a reference be corrected.

The reference link on page 4.10-9 refers to the stationary (non-transportation) noise source standards in Table 4.10-3 in the Draft EIR. In Sebastopol’s General Plan, Policy N-1.13 refers to Table N-2 in the General Plan, which shows the same stationary (non-transportation) noise source standards that are included in Table 4.10-3 in the Draft EIR.

Policy N-1.13 Control non-transportation related noise from site specific noise sources to the standards shown in Error! Reference source not foundTable 4.10-3.

Response 4.8
The commenter requests an explanation of the architectural coating phase in Table 4.10-6.

The architectural coating phase of construction describes the process of applying architectural coatings to the buildings. Architectural coatings are protective products applied to buildings including house paints, stains, industrial maintenance coatings, traffic coatings, and many other products.

Response 4.9
The commenter suggests a reference to a sports facility may intend to refer to the Charter School.

The commenter is correct that the Charter School is located north of the project site. This reference is made in an Appendix to the EIR, and the information is provided for context but does not relate to impact analysis or conclusions, and thus does not pertain to the nature or adequacy of the analysis in the Draft EIR. However, Page 1 of the Biological Resource Analysis has been revised, and is contained in revised Appendix C, attached to this Final EIR. 25 Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

The City of Sebastopol Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR The Canopy
Final Environmental Impact Report
Response 4.10
The commenter requests clarification about the project’s residential density.

The project’s residential density is 13.1 dwelling units/acre, not counting ADUs, and 15.7 dwelling units per acre including ADUs. A prior version of the Transportation Impact Study was provided as Appendix G to the Draft EIR, which listed the higher project density, while page 4.13-12 of the Draft EIR used the lower project density in order to ensure a conservative analysis. An updated version of the Transportation Impact Study has been provided (revisions to the VMT density can be found on pages 10-11) and is available as an appendix to the Final EIR. The project density described within the Draft EIR correctly corresponds to the updated version of the Transportation Impact Study. The lower project density was used for a more conservative analysis, as lower density projects receive a lower VMT reduction. See Table 4 in the Transportation Impact Study regarding the applicable VMT reduction and adjusted VMT. Neither project density results in a significant VMT impact. Therefore, the information contained within the Draft EIR, in conjunction with the updated Transportation Impact Study that will be provided in the Final EIR, would not constitute the addition of substantial new information and would not require recirculation of the Draft EIR.

Response 4.11
The commenter states that the sight distance at the Mill Station Road entrance is inadequate and asks if mitigation is required for this existing condition.

Sight distances are discussed on Page 4.13-13 of the Draft EIR. The commenter is correct that, as discussed therein, 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 and mitigation is not required.

According to email correspondence with W-Trans on February 1, 2024, the sight distance at the private driveway location on Mill Station Road was field measured at approximately 100 feet in each direction. Towards the east, sight distance extends to the raised crossing of the West County Trail where the extension of Mill Station Road crosses the trail before accessing the Sebastopol Charter School. As traffic slows to 5-10 mph as it reaches the raised trail crossing, the existing sight distance would be considered adequate. Sight distance to the west and the intersection with SR116 is limited by trees and vegetation on the south side of the extension of Mill Station Road. This sight distance does not meet the stopping sight distance requirement of 200 feet in each direction for five mph over the prima facie speed limit of 25 mph. As landscaping and signage can impede sight lines, any landscaping or signage placed within the vision triangle at the driveway should be less than three feet or more than seven feet above the pavement surface to maintain a clear line of sight. As this is an existing condition, it would not be considered a significant impact of the project and could be addressed through clearing of brush and vegetation which blocks sight distance towards the SR116 intersection.
26 Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

1 John Jay
From: Kari Svanstrom
Sent: Tuesday, January 9, 2024 4:28 PM
To: John Jay
Subject: FW: tonight's Planning Commission meeting - cancellation From: Seth Hanley <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 09, 2024 1:08 PM
To: Kari Svanstrom <[email protected]>; Nzuzi Mahungu <[email protected]> Subject: Re: tonight's Planning Commission meeting - cancellation Hi Kari, Nzuzi.

I appreciate the hard work that went into preparing this comprehensive report, my thanks to the Planning Dept. I will be present on Jan. 23rd.

Admittedly, I haven't reviewed every page in detail, and I'm also playing catch up since I wasn't party to any earlier applications or discussions. Hence, some of these questions, comments, observations may be redundant, but will facilitate my own learning here with respect to the project and the process.

1. I don't see a recommendation (neg dec, or mit neg dec, etc.). Does this only come after public comments on the draft report?

2. I'm curious as to why the development doesn't connect to Hurlbut Ave. It seems like an easy connection to make, and would facilitate funnelling traffic from the Canopy site to two intersections along Grav N. with existing stop lights (rather than adding the new driveway from the existing O'Reilly parking lot.

3. Has the FD weighed-in on access and driveway design as part of the EIR? I see the engineer has, but unclear on the FD (just curious).

Some other thoughts(and to be clear - I'm not sure if this in our remit as commissioners or not, so feel free to tell me these are out of our scope):
-Page ES-4: It is noted that 4 alternatives were studied, but only 3 are noted (is this a typo or is one missing?). -Page ES-4: Alternative 2 is noted as 'environmentally superior', but it seems like it's worth noting that the developer is able to build what they're proposing (and could in fact build more - per Alt. 3 if I'm reading this correctly). -Page 19-3: Under BIO-1, should the heading include wording "has the potential to impact", or, "if identified on site"? The current heading reads like there's a significant problem, and the body text suggests that a problem is not anticipated (just for clarity).
-Page 6.3: In Alt 2, it's not clear to me how the reduced number of 73 residential units was arrived at (based on what methodology/calc?). Can you clarify, if only for my own insight (my apologies if this is described elsewhere and I'm missing it).
-Page 6-10: In Alt 3, it's not clear to me how the increased number of 103 residential units was arrived at (based on what methodology/calc?). Can you clarify, if only for my own insight (my apologies if this is described elsewhere and I'm missing it).
-Page 6-2 (Integral Report): Page ES-3 of the EIR notes that 22 trees need to be removed to accommodate the new project, whereas the Integral report notes 41. Has the project been modified since the Integral report to reduce the number of removed trees (maybe it relates to tree radius)? Best,
Seth.

Letter 5

5.1 5.2

5.3 5.4

5.5 5.6

5.7 5.8

5.9 27 Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

2 On Tue, Jan 9, 2024 at 8:02 AM Kari Svanstrom <[email protected]> wrote:

Hi all,

Unfortunately the zoom phone number for the mtg tonight was missing from the Meeting Agenda, so we will need to postpone tonight’s meeting until Jan 23. (given the Agenda does a not have the public access info, we will not be able to open the meeting. Staff WILL be at the youth annex and open the zoom mtg to let folks know of the change in time/date for the mtg).

We will be able to maintain the same schedule for the project with the hearing on the Jan 23, but please let me know of any planned absences for that night (we also have another hearing on that date that will need a quorum).

If you do have any questions on the Draft EIR document, we would appreciate a head’s up so we can get any info prepared/answer any questions you might have on the 23rd. (Of note, this is still the ‘draft’ process for public and planning commissioner comments, the formal public hearing for the project decision will be March 12.)

Thanks and please let myself or John know if you have any questions.

Kari Svanstrom, AICP, Architect
Planning Director
City of Sebastopol |Planning Department
7120 Bodega Avenue |Sebastopol, CA 95472
(707) 823-6167 phone
www.cityofsebastopol.gov

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

3 City offices are currently closed to the public, but staff is available via email. City Offices are closed every Friday/and holidays

--
Please note that Blitz will be closed on Monday January 15th, 2024 in observance of Martin Luther King Jr Day
seth hanley he/his
PARTNER + ARCHITECT

AIA / LEED AP
________________
FYI, we are closed on Fridays.
san francisco / los angeles
415.525.9181 (cell)
415.525.9179 (main)
find me at: 435 jackson street, san francisco, ca 94111 studioblitz.com / instagram / linkedin
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE:

This message is intended solely for the use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain information that is confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not keep, use, disclose, copy or distribute this email without the author's prior permission. Please notify the sender immediately by e-mail and delete the original message.
29 Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

The City of Sebastopol Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR The Canopy
Final Environmental Impact Report
Letter 5
COMMENTER: Seth Hanley
DATE: January 9, 2024
Response 5.1
The commenter asks if a CEQA recommendation will be available after the public comment period.

The commenter mentions recommendations (negative declaration or mitigated negative declaration) that relate to Initial Study documents; however, the document being prepared for the proposed project is not an Initial Study, but rather an EIR. The environmental review process for an EIR is described in Section 1.5, Environmental Review Process, of the Draft EIR. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15090, prior to making a decision on a proposed project, the City must certify that: a) the Final EIR has been completed in compliance with CEQA; b) the Final EIR was presented to the decision-making body of the lead agency; and c) the decision making body reviewed and considered the information in the Final EIR. After the final EIR is complete, the agency determines whether to approve the project or an alternative to the project. Pursuant with CEQA Guidelines Section 15094, the lead agency (the City of Sebastopol) will file a Notice of Determination (NOD) with the City Clerk after deciding to approve a project for which an EIR is prepared which will be posted for 30 days and sent to anyone previously requesting notice.

Response 5.2
The commenter asks why the development does not connect to Hurlbut Avenue.

In response to prior public input, there are currently deed restrictions on the parcel preventing a vehicular connection to Hurlbut Avenue. Additionally, Hurlbut Avenue is a small county-owned and county-maintained road with no pedestrian or bicycle facilities.

Response 5.3
The commenter asks if the Fire Department has reviewed the access and driveway design.

The Fire Department has reviewed the access and driveway design. A meeting was held with the fire chief, planning team, and project applicant to discuss road widths on August 17, 2022.

Response 5.4
The commenter states that ES-4 mentions that alternatives were studied, but that only 3 are discussed.

The commenter is correct and has identified a typo. Three alternatives were studied and discussed in Section 6, Alternatives.

Page ES-4 has been updated with the following correction (changes shown in strikeout/underline):

As required by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), this EIR examines alternatives to the proposed project. Studied alternatives include the following fourthree alternatives. Based on the alternatives analysis, Alternative 2 was determined to be the environmentally superior alternative.  Alternative 1: No Project
 Alternative 2: Reduced Development Density
 Alternative 3: Increased Development Density
30 Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

The City of Sebastopol Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR The Canopy
Final Environmental Impact Report
Response 5.5
The commenter suggests clarifying that while Alternative 2 is determined to be the environmentally superior alternative, the proposed project could feasibly be built.

This comment has been noted. As required by Section 15126.6 of the CEQA Guidelines, the Draft EIR examines a range of reasonable alternatives to the proposed project. While the EIR determined that Alternative 2 would be the environmentally superior alternative, as discussed on Page 6-3, Alternative 2 would not meet goals related to increasing housing inventory as effectively as the proposed project and may not be financially feasible due to development costs. Furthermore, as discussed on Page 6-9 of the Draft EIR, transportation impacts related to vehicle miles traveled for Alternative 2 would be slightly increased compared to the proposed project since it would result in a less dense development buildout.

Response 5.6
The commenter asks if text can be added to the header in impact BIO-1 for clarification.

strikeout/underline):

Impact BIO-1 THE PROJECT WOULD HAVE THE POTENTIAL TO RESULT IN A SUBSTANTIAL ADVERSE EFFECT ON SPECIAL STATUS ANIMAL SPECIES. IMPACTS WOULD BE LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT WITH MITIGATION.

Response 5.7
The commenter asks how the number of units was determined for Alternative 2.

Alternative 2 was calculated using the minimum density allowed of 12.1 DU/acre. 12.1*6.1 acres =

73.81 but was rounded down to 73 units since it is not possible to build a portion of a unit.

Response 5.8
The commenter asks how the number of units was determined for Alternative 3.

The numbers for Alternative 3 were derived from a previously proposed version of the same project.

Response 5.9
The commenter asks how many trees will be removed as a result of the project.

An updated Tree Impact Summary letter by Horticultural Associates was provided on January 23, 2024 and is included as an appendix to the Final EIR. The Tree Impact Summary states that one Coast Redwood at the project entrance was added as an addendum after completion of the original report, therefore, a total of 43 inventoried trees will be removed, including 29 protected trees. The Coast Redwood would be removed as part of the creation of the new driveway apron on the southern part of the site which has access from Hwy 116. The removal of the Coast Redwood would not substantially increase project impacts related to trees. Mitigation Measure BIO-2 would continue to apply. With implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-2, impacts would be reduced to less than significant. Therefore, the information contained within the Draft EIR, in conjunction with the updated Tree Impact Summary that is provided in the Final EIR, would not constitute the addition of substantial new information and would not require recirculation of the Draft EIR. The Integral report the commenter refers to was provided as an Appendix to the Draft EIR for context 31 Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

The City of Sebastopol Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR The Canopy
Final Environmental Impact Report
but does not need to be updated since the most up-to-date Tree Impact Summary will be provided in the Final EIR.

Page ES-3 of the Draft EIR has revised with the following (changes shown in strikeout/underline):

There are currently 133134 trees within the project site (including 92 protected trees), and the proposed project would involve the removal of 2243 trees (including 29 protected trees) while preserving the remaining 11191 trees (including 63 protected trees) primarily along the perimeter of the site. An existing large, mature coast live oak tree would be retained at the primary entrance to the project entry. 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. 32 Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

2550 Ventura Avenue Santa Rosa CA 95403-2859 (707) 565-1900 www.PermitSonoma.org
January 18, 2024 via email to [email protected] Planning Department
Attn: John Jay, Associate Planner
City of Sebastopol
7120 Bodega Avenue
Sebastopol, CA 95472
RE: “The Canopy” Condominium Project, County File PPR23-0020 1009-1011 Gravenstein Hwy N, APN 060-261-028, 060-261-026 Mr. Jay,
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the proposed project at the above-referenced property.

Staff have reviewed the Notice of Availability, Draft EIR, and associated project materials anddetermined the project to be consistent with the Sonoma County General Plan. Please see attached General Plan Consistency Determination.

Sonoma County faces a severe housing shortage at all affordability levels, exacerbated by the devastating fires of 2017, 2019, and 2020. Permit Sonoma supports city-centered housing projects like this 96-unit condominium project that help meet local housing needs.

Thank you for your time and attention to this matter.

If you have any questions, please feel free to contact Doug Bush at 707-565-5276 or email at [email protected].

Sincerely,
Tennis Wick, AICP
Director
Enclosure: General Plan Consistency Determination
cc: File No. PPR23-0020
Letter 6

6.1 33 Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

2550 Ventura Avenue Santa Rosa CA 95403-2859 (707) 565-1900 www.PermitSonoma.org

GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY DETERMINATION
To: John Jay, Associate Planner
From: Doug Bush, Planner III
Date: January 18, 2024
Project Applicant: City Ventures
Project Name and File Number(s): The Canopy Project
(County File PPR22-0020)
Project Location/APN #: 060-261-028, 060-261-026
The 6.1 acre project site is bounded by the West County Trail to the north, Highway 116 to the west, unincorporated low density residential development to the north, and a mixed use
development to the south. The property is within the
Sebastopol City Limits, Urban Growth Boundary and Urban Service Area.

Project Description: Conversion of a rural site containing remnant apple orchard and native trees, to an 80 unit, three story condominium
development with 16 accessory dwelling units, including 160 garaged parking spaces, 58 surface parking spaces and 96 bicycle parking spaces.

General Plan Land Use: Sebastopol General Plan
Zoning: Sebastopol Zoning
General Plan Consistency No Conflict
Determination:

Applicable General Plan Policies:

Goal LU-2: Accommodate the major share of future growth within the nine incorporated cities and their expansion areas and within selected unincorporated communities, which are planned to have adequate water and sewer capacities.

6.2 34 Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

Sonoma County Permit and Resource Management Department 2550 Ventura Avenue Santa Rosa CA 95403-2859 (707) 565-1900 www.PermitSonoma.org

Objective LU-2.5: Provide sufficient opportunities for higher density housing within the Urban Service Areas to accommodate the population growth quantified in the Housing Element Objectives for lower and moderate income units.

Goal LU-3: Locate future growth within the cities and unincorporated Urban Services Areas in a compact manner using vacant “infill” parcels and lands next to existing development at the edge of these areas.

Policy LU-3c: Avoid urban sprawl by limiting extension of sewer or water services outside of designated Urban Service Areas pursuant to the policies of the Public Facilities and Services Element.

Policy HE-3e: Continue to encourage affordable infill projects on underutilized sites within Urban Service Areas by allowing flexibility in development standards pursuant to state density bonus law (Government Code § 65915).

Policy PF-1f: Avoid extension of public sewer services outside of either a sphere of influence or Urban Service Area. To the extent allowed by law, consider exceptions to this policy only where necessary to resolve a public health hazard resulting from existing development.

Policy PF-1h: Avoid extension of public water service to a property that is outside of both the Urban Service Area and sphere of influence of the water provider. To the extent allowed by law, consider exceptions to this policy only where necessary to resolve a public health hazard resulting from existing development.

Goal OSRC-4: Preserve and maintain views of the night time skies and visual character of urban, rural, and natural areas, while allowing for nighttime lighting levels appropriate to the use and location.

Objective OSRC-4.1: Maintain night time lighting levels at the minimum necessary to provide for security and safety of the use and users to preserve night time skies and the night time character of urban, rural and natural areas.

Discussion
The proposed project is located within the City of Sebastopol and is not subject to the Sonoma County General Plan, or County Code. It is the policy of the County of Sonoma, to focus urban development within incorporated areas like the City of Sebastopol in a compact manner (Goal LU-3). The proposed project would create a total of 96 dwelling units, including 80 condominiums and 16 potential accessory dwelling units. Of the 80 units, 12 would be deed-restricted as affordable to moderate-income households. The region is experiencing a housing crisis, including severe housing shortages exacerbated by the loss of thousands of dwellings through repeated local wildfire events. City centered housing development, particularly projects that contribute a range of housing types to meet a range of affordability needs, and those which are located near amenities and support alternative transportation like this one, are an important part of addressing present housing needs without contributing to sprawl.

6.2 6.3
35 Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

Sonoma County Permit and Resource Management Department 2550 Ventura Avenue Santa Rosa CA 95403-2859 (707) 565-1900 www.PermitSonoma.org

The project is adjacent to the West County Trail and project materials reference integration with this amenity. Staff recommends that the project be referred to Sonoma County Regional Parks for their consideration and comment.

The project plans available at the time of this review contained only conceptual lighting plans. The County encourages lighting to be designed consistent with Goal OSRC-4 and Objective OSRC-4.1 as listed above, to minimize impacts to the night sky and avoid glare on adjacent properties.

6.4 6.5
36 Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

The City of Sebastopol Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR The Canopy
Final Environmental Impact Report
Letter 6 (Cover Letter)
COMMENTER: Tennis Wick, AICP (Permit Sonoma)
DATE: January 18, 2023
Response 6.1
The commenter provides a cover letter stating that the project has been determined to be consistent with the Sonoma County General Plan and states that Permit Sonoma supports city-centered housing projects.

This comment has been noted and passed on to decision makers.

Response 6.2
The commenter provides the General Plan Consistency Determination of “no conflict” and lists applicable General Plan policies.

This comment has been noted and passed on to decision makers.

Response 6.3
The commenter summarizes details about the proposed project and states that it is not subject to the Sonoma County General Plan or County Code. The commenter states that projects like the proposed project help address housing needs without contributing to sprawl.

This comment has been noted and passed on to decision makers.

Response 6.4
The commenter recommends referring the project to Sonoma County Regional Parks for their consideration and comment.

Sonoma County Regional Parks was contacted on January 23, 2024 in response to comments from the County of Sonoma and will be referred to the project as part of the entitlement process going forward.

Response 6.5
The commenter encourages lighting to be designed consistent with Goal OSRC-4 and Objective OSRC-4.1 to minimize impacts to the night sky and avoid glare on adjacent properties.

This comment has been noted and passed on to decision makers. Regarding the recommendation for lighting to be designed consistent with Goal ORSC-4 and Objective ORSC-4.1, please refer to Response 3.17 for more information about how the project’s impacts to nighttime lighting levels will be reduced to a less than significant level with the implementation of Mitigation Measure AES-4. 37 Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

Printed on Recycled Paper

SENT VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL
January 19, 2024
John Jay
Associate Planner
City of Sebastopol
7120 Bodega Avenue
Sebastopol, CA 95472
[email protected]
RE: DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (DEIR) FOR THE CANOPY RESIDENTIAL PROJECT – 1009 – 1011 GRAVENSTEIN HIGHWAY NORTH, DATED DECEMBER 07, 2023 (STATE CLEARINGHOUSE NUMBER: 2023070072) Dear John Jay,
The Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) has reviewed the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for The Canopy Residential Project ­ 1009­1011 Gravenstein Highway North, which evaluates the proposed development of 80 townhome­style condominiums and up to 16 accessible accessory dwelling units on a vacant lot located at 1009­1011 Gravenstein Highway North in the City of Sebastopol, California.

As mentioned in the DEIR, DTSC and City Ventures Homebuilding, LLC, entered into a Standard Voluntary Agreement (SVA) on April 26, 2023 (Docket No. HSA­FY22/23­ 022), to oversee the investigation and cleanup of approximately 6.1 acres on Sonoma County Assessor's Parcel Numbers 060­261­026 and 060­261­028 (Site). As part of the SVA, a Removal Action Workplan (RAW) has been prepared to address arsenic and Letter 7

7.1 38 Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

John Jay
January 19, 2024

lead­impacted soils at the Site. Implementation of the RAW would include the excavation of the impacted soil outside of the protected tree line, on­Site burial and capping of impacted soil, and adoption of a deed restriction. Information about the Site and the proposed cleanup activities can be viewed by visiting DTSC’s EnviroStor website for 1009 ­ 1011 Gravenstein Highway.

The RAW is subject to review and approval by DTSC and is considered a decision document that must comply with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). As a Responsible Agency under CEQA and the lead agency for site remediation, DTSC anticipates utilizing the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) to comply with CEQA since remedial activities presented in the RAW would be fundamentally incorporated as part of the site preparation and construction activities for the residential development project.

DTSC generally concurs with the analysis provided in the DEIR but wishes to provide the following comments in order to clarify some details regarding the Site’s disposition and DTSC’s cleanup oversight process for this project:
1) Section 4.7.3 and Table ES­2 of the DEIR state the Site is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Section 65962.5 (also known as the “Cortese List”). As of the date of this letter, the Site is not included among any of the lists identified subsection 65962.5(a) which make up DTSC’s portion of the Cortese List. A list of DTSC sites included on the Cortese List is available to view on DTSC’s EnviroStor Hazardous Waste and Substances Site List (Cortese) page.

For clarification, the Site appears on DTSC’s EnviroStor website so information regarding the cleanup process for the subject Site is available for public review.

EnviroStor is utilized to provide information about numerous sites, not all of which are Cortese List sites. While it is correct that DTSC and the project proponent have entered into a Standard Voluntary Agreement, this is not a condition described in Health and Safety Code section 65962.5(a). DTSC recommends correcting text in the DEIR to clarify that the Site is not on the Cortese List. For more information on the Cortese List, please visit CalEPA’s Cortese List Data Resources webpage.

7.1 cont.

7.2 39 Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

John Jay
January 19, 2024

2) Sections 1.4 and 2.7 of the DEIR state that DTSC is responsible for approving the Soil Management Plan (SMP) associated with cleanup activities at the Site.

While it is correct that DTSC will review and approve the SMP as part of the cleanup oversight process, DTSC wishes to clarify that the Removal Action Workplan (RAW) is the primary decision document for which DTSC is responsible for reviewing and approving for the Site. DTSC recommends revising text in the DEIR as needed and/or making note of this distinction in a Response to Comments to clarify this point.
3) Section 4.7.1.e summarizes information from the RAW, including the RAW’s recommended removal action alternative. In addition to the information presented there, DTSC would like to note that the RAW is still under review. As part of this process, the RAW will be made available for public review and comment. Notice of this public review period will be provided via a Community Update mailed to surrounding property owners and residents as well as a Public Notice published in a local newspaper. The notice will announce the proposed remedy, how to review the draft RAW, and the start of the public comment period.

DTSC appreciates the opportunity to review and comment on the DEIR for The Canopy Residential Project ­ 1009­1011 Gravenstein Highway North and the City of Sebastopol’s consideration of these comments. If you have any questions or concerns, please contact me or a member of our CEQA Unit Team.

Sincerely,
Dave Kereazis
Associate Environmental Planner
CEQA Unit­Permitting/HWMP
Department of Toxic Substances Control
[email protected]

7.3 7.4
40 Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

John Jay
January 19, 2024

cc: (via email)
Governor’s Office of Planning and Research
CEQA State Clearinghouse
[email protected]
Gavin McCreary
Project Manager
Site Mitigation and Restoration Program
Department of Toxic Substances Control
[email protected]
Daniel Brannick
Senior Environmental Planner
CEQA Unit­SMRP
Department of Toxic Substances Control
[email protected]
Scott Wiley
Associate Governmental Program Analyst
CEQA Unit­Permitting/HWMP
Department of Toxic Substances Control
[email protected]
Tamara Purvis
Associate Environmental Planner
CEQA Unit­Permitting/HWMP
Department of Toxic Substances Control
[email protected]
41 Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

The City of Sebastopol Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR The Canopy
Final Environmental Impact Report
Letter 7
COMMENTER: Dave Kereazis, Associate Environmental Planner (Department of Toxic Substances Control)
DATE: January 19, 2024
Response 7.1
The commenter confirms that the Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) has reviewed the Draft EIR and that DTSC and City Ventures Homebuilding, LLC, entered into a Standard Voluntary Agreement (SVA) to oversee the investigation and cleanup of the project site. The commenter states that a Removal Action Workplan (RAW) has been prepared to address arsenic lead­impacted soils at the project site. The commenter states that DTSC anticipates utilizing the EIR to comply with CEQA.

This comment has been noted and passed to decision makers.

Response 7.2
The commenter recommends a change to text in Section 4.7.3 of the Draft EIR to clarify that the project site is not included in lists identified in subsection 65962.5(a) that make up DTSC’s portion of the Cortese List.

The following correction has been made on page 4.7-16 for clarification (changes shown in strikeout/underline):

As detailed under Environmental SettingWhile not listed on Government Code Section 65962.5(a), which constitutes DTSC’s portion of the Cortese List, the project site is associated with an active Voluntary Agreement cleanup case with regulatory agency oversight by the DTSC (DTSC 2023a).

Therefore, the project site is included on a list of hazardous material sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5.

Response 7.3
The commenter recommends an update to Sections 1.4 and 2.7 of the Draft EIR to clarify that the RAW is the primary decision document the DTSC is responsible for reviewing and approving for the project site.

The following revision has been made on page 1-5 for clarification (changes shown in strikeout/underline):

A responsible agency refers to a public agency other than the lead agency that has discretionary approval over the project. The Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) is a responsible agency. DTSC is responsible for reviewing and approving the Removal Action Workplan (RAW) for the project site and the Soil Management Plan (SMP) for the project prior to construction (grading) activities at the project site. as part of the cleanup oversight process.

The following revision has been Made on page 2-12 for clarification (changes shown in strikeout/underline):

The Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) is a responsible agency. DTSC is responsible for reviewing and approving the Removal Action Workplan (RAW) for the project site and the Soil Management Plan (SMP) for the project prior to construction (grading) activities at the project site. as part of the cleanup oversight process.
42 Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

The City of Sebastopol Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR The Canopy
Final Environmental Impact Report
Response 7.4
The commenter notes that the RAW is still under review and will be made available for public review and comment via a mailed community update and public notice published in a local newspaper.

This comment has been noted. The commenter also states that information about the Site and the proposed cleanup activities can be viewed by visiting DTSC’s EnviroStor website for 1009 ­ 1011 Gravenstein Highway
(https://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/profile_report.asp?global_id=60003135). Because the RAW was under review when the Draft EIR was written, the status remains the same and no updates to the Draft EIR are required.
43 Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

City Hall, 7120 Bodega Avenue, Sebastopol, CA 95472
T 707-823-6167 / www.ci.sebastopol.ca.us
City of Sebastopol
Planning Department
January 22, 2024
To: Katie Green, Rincon Consultants
Re: Canopy Draft EIR public comments.

Hello Katie,
I received a phone call from Linda Berg on January 22nd, 2024 and her comments are listed below for the project.
• Where is the contaminated soil going and where is the new soil coming from? As the Charter School is a direct neighbor to the north the wind will likely blow any soil to that campus.
• What is the estimated amount of tonnage of soil being removed and replaced and what are those truck load counts.
• The project is located within a wildlife corridor of the West County Trail and that corridor does not end at the property lines.
• Requests that the applicant withdraw the application because the EIR is not in the best interest of the City and the document is full of fraud.

Sincerely,
John Jay, Associate Planner
[email protected]
Letter 8

8.1 8.2

8.3 8.4
44 Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

The City of Sebastopol Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR The Canopy
Final Environmental Impact Report
Letter 8 (Verbal Comment Memo)
COMMENTER: Linda Berg
DATE: January 22, 2024
Response 8.1
The commenter asks where contaminated soil from the project site will be located and where the new soil will be sourced. The commenter notes that the Charter School is located directly north of the project site.

As discussed on Page 4.8-10 of the Draft EIR, the project would implement Mitigation Measure HAZ3a, which would require the DTSC continue to be utilized for agency oversight of assessment and remediation of the project site through completion of construction activities, and Mitigation Measure HAZ-3b, which requires the preparation of a Soil Management Plan (SMP) prior to commencement of construction and grading activities at the project site. A Removal Action Plan (referred to by the DTSC as a Removal Action Workplan) was prepared for the project site and determined soil burial, capping, and deed restriction was the recommended removal action for the project site (Stantec, 2023). Excavated contaminated soil would be buried under six feet of clean soil on top of the on-site burial cells. Soil would be provided from an offsite location.

Regarding the location of the Charter School, as discussed on page 4.7-15 of the EIR, the proposed project is located within 0.25 mile of the Sebastopol Independent Charter School. Dust control measures to limit the exposure of construction workers and public would be required. Impacts related to the project’s potential to emit hazardous materials within 0.25 miles of an existing or proposed school were determined to be less than significant with the implementation of Mitigation Measure 3b (as described above). Furthermore, licensed hazardous materials transporters would be required to reach the closest designated transport route by the shortest path; US Highway 101, State Route 116 and State Route 12 are the closest designated routes. Therefore, it is unlikely transporters would be required to drive past the school while carrying hazardous materials.

Response 8.2
The commenter asks how much soil will be removed from and replaced on the project site and how many truck loads will be required to move soil.

As stated on page 4.2-13 of the Draft EIR, during Phase I construction, approximately 2,092 cubic yards of soil would be imported during the construction grading phase. In addition, approximately 1,566 cubic yards of soil would be imported during the grading phase of Phase II construction. The number of truck trips that would be required were estimated using CalEEMod (Appendix B). The CalEEMod calculations for Phase I assume a total of 262 one-way (131 round trips) truck trips would occur, and for Phase II, a total of 196 one-way (98 round trips) truck trips would occur.

Response 8.3
The commenter states that the project is located within a wildlife corridor on the West County Trail.

Refer to Response 3.7.
45 Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

The City of Sebastopol Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR The Canopy
Final Environmental Impact Report
Response 8.4
The commenter requests that the applicant withdraw the project application and claims the Draft EIR is not in the best interest of the City and contains fraud.

This comment will be noted and passed on to decision-makers. However, expressions of opinion relating to the proposed project are not related to the adequacy of the analysis and conclusions in the EIR, and the commenter does not provide specifics regarding their claim. 46 Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

From: Janet Waring <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 23, 2024 10:57 AM
To: John Jay
Cc: Janet Waring
Subject: Canopy Project Comments on Draft EIR
To: John Jay, as Project Contact for the Canopy Project Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Report
My property is adjacent to the site. NOISE is one of my biggest concerns, both during construction and long term. I am a “noise-sensitive receptor” living on property that is directly adjacent to the project.

Short term noise:

The hours for construction are 7 am - 8 pm for the duration of the construction: several years! I am not a morning person. I am not awake at 7 am. But I will be, for several years, if you proceed as planned.

This will negatively affect my health. The decibel levels are proposed to be as high as the 80s, in a clearly unacceptable range according to Sebastopol General plan. If you are going to proceed with unacceptable levels, then you must reduce the hours.

I would request that the hours be adjusted to working hours 8:00 am to 7:00 pm.. Anything more is quite unreasonable.

Long-term noise:

The sound tests you did for current 24-hour ambient noise level was done on the quietest part of the project, L1, which happens to also be my backyard. I purchased this property because of the large buffer of silence. The results of your test were 47, well below normal sound elsewhere.

However, your plan now includes putting the outdoor common recreation area in that location, which will generate noise level “Beyond typical conversation.” It makes no sense to put a common recreation area into a place that is already nicely quiet..Why would you not locate that recreation area in an already noisy environment and protect some semblance of quiet. Also you have two uses for common area- one is hammock garden and seating area, which might maintain the quiet, and the other is “organic children’s play area." (This is Item 6, on page 35 of the City Ventures Submitted Drawings).

I ask that you separate the two, and ensure that the playground is NOT located in the quiet area adjacent to my property.

In the draft EIR, the mitigation and comment says you do not expect the common areas to be used, but then why are you building it in the first place? Therefore, I do not agree that the noise levels are not "significant."
Other Long term noise
The mechanical and electrical units are expected to generate operational noise levels within 60 feet of my property. The high-density barrier wall to minimize impact is not clearly located to let me know that my property will be protected. Please clarify and insure that there will be protection for my adjacent property.

Letter 9

9.1 9.2

9.3 9.4

9.5 47 Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

The City of Sebastopol Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR The Canopy
Final Environmental Impact Report
Letter 9
COMMENTER: Janet Waring
DATE: January 19, 2024
Response 9.1
The commenter expresses concerns about construction and operational noise and states that they are a noise-sensitive receptor living adjacent to the project site.

This comment has been noted. Impacts related to noise are addressed in Section 4.10, Noise, of the Draft EIR. As discussed therein, impacts related to temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project would be less than significant with implementation of Mitigation Measure NOI-1, which requires a solid barrier with a height blocking the line-of-sight to the nearby noise sensitive receptors to reduce noise due to mechanical equipment. Once the final equipment selection is made, Mitigation Measure NOI-1 also requires the completion of an acoustical analysis of the noise from project mechanical and electrical equipment to surrounding properties prior to final design to verify compliance with the City’s nighttime exterior noise standard of 45 dBA.

Response 9.2
The commenter states that noise levels associated with construction would be in a range inconsistent with the Sebastopol General Plan and requests that working hours be adjusted to 8:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m.

This comment has been noted and passed on to decision makers. Noise impacts related to construction are discussed in Section 4.10, Noise, of the Draft EIR. As described on page 4.10-10, Section 8.25.060 of the Sebastopol Municipal Code establishes the noise level standards for residential land uses, which are consistent with the standards from the Noise Element within the City’s General Plan. As described on Page 4.10-11, Item 6 within section 8.25.060 of Sebastopol’s Municipal Code lists exemptions to the Noise Ordinance, including noise generated by any construction equipment which is operated during daytime hours, defined for the purposes of this section as from 7:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. on Saturdays, and from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. on Sundays. Therefore, the temporary noise levels associated with construction of the project would be exempt from Sebastopol’s Noise Ordinance.

Response 9.3
The commenter states the opinion that 24-hour noise level measurements were taken at the quietest portion of the project site. The commenter expresses concerns about the location of the proposed common recreation area and requests that a children’s play area is not located adjacent to their property.

This comment has been noted and passed on to decision makers. Noise monitoring locations were chosen to characterize ambient noise levels in the project vicinity. As described on page 4.10-12 of the Draft EIR, 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. HVAC and transformer operational noise source noise levels were analyzed 48 Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

The City of Sebastopol Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR The Canopy
Final Environmental Impact Report
at the nearest location to a sensitive receptor property line, as they have the greatest noise levels.

All other potential noise sources would be lower and located at a further distance away. With implementation of Mitigation Measure NOI-1, noise levels from operational noise sources would be attenuated to below the City’s 45 dBA Leq Nighttime Noise Standard.

The conceptual recreation area is shown on page L-4 of the project plans (available here:
https://www.cityofsebastopol.gov/project/the-canopy-1009-1011-gravenstein-highwaynorth/#tab2). No operating hours are available at this time. Noise produced by the recreation area would be typical of a small, recreational site and consistent with the residential use of the project site. Speech levels are rated lower than the proposed mechanical equipment and would be intermittent and during daytime hours; therefore, to be more conservative, analysis was conducted using noise increases from HVAC units.

Response 9.4
The commenter asks why common areas are proposed as part of the project. The commenter states disagreement with the determination that noise level impacts are less than significant.

As discussed in Section 4.12, Public Services, Chapter 17.28 of the SMC requires 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. As discussed in Section 4.9, Land Use, General Plan Policy COS 12-11 requires usable open space for residential and major commercial developments. Noise impacts are discussed in Section 4.13, Noise. As described therein, operational impacts would be less than significant with implementation of Mitigation Measure NOI-1.

Regarding the commenter’s comment about the Draft EIR analysis assuming the common areas will not be used, while it is unclear exactly what the commenter is referring to, this may be a reference to a statement on page 18 of Appendix I, which notes that since each residential unit would have a courtyard, large gatherings are not expected to occur in the common area; therefore, impacts relating to large gatherings are assumed to be less than significant. See Response 9.3 for more information regarding speech levels.

Response 9.5
The commenter requests clarification regarding the location of high-density barriers.

This comment has been passed on to decision makers. Once the exact equipment is chosen, then exact height, density and locations will be determined to figure out how much noise attenuation (if any) will be needed at each sensitive receptor to comply with the performance standard within Mitigation Measure NOI-1.
49 Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

From: [email protected]
Sent: Tuesday, January 23, 2024 8:02 PM
To: John Jay
Subject: Canopy development
Importance: High
Dear John,
I attended the Canopy meeting this evening through zoom, where it was stated that tonight was the last time that questions would be answered regarding the environmental impact of the project. We were encouraged to contact you tonight and were assured that we would receive an answer.

I have severe reservations about the movement of contaminated soil in and around the property. I live two houses down, or approximately 150-200 feet away, and this is a real concern. Please explain how that will be mitigated by the builder.

Regarding the environmental impact that the additional traffic will have on Hurlbut Ave and East Hurlbut Ave, those streets have already been destroyed by the constant cutthrough traffic from Santa Rosa.

I feel like the people making the decisions could care less about the County neighbors.

They talk about how this will only impact a handful of homes…but there are still people living in those homes.

Thank you,
Sandy Mathews
Sandy Mathews
992 Hurlbut Ave.
(707) 322-5757
Letter 10

10.1 10.2

10.3 50 Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

The City of Sebastopol Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR The Canopy
Final Environmental Impact Report
Letter 10
COMMENTER: Sandy Mathew
DATE: January 23, 2024
Response 10.1
The commenter states that they attended the public meeting on January 23 via Zoom. The commenter expresses concerns about movement of contaminated soil and asks how it will be mitigated.

The commenter is incorrect that the public meeting on January 23 was the final time to get questions answered about the environmental impacts of the project. The project requires a recommendation from the planning commission and a decision by the City Council, during which meetings the public may comment on the project. Please refer to Response 8.1 regarding mitigation for contaminated soil.

Response 10.2
The commenter expresses concerns about traffic on Hurlbut Avenue and East Hurlbut Avenue and states that cut through traffic has destroyed those streets.

This comment has been noted and will be passed on to decision makers. Please note there are currently deed restrictions on the parcel preventing vehicular access from the project site to Hurlbut Avenue. It is owned by the County, and not owned by the City of Sebastopol. Regarding the commenter’s description of the existing conditions of the roadway, existing conditions are not a result of the proposed project. Therefore, they are not an impact caused by the project and mitigation is not required.

Refer to Response 3.10 for information regarding traffic impacts.

Response 10.3
The commenter opines that decisionmakers do not care about the County neighbors.

This comment will be noted and passed on to decision-makers. However, expressions of opinion are not related to the adequacy of the analysis and conclusions in the EIR. 51 Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

From: Jacob Harris <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 23, 2024 8:31 PM
To: John Jay
Subject: "Canopy" EIR responses for tonight (before your deadline) To John Jay, Sebastopol City
RE: tonight’s meeting responses to the EIR for the Canopy project.

Hi John, thank you for considering the neighbor’s opinions and concerns regarding the Canopy Project. I just scanned the EIR and have a few comments. The below impacts as reported on the EIR do not seem accurate to me:

1. “Impact AES-3. The proposed project is in a non-urbanized area and would not substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings. Impacts would be less than significant.” My response: The quality of public views in the neighborhood due to the site would be severely impacted. This needs to be re-evaluated.

2. “Impact GHG-2. The proposed project would be consistent with goals and policies from CARB’s 2022 Scoping Plan, Plan Bay Area 2050, the City’s Climate Action Framework, and the General Plan. Therefore, this impact would be less than significant.” My response: as commented tonight during the meeting, clearly the proposed development is NOT consistent with the general plan. The plan’s building height are more than double almost all adjacent residences. There are zero 3 story houses in the area.

3. “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.” Read #2 above for my response.

4. “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.”
My response. This has been mentioned to the city Council before. The amount of traffic and the egress from the planned project will definitely create traffic hazards. I am concerned that people might get seriously hurt in traffic accidents due to the layout of this project?

5. Impact UTIL-2. There are sufficient water supplies available to serve the proposed project during normal, dry, and multi-dry year conditions. Impacts would be less than significant.

My response. I am a very close neighbor to this project. I had to drill my well much deeper because the ground water has become much less available. Adding 200 inhabitants to the neighborhood will only create a huge use in water for the area. My neighbors will likely have to drill deeper Wells. This will cost hundreds of thousands of dollars. The huge influx of inhabitants will end up financially damaging the existing neighbors.

Please respond to each of my concerns and responses.

Letter 11

11.1 11.2

11.4 11.5

11.3 52 Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

Thank You
Jacob Harris
1/23/24
8:20 pm
53 Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

The City of Sebastopol Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR The Canopy
Final Environmental Impact Report
Letter 11
COMMENTER: Jacob Harris
DATE: January 23, 2024
Response 11.1
The commenter expresses concerns about public views as analyzed in Impact AES-3 and opines impacts to public views need to be re-evaluated.

This comment has been noted and passed on to decision makers. The commenter does not provide specific details about how the quality of public views from the project site would be impacted beyond the impacts analyzed in the Draft EIR. According to Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, and as analyzed in Section 4.1, Aesthetics, of the EIR, an impact related to public views is considered significant if development under the proposed project would result in one or more of the following conditions: In non-urbanized areas, substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings (public views are those that are experienced from publicly accessible vantage point). If in an urbanized area, conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality. The project site is located in a non-urbanized area. Impacts related to public views are discussed in Section 4.1, Aesthetics. As described under Impact AES-3, public views of the site are available from State Route 116; however, views of the site are minimized due to intervening development directly abutting State Route 116 and trees along the State Route.

The project would not constitute a substantial degradation of the existing character or visual quality of the project site because the proposed development would be visually consistent with surrounding residential and commercial areas. Refer to Response 3.14 regarding more about impacts to aesthetics.

Response 11.2
Regarding Impact GHG-1 in the Draft EIR, the commenter claims that the EIR’s statement that the project would be consistent with goals and policies of the 2022 Scoping Plan, Plan Bay Area 2050, the City’s Climate Action Framework, and the General Plan is incorrect because the development does not appear to be consistent with the General Plan due to concerns about building heights.

Impact GHG-2 is focused on General Plan goals related to greenhouse gas emissions; impacts related to potential conflicts with the goals and policies of the City’s General Plan are also discussed in Section 4.9, Land Use. The project’s consistency with the City of Sebastopol General Plan is detailed in Table 4.9-1 and the project’s consistency with SMC R7 Development Standards is shown in detail in Table 4.9-2. As described therein, the project would require approval of a State Density Bonus law waiver to increase building height from two stories to three stories. With approval of the Density Bonus, the project would be consistent with the land use and zoning designations and would not conflict with the General Plan or Municipal Code. While the project would be taller than adjacent residences, it would be consistent with the height of adjacent office buildings. Please see response 11.1 regarding design review requirements.

Response 11.3
Regarding Impact LU-2 in the Draft EIR, the commenter expresses concerns about building heights and states that the proposed project would not be consistent with the General Plan.

Please refer to Response 11.2, specifically regarding Table 4.9-2 in the Draft EIR. 54 Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

The City of Sebastopol Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR The Canopy
Final Environmental Impact Report
Response 11.4
Regarding Impact TRA-3, the commenter expresses concerns related to traffic, egress from the project site, and safety due to the proposed layout the project site.

This comment has been noted. The commenter does not specify which features of the proposed project layout or egress would introduce safety hazards. Site access and hazards due to design features are discussed in Section 4.13, Transportation. As described on Page 4.13-13, the project would not introduce design features or incompatible uses that would increase traffic hazards and impacts would be less than significant.

Additionally, primary access to the site would be provided at two locations. The existing private drive links the existing office development adjacent to the project to the intersection of SR116/Mill Station Road. This intersection is controlled by a traffic signal. As shown in Table 1 of the traffic study (Appendix TRA), this intersection has an existing collision rate that is significantly less than the statewide average collision rate for similar intersections. The other access would be 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. On this section of SR 116, there is an existing center two-way left-turn lane (TWLTL) which would allow for "two-stage left-turn movements" for vehicles existing the project. In other words, existing traffic would make left-turn movement in two stages (left-turn into the turn lane then merge right with traffic). The TWLTL offers a higher level of safety by providing space for left-turn movement out of the flow of traffic and serving left-turn movements turning onto the main road. Therefore, the project traffic would be served by traffic facilities at both ends that offer a higher level of safety.

Refer to Response 1.1 regarding emergency response and Response 3.10 regarding traffic impacts.

Response 11.5
Regarding Impact UTIL-2, the commenter expresses concerns about groundwater demand resulting from the project and the need and cost for neighbors to dig deeper wells due to groundwater availability.

Groundwater recharge is addressed on pages 4.8-12 through 4.8-13 of the Draft EIR. As described therein, 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 conditions. Therefore, the project would not substantially interfere with groundwater recharge at the project site. Please see Response 3.11 regarding water demand and adequacy of water supply related to the project.

Regarding the potential need and cost for neighbors to dig wells, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15131, economic effects of a project shall not be treated as a significant effect on the environment. As such, formal analysis of economic impacts is not required, which includes costs associated with off-site infrastructure. Additionally, groundwater would not be pumped from the project site. The site would be served by the City of Sebastopol, and water would be pumped from existing City wells. It is the responsibility of the City to ensure its pumping actions do not adversely affect existing wells near the City-owned water supply wells. 55 Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

Dear Planning Commission,
I’m writing in support of the Canopy project. It provides much needed family housing in an ideal location – close to a school, bike trail, commercial area and transportation corridor. The building plans are thoughtful and include garages, which are key for many working families.

There is good integration with the JRT and existing sidewalks on 116. I am glad to see the 6’ wide sidewalk connecting 116 to the JRT.

My only comment is that is seems that instead of a gate at East Hurlbut there should be vehicle access for residents and emergency vehicles. It seems this would be prudent in case of emergency and also for ease of use for residents who live in units closer to East Hurlbut.

I am glad to see more family housing being built in Sebastopol close to a school and other public amenities.

Best,
Kate Haug
Letter 12

12.1 12.2

12.3 56 Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

The City of Sebastopol Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR The Canopy
Final Environmental Impact Report
Letter 12
COMMENTER: Katie Haug
DATE: January 23, 2024
Response 12.1
The commenter expresses support for the project including its location; proximity to schools, bike trails, and transportation; building plans; and the inclusion of garages.

This comment has been noted and passed on to decision makers.

Response 12.2
The commenter recommends including vehicular access for residents and emergency vehicles at East Hurlbut instead of a gate.

This comment has been noted and passed on to decision makers. Regarding vehicular access at East Hurlbut Avenue, there are currently deed restrictions on the parcel preventing vehicular access to the project site from Hurlbut Avenue, which currently connects East Hurlbut Avenue to the project site. Additionally, a meeting was held on August 17, 2022 with the fire chief, planning team, and project applicant, to discuss road widths. The Fire Chief determined that Hurlburt Avenue would be unsuitable for use by emergency vehicles. However, more information regarding impacts relating to emergency vehicle access are discussed on Page 4.13-13 and in Appendix TRA, which determined that site access and circulation would function acceptably for emergency response vehicles and the project would have a less than significant impact on emergency response.

Response 12.3
The commenter expresses support for more family housing in Sebastopol.

This comment has been noted and passed on to decision makers. 57 Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

From: Kathy O <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, January 24, 2024 10:21 AM
To: John Jay
Subject: Canopy Edits & Questions
EDITS
PDF page 9
ES-1 Last Paragraph, 3rd line: “east” should be “north” …to the West County Trail PDF page 15
ES-7 Impact AQ-2, Mitigation: None required, but Residual Impact: Less than Significant with Mitigation PDF page 265

4.13-11 Pedestrian Facilities: 1st paragraph: “...on-site” pedestrian and bicycle features." (not on-side).

QUESTIONS
Executive Summary

open to the public for walking through, or around an adjacent neighborhood? Is there a gate? If there is a locked gate, this is significant because our General Plan promotes pedestrian access and connections between neighborhoods and uses. Also, pedestrians have historically been able to walk on the the site’s existing pathways accessed from other locations.

Table 2-1 page 42 Will the optional ADUs be sold/built as either ADUs or bedrooms? After purchase, could a bedroom later be converted to an ADU, or ADU back to a bedroom? Would garages be allowed to convert to either ADUs or additional bedrooms or offices at purchase or in the future? Letter 13

13.1 13.2

13.3 13.4

13.5 13.6

13.7 58 Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

The City of Sebastopol Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR The Canopy
Final Environmental Impact Report
Letter 13
COMMENTER: Kathy Oetinger
DATE: January 23, 2024
Response 13.1
The commenter suggests that a reference to the West County Trail on Page ES-1 should state it is to the north of the project site.

Page ES-1 has been revised with the following correction (changes shown in strikeout/underline):

The project site is currently undeveloped but includes existing vegetation and mature trees. 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 eastnorth, 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. In addition, the trail 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 (Sonoma County 2023). (Sonoma County 2023).

Response 13.2
The commenter suggests there is an inconsistency regarding Impact AQ-2 on page ES-7.

The commenter is correct that there is a typo on Page ES-7.

Page ES-7 has been revised with the following correction (changes shown in strikeout/underline):

Air Quality
Impact AQ-1. The project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the 2017 Clean Air Plan. Impacts would be less than significant.

None required. Less than
Significant
Impact AQ-2. Project construction and operation would not Exceed the Regional Threshold for any criteria pollutant. The project would not result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is in non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard. Impacts would be less than significant.

None required. Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
Response 13.3
The commenter suggests correcting a typo on page 4.13-11.

The commenter is correct that there is a typo on Page 4.13-11.

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-sideon-site pedestrian and bicycle features.” 59 Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

The City of Sebastopol Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR The Canopy
Final Environmental Impact Report
Response 13.4
The commenter asks if fire truck ladders would be able to reach 3 to 4 story buildings.

The Fire Department was contacted to address this concern and the Fire Department confirmed that they would be able to fight fires at the proposed three-story height in the event of a fire.

Response 13.5
The commenter asks if the pedestrian path at Hurlbut would be open to the public or if there would be a gate. The commenter suggests that a locked gate would be contrary to the General Plan’s goals to promote pedestrian access and connections between neighborhoods and users.

This comment has been noted and will be passed on to decision makers for consideration.

Response 13.6
The commenter asks if optional ADUs would be sold and built as ADUs or bedrooms and if they could be converted to one or the other after purchase.

ADU options would be selected during the purchasing contract phase. If the ADU option is not selected, then it would be a standard room which could be converted to an ADU in the future and would be subject to Zoning standards. This information and question do not pertain to the analysis or conclusions of the EIR.

Response 13.7
The commenter asks if garages could be converted to ADUs, offices, or additional bedrooms at the time of purchase or in the future.

As discussed on Page 4-3 of the Draft EIR, the project would have the potential for up to 16 units designed to potentially have a bedroom converted to an ADU. These future units would be subject to SMC 17.220.020 regarding Sebastopol’s ADU ordinances. This comment does not pertain to the adequacy of the analysis in the EIR.
60 Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

“Provide a safe and reliable transportation network that serves all people and respects the environment” DISTRICT 4

OFFICE OF REGIONAL AND COMMUNITY PLANNING
P.O. BOX 23660, MS–10D | OAKLAND, CA 94623-0660
www.dot.ca.gov
January 24, 2024 SCH #: 2023070072
GTS #: 04-SON-2023-00849
GTS ID: 30372
Co/Rt/Pm: SON/116/25.279
John Jay, Associate Planner
City of Sebastopol
7120 Bodega Ave
Sebastopol, CA 95472
Re: The Canopy Residential Project ─ 1009-1011 Gravenstein Highway North – Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR)
Dear John Jay:

Thank you for including the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) in the environmental review process for the Canopy Residential Project. We are committed to ensuring that impacts to the State’s multimodal transportation system and to our natural environment are identified and mitigated to support a safe, sustainable, integrated and efficient transportation system.

The Local Development Review (LDR) Program reviews land use projects and plans to ensure consistency with our mission and state planning priorities. The following comments are based on our review of the December 2023 DEIR.

Project Understanding
The proposed project would construct 80 solar all-electric, three-story townhome-style condominiums, with the potential for up to 16 American Disabilities Act (ADA) Addition Dwelling Units (ADUs). This project site is located close to State Route (SR)-116.

Travel Demand Analysis
With the enactment of Senate Bill (SB) 743, Caltrans is focused on maximizing efficient development patterns, innovative travel demand reduction strategies, and multimodal improvements. For more information on how Caltrans assesses Transportation Impact Studies, please review Caltrans’ Transportation Impact Study Guide (link).

Letter 14

14.1 14.2
61 Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

John Jay, Associate Planner
January 24, 2024

“Provide a safe and reliable transportation network that serves all people and respects the environment” The project Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) analysis and significance determination are undertaken in a manner consistent with the Office of Planning and Research’s (OPR) Technical Advisory. Per the Traffic Impact Study, this project is found to have a less than significant VMT impact, therefore working towards meeting the State’s VMT reduction goals.

Project Driveway
The DEIR states that the northwest entry point would use the existing intersection at Mill Station Road, and the southwest entry point would provide access through one new curb cut connecting to Gravenstein Highway. If this southwest entry/exit point is not the driveway across Danmar Drive, please indicate this new driveway in the plan.

Please refer to Highway Design Manual (link) 205.3 Urban Driveway for design standard.

Lead Agency
As the Lead Agency, the City is responsible for all project mitigation, including any needed improvements to the State Transportation Network (STN). The project’s fair share contribution, financing, scheduling, implementation responsibilities and lead agency monitoring should be fully discussed for all proposed mitigation measures.

Encroachment Permit
Please be advised that any permanent work or temporary traffic control that encroaches onto Caltrans’ Right-of-Way (ROW) requires a Caltrans-issued encroachment permit. If the proposed project will add a new driveway connection off SR-116, it will require an encroachment permit. As part of the encroachment permit submittal process, you may be asked by the Office of Encroachment Permits to submit a completed encroachment permit application package, digital set of plans clearly delineating Caltrans’ ROW, digital copy of signed, dated and stamped (include stamp expiration date) traffic control plans, this comment letter, your response to the comment letter, and where applicable, the following items: new or amended Maintenance Agreement (MA), approved Design Standard Decision Document (DSDD), approved encroachment exception request, and/or airspace lease agreement. Your application package may be emailed to [email protected].

To obtain information about the most current encroachment permit process and to download the permit application, please visit Caltrans Encroachment Permits (link).

Thank you again for including Caltrans in the environmental review process. Should you have any questions regarding this letter, please contact Melissa Hernandez, Associate Transportation Planner, via [email protected]. For future early coordination opportunities or project referrals, please contact [email protected].

14.2 cont.

14.3 14.4

14.5 62 Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

John Jay, Associate Planner
January 24, 2024

“Provide a safe and reliable transportation network that serves all people and respects the environment” Sincerely,

YUNSHENG LUO
Branch Chief, Local Development Review
Office of Regional and Community Planning
c: State Clearinghouse
63 Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

The City of Sebastopol Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR The Canopy
Final Environmental Impact Report
Letter 14
COMMENTER: Yungsheng LUO Branch Chief, Local Development Review (Office of Regional and Community Planning)
DATE: January 23, 2024
Response 14.1
The commenter expresses gratitude for being included in the environmental review process for the project and describes the Local Development Review Program’s role to review land use projects and ensure consistency with its mission and planning priorities.

This comment has been noted.

Response 14.2
The commenter provides information about Senate Bill 743 and states that the VMT analysis and significance determination in the Draft EIR are undertaken in a manner consistent with the Office of Planning and Research’s Technical Advisory. The commenter states that the less than significant impact finding works towards meeting the State’s VMT reduction goals.

This comment has been noted.

Response 14.3
The commenter requests that the new curb cut at the southwest entry/exit point described in the Draft EIR be indicated on the plans if it is different than the driveway across Danmar Avenue.

This comment has been passed on to decision makers. The proposed entrance is in a different location than the driveway across Danmar Avenue. The location of the proposed entrance is shown on page 48 of the Canopy Project Plans and Drawings which can be accessed on the City’s website via this link: The-Canopy-DR-Submittal-Drawings-compressed.pdf (cityofsebastopol.gov).

Response 14.4
The commenter states that the City is responsible for all project mitigation including improvements to the State Transportation Network and that the project’s fair share contribution, financing, scheduling, implementation responsibilities and lead agency monitoring should be fully discussed for all proposed mitigation measures.

This comment is noted. The project does not include any mitigation regarding the State Transportation Network. The Mitigation and Monitoring Reporting Program document will include details regarding the timing, frequency, and responsibility of any mitigation measures.

Response 14.5
The commenter advises that any permanent work or temporary traffic control that encroaches onto Caltrans’ Right-of-Way requires a Caltrans-issued encroachment permit including if the project will add a new driveway connection off SR-116. The commenter provides information about the encroachment permit application process.

This comment has been noted.
64 Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

Public Hearing Comments and Responses
Final Environmental Impact Report
3 Public Hearing Comments and
Responses
Verbal comments received at the public meeting (held on January 23, 2024) from the public are summarized below. The verbal comments were similar to those identified in the written letters that are responded to in Chapter 2 of this document. Several of the verbal comments made by The Commission were discussed and addressed verbally during the public meeting.  The commentors expressed concern about the project’s consistency with the General Plan citing height requirements, density, and low-income housing requirements.

Please see Response 11.2 regarding the project’s consistency with height requirements.

Regarding the project’s density and how it will meet housing-related goals, as required by Section 15126.6 of the CEQA Guidelines, the Draft EIR examines a range of reasonable alternatives to the proposed project including an alternative with reduced density and an alternative with increased density compared to the proposed project. While the EIR determined that Alternative 2 (reduced development density) would be the environmentally superior alternative, as discussed on Page 6-3, Alternative 2 would not meet goals related to increasing housing inventory as effectively as the proposed project and may not be financially feasible due to development costs. Furthermore, as discussed on Page 6-9 of the Draft EIR, transportation impacts related to vehicle miles traveled for Alternative 2 would be slightly increased compared to the proposed project since it would result in a less dense development buildout.

Regarding the comment about LU-2.4, this goal relates to the Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) administration, i.e., when a project is located within the sphere of influence of the city and not city limits. This project is within City limits and would not be subject to this goal.  The commenters expressed concerns about traffic including during school pick up and drop off times.

Transportation impacts are discussed in Section 4.13, Transportation. As noted therein, pursuant to Section 15064.3 of the CEQA Guidelines, traffic delay or congestion, 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.
65 Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

The City of Sebastopol
The Canopy
Final Environmental Impact Report
 The commentors expressed concerns about contaminated soils and how remediation policies will be implemented and enforced.

As discussed on Page 4.8-10 of the Draft EIR, the project would implement Mitigation Measure HAZ-3a which would require the DTSC continue to be utilized for agency oversight of assessment and remediation of the project site through completion of construction activities and Mitigation Measure HAZ-3b which requires the preparation of a Soil Management Plan (SMP) prior to commencement of construction and grading activities at the project site. A Removal Action Plan (referred to by the DTSC as Removal Action Workplan) was prepared for the project site and determined soil burial, capping, and deed restriction was the recommended removal action for the project site (Stantec, 2023). Excavated contaminated soil would be buried under six feet of clean soil on top of the on-site burial cells.

DTSC notes that the RAW is still under review and will be made available for public review and comment via a mailed community update and public notice published in a local newspaper.

Information about the Site and the proposed cleanup activities can be viewed by visiting DTSC’s EnviroStor website for 1009 ­ 1011 Gravenstein Highway
(https://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/profile_report.asp?global_id=60003135).

Regarding mitigation, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines, §15126.4, subd. (a)(2), mitigation measures must be fully enforceable through permit conditions, agreements, or other legally binding instruments. In the case of the adoption of a plan, policy, regulation, or other public project, mitigation measures can be incorporated into the plan, policy, regulation, or project design. To evaluate mitigation measures, the City is including a Mitigation Monitoring or Reporting Program (MMRP) for the proposed project pursuant to CEQA Guidelines, §15097.  The commentors expressed concerns about consistency with zoning and community character, and express disagreement with the Draft EIR’s description of the project site being near residential uses. The commenters request transparency from the City during the environmental review process.

This comment has been noted and passed on to decision makers. Impacts related to land use are discussed in Section 4.9, Land Use. The project’s consistency with the City of Sebastopol General Plan is shown in Table 4.9-1 and the project’s consistency with SMC R7 Development Standards is shown in detail in Table 4.9-2. As described therein, with approval of the Density Bonus, the project would be consistent with the land use and zoning designations and would not conflict with the General Plan or Municipal Code. Please see Response 3.14 for clarification regarding existing conditions around the project site and impacts regarding community character.
 The commentors asked if an extension could be granted for comment period.

The minimum public review period for a Draft EIR is 45 days. The comment period for this project exceeds the minimum public review period and no extension is planned. 66 Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

Public Hearing Comments and Responses
Final Environmental Impact Report
 A commentor opposes the Density Bonus and waiver to allow 3-story buildings, and suggests the project should instead consist of 2-story buildings.

This comment has been noted and passed on to decision makers for consideration. Please refer to Response 11.2 for analysis regarding proposed building heights.  Commentors express concerns about the existing condition of pedestrian sidewalks and future safety of pedestrians. A commenter asked if there would be a cyclist or pedestrian path around the entrance to Hurlbut Avenue.

Existing conditions of the sidewalks would not change as a result of the proposed project.

Therefore, it is not an impact caused by the project and mitigation is not required. The adequacy of pedestrian facilities is discussed on page 4.13-11. As described therein, 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. Please see Response 4.5 regarding updates to Mitigation Measure TRA-1, which requires a new pedestrian path 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.

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-site pedestrian and bicycle features.” Regarding entrances to the project site, there is an option for a pedestrian path directly from the project site to Hurlbut Avenue (shown as #23 on Figure 1 below). A locked gate was added as an option that will be at the discretion of the City and it has not yet been determined if that pedestrian path will be open to the public. For the central part of the property, on the south side the project proposes a new, enhanced 6-foot-wide pedestrian pathway to connect the West County Trail to Gravenstein Highway (shown as #22 on Figure 1). The project will also include a path connection to the West County Trail just east of Mill Station Road crossing of the trail. The West County trail then provides access to Hurlbut Avenue and the other sections of the West County trail towards downtown.
67 Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

The City of Sebastopol
The Canopy
Final Environmental Impact Report
Figure 1 Conceptual Site Plan
68 Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

Public Hearing Comments and Responses
Final Environmental Impact Report
 Commenters express concern about vehicular access to and from the project site during an emergency or evacuation scenario. A commenter also expresses concerns about vehicular access through the business park and how vehicles would access SR 116.

Vehicular and emergency access to the project site are discussed in Section 4.13, Transportation. 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, which would be separate from the existing driveway entrance to the business park across from Danmar, would be created at the southernmost point of this drive aisle to provide more direct access to SR 116. According to email correspondence with W-Trans on February 1, 2024, on this section of SR 116, there is an existing center two-way left-turn lane (TWLTL) which would allow for "two-stage left-turn movements" for vehicles existing the project. In other words, existing traffic would make left-turn movement in two stages (left-turn into the turn lane then merge right with traffic). The TWLTL offers a higher level of safety by providing space for left-turn movement out of the flow of traffic and serving left-turn movements turning onto the main road. Therefore, the project traffic would be served by a traffic facilities at both ends that offer a higher level of safety.

Impacts regarding emergency vehicle access are discussed on Page 4.13-13 and in Appendix TRA which determined that site access and circulation would function acceptably for emergency response vehicles and the project would have a less than significant impact on emergency response. Please see Response 1.1 for more information regarding emergency response.

Impacts related to the potential for the project to conflict with emergency response or evacuation plans are discussed on page 4.7-19 of the Draft EIR. As described therein, the proposed project would not conflict with the Emergency Operations Plan and would not impair evacuation. The proposed project does not include any characteristics (e.g., permanent road closures) that would physically impair or otherwise interfere with access to these critical routes or obstruct emergency response or evacuation in the project vicinity. Standard traffic management practices related to construction staging and parking would ensure that temporary road closures during construction would not impair or interfere with emergency response or evacuation. Furthermore, industry practices require the notification of area emergency responders prior to any such closures, ensuring that in the event of an emergency, responders and managers would already be aware of any potential obstacles related to project construction. Accordingly, potential impacts related to interference with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan would be less than significant.  Commenters expressed concerns about the project’s potential to increase fire hazards to nearby properties.

Wildfire impacts are discussed in Section 4.16, Impacts Found to be Less than Significant. As stated therein, the project site is not located within or near a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone or state responsibility area. The nearest Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone is located approximately 3.25 miles west of the project site (CalFire 2007). As the project site is not located in or near a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone, no impact would occur. Regarding access emergency access to the site, the Sebastopol Fire Department was consulted to determine the appropriate location for emergency vehicle access during a meeting with the fire chief, planning team, and project applicant on August 17, 2022. Impacts regarding emergency 69 Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

The City of Sebastopol
The Canopy
Final Environmental Impact Report
vehicle access are discussed on Page 4.13-13 and in Appendix TRA which determined that site access and circulation would function acceptably for emergency response vehicles and the project would have a less than significant impact on emergency response. Impacts related to the potential for the project to conflict with emergency response or evacuation plans are discussed on Page 4.7-19 of the Draft EIR. As described therein, the proposed project would not conflict with the Emergency Operations Plan and would not impair evacuation.  A commenter expressed concerns about the project meeting applicable CalGREEN standards.

As described on Page 4.2-15 of the Draft EIR, the proposed project would include solar and all electric appliances to the project. In addition, the proposed project would exceed the energy efficiency measures with the 2022 Title 24 Building Efficiency Standards by five to 10 percent.

For example, the project would dedicate circuitry for electric vehicle charging stations for all townhome garages, which is beyond the requirement of the 2022 Title 24 Standards. The CALGreen standards are updated every three years and become increasingly more stringent over time. The proposed project would be required to comply with all water conservation standards of CALGreen that are in effect at that time. The project would include ultra-low flow water fixtures, low Impact landscaping, and onsite stormwater capture. Furthermore, as stated on Page 4.6-18 of the Draft EIR, Mitigation Measure GHG-1 requires a minimum of 15 percent of the total number of parking spaces to be equipped with EV charging stations. Energy impacts are described on page 4.16-2 of the Draft EIR. As described therein, no conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of renewable energy or energy efficiency is anticipated and there would be no impact.  A commenter states they live at 896 Hurlbut Avenue and request information about the distance of the project site from their property line.

This information and question do not pertain to the analysis or conclusions of the EIR. However, refer to Table 10 in Appendix I regarding this property’s distance from the center of the project site.
70 Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

Revisions to the Draft EIR
Final Environmental Impact Report
4 Revisions to the Draft EIR
Chapter 4 presents specific changes to the text of the Draft EIR that are being made in response to comments received or to make corrections. In no case do these revisions result in a greater number of impacts or impacts of a substantially greater severity than those set forth in the Draft EIR. Where revisions to the main text are called for, the page and paragraph are set forth, followed by the appropriate revision. Added text is indicated with underlined and deleted text is indicated with strikeout. Page numbers correspond to the page numbers of the Draft EIR. The revisions to the Draft EIR would not constitute the addition of substantial new information or a substantial increase in any environmental impacts and would not require recirculation of the Draft EIR.

Page ES-2
Table ES-2 Proposed Residential Development Summary
Feature Details
Townhome Project Characteristics
Residential area 69,317 square feet
Lot Coverage Allowed: 40% or 106,333 sf
Proposed: 26% or 69,317 sf +/-
Floor Area Ratio (FAR) 1.531
Density Allowed: 12.1 to 25 dwelling units/acre
Proposed: 13.1 dwelling units/acre
Building Height Allowed: 30 feet and 2 stories
Proposed: 40 feet +/- and 3 stories with Density Bonus Waiver Page ES-3
There are currently 133134 trees within the project site (including 92 protected trees), and the proposed project would involve the removal of 2243 trees (including 29 protected trees) while preserving the remaining 11191 trees (including 63 protected trees) primarily along the perimeter of the site. An existing large, mature coast live oak tree would be retained at the primary entrance to the project entry. 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.

Page ES-4
As required by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), this EIR examines alternatives to the proposed project. Studied alternatives include the following fourthree alternatives. Based on the alternatives analysis, Alternative 2 was determined to be the environmentally superior alternative.
71 Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

The City of Sebastopol
The Canopy
Final Environmental Impact Report
 Alternative 1: No Project
 Alternative 2: Reduced Development Density
 Alternative 3: Increased Development Density
Page ES-4
Alternative 1 (No Project) assumes that the proposed residential development and subsequent construction of internal roadways, parking, and associated site improvements would not occur, and that the current, undeveloped use of the site would remain. Because no construction or development would occur under the Alternative 1, the 2243 trees proposed to be removed for the project would not be removed and the existing 133134 trees on site would remain. The No Project Alternative would not meet project objectives related to increasing housing inventory to address statewide and local housing needs or provide housing opportunities for a variety of income levels and life stages within the city of Sebastopol, as residential development would not occur under this alternative.

Page ES-7
Air Quality
Impact AQ-1. The project would not
conflict with or obstruct implementation of
the 2017 Clean Air Plan. Impacts would be
less than significant.

None required. Less than Significant
Impact AQ-2. Project construction and
operation would not Exceed the Regional
Threshold for any criteria pollutant. The
project would not result in a cumulatively
considerable net increase of any criteria
pollutant for which the project region is in
non-attainment under an applicable
federal or state ambient air quality
standard. Impacts would be less than
significant.

None required. Less than Significant with Mitigation
Page ES-14
HAZ-3a DTSC Regulatory Agency Submittal. The DTSC shall continue to be utilized for agency oversight of assessment and remediation of the project site through completion of grading and site construction activities. Prior to commencement of construction and grading activities at the project site, the project applicant shall submit the following documents to the DTSC project manager of the open Voluntary Agreement cleanup case:
 Current development plan and any modifications to the development plan  All environmental documents completed for the project, including this Initial Study EIR document
 AllAny future environmental documents completed for the project Upon submittal of the information above, and in accordance with the project’s 2023 DTSC Standard Voluntary Agreement, DTSC may require actions such as: development of subsurface investigation workplans; completion of soil, soil vapor, and/or groundwater subsurface investigations; installation of soil vapor or groundwater monitoring wells; soil excavation and 72 Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

Revisions to the Draft EIR
Final Environmental Impact Report
offsite disposal; completion of human health risk assessments; and/or completion of remediation reports or case closure documents. Subsurface soil, soil vapor, and groundwater investigations, if required, shall be conducted in accordance with a sampling plan that shall be reviewed and approved by the DTSC. The DTSC approval documents shall be submitted to and reviewed and accepted by the City prior to issuing grading permits.

HAZ-3b Soil Management Plan. Prior to commencement of construction and grading activities at the project site, the project applicant shall retain a qualified consultant (Professional Geologist [PG] or Professional Engineer [PE]) to prepare a Soil Management Plan (SMP) for the project site. The SMP shall address:

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

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

The SMP must establish remedial measures and soil management practices to ensure construction worker safety, the health of future workers and residents, and prevent the off-site migration of contaminants from the project site. These measures and practices may include, but are not limited to:
 Stockpile management, including stormwater pollution prevention and the installation of BMPs
 Proper disposal procedures for contaminated materials  Investigation procedures for encountering known and unexpected odorous or visually stained soils, other indications of hydrocarbon piping or equipment, and/or debris during ground-disturbing activities
 Monitoring and reporting
 A health and safety plan for contractors working at the project site that addresses the safety and health hazards of each phase of project site construction activities with the requirements and procedures for employee protection
 The health and safety plan shall outline proper soil handling procedures and health and safety requirements to minimize worker and public exposure to hazardous materials during construction.

The DTSC shall review and approve the SMP prior to construction (grading) activities at the project site. The City shall review and approve confirm that DTSC has approved the DTSC approved SMP prior to issuing grading permits. The project applicant shall implement the SMP during grading and construction at the project site.
73 Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

The City of Sebastopol
The Canopy
Final Environmental Impact Report
Page ES-16
Hydrology and Water Quality
Impact HYD-1. Development
facilitated by the project would not
violate water quality standards or
Waste Discharge Requirements, or
otherwise substantially degrade
surface or groundwater quality.

Impacts would be less than
significant with mitigation.

None required. Mitigation
Measure HAZ-3(a) and HAZ3(b).

Less than Significant with Mitigation
Page ES-19
TRA-1 Pedestrian Connectivity and Safety. A new pedestrian path shall 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.

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). Other components of the project include newly constructed internal roadways, 160 automobile parking spaces in garages and 58 automobile surface spaces across the site, and 96 bicycle parking spaces. The project would involve the removal of 2243 trees while the remaining 11191 trees would be preserved. Additional trees and amenities including gardens, active and passive seating areas, children’s play areas, and a meditation hammock garden are proposed.

A responsible agency refers to a public agency other than the lead agency that has discretionary approval over the project. The Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) is a responsible agency. DTSC is responsible for reviewing and approving the Removal Action Workplan (RAW) for the project site and the Soil Management Plan (SMP) for the project prior to construction (grading) activities at the project site. as part of the cleanup oversight process.

The project site is currently undeveloped but includes existing vegetation and mature trees. 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 eastnorth, 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. In addition, the trail 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 (Sonoma County 2023). (Sonoma County 2023).
74 Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

Revisions to the Draft EIR
Final Environmental Impact Report

Table 2-1 Proposed Residential Development Summary
Feature Details
Townhome Project Characteristics
Residential area 69,317 square feet
Lot Coverage Allowed: 40% or 106,333 sf
Proposed: 26% or 69,317 sf +/-
Floor Area Ratio (FAR) 1.531
Density Allowed: 12.1 to 25 dwelling units/acre
Proposed: 13.1 dwelling units/acre
Building Height Allowed: 30 feet and 2 stories
Proposed: 40 feet +/- and 3 stories with Density Bonus Waiver

There are currently 133134 trees within the project site (including 92 protected trees), and the proposed project would involve the removal of 2243 trees (including 29 protected trees) while preserving the remaining 11191 trees (including 63 protected trees) primarily along the perimeter of the site. An existing large, mature coast live oak tree would be retained at the primary entrance to the project entry. 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.

2.7 Required Approvals
The proposed project would require approval of the following entitlements by the City of Sebastopol City Council:
 Conditional Use Permit for 80 townhouse units within the OLM zoning district  A Vesting Tentative Map
 State Density Bonus law waiver to increase building height from two stories to three stories  Site Design Review
 Removal of 2229 protected existing onsite trees
The Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) is a responsible agency. DTSC is responsible for reviewing and approving the Removal Action Workplan (RAW) for the project site and the Soil Management Plan (SMP) for the project prior to construction (grading) activities at the project site. as part of the cleanup oversight process.
75 Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

The City of Sebastopol
The Canopy
Final Environmental Impact Report

General Plan Policy COS 11-8 requires all outdoor lighting to be constructed with full shielding and/or recessed to reduce light trespass to adjoining properties and to reduce illumination of the night sky and be directed downward and away from adjoining properties and public rightsof way, so that no light fixture directly illuminates an area outside of the site. Policy COS 11-87 restricts outdoor lighting and glare from development projects to retain the quality of night skies by minimizing light pollution.

The major large-scale weather feature controlling climate in Sebastopol is a large high-pressure system located in the eastern Pacific Ocean, known as the Pacific High. During wintersummer months, marine air trapped in the lower atmosphere is often condensed into fog by the cool Pacific Ocean. Stratus-type clouds usually form offshore and move into the area during the evening hours. During winter months, the Pacific High becomes weaker and shifts south, allowing weather systems associated with the polar jet stream to affect the region. Low pressure systems produce periods of cloudiness, strong shifting winds, and precipitation. Highpressure systems are also common in winter, with low-level inversions that produce cool stagnant conditions.

Impact BIO-1 THE PROJECT WOULD HAVE THE POTENTIAL TO RESULT IN A SUBSTANTIAL ADVERSE EFFECT ON SPECIAL STATUS ANIMAL SPECIES. IMPACTS WOULD BE LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT WITH MITIGATION.

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-sideon-site pedestrian and bicycle features.”
TRA-1 Pedestrian Connectivity and Safety.

A new pedestrian path shall 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.

As detailed under Environmental SettingWhile not listed on Government Code Section 65962.5(a), which constitutes DTSC’s portion of the Cortese List, the project site is associated with an active Voluntary Agreement cleanup case with regulatory agency oversight by the DTSC (DTSC 2023a). Therefore, the project site is included on a list of hazardous material sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5.
76 Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

Revisions to the Draft EIR
Final Environmental Impact Report

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

HAZ-3b Soil Management Plan. Prior to commencement of construction and grading activities at the project site, the project applicant shall retain a qualified consultant (Professional Geologist [PG] or Professional Engineer [PE]) to prepare a Soil Management Plan (SMP) for the project site. The SMP shall address:

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

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

The SMP must establish remedial measures and soil management practices to ensure construction worker safety, the health of future workers and residents, and prevent the off-site migration of contaminants from the project site. These measures and practices may include, but are not limited to:
 Stockpile management, including stormwater pollution prevention and the installation of BMPs
 Proper disposal procedures for contaminated materials  Investigation procedures for encountering known and unexpected odorous or visually stained soils, other indications of hydrocarbon piping or equipment, and/or debris during ground-disturbing activities
 Monitoring and reporting
 A health and safety plan for contractors working at the project site that addresses the safety and health hazards of each phase of project site construction activities with the requirements and procedures for employee protection
77 Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

The City of Sebastopol
The Canopy
Final Environmental Impact Report
 The health and safety plan shall outline proper soil handling procedures and health and safety requirements to minimize worker and public exposure to hazardous materials during construction.

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

Policy N-1.13 Control non-transportation related noise from site specific noise sources to the standards shown in Error! Reference source not foundTable 4.10-3.

The No Project Alternative assumes that the proposed residential development and subsequent construction of internal roadways, parking, and associated site improvements would not occur, and that the current, undeveloped use of the site would remain. Because no construction or development would occur under the Alternative 1, the 2243 trees proposed to be removed for the project would not be removed and the existing 133134 trees on site would remain. The No Project Alternative would not meet project objectives related to increasing housing inventory to address statewide and local housing needs or provide housing opportunities for a variety of income levels and life stages within the city of Sebastopol, as residential development would not occur under this alternative.

The proposed project would require the removal of 2243 trees. Because Alternative 2 would involve development of fewer residential units, slightly fewer trees would need to be removed under this alternative. Similar to the proposed project, Alternative 2 would preserve the existing trees as much as possible. Tree replanting under the direction of a qualified forester, arborist, or horticulturalist pursuant to Sebastopol Municipal Code (SMC) would also be required under this alternative. Implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-2 would be required. Impacts would be less than significant with mitigation under Alternative 2, similar to the proposed project. 78 Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

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

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

Gravenstein Highway Residential Project
Biological Resource Analysis July 2023
ii

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Gravenstein Highway Residential Project
Biological Resource Analysis July 2023
iv

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

Gravenstein Highway Residential Project
Biological Resource Analysis July 2023
v

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

Gravenstein Highway Residential Project
Biological Resource Analysis July 2023
vi

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

3.1 PERSONNEL AND SURVEY DATES

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

4.5 IMPACT ASSESSMENT

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

5.7 IMPACT ASSESSMENT

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

December 9, 1983, revised May 8, 2000.

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

Appendix A.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Appendix A.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Appendix A.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Appendix A.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Appendix A.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Appendix A.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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