Sebastopol City Council
April 2, 2024

The Canopy
Draft Environmental Impact Report
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
December 2023
Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

This report prepared on 50% recycled paper with 50% post-consumer content.

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

Table of Contents
Draft Environmental Impact Report i
Table of Contents
Executive Summary ...........................................................................................................................ES-1 Project Synopsis.........................................................................................................................ES-1 Project Objectives......................................................................................................................ES-4 Alternatives................................................................................................................................ES-4 Areas of Known Controversy .....................................................................................................ES-5 Issues to be Resolved.................................................................................................................ES-5 Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures ........................................................................ES-6 1 Introduction................................................................................................................................ 1-1

1.1 Environmental Impact Report Background..................................................................... 1-1

1.2 Purpose and Legal Authority........................................................................................... 1-1

1.3 Scope and Content.......................................................................................................... 1-4

1.4 Lead, Responsible, and Trustee Agencies....................................................................... 1-5

1.5 Environmental Review Process....................................................................................... 1-5 2 Project Description ..................................................................................................................... 2-1

2.1 Lead Agency and Contact................................................................................................ 2-1

2.2 Project Applicant............................................................................................................. 2-1

2.3 Project Location .............................................................................................................. 2-1

2.4 Existing Site Characteristics ............................................................................................ 2-4

2.4.1 Current Land Use Designation and Zoning ..................................................... 2-4

2.4.2 Surrounding Land Uses................................................................................... 2-4

2.4.3 Existing Project Site Conditions...................................................................... 2-4

2.5 Project Description.......................................................................................................... 2-6

2.5.1 Proposed Parcel Changes ............................................................................... 2-6

2.5.2 Proposed Residential Development............................................................... 2-6

2.5.3 Circulation, Access, and Parking ..................................................................... 2-7

2.5.4 Landscaping and Open Space ......................................................................... 2-7

2.5.5 Building and Architecture............................................................................. 2-11

2.5.6 Construction ................................................................................................. 2-11

2.5.7 Utilities.......................................................................................................... 2-11

2.6 Project Objectives......................................................................................................... 2-11

2.7 Required Approvals....................................................................................................... 2-12

2.8 California Native American Tribal Consultation............................................................ 2-12 3 Environmental Setting ................................................................................................................ 3-1

3.1 Regional Setting .............................................................................................................. 3-1

3.2 Project Site Setting.......................................................................................................... 3-1

3.3 Cumulative Development ............................................................................................... 3-2 4 Environmental Impact Analysis .................................................................................................. 4-1

4.1 Aesthetics..................................................................................................................... 4.1-1

4.1.1 Environmental Setting ................................................................................. 4.1-1

4.1.2 Regulatory Setting ....................................................................................... 4.1-1

4.1.3 Impact Analysis............................................................................................ 4.1-3

4.1.4 Cumulative Impacts..................................................................................... 4.1-8 Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

The City of Sebastopol
The Canopy
ii

4.2 Air Quality .................................................................................................................... 4.2-1

4.2.1 Setting.......................................................................................................... 4.2-1

4.2.2 Regulatory Setting ....................................................................................... 4.2-6

4.2.3 Impact Analysis.......................................................................................... 4.2-11

4.2.4 Cumulative Impacts................................................................................... 4.2-20

4.3 Biological Resources..................................................................................................... 4.3-1

4.3.1 Setting.......................................................................................................... 4.3-1

4.3.2 Regulatory Setting ....................................................................................... 4.3-5

4.3.3 Impact Analysis.......................................................................................... 4.3-12

4.3.4 Cumulative Impacts................................................................................... 4.3-18

4.4 Cultural Resources....................................................................................................... 4.4-1

4.4.1 Regulatory Setting ....................................................................................... 4.4-1

4.4.2 Environmental Setting ................................................................................. 4.4-8

4.4.1 Existing Conditions..................................................................................... 4.4-13

4.5 Geology and Soils......................................................................................................... 4.5-1

4.5.1 Environmental Setting ................................................................................. 4.5-1

4.5.2 Regulatory Setting ....................................................................................... 4.5-6

4.5.3 Impact Analysis.......................................................................................... 4.5-11

4.5.4 Cumulative Impacts................................................................................... 4.5-18

4.6 Greenhouse Gas Emissions.......................................................................................... 4.6-1

4.6.1 Setting.......................................................................................................... 4.6-1

4.6.2 Regulatory Setting ....................................................................................... 4.6-5

4.6.3 Impact Analysis.......................................................................................... 4.6-15

4.6.4 Cumulative Impacts................................................................................... 4.6-23

4.7 Hazards and Hazardous Materials ............................................................................... 4.7-1

4.7.1 Environmental Setting ................................................................................. 4.7-1

4.7.2 Regulatory Setting ....................................................................................... 4.7-4

4.7.3 Impact Analysis.......................................................................................... 4.7-13

4.7.4 Cumulative Impacts................................................................................... 4.7-20

4.8 Hydrology and Water Quality ...................................................................................... 4.8-1

4.8.1 Environmental Setting ................................................................................. 4.8-1

4.8.2 Regulatory Setting ....................................................................................... 4.8-2

4.8.3 Impact Analysis............................................................................................ 4.8-9

4.8.4 Cumulative Impacts................................................................................... 4.8-17

4.9 Land Use and Planning................................................................................................. 4.9-1

4.9.1 Environmental Setting ................................................................................. 4.9-1

4.9.2 Regulatory Setting ....................................................................................... 4.9-2

4.9.3 Impact Analysis............................................................................................ 4.9-5

4.10 Noise .......................................................................................................................... 4.10-1

4.10.1 Setting........................................................................................................ 4.10-1

4.10.2 Regulatory Setting ..................................................................................... 4.10-5

4.10.3 Impact Analysis........................................................................................ 4.10-11

4.10.4 Cumulative Impacts................................................................................. 4.10-20

4.11 Population and Housing............................................................................................. 4.11-1

4.11.1 Setting........................................................................................................ 4.11-1

4.11.2 Regulatory Setting ..................................................................................... 4.11-3

4.11.3 Impact Analysis.......................................................................................... 4.11-4

4.11.4 Cumulative Impacts................................................................................... 4.11-6 Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

Table of Contents
Draft Environmental Impact Report iii

4.12 Public Services............................................................................................................ 4.12-1

4.12.1 Setting........................................................................................................ 4.12-1

4.12.2 Regulatory Setting ..................................................................................... 4.12-3

4.12.3 Impact Analysis.......................................................................................... 4.12-6

4.12.4 Cumulative Impacts................................................................................. 4.12-10

4.13 Transportation ........................................................................................................... 4.13-1

4.13.1 Setting........................................................................................................ 4.13-1

4.13.2 Regulatory Setting ..................................................................................... 4.13-5

4.13.3 Impact Analysis.......................................................................................... 4.13-9

4.13.4 Cumulative Impacts................................................................................. 4.13-14

4.14 Tribal Cultural Resources........................................................................................... 4.14-1

4.14.1 Regulatory Setting ..................................................................................... 4.14-1

4.14.2 Environmental Setting ............................................................................... 4.14-4

4.14.3 Impact Analysis.......................................................................................... 4.14-6

4.14.4 Cumulative Impacts................................................................................... 4.14-9

4.15 Utilities and Service Systems ..................................................................................... 4.15-1

4.15.1 Setting........................................................................................................ 4.15-1

4.15.2 Regulatory Setting ..................................................................................... 4.15-4

4.15.3 Impact Analysis.......................................................................................... 4.15-7

4.15.4 Cumulative Impacts................................................................................. 4.15-12

4.16 Impacts Found to be Less Than Significant (Agriculture and Forestry, Energy, Minerals, Recreation, and Wildfire)........................................................................................... 4.16-1

4.16.1 Agriculture and Forestry............................................................................ 4.16-1

4.16.2 Energy ........................................................................................................ 4.16-2

4.16.3 Mineral Resources..................................................................................... 4.16-3

4.16.4 Recreation.................................................................................................. 4.16-3

4.16.5 Wildfire ...................................................................................................... 4.16-4 5 Other CEQA Required Discussions.............................................................................................. 5-1

5.1 Growth Inducement........................................................................................................ 5-1

5.1.1 Population Growth ......................................................................................... 5-1

5.1.2 Economic Growth ........................................................................................... 5-2

5.1.3 Removal of Obstacles to Growth.................................................................... 5-2

5.2 Irreversible Environmental Effects.................................................................................. 5-2

5.3 Energy Effects.................................................................................................................. 5-3 6 Alternatives................................................................................................................................. 6-1

6.1 Alternative 1: No Project Alternative.............................................................................. 6-2

6.1.1 Description...................................................................................................... 6-2

6.1.2 Impact Analysis............................................................................................... 6-2

6.2 Alternative 2: Reduced Development Density................................................................ 6-3

6.2.1 Description...................................................................................................... 6-3

6.2.2 Impact Analysis............................................................................................... 6-3

6.3 Alternative 3: Increased Development Density ............................................................ 6-10

6.3.1 Description.................................................................................................... 6-10

6.3.2 Impact Analysis............................................................................................. 6-11

6.4 Alternatives Considered but Rejected .......................................................................... 6-18

6.5 Environmentally Superior Alternative .......................................................................... 6-19 Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

The City of Sebastopol
The Canopy
iv
7 References.................................................................................................................................. 7-1

7.1 Bibliography .................................................................................................................... 7-1

7.2 List of Preparers............................................................................................................ 7-15 Tables
Table ES-1 Proposed Residential Development Summary..............................................ES-2 Table ES-2 Summary of Environmental Impacts, Mitigation Measures, and Residual Impacts ..........................................................................................................ES-6 Table 1-1 NOP Comments and EIR Response................................................................. 1-2 Table 2-1 Proposed Residential Development Summary............................................... 2-6 Table 3-1 Cumulative Projects List ................................................................................. 3-2 Table 4.2-1 Representative Annual Ambient Air Quality Data....................................... 4.2-5 Table 4.2-2 Federal and State Ambient Air Quality Standards....................................... 4.2-7 Table 4.2-3 BAAQMD Air Quality Significance Thresholds........................................... 4.2-11 Table 4.2-4 BAAQMD Odor Source Thresholds Table .................................................. 4.2-12 Table 4.2-5 Project Consistency with Applicable Control Measures of 2017 Plan Table .......................................................................................................... 4.2-15 Table 4.2-6 Project Construction Emissions................................................................. 4.2-16 Table 4.2-7 Project Operational Emissions................................................................... 4.2-17 Table 4.6-1 Project Consistency with Plan Bay Area 2050 ........................................... 4.6-19 Table 4.6-2 Project Consistency with the City’s Climate Action Framework................ 4.6-20 Table 4.6-3 Project Consistency with the City’s General Plan...................................... 4.6-21 Table 4.9-1 Project Consistency with the City of Sebastopol General Plan ................... 4.9-6 Table 4.9-2 Project Consistency with SMC R7 Development Standards...................... 4.9-16 Table 4.10-1 Project Vicinity Noise Monitoring Results................................................. 4.10-5 Table 4.10-2 Land Use Compatibility for Community Noise Environments................... 4.10-7 Table 4.10-3 Stationary (Non-Transportation) Noise Source Standards........................ 4.10-8 Table 4.10-4 City of Sebastopol Noise Level Standards................................................ 4.10-11 Table 4.10-5 Typical Vibration Levels for Construction Equipment............................. 4.10-14 Table 4.10-6 Estimated Noise Levels by Construction Phase at Sensitive Receptors .. 4.10-15 Table 4.10-7 Off-site Project Traffic Noise Increases ................................................... 4.10-18 Table 4.10-8 Construction Equipment Vibration Levels............................................... 4.10-19 Table 4.11-1 Housing Inventory in the City, County, and State...................................... 4.11-1 Table 4.11-2 Household Size in the City, County, and State........................................... 4.11-2 Table 4.11-3 Sonoma County Estimated Population and Employment ......................... 4.11-2 Table 4.12-1 Existing Park Facilities................................................................................ 4.12-2 Table 4.13-1 Transit Routes............................................................................................ 4.13-2 Table 4.13-2 Bicycle Facilities in Project Vicinity ............................................................ 4.13-4 Table 4.13-3 Vehicle Miles Traveled Analysis Summary .............................................. 4.13-12 Table 4.15-1 City of Sebastopol Water Production ........................................................ 4.15-1 Table 6-1 Comparison of Project Alternatives’ Buildout Characteristics ....................... 6-2 Table 6-2 Impact Comparison of Alternatives.............................................................. 6-21 Figures
Figure 1-1 Environmental Review Process....................................................................... 1-7 Figure 2-1 Regional Location ........................................................................................... 2-2 Figure 2-2 Project Location.............................................................................................. 2-3 Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

Table of Contents
Draft Environmental Impact Report v
Figure 2-3 Existing Site Conditions................................................................................... 2-5 Figure 2-4 Proposed Project Site Plan.............................................................................. 2-9 Figure 2-5 Proposed Building Elevations ....................................................................... 2-10 Figure 4.10-1 Examples of Typical Noise Levels............................................................... 4.10-2 Figure 4.10-2 Approximate Noise Monitoring Locations................................................. 4.10-6 Appendices
Appendix A Notice of Preparation (NOP)
Appendix B Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Modeling Appendix C Biological Resources Analysis
Appendix D Tree Preservation and Mitigation Report
Appendix E Confidential Cultural Resources Evaluation
Appendix F Geotechnical Investigation
Appendix G Transportation Impact Study
Appendix H Stormwater and Drainage Reports
Appendix I Noise Report
Appendix J Noise Calculations
Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

The City of Sebastopol
The Canopy
vi
This page intentionally left blank.

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

Executive Summary
Draft Environmental Impact Report ES-1
Executive Summary
This document is an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) analyzing the environmental effects of the proposed Canopy Project (proposed project). This section summarizes the characteristics of the proposed project, alternatives to the proposed project, and the environmental impacts and mitigation measures associated with the proposed project.

Project Synopsis
Project Applicant
City Ventures
444 Spear Street, Suite 200
San Francisco, California 94105
Lead Agency Contact Person
John Jay, Associate Planner
City of Sebastopol
Planning Department
7120 Bodega Avenue
Sebastopol, California 95472
(707) 823-6167
Project Description
This EIR has been prepared to examine the potential environmental effects of The Canopy Project.

The following is a summary of the full project description, which can be found in Section 2, Project Description.

The project site is located at 1009-1011 Gravenstein Highway North, on the east side of Gravenstein Highway North southeast of its intersection with Mill Station Road, within the City of Sebastopol.

The project site encompasses approximately 6.1 acres across two parcels. The project site consists of Assessor’s Parcel Numbers (APNs) 060-261-028 and 060-261-026 and is adjacent to the City of Sebastopol’s northwestern boundary. The project site is designated as Office/Light Industrial (OLI) in the 2016 City of Sebastopol General Plan. Residential uses are allowed at a density of 12.1 to 25 units per acre as a secondary use to the primary office/light industrial uses allowed in this land use designation (Sebastopol 2015).

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 east, the site is directly adjacent to the West County Trail, a paved trail that links Sebastopol with areas to the Northwest, including Graton and Forestville. 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).

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

City of Sebastopol
The Canopy
ES-2
Project Characteristics
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). Table ES-1 provides a summary of the proposed development.

Table ES-1 Proposed Residential Development Summary
Feature Details
Townhome Project Characteristics
Residential area 69,317 square feet
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 Proposed Dwelling Units
Three-Bedroom 22 units
Three-Bedroom (with an optional fourth
bedroom)
29 units
Three-Bedroom (with an optional elevator
and/or fourth bedroom)
13 units
Three-Bedroom (with an optional ADU or
fourth bedroom)
16 units
Total Units 80 units, with a maximum of 16 ADUs
Proposed Parking
Garage Parking Within Townhomes 160 spaces
Standard Surface Parking 41 spaces with 10 percent (6 spaces) of electric vehicle charging parking spaces
Compact Surface Parking 17 spaces
Total 218 spaces
Total Bicycle Parking Spaces 96 (80 in garages and 16 in on-site bicycle racks) Proposed Open Space
Common Open Space 107,200 square feet (1,340 square feet per dwelling unit) Private Open Space (at grade) 216 square feet per dwelling unit Private Open Space (balconies) 75-230 square feet per dwelling unit 1 Calculated as the total allowed lot coverage (106,333 square feet) divided by the total ground floor footprint proposed (69,317 square feet)
The proposed 80 units (and potential ADUs) would be distributed throughout 20 buildings. The buildings would be distributed in blocks of three to eight townhomes per building throughout the site. The homes would range from two to four bedrooms and include options for up to 16 accessible ground floor ADUs. Select residences would have the option for personal elevators and would provide additional ADA accessibility. The project includes accessible/adaptable features in each Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

Executive Summary
Draft Environmental Impact Report ES-3
building with an accessible path of travel to connect all buildings. Each residential unit would be three stories and would include a two-car garage and bedroom or ADU on the first floor, kitchen and living spaces on the second floor, and additional bedrooms at the third floor.

Parking and Site Access
Access to the proposed residential units and garages would be taken from newly constructed private streets between the buildings, which would connect to Gravenstein Highway North. Access to the site via Gravenstein Highway North would be provided by two new inlet and outlet points at the northwest and southwest portions of the site on either side of the existing O’Reilly Media Center site. The project would include a total of 160 parking spaces in garages and 58 surface spaces across the site.

Pedestrian and bicycle access to the buildings would be provided via the new internal roadways. The project would include construction of landscaped internal walkways throughout the site, including a new, enhanced 6-foot-wide pedestrian pathway to connect the West County Trail to Gravenstein Highway along the south border of the site; a bicycle repair station is proposed at the same location.

The project would include 96 bicycle parking spaces, with 80 long-term spaces located in each residential garage and 16 spaces in onsite bicycle racks.

Landscaping and Open Space
There are currently 133 trees within the project site, and the proposed project would involve the removal of 22 trees while preserving the remaining 111 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.

To treat stormwater, the proposed project would include flow-through planters and permeable pavement throughout the project site. Several bioretention facilities and swales are proposed along the perimeter of the site including the north, west, and southwestern boundaries of the site.

Utilities
The City of Sebastopol Public Works would provide water, stormwater, and wastewater collection, treatment, and disposal to the project site. Electricity would be provided by Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E). Solid waste and recycling services for the site are provided by Recology Sonoma Marin.

Police and fire protection services would be provided by the City of Sebastopol. The proposed project includes onsite drainage improvements with bioretention facilities (vegetated buffers and bioswale) and a storm drain network. The inlet and overflow structures of an existing detention pond for the adjacent office park would be modified to detain and control combined drainage from the office park and proposed project.

Construction and Grading
Construction would occur over approximately 31 months. Phase I is anticipated to start in June 2024 and finish in June 2026. Construction would take place within the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m., Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

City of Sebastopol
The Canopy
ES-4
Monday through Friday. Phase II is expected to begin in March 2025 and end in February 2027. Site preparation across both phases is anticipated to result in approximately 9,520 cubic yards of cut and fill soil which would be balanced on site. Roughly 2,092 cubic yards and 1,566 cubic yards of soil are anticipated to be imported for Phase I and II, respectively. Some of the soil on the project site was impacted by contamination (refer to Section 4.7, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, for more information), and would be buried on-site under six feet of clean fill material. Total construction activities would involve the use and operation of aerial lists, backhoes, cement and mortar mixers, compactors, cranes, dozers, forklifts, graders, loaders, paving equipment, rollers, scrapers, skid steer loaders, and tractors.

Project Objectives
The objectives for the proposed project are to:
 Develop diverse residential uses, including ADUs, that add diversity to the City of Sebastopol's ownership housing supply and meet a variety of residents’ needs by encouraging inherent affordability and providing housing opportunities for households at a variety of income levels and life stages.
 Develop a well-designed ownership residential townhome project that includes accessible and adaptable features in every building to provide ADA accessibility beyond what is required by the building code.
 Construct a single, cohesive development consisting of high-quality, contemporary urban design that respects and relates well to its surroundings and respects the urban forest that will remain.  Bolster the connection between the community and the West County Trail through the preservation of existing pathways and ensuring continued use of the trail.  Achieve the streamlined and efficient processing and approval of the project including benefits available to developments that include affordable housing consistent with the State Density Bonus Law.

Alternatives
As required by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), this EIR examines alternatives to the proposed project. Studied alternatives include the following four 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
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 22 trees proposed to be removed for the project would not be removed and the existing 133 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.

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

Executive Summary
Draft Environmental Impact Report ES-5
Alternative 2 (Reduced Development Density) would involve a reduced total buildout of 70 residential units, with the potential for up to 14 accessory dwelling units (ADUs), resulting in 84 potential housing units. Alternative 2 would result in a reduction of 12 residential units compared to the proposed project. Because this alternative would involve fewer residences, less grading and excavation would be required as fewer units, roads, and utility connections would be constructed, and fewer trees would be removed. Furthermore, more of the project site would be available for open space and more trees would remain on site compared to the proposed project. New utility infrastructure would still be required on the project site under this alternative, including stormwater retention basins, internal roadways and parking, and water pipelines between existing water line infrastructure and proposed townhomes. On-site soil contaminants would remain undisturbed under this alternative. Therefore, Alternative 2 would be considered the environmentally superior alternative. However, Alternative 2 would not meet goals related to increasing housing inventory as effectively as the proposed project as development would be reduced compared to the proposed project, and may not be financially feasible due to development costs.

Alternative 3 (Increased Development Density) would involve an increased total buildout of 103 residential units. Alternative 3 would not include the potential for ADUs. Because this alternative would involve 23 more single-family residences compared to the proposed project, more grading and excavation would be required as more unit and utility connections would be constructed, and 27 more on-site trees would be removed. Alternative 3 would result in a maximum building height of 3 stories, similar to the proposed project. Furthermore, less of the project site would be available for open space and less trees would remain on site compared to the proposed project. New utility infrastructure would still be required on the project site under this alternative, including stormwater retention basins, internal roadways and parking, and water pipelines between existing water line infrastructure and proposed townhomes. Alternative 3 would meet the project objectives, similar to the proposed project. These objectives include constructing a single, cohesive development consisting of high-quality, contemporary urban design that respects and relates well to its surroundings and respects the urban forestry that will remain; and bolstering the connection between the community and the West County Trail through the preservation of existing pathways and ensuring continued use of the trail. However, Alternative 3 would not meet goals related to increasing diverse housing inventory as effectively as the proposed project since ADA-accessible ADUs would not be included and would not meet project objectives related to preserving the existing urban forest to the same extent as the proposed project.

Refer to Section 6, Alternatives, for the complete alternatives analysis.

Areas of Known Controversy
The EIR scoping process did not identify any areas of known controversy for the proposed project.

Responses to the Notice of Preparation of a Draft EIR and input received at the EIR scoping meeting held by the City are summarized in Section 1, Introduction.

Issues to be Resolved
The project would require the City’s approval of a conditional use permit, site development review, and vesting tentative tract map. In addition, the project applicant proposes the use of a State Density Bonus to allow for a waiver to increase the building height to three stories.

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

City of Sebastopol
The Canopy
ES-6
Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Table ES-2 summarizes the environmental impacts of the proposed project, proposed mitigation measures, and residual impacts (the impact after application of mitigation, if required). Impacts are categorized as follows:
 Significant and Unavoidable. An impact that cannot be reduced to below the threshold level given reasonably available and feasible mitigation measures. Such an impact requires a Statement of Overriding Considerations to be issued if the project is approved per §15093 of the CEQA Guidelines.
 Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. An impact that can be reduced to below the threshold level given reasonably available and feasible mitigation measures. Such an impact requires findings under §15091 of the CEQA Guidelines.
 Less than Significant. An impact that may be adverse, but does not exceed the threshold levels and does not require mitigation measures. However, mitigation measures that could further lessen the environmental effect may be suggested if readily available and easily achievable.  No Impact: The proposed project would have no effect on environmental conditions or would reduce existing environmental problems or hazards.

In addition to the environmental impacts included in Table ES-2, the EIR identified several issue areas which would not result in significant impacts which includes Agricultural Resources, Energy, Mineral Resources, Recreation, and Wildfire. These are not included within Table ES-2 but are discussed further within Section 4.16, Impacts Found to be Less Than Significant.

Table ES-2 Summary of Environmental Impacts, Mitigation Measures, and Residual Impacts
Impact Mitigation Measure (s) Residual Impact
Aesthetics
Impact AES-1. The proposed project
would not have a substantial adverse
impact on a scenic vista. Impacts would
be less than significant.

None required. Less than
Significant
Impact AES-2. The proposed project
would not substantially damage scenic
resources including trees, rock
outcroppings, or historic buildings
within view of a state scenic highway.

Impacts would be less than significant
with mitigation.

Mitigation Measure BIO-2. Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
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.

None required. Less than
Significant
Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

Executive Summary
Draft Environmental Impact Report ES-7
Impact Mitigation Measure (s) Residual Impact
Impact AES-4. The proposed project
would not create a new source of
substantial light or glare that would
adversely affect daytime or nighttime
views in the area. Impacts would be less
than significant.

AES-4 Lighting Specifications. Exterior lighting
installed on the project site must be of low intensity, low glare design, and must be hooded to direct light
downward onto the subject parcel and prevent spillover onto adjacent parcels and must otherwise meet dark night sky requirements. Exterior lighting fixtures must be kept to the minimum number and intensity
needed to ensure public safety. Upward directed
exterior lighting is prohibited. The final lighting plan must be amended to include identification of all types, sizes, and intensities of wall mounted building lights
and landscape accent lighting, and a photometric map
must be provided.

Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
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
Impact AQ-3. The project would not
increase carbon monoxide
concentrations such that it would create
carbon monoxide hotspots. However,
project construction could potentially
expose sensitive receptors to substantial
pollutant concentrations in the form of
toxic air contaminant emissions given the
proximity to surrounding and future
onsite sensitive receptors. impacts would
be less than significant with mitigation
incorporated.

AQ-1 Construction TACs Reduction. The applicant and
project engineer shall include the measures listed
below on the grading plan, building plans, and
specifications. Prior to issuance of grading permits, the City Engineer and the Chief Building Official shall
confirm that the grading plan, building plans, and
specifications stipulate that the measures listed below shall be implemented during project construction. The
construction contractor shall implement these
measures for the duration of construction.
 All mobile off-road equipment (wheeled or
tracked) used during construction activities shall
meet the USEPA Tier 4 final standards. Tier 4
certification can be for the original equipment or
equipment that is retrofitted to meet the Tier 4
Final standards.
 Alternative Fuel (natural gas, propane, electric,
other non-diesel fuels) construction equipment
shall be incorporated where available. These
requirements shall be incorporated into the
contract agreement with the construction
contractor. A copy of the equipment’s certification
or model year specifications shall be available
upon request for all equipment on-site.
 Electricity shall be supplied to the site from the
existing power grid to support the electric
Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

City of Sebastopol
The Canopy
ES-8
Impact Mitigation Measure (s) Residual Impact
construction equipment. If connection to the grid
is determined to be infeasible for portions of the
project, a non-diesel fueled generator shall be
used.

Impact AQ-4. The proposed project
would not result in other emissions (such
as those leading to odors) that would
adversely affect a substantial number of
people. Therefore, impacts would be less
than significant.

None required. Less than
Significant
Biological Resources
Impact BIO-1. The project would have a
substantial adverse effect on special
status animal species. Impacts would be
less than significant with mitigation.

BIO-1(a) Western Bumble Bee Preconstruction
Survey. A qualified biologist(s) shall conduct a preconstruction survey for western bumble bee prior to the onset of work activities at the project site. The preconstruction survey effort shall be conducted for a minimum of one hour. If bumble bees of any species
are observed, they shall be photographed for
identification following the USFWS guidance in
Appendix A Standardized Bee Photography in the
Survey Protocols for the Rusty Patched Bumble Bee
(Bombus affinis) (USFWS 2019). If construction begins
between March 1 and November 1, the ground shall
also be searched during the survey for active bumble
bee colonies. No capture or handling of bumble bees
shall be conducted, and western bumble bee, if
identified, shall be avoided during construction.

Foraging bees shall be allowed to leave work areas
undisturbed.

BIO-1(b) Roosting Bat Surveys and Avoidance. Prior to
tree removal or ground disturbance, a qualified
biologist shall conduct a focused survey of all trees
within the project site, to determine whether active
roosts of special status bats are present. If tree
removal is planned for the fall or winter, the survey
shall be conducted in September to ensure tree
removal would have adequate time to occur outside
periods of hibernation and during seasonal periods of
bat activity (March 1 to April 15, September 1 to
October 15, or in any month when evening
temperatures rise above 45 degrees Fahrenheit and/or
no more than 0.5 inch of rainfall within 24 hours
occurs, as described below). If tree removal is planned for the spring, then the survey shall be conducted
during the earliest feasible time in March to allow for suitable conditions for the detection of bats, and
subsequent tree removal. Trees containing suitable
potential bat roost habitat features shall be clearly
marked or identified. If day roosts are found to be
potentially present, the biologist shall prepare a sitespecific roosting bat protection plan to be implemented by the contractor following the City’s
approval. The plan shall incorporate the following
guidance as appropriate:

Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

Executive Summary
Draft Environmental Impact Report ES-9
Impact Mitigation Measure (s) Residual Impact
1) When feasible, removal of trees and structures
identified as suitable roosting habitat shall be
seasonally timed to avoid disturbance during the
hibernation and breeding seasons, including the
following:
a) Between September 1 and about October 15,
or before evening temperatures fall below 45
degrees Fahrenheit and/or more than 0.5 inch
of rainfall within 24 hours occurs.
b) Between March 1 and April 15, or after evening
temperatures rise above 45 degrees Fahrenheit
and/or no more than 0.5 inch of rainfall within
24 hours occurs.
2) If a tree must be removed during the breeding
season and is identified as potentially containing a
maternity roost, then a qualified biologist shall
conduct visual or acoustic emergence surveys or
implement other appropriate methods as
determined by the biologist to further evaluate if
the roost is an active maternity roost. If it is
determined that an active maternity roost of a
colonial roosting species is present, the roost shall
not be disturbed during the breeding season (April
15 to August 31). If it is determined to not be an
active maternity roost, the tree or structure may
be removed under the guidance of the qualified
biologist.

Potential non-colonial hibernation roosts shall only be removed during seasonal periods of bat activity
outside the hibernation and breeding seasons.

Potential non-colonial roosts that cannot be avoided
shall be removed on warm days in late morning to
afternoon when any bats present are likely to be warm
and able to fly. Appropriate methods as determined by
the qualified biologist shall be used to minimize the
potential harm to bats during tree or structure
removal. For trees, such methods may include using a
two-step tree removal process. This method is
conducted over two consecutive days and works by
creating noise and vibration by cutting non-habitat
branches and limbs from habitat trees using chainsaws
only (i.e., no excavators or other heavy machinery) on
the first day with the remainder of tree removal
occurring on the second day.

BIO-1(c) Nesting Bird Survey. If construction,
vegetation trimming, or tree removals are scheduled
to occur during the nesting bird season (February 1
through August 31), the project applicant shall retain a qualified biologist to conduct a pre-construction
nesting bird survey no more than 14 days prior to the
start of construction to determine the
presence/absence of nesting birds and raptors within
the project site and adjacent areas. The survey shall
include the entire site plus a 100-foot buffer, as
accessible. If active nests are found, the qualified
biologist shall establish an appropriate avoidance
Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

City of Sebastopol
The Canopy
ES-10
Impact Mitigation Measure (s) Residual Impact
buffer, considering the species sensitivity and physical location of the nest (e.g., line of site to the work area), to comply with CFGC 3503 and 3503.5. The buffer shall
be at least 50 feet for non-raptor bird species and 250 feet for raptor species, unless a smaller buffer is
determined protective of nesting birds by the qualified biologist. To prevent encroachment, the established
buffer(s) shall be clearly marked by high visibility
material installed by the contractor. The established
buffer(s) shall remain in effect until the young have
fledged or the nest has been abandoned as confirmed
by the qualified biologist. The City shall review and
approve the biologists’ findings and buffer during
construction, as appropriate.

Impact BIO-2. The project would not
have a substantial adverse effect on any
riparian habitat or other sensitive natural
community, and the project would not
have a substantial adverse effect on state
or federally protected wetlands. The
project would not 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. There would be no impact.

None required. No Impact
Impact BIO-3. The project could conflict
with the City of Sebastopol Municipal
Code tree protection ordinance. This
impact would be less than significant
with mitigation.

BIO-2 Tree Replacement. All protected ordinancesized 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 protected native
trees, as determined by the Tree Board or the City
Arborist. Two replacement trees shall be either
planted onsite for each protected tree removed 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 for 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.

Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
Impact BIO-4. The project would not
conflict with the provisions of an adopted
Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural
Community Conservation Plan, or other
approved local, regional, or state habitat
conservation plan. There would be no
impact
None required. No Impact
Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

Executive Summary
Draft Environmental Impact Report ES-11
Impact Mitigation Measure (s) Residual Impact
Cultural Resources
Impact CUL-1. The project would not
cause a substantial adverse change in
the significance of a historical resource,
as there are no such resources on the
project site. There would be no impact.

None required. No Impact
Impact CUL-2. Grading and excavation
required for the proposed project
would have the potential to unearth
and adversely change or damage
previously unidentified historical and
archaeological resources. Impacts
would be less than significant with
implementation of mitigation.

CUL-2 Archaeological Resources Assessment,
Evaluation, and Treatment. In the event that
archaeological resources are unexpectedly
encountered during ground-disturbing construction
activities, the construction contractor shall halt work within 100 feet of the find, and an archaeologist
meeting the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional
Qualifications Standards for archaeology (National
Park Service 1983) shall be contacted immediately to
evaluate the find, as well as the Sebastopol Planning
Department. If the find is determined by the qualified
archaeologist to be Native American in origin, then a
Native American representative shall also be
contacted to participate in the evaluation of the find.

If necessary, archaeological testing for CRHR eligibility shall be completed. If the discovery proves to be
eligible for the CRHR and impacts to the resource
cannot be avoided via project redesign, a qualified
archaeologist shall prepare a data recovery plan
tailored to the physical nature and characteristics of
the deposit, per the requirements of PRC Section
15126.4(b)(3)(C). The data recovery plan shall identify data recovery excavation methods, measurable
objectives, and data thresholds to reduce any
significant impacts to cultural resources. Pursuant to
the data recovery plan, the qualified archaeologist and Native American representative, as appropriate, shall
recover and document the scientifically consequential
information that justifies the resource’s significance.

The City shall review and, in consultation with approve the treatment plan and archaeological testing as
appropriate, and the resulting documentation shall be
submitted to the regional repository of the California
Historical Resources Information System, per PRC
Section 15126.4(b)(3)(C).

Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
Impact CUL-2. Grading and excavation
required for the project would have the
potential to unearth and disturb
previously unidentified or unknown
human remains. Compliance with
existing regulations pertaining to
discovery of human remains would
ensure impacts are less than significant.

None required Less than
Significant
Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

City of Sebastopol
The Canopy
ES-12
Impact Mitigation Measure (s) Residual Impact
Geology and Soils
Impact GEO-1. The proposed project
would not directly or indirectly cause
potential substantial adverse effects,
including risk of loss, injury, or death
involving rupture of a known
earthquake fault. Impacts would be less
than significant.

None required. Less than
Significant
Impact GEO-2. The proposed project
would not directly or indirectly cause
potential substantial adverse effects
including the risk of loss, injury, or
death involving strong seismic ground
shaking. Impacts would be less than
significant.

None required. Less than
Significant
Impact GEO-3. The project could cause
substantial adverse effects including the
risk of loss, injury, or death involving
seismic- related ground failure including
liquefaction, landslides, lateral
spreading, subsidence, or collapse.

Impacts would be less than significant.

None required. Less than
Significant
Impact GEO-4. The proposed project
would not result in substantial soil
erosion or loss of topsoil. Impacts would
be less than significant.

None required. Less than
Significant
Impact GEO-5. Portions of the project
site have the potential to be located on
expansive soil, as defined in Table 1-B of
the Uniform Building Code, which may
result in direct or indirect risks to life or
property. Impacts would be less than
significant.

None required. Less than
Significant
Impact GEO-6. The project has the
potential to significantly impact
paleontological resources. These
impacts would be less than significant
with mitigation.

GEO-7 Paleontological Resources Monitoring and
Mitigation.

Qualified Professional Paleontologist.

Prior to excavation, City Ventures shall retain a
Qualified Professional Paleontologist, as defined by
the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology (SVP; 2010).

The Qualified Professional Paleontologist shall draft a Paleontological Resources Mitigation and Monitoring
Plan, which shall direct all mitigation measures related to paleontological resources.

Paleontological Worker Environmental Awareness
Program.

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

Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

Executive Summary
Draft Environmental Impact Report ES-13
Impact Mitigation Measure (s) Residual Impact
Paleontological Monitoring.

Full-time paleontological monitoring shall be
conducted during ground disturbing construction
activities within previously undisturbed sediments.

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

Final Paleontological Mitigation Report.

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

City of Sebastopol
The Canopy
ES-14
Impact Mitigation Measure (s) Residual Impact
identification, and scientific significance. The report shall be submitted to the City of Sebastopol and, if
fossil curation occurred, the designated scientific
institution.

Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Impact GHG-1. The proposed project
would be consistent with BAAQMD’s
GHG thresholds for buildings and
transportation. Therefore, the project
would not generate GHG emissions that
may have a significant impact on the
environment. This impact would be less
than significant with implementation of
Mitigation Measure GHG-1.

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

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

Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
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.

None required. Less than
Significant
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Impact HAZ-1. The proposed project
would include construction and
operation which could involve the use,
storage, disposal or transportation of
hazardous materials. However,
compliance with Federal, State, and
local regulations would reduce potential
impacts. Impacts would be less than
significant.

None required. Less than
Significant
Impact HAZ-2. Sebastopol Independent
Charter School is located within 0.25
mile of the proposed project. The
proposed project would not emit or
handle hazardous or acutely hazardous
materials. This impact would be less
than significant.

Mitigation Measure HAZ-3(b) Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
Impact HAZ-3. The project site is
associated with an open Voluntary
Agreement cleanup case and is
therefore included on a list of
hazardous materials sites compiled
pursuant to Section 65962.5. There are
known hazardous material impacts to
soil at the project site. However,
compliance with applicable regulations
and mitigation for potential soil and/or
groundwater impacts at the project site
would minimize hazards from the
proposed project. This impact would be
less than significant with mitigation
incorporated.

HAZ-3a DTSC Regulatory Agency Submittal. The DTSC
shall continue to be utilized for agency oversight of
assessment and remediation of the project site
through completion of construction activities. Prior to commencement of construction and grading activities
at the project site, the project applicant shall submit the following documents to the DTSC project manager
of the open Voluntary Agreement cleanup case:
 Current development plan and any modifications
to the development plan
 All environmental documents completed for the
project, including this Initial Study document
 All future environmental documents completed for
the project
Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

Executive Summary
Draft Environmental Impact Report ES-15
Impact Mitigation Measure (s) Residual Impact
Upon submittal of the information above, and in
accordance with the 2023 DTSC Standard Voluntary
Agreement, DTSC may require actions such as:
development of subsurface investigation workplans;
completion of soil, soil vapor, and/or groundwater
subsurface investigations; installation of soil vapor or groundwater monitoring wells; soil excavation and
offsite disposal; completion of human health risk
assessments; and/or completion of remediation
reports or case closure documents. Subsurface soil,
soil vapor, and groundwater investigations, if required, shall be conducted in accordance with a sampling plan
that shall be reviewed and approved by the DTSC.

The DTSC approval documents shall be submitted to
and reviewed by the City prior to issuing grading
permits.

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

City of Sebastopol
The Canopy
ES-16
Impact Mitigation Measure (s) Residual Impact
exposure to hazardous materials during
construction.

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

Impact HAZ-4. The project site is not
located in an airport land use plan or in
the vicinity of a private airstrip. No
impacts related to airports would occur.

None required. No Impact
Impact HAZ-5. The project would not
impair implementation of or physically
interfere with an adopted emergency
response plan or emergency evacuation
plan. Impacts would be less than
significant.

None required. Less than
Significant
Impact HAZ-6. The project site is in an
urban area and is not near wildlands.

No impact related to wildland fires
would occur.

None required. No Impact
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. Less than
Significant
Impact HYD-2. Development facilitated
by the project would not interfere
substantially with groundwater
recharge such that the project may
impede sustainable groundwater
management of local groundwater
basins. Impacts would be less than
significant.

None required. Less than
Significant
Impact HYD-3. The proposed project
would alter drainage patterns and
increase runoff in the area but would
not result in substantial erosion or
siltation on- or off- site. Impacts would
be less than significant.

None required. Less than
Significant
Impact HYD-4. The proposed project
would alter drainage patterns and
increase runoff in the area but would
not result in increased flooding on or off
site. Impacts would be less than
significant.

None required. Less than
Significant
Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

Executive Summary
Draft Environmental Impact Report ES-17
Impact Mitigation Measure (s) Residual Impact
Impact HYD-5. The proposed project
would alter drainage patterns and
increase runoff in the area but would
not exceed the capacity of existing or
planned stormwater drainage systems
or provide substantial additional
polluted runoff. Impacts would be less
than significant with mitigation.

Mitigation Measure HAZ-3(a) and HAZ-3(b) Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
Impact HYD-6. The proposed project
would not conflict with or obstruct the
North Coast RWQCB Basin Plan or Santa
Rosa Plain Subbasin GSP, pursuant to
compliance with applicable water
quality regulations. Impacts would be
less than significant with mitigation.

Mitigation Measure HAZ-3(a) and HAZ-3(b) Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
Land Use and Planning
Impact LU-1. The project would not
physically divide an established
community. No impact would occur.

None required. No Impact
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.

None required. Less than
Significant
Noise
Impact NOI-1. Construction of the
project would temporarily increase
ambient noise levels, but noise levels
would not exceed applicable standards.

Ambient noise in the project vicinity
would increase from on-site activities
and increased traffic. Traffic noise
increases would be less than significant.
operational stationary source noise
would exceed standards established by
the City. Impacts would be less than
significant with mitigation.

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

Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
Impact NOI-2. Project construction
would intermittently generate
groundborne vibration on a site which
may affect sensitive receptors near the
project site, but project vibration would
not create excessive levels of vibration
that could cause architectural damage.

Impacts would be less than significant.

None required. Less than
Significant
Impact NOI-3. The project would not
expose people residing or working in
the Project Area to excessive noise
levels related to airstrip/airport
operation. No impact would occur.

None required. No Impact
Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

City of Sebastopol
The Canopy
ES-18
Impact Mitigation Measure (s) Residual Impact
Population and Housing
Impact POP-1. The proposed project
would construct 80 new single-family
residences and up to 16 accessory
dwelling units, which would increase
the population in Sebastopol. However,
the growth anticipated as a result of the
project is accounted for in the City’s
Housing Element. Impacts would be less
than significant.

None required. Less than
Significant
Impact POP-2. The proposed project
would not result in the displacement of
substantial numbers of housing or
people. The project would facilitate the
development of new housing in
Sebastopol in accordance with state and
local housing goals. There would be no
impact.

None required. No Impact
Public Services
Impact PS-1. The proposed project
would not result in substantial adverse
physical impacts associated with the
provision of new or physically altered
fire protection facilities, or need new or
physically altered fire protection
facilities. Impacts would be less than
significant.

None required. Less than
Significant
Impact PS-2. The proposed project
would not result in substantial adverse
physical impacts associated with the
provision of new or physically altered
police protection FACILITIES OR need
new or physically altered police
protection facilities. Impacts would be
less than significant.

None required. Less than
Significant
Impact PS-3. The proposed project
would not result in substantial adverse
physical impacts associated with the
provision of new or physically altered
schools or need new or physically
altered schools. Impacts would be less
than significant.

None required. Less than
Significant
Impact PS-4. The proposed project
would not result in substantial adverse
physical impacts associated with the
provision of new or physically altered
PARKS OR need new or physically
altered parks. Impacts would be less
than significant.

None required. Less than
Significant
Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

Executive Summary
Draft Environmental Impact Report ES-19
Impact Mitigation Measure (s) Residual Impact
Impact PS-5. The proposed project
would not result in substantial adverse
physical impacts associated with the
provision of new or physically altered
public facilities or need new or
physically altered public facilities.

Impacts would be less than significant.

None required. Less than
Significant
Transportation
Impact TRA-1. The project would
conflict with General Plan Action CIR 1f
relating to pedestrian facilities.

Incorporation of Mitigation Measure
TRA-1 would ensure compliance with all
relevant plans, programs, ordinances
and policies. Impacts would be less than
significant with mitigation incorporated.

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.

Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
Impact TRA-2. Vehicle miles traveled
(VMT) attributable to the proposed
project would not exceed the County’s
thresholds for residential projects.

Therefore, the impact related to VMT
would be less than significant.

None required. Less than
Significant
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.

None required. Less than
Significant
Impact TRA-4. The proposed project
would not result in inadequate
emergency access. This impact would
be less than significant.

None required. Less than
Significant
Tribal Cultural Resources
Impact TCR-1. Grading and excavation
required for the proposed project
would have potential to unearth and
impact or damage Tribal Cultural
Resources. Impacts would be less than
significant with implementation of
mitigation.

TCR-1 Suspension of Work Around Tribal Cultural
Resources. If cultural resources of Native American
origin are identified during implementation of the
proposed project, all earth-disturbing work within 50
feet of the find shall cease and desist until an
archaeologist has evaluated the nature and
significance of the find as a cultural resource and an
appropriate local Native American representative is
consulted. Staking of the area of discovery will be
implemented with stakes no more than 10 feet apart,
forming a circle having a radius of no less than 100
feet from the point of discovery. If the City, in
consultation with local Native American tribes,
determines that the resource is a tribal cultural
resource and thus significant under CEQA, a mitigation
plan shall be prepared and implemented in
accordance with state guidelines and in consultation
with local Native American group(s). The plan shall
include avoidance of the resource or, if avoidance of
the resource is infeasible, the plan shall outline the
appropriate treatment of the resource in coordination
with the appropriate local Native American tribal
Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

City of Sebastopol
The Canopy
ES-20
Impact Mitigation Measure (s) Residual Impact
representative and, if applicable, a qualified
archaeologist. Examples of appropriate mitigation for
tribal cultural resources include, but are not limited to, protecting the cultural character and integrity of the
resource, protecting traditional use of the resource,
protecting the confidentiality of the resource, or
heritage recovery.

Utilities and Service Systems
Impact UTIL-1. The proposed project
would not require the relocation or
construction of new or expanded water,
wastewater treatment or storm water
drainage, electric power, natural gas, or
telecommunications facilities. The
proposed project would be adequately
served by existing facilities to meet the
project’s projected demands. Impacts
would be less than significant.

None required. Less than
Significant
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.

None required. Less than
Significant
Impact UTIL-3. The proposed project
would not generate solid waste in
excess of State or local standards, or in
excess of the capacity of local
infrastructure, would not impair the
attainment of solid waste reduction
goals, and would comply with Federal,
State, and local statutes and regulations
related to solid waste. Impacts would
be less than significant.

None required. Less than
Significant
Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

Introduction
Draft Environmental Impact Report 1-1
Introduction
This document is an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for a proposed residential development located at 1009 and 1011 Gravenstein Highway North, Sebastopol, California. The Canopy Project (hereafter referred to as the “proposed project” or “project”) would be constructed on a site that is currently undeveloped with mature trees and an informal pedestrian pathway that connects the West County Trail to the O’Reilly Media Center parking lot. 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 22 trees while the remaining 111 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.

This section discusses (1) the project and EIR background; (2) the legal basis for preparing an EIR; (3) the scope and content of the EIR; (4) issue areas found not to be significant; (5) the lead, responsible, and trustee agencies; and (6) the environmental review process required under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The proposed project is described in detail in Section 2, Project Description.

1.1 Environmental Impact Report Background
The City of Sebastopol distributed a Notice of Preparation (NOP) of the EIR for a 30-day agency and public review period starting on July 6, 2023 and ending on August 7, 2023. In addition, the City held an EIR 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 NOP is presented in Appendix A of this EIR. Table 1-1 on the following page summarizes the content of the letters and verbal comments and where the issues raised are addressed in the EIR.

1.2 Purpose and Legal Authority
The proposed project requires the discretionary approval of the City of Sebastopol Planning Commission; therefore, the project is subject to the environmental review requirements of CEQA. In accordance with Section 15121 of the CEQA Guidelines (California Code of Regulations, Title 14), the purpose of this EIR is to serve as an informational document that:
“...will inform public agency decision makers and the public generally of the significant environmental effects of a project, identify possible ways to minimize the significant effects, and describe reasonable alternatives to the project.”
This EIR has been prepared as a project EIR pursuant to Section 15161 of the CEQA Guidelines. A Project EIR is appropriate for a specific development project. As stated in the CEQA Guidelines:

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

City of Sebastopol
The Canopy
1-2
“This type of EIR should focus primarily on the changes in the environment that would result from the development project. The EIR shall examine all phases of the project, including planning, construction, and operation.”
This EIR is to serve as an informational document for the public and City of Sebastopol decision makers. The process will include public hearings before the Planning Commission to consider certification of a Final EIR and approval of the proposed project.

Table 1-1 NOP Comments and EIR Response
Commenter Comment/Request How and Where It Was Addressed Agency Comments
Department of Toxic
Substances Control
(DTSC)
States that the project is listed in the DTSC EnviroStor database as an active voluntary agreement cleanup
site. DTSC and the Proponent, City Ventures
Homebuilding, LLC entered into a new Standard
Voluntary Agreement (SVA) on April 26, 2023.

Comments are addressed in Section 4.7,
Hazards and Hazardous Materials.

States that the EIR should discuss and analyze the
contaminant history and all related site investigation
reports, and identify and analyze the proposed
remediation activities to address the contaminants
on-site.

California Department
of Transportation
(Caltrans)
Requests that if the project meets the screening
criteria established in the City’s adopted Vehicle
Miles Traveled (VMT) policy to be presumed to have a
less-than-significant VMT impact and exempt from
detailed VMT analysis, that justification is provided to support the exempt status in alignment with the
City’s VMT policy.

Comments are addressed in
Section 4.13, Transportation. A Traffic
Impact Study (TIS) prepared for the
project is included as an appendix
(Appendix G). The TIS includes additional
background information regarding
collision history and existing pedestrian
and biking conditions. Requests that if the project does not meet the screening criteria, to include a detailed VMT analysis
in the DEIR that includes VMT analysis pursuant to
the City’s guidelines; a schematic illustration of
walking, biking and auto collisions at the project site; and the project’s primary and secondary effects on
pedestrians, bicycles, travelers with disabilities and
transit performance.

States that potential impacts to the State Right-ofWay from project-related temporary access points should be analyzed.

States that mitigation for significant impacts due to
construction and noise should be identified.

States the proposed project would require a Caltrans
transportation permit for the transportation of heavy
construction equipment and/or materials which
requires the use of oversized-transport vehicles.

States that prior to construction, coordination may be
required with Caltrans to develop a Transportation
Management Plan (TMP) to reduce construction
traffic impacts to the STN.

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

Introduction
Draft Environmental Impact Report 1-3
Commenter Comment/Request How and Where It Was Addressed States that the City of Sebastopol is responsible for all project mitigation, including any needed
improvements to the STN.

States that if any Caltrans facilities are impacted by
the project, those facilities must meet American
Disabilities Act (ADA) Standards after project
completion. As well, the project must maintain
bicycle and pedestrian access during construction.

Public Comments from the NOP Scoping Meeting
Aesthetics The commenter expresses concern about light
pollution.

Comments are addressed in Section 4.1,
Aesthetics and Section 4.9, Land Use and
Planning. Commenter questions how tall the buildings will be.

Commenter expresses concern about building height.

Biological Resources Commenter requests information regarding trees to be removed.

Comments are addressed in Section 4.3,
Biological Resources and Section 4.1,
Aesthetics.

Hazards and
Hazardous Materials
Commenter expresses concern regarding historical
use of the project site and associated hazardous
materials.

Comments are addressed in Section 4.7,
Hazards and Hazardous Materials.

The commenter requests that any reports regarding
hazardous materials be analyzed and shared with the
community.

Public Services Commenter questions if the project would be served by Sebastopol Police.

Comment is addressed in Section 4.12,
Public Services.

Population and
Housing
Commenter requests information regarding State and
Federal housing requirements.

Comments regarding housing
requirements are addressed in Section

4.11, Population and Housing and
comments regarding affordable and
diverse housing are addressed in Section

4.9, Land Use and Planning.

Commenter questions if the project includes
affordable or senior housing.

Traffic Commenter requests information regarding site
access.

Comments are addressed in
Section 4.13, Transportation.

Commenter expresses concern regarding traffic
during school hours.

Commenter questions whether mitigation measures
will be implemented to address traffic in the area.

Commenter expresses concerns about transportation
improvements.

Commenter questions if there will be site access from
Hurlbut Avenue.

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

City of Sebastopol
The Canopy
1-4

1.3 Scope and Content
Impacts related to the following issue areas were found to be potentially significant and have been studied in depth in the EIR:
 Aesthetics
 Air Quality
 Biological Resources
 Cultural Resources
 Geology and Soils
 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
 Hazards and Hazardous Materials
 Hydrology and Water Quality
 Land Use and Planning
 Noise
 Population and Housing
 Public Services
 Transportation
 Tribal Cultural Resources
 Utilities and Service Systems
Impacts in the following issue areas were found not to be significant and are analyzed in Section 4.16, Impacts Found to be Less than Significant.  Agriculture
 Forestry
 Energy
 Minerals
 Recreation
 Wildfire
In preparing the EIR, use was made of pertinent City policies and guidelines, certified EIRs and adopted CEQA documents, technical reports, and other background documents. A full reference list is contained in Section 7, References and Preparers.

The alternatives section of the EIR (Section 6) was prepared in accordance with Section 15126.6 of the CEQA Guidelines and focuses on alternatives that are capable of eliminating or reducing significant adverse effects associated with the project while feasibly attaining most of the basic project objectives. In addition, the alternatives section identifies the “environmentally superior” alternative among the alternatives assessed. The alternatives evaluated include the CEQA-required “No Project” alternative and two alternative development scenarios for the project area.

The level of detail contained throughout this EIR is consistent with the requirements of CEQA and applicable court decisions. Section 15151 of the CEQA Guidelines provides the standard of adequacy on which this document is based. The Guidelines state:
“An EIR should be prepared with a sufficient degree of analysis to provide decision-makers with information which enables them to make a decision which intelligently takes account of environmental consequences. An evaluation of the environmental effects of the proposed project need not be exhaustive, but the sufficiency of an EIR is to be reviewed in light of what is reasonably feasible. Disagreement among experts does not make an EIR inadequate, but the EIR should summarize the main points of disagreement among the experts. The courts have looked not for perfection, but for adequacy, completeness, and a good faith effort at full disclosure.” Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

Introduction
Draft Environmental Impact Report 1-5

1.4 Lead, Responsible, and Trustee Agencies
The CEQA Guidelines define lead, responsible and trustee agencies. The City of Sebastopol is the lead agency for the project because it holds principal responsibility for approving the project.

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 approving the Soil Management Plan (SMP) for the project prior to construction (grading) activities at the project site. A trustee agency refers to a state agency having jurisdiction by law over natural resources affected by a project. There are no trustee agencies for the proposed project.

1.5 Environmental Review Process
The environmental impact review process, as required under CEQA, is summarized below and illustrated in Figure 1-1. The steps are presented in sequential order.

Notice of Preparation (NOP) and Initial Study. After deciding that an EIR is required, the lead agency (City of Sebastopol) must file a NOP soliciting input on the EIR scope to the State Clearinghouse, other concerned agencies, and parties previously requesting notice in writing (CEQA Guidelines Section 15082; Public Resources Code Section 21092.2). The NOP must be posted in the City Clerk’s office for 30 days. The NOP may be accompanied by an Initial Study that identifies the issue areas for which the project could create significant environmental impacts.

Draft EIR Prepared. The Draft EIR must contain: a) table of contents or index; b) summary; c) project description; d) environmental setting; e) discussion of significant impacts (direct, indirect, cumulative, growth-inducing and unavoidable impacts); f) a discussion of alternatives; g) mitigation measures; and h) discussion of irreversible changes.

Notice of Completion (NOC). The lead agency must file a NOC with the State Clearinghouse when it completes a Draft EIR and prepare a Public Notice of Availability of a Draft EIR. The lead agency must place the NOC in the City Clerk’s office for 30 days (Public Resources Code Section 21092) and send a copy of the NOC to anyone requesting it (CEQA Guidelines Section 15087).

Additionally, public notice of Draft EIR availability must be given through at least one of the following procedures: a) publication in a newspaper of general circulation; b) posting on and off the project site; and c) direct mailing to owners and occupants of contiguous properties. The lead agency must solicit input from other agencies and the public and respond in writing to all comments received (Public Resources Code Sections 21104 and 21253). The minimum public review period for a Draft EIR is 30 days. When a Draft EIR is sent to the State Clearinghouse for review, the public review period must be 45 days unless the State Clearinghouse approves a shorter period (Public Resources Code 21091).

Final EIR. A Final EIR must include: a) the Draft EIR; b) copies of comments received during public review; c) list of persons and entities commenting; and d) responses to comments.

Certification of Final EIR. Prior to making a decision on a proposed project, the lead agency 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 prior to approving a project (CEQA Guidelines Section 15090).

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

City of Sebastopol
The Canopy
1-6
Lead Agency Project Decision. The lead agency may a) disapprove the project because of its significant environmental effects; b) require changes to the project to reduce or avoid significant environmental effects; or c) approve the project despite its significant environmental effects, if the proper findings and statement of overriding considerations are adopted (CEQA Guidelines Sections 15042 and 15043).

Findings/Statement of Overriding Considerations. For each significant impact of the project identified in the EIR, the lead 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). 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.

Mitigation Monitoring Reporting Program. When the lead 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.

Notice of Determination (NOD). The lead agency must file a NOD after deciding to approve a project for which an EIR is prepared (CEQA Guidelines Section 15094). A local agency must file the NOD with the City Clerk. The NOD must be posted for 30 days and sent to anyone previously requesting notice. Posting of the NOD starts a 30-day statute of limitations on CEQA legal challenges (Public Resources Code Section 21167[c]).

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

Introduction
Draft Environmental Impact Report 1-7
Figure 1-1 Environmental Review Process
Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

City of Sebastopol
The Canopy
1-8
This page intentionally left blank
Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

Project Description
Draft Environmental Impact Report 2-1
2 Project Description
This section describes the proposed project, including the project applicant, the project site and surrounding land uses, major project characteristics, project objectives, and discretionary actions needed for approval.

2.1 Lead Agency and Contact
City of Sebastopol
7120 Bodega Avenue
Sebastopol, California 95472
Contact: John Jay, Associate Planner, Planning Department (707) 823-6167

2.2 Project Applicant
City Ventures
444 Spear Street, Suite 200
San Francisco, California 94105

2.3 Project Location
The project site is located at 1009-1011 Gravenstein Highway North, on the east side of Gravenstein Highway North southeast of its intersection with Mill Station Road, within the City of Sebastopol. The project site encompasses approximately 6.1 acres across two parcels. The project site consists of Assessor’s Parcel Numbers (APNs) 060-261-028 and 060-261-026 and is adjacent to the City of Sebastopol’s northwestern boundary (City of Sebastopol 2023). The project site is roughly bounded by the O’Reilly Media Center to the west, Gravenstein Highway North to the north, and primarily residential uses to the east and south. Figure 2-1 shows the regional location of the project site and Figure 2-2 shows the project site’s immediate location and selected nearby land uses.

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

City of Sebastopol
The Canopy
2-2
Figure 2-1 Regional Location
Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

Project Description
Draft Environmental Impact Report 2-3
Figure 2-2 Project Location
Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

City of Sebastopol
The Canopy
2-4

2.4 Existing Site Characteristics

2.4.1 Current Land Use Designation and Zoning
The project site is designated as Office/Light Industrial (OLI) in the 2016 City of Sebastopol General Plan. The General Plan OLI designation is intended “to promote well planned, integrated business parks, which will serve as major employment center within the community” (Sebastopol 2015). The Office/Light Industrial designations only apply to sites of three (3) acres or larger. Residential uses are allowed at a density of 12.1 to 25 units per acre as a secondary use to the primary office/light industrial uses allowed in this land use designation (Sebastopol 2015).

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

2.4.2 Surrounding Land Uses
The project site is in a neighborhood characterized by a mix of uses including residential, educational, commercial, and recreational. The Sebastopol Charter School and single-family residential uses are located north of the site, across the West County Trail. Uses to the east include primarily single-family neighborhoods as well as the West County Trail. South of the project site uses are comprised of primarily commercial uses, including an automotive store, mixed commercial and residential sites, and several single-family residences. The existing office buildings (1003-1007 Gravenstein Highway North), known as the O’Reilly Media Center, directly abuts the site to the west, and a mix of residential uses are located further west, across Gravenstein Highway North.

2.4.3 Existing Project Site Conditions
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 east, the site is directly adjacent to the West County Trail, a paved trail that links Sebastopol with areas to the Northwest, including Graton and Forestville, and connects in downtown Sebastopol to the Joe Rodota Trail, which connect downtown Santa Rosa and Sebastopol. These trails run parallel to Highway 116 to the North of the site and along Highway 12 from eastern Sebastopol to Santa Rosa and is a popular route for cyclists and pedestrians (Sonoma County 2023). The portion directly east of the site is a Class II route and ends at Analy High School. The project site is generally flat and includes numerous mature trees across the parcel (Figure 2-3). The elevation is approximately 200 feet above mean sea level.

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

Project Description
Draft Environmental Impact Report 2-5
Figure 2-3 Existing Site Conditions
The eastern project site boundary looking west West of the O’Reilly Media Center looking southeast The northwestern project site boundary looking south Existing trees on the site, looking east Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

City of Sebastopol
The Canopy
2-6

2.5 Project Description

2.5.1 Proposed Parcel Changes
The project would require the City’s approval of a conditional use permit, site development review, and vesting tentative tract map. In addition, the project applicant proposes the use of a State Density Bonus to allow for a waiver to increase the building height to three stories.

2.5.2 Proposed Residential Development
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). Table 2-1 provides a summary of the proposed development.

Table 2-1 Proposed Residential Development Summary
Feature Details
Townhome Project Characteristics
Residential area 69,317 square feet
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 Proposed Dwelling Units
Three-Bedroom 22 units
Three-Bedroom (with an optional fourth
bedroom)
29 units
Three-Bedroom (with an optional elevator
and/or fourth bedroom)
13 units
Three-Bedroom (with an optional ADU or
fourth bedroom)
16 units
Total Units 80 units, with a maximum of 16 ADUs
Proposed Parking
Garage Parking Within Townhomes 160 spaces
Standard Surface Parking 41 spaces with 10 percent (6 spaces) of electric vehicle charging parking spaces
Compact Surface Parking 17 spaces
Total 218 spaces
Total Bicycle Parking Spaces 96 (80 in garages and 16 in on-site bicycle racks) Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

Project Description
Draft Environmental Impact Report 2-7
Feature Details
Proposed Open Space
Common Open Space 107,200 square feet (1,340 square feet per dwelling unit) Private Open Space (at grade) 216 square feet per dwelling unit Private Open Space (balconies) 75-230 square feet per dwelling unit 1 Calculated as the total allowed lot coverage (106,333 square feet) divided by the total ground floor footprint proposed (69,317 square feet)
The proposed 80 units (and potential ADUs) would be distributed throughout 20 buildings. The buildings would be distributed in blocks of three to eight townhomes per building throughout the site. The homes would range from two to four bedrooms and include options for up to 16 accessible ground floor ADUs. Select residences would have the option for personal elevators and would provide additional ADA accessibility. The project includes accessible/adaptable features in each building with an accessible path of travel to connect all buildings. Each residential unit would be three stories and would include a two-car garage and bedroom or ADU on the first floor, kitchen and living spaces on the second floor, and additional bedrooms at the third floor. Figure 2-4 shows the proposed site plan and Figure 2-5 shows the proposed project elevations.

2.5.3 Circulation, Access, and Parking
Access to the proposed residential units and garages would be taken from newly constructed private streets between the buildings, which would connect to Gravenstein Highway North. Access to the site via Gravenstein Highway North would be provided by two new inlet and outlet points at the northwest and southwest portions of the site on either side of the existing O’Reilly Media Center site. 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. The project would include a total of 160 parking spaces in garages and 58 surface spaces across the site.

Pedestrian and bicycle access to the buildings would be provided via the new internal roadways. The project would include construction of landscaped internal walkways throughout the site, including a new, enhanced 6-foot-wide pedestrian pathway to connect the West County Trail to Gravenstein Highway along the south border of the site; a bicycle repair station is proposed at the same location.

The project would include 96 bicycle parking spaces, with 80 long-term spaces located in each residential garage and 16 spaces in onsite bicycle racks.

2.5.4 Landscaping and Open Space
There are currently 133 trees within the project site, and the proposed project would involve the removal of 22 trees while preserving the remaining 111 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.

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

City of Sebastopol
The Canopy
2-8
To treat stormwater, the proposed project would include flow-through planters and permeable pavement throughout the project site. Several bioretention facilities and swales are proposed along the perimeter of the site including the north, west, and southwestern boundaries of the site.

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

Project Description
Draft Environmental Impact Report 2-9
Figure 2-4 Proposed Project Site Plan
Source: William Hezmalhalch Architects, INC. DBA WHA., 2023 Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

City of Sebastopol
The Canopy
2-10
Figure 2-5 Proposed Building Elevations
Source: William Hezmalhalch Architects, INC. DBA WHA., 2023 Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

Project Description
Draft Environmental Impact Report 2-11

2.5.5 Building and Architecture
The buildings are proposed to have a modern agrarian aesthetic with steep pitched roofs, and materials like lapped and board-and-batten siding.

2.5.6 Construction
Construction would occur over approximately 31 months. Phase I is anticipated to start in June 2024 and finish in June 2026. Construction would take place within the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m., Monday through Friday. Phase II is expected to begin in March 2025 and end in February 2027. Site preparation across both phases is anticipated to result in approximately 9,520 cubic yards of cut and fill soil which would be balanced on site. Roughly 2,092 cubic yards and 1,566 cubic yards of soil are anticipated to be imported for Phase I and II, respectively. Some of the soil on the project site was impacted by contamination (refer to Section 4.7, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, for more information), and would be buried on-site under six feet of clean fill material. Total construction activities would involve the use and operation of aerial lifts, backhoes, cement and mortar mixers, compactors, cranes, dozers, forklifts, graders, loaders, paving equipment, rollers, scrapers, skid steer loaders, and tractors.

2.5.7 Utilities
The City of Sebastopol Public Works would provide water, stormwater, and wastewater collection, treatment, and disposal to the project site. Electricity would be provided by Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E). Solid waste and recycling services for the site are provided by Recology Sonoma Marin.

Police and fire protection services would be provided by the City of Sebastopol. The proposed project includes onsite drainage improvements with bioretention facilities (vegetated buffers and bioswale) and a storm drain network. The inlet and overflow structures of an existing detention pond for the adjacent office park would be modified to detain and control combined drainage from the office park and proposed project.

2.6 Project Objectives
The objectives for the proposed project are to:

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

Develop a well-designed ownership residential townhome project that includes accessible and adaptable features in every building to provide ADA accessibility beyond what is required by the building code.

Construct a single, cohesive development consisting of high-quality, contemporary urban design that respects and relates well to its surroundings and respects the urban forest that will remain.

Bolster the connection between the community and the West County Trail through the preservation of existing pathways and ensuring continued use of the trail.

Achieve the streamlined and efficient processing and approval of the project including benefits available to developments that include affordable housing consistent with the State Density Bonus Law.

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

City of Sebastopol
The Canopy
2-12

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 22 existing onsite trees
The Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) is a responsible agency. DTSC is responsible for approving the Soil Management Plan (SMP) for the project prior to construction (grading) activities at the project site.

2.8 California Native American Tribal Consultation
On June 27, 2023, the City of Sebastopol contacted California Native American Tribal governments by sending an Assembly Bill (AB) 52 notification letter via certified mail to ten Native American tribal contacts. Under AB 52, Native American tribes have 30 days to respond and request further project information and request formal consultation. The City received one response from the Kashia Band of Pomo Indians of Stewarts Point which stated that the tribe had no comments or concerns. To date, the City has not received any additional responses under AB 52.

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

Environmental Setting
Draft Environmental Impact Report 3-1
3 Environmental Setting
This section provides a general overview of the environmental setting for the project. More detailed descriptions of the environmental setting for each environmental issue area can be found in Section 4, Environmental Impact Analysis.

3.1 Regional Setting
The project is located within the City of Sebastopol city limits. Figure 2-1 in Section 2, Project Description, shows the regional location of the project site. The City of Sebastopol (city) city limits and sphere of influence (SOI) encompass approximately 1,400 acres and are located in Western Sonoma County, approximately 15 miles east of the Pacific Ocean and 52 miles north of San Francisco. The city is south of the unincorporated community of Graton, east of the unincorporated community of Freestone, and west of the city of Santa Rosa.

The city is largely built out and is at the crossroads of two State Highways, SR-116 and SR-12. The nearest freeway US-101, is located approximately 6.7 miles east of the project site. The city is also served by the Sonoma County Transit bus system.

The Mediterranean climate of the region produces moderate temperatures year-round, with rainfall concentrated in the winter months. Although air quality in the area has steadily improved in recent years, Sonoma County remains a nonattainment area for ozone (urban smog) and PM-2.5 (EPA 2023).

3.2 Project Site Setting
The project site encompasses approximately 6.1 acres across two parcels located at 1009-1011 Gravenstein Highway North, on the east side of Gravenstein Highway North southeast of its intersection with Mill Station Road. 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 east, the site is directly adjacent to the West County Trail, a paved trail that links Sebastopol with areas to the Northwest, including Graton and Forestville, and connects in downtown Sebastopol to the Joe Rodota Trail, which connect downtown Santa Rosa and Sebastopol. These trails run parallel to Highway 116 to the North of the site and along Highway 12 from eastern Sebastopol to Santa Rosa and is a popular route for cyclists and pedestrians. The project site is generally flat and includes numerous mature trees across the parcel. The elevation is approximately 200 feet above mean sea level.

The project site is in a neighborhood characterized by a mix of uses including residential, educational, commercial, and recreational. The Sebastopol Charter School and single-family residential uses are located north of the site, across the West County Trail. Uses to the east include primarily single-family neighborhoods as well as the West County Trail. South of the project site uses are comprised of primarily commercial uses, including an automotive store, mixed commercial and residential uses, and several single-family residences. The existing O’Reilly Media Center directly abuts the site to the west, and a mix of residential uses are located further west, across Gravenstein Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

City of Sebastopol
The Canopy Project
3-2
Highway North. Figure 2-2 in Section 2, Project Description, shows the project site’s immediate location and selected nearby land uses.

The project site is designated as Office/Light Industrial (OLI) in the 2016 City of Sebastopol General Plan and is zoned as Office/Light Industrial (OLM) by the City of Sebastopol Zoning Ordinance.

3.3 Cumulative Development
In addition to the specific impacts of individual projects, CEQA requires EIRs to consider potential cumulative impacts of the proposed project. CEQA defines “cumulative impacts” as two or more individual impacts that, when considered together, are substantial or will compound other environmental impacts. Cumulative impacts are the combined changes in the environment that result from the incremental impact of development of the proposed project and other nearby projects. For example, traffic impacts of two nearby projects may be less than significant when analyzed separately but could have a significant impact when analyzed together. Cumulative impact analysis allows the EIR to provide a reasonable forecast of future environmental conditions and can more accurately gauge the effects of a series of projects.

CEQA requires cumulative impact analysis in EIRs to consider either a list of planned and pending projects that may contribute to cumulative effects or a forecast of future development potential.

Currently planned and pending projects in Sebastopol are listed in Table 3-1. These projects are considered in the cumulative analyses in Section 4, Environmental Impact Analysis.

Table 3-1 Cumulative Projects List
Project No. Project Location1 Land Use Status
City of Sebastopol
1 7621 Healdsburg Avenue Townhomes Under Review
2 7631 Healdsburg Avenue Residential Under Construction 3 845 Gravenstein Hwy North Low-Income Residential Under Review 4 7950 Bodega Avenue Townhomes Approved
5 7716/7760 Bodega Avenue Apartments Under Construction 6 333 N Main St Townhomes Approved
7 6828 Depot Street Hotel Approved
8 6807 Sebastopol Avenue Commercial Approved
9 6751 Sebastopol Ave Supported Living Approved
1 Cumulative project details were sourced from the City of Sebastopol’s website “Building & Development Projects” page. https://ci.sebastopol.ca.us/our-community/buildingprojects/ and email correspondence with the City of Sebastopol.

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

Environmental Impact Analysis
Draft Environmental Impact Report 4-1
4 Environmental Impact Analysis
This section discusses the possible environmental effects of the project for the specific issue areas that were identified through the scoping process as having the potential to experience significant effects. A “significant effect” as defined by the CEQA Guidelines §15382:
means a substantial, or potentially substantial, adverse change in any of the physical conditions within the area affected by the project including land, air, water, minerals, flora, fauna, ambient noise, and objects of historic or aesthetic significance. An economic or social change by itself shall not be considered a significant effect on the environment. A social or economic change related to a physical change may be considered in determining whether the physical change is significant.

The assessment of each issue area begins with a discussion of the environmental setting related to the issue, which is followed by the impact analysis. In the impact analysis, the first subsection identifies the methodologies used and the “significance thresholds,” which are those criteria adopted by the City and other agencies, universally recognized, or developed specifically for this analysis to determine whether potential effects are significant. The next subsection describes each impact of the proposed project, mitigation measures for significant impacts, and the level of significance after mitigation. Each effect under consideration for an issue area is separately listed in bold text with the discussion of the effect and its significance. Each bolded impact statement also contains a statement of the significance determination for the environmental impact as follows:
 Significant and Unavoidable. An impact that cannot be reduced to below the threshold level given reasonably available and feasible mitigation measures. Such an impact requires a Statement of Overriding Considerations to be issued if the project is approved per §15093 of the CEQA Guidelines.
 Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. An impact that can be reduced to below the threshold level given reasonably available and feasible mitigation measures. Such an impact requires findings under §15091 of the CEQA Guidelines.
 Less than Significant. An impact that may be adverse but does not exceed the threshold levels and does not require mitigation measures. However, mitigation measures that could further lessen the environmental effect may be suggested if readily available and easily achievable.  No Impact. The proposed project would have no effect on environmental conditions or would reduce existing environmental problems or hazards.

Following each environmental impact discussion is a list of mitigation measures (if required) and the residual effects or level of significance remaining after implementation of the measure(s). In cases where the mitigation measure for an impact could have a significant environmental impact in another issue area, this impact is discussed and evaluated as a secondary impact. The impact analysis concludes with a discussion of cumulative effects, which evaluates the impacts associated with the proposed project in conjunction with other planned and pending developments in the area listed in Section 3, Environmental Setting.

The Executive Summary of this EIR summarizes all impacts and mitigation measures that apply to the proposed project.

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

City of Sebastopol
The Canopy Project
4-2
This page intentionally left blank
Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

Environmental Impact Analysis
Aesthetics
Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.1-1

4.1 Aesthetics
The analysis in this section describes current visual conditions in and around the project area within the City of Sebastopol and evaluates the potential aesthetic and visual impacts of the project, including impacts to scenic vistas, scenic resources, visual character and quality, and light and glare.

4.1.1 Environmental Setting
The City of Sebastopol is located in the northern portion of the nine-county Bay Area. The project site is located in the northern portion of the city in a developed area of the city. Sebastopol is considered to be semi-rural and offers a mix of residential, commercial, and agricultural uses. The project site is in a neighborhood characterized by a mix of uses including residential, educational, commercial, and recreational. The Sebastopol Charter School and single-family residential uses are located north of the site, across the West County Trail. Uses to the east include primarily singlefamily neighborhoods as well as the West County Trail. South of the project site uses are comprised of primarily commercial uses, including an automotive store, and several single-family residences.

A three-story office park directly abuts the site to the west. A mix of one-story residential buildings with neutral finishes are located further west, across Gravenstein Highway North, and the visual quality of this residential area and its surroundings is considered average. The mix of ranch-style, Victorian, and modern residential buildings and commercial building styles are typical for the area.

To the east, the site is directly adjacent to the West County Trail, a paved trail that links Sebastopol with areas to the Northwest, including Graton and Forestville, and connects in downtown Sebastopol to the Joe Rodota Trail, which connect downtown Santa Rosa and Sebastopol.

The project site is generally flat and undeveloped and is characterized by mature trees. Views from the project site include the mature trees on and abutting the project site, the West County Trail, adjacent residential uses, and the adjacent office park. The project site is located directly east of a portion of Highway 116 which is designated as a state scenic highway. Public views of the project site are available from State Route 116 and Hurlbut Avenue. However, views of the site are minimized due to intervening development directly abutting State Route 116 and trees along the State Route. The City of Sebastopol identifies scenic views within the city as Laguna de Santa Rosa, Atascadero Creek, and the hills west of Sebastopol (Sebastopol 2016). These scenic views are not visible from the project site.

4.1.2 Regulatory Setting
a. State
California Scenic Highways Program
The California Scenic Highway Program, established in 1963, identifies and designates certain highways throughout the State which require special conservation treatment in relation to surrounding land use development. Caltrans manages the State Scenic Highway Program and defines a scenic highway as any freeway, highway, road, or other public right-of-way, that traverses an area of exceptional scenic quality. Suitability for designations as a State scenic highway is based on the vividness, intactness, and unity of their view corridors, as described in Caltrans’ Scenic Highway Guidelines (Caltrans 2008):

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

City of Sebastopol
The Canopy

4.1-2
 Vividness is the extent to which the landscape is memorable. This is associated with the distinctiveness, diversity, and contrast of visual elements. A vivid landscape makes an immediate and lasting impression on the viewer.
 Intactness is the integrity of visual order in the landscape and the extent to which the natural landscape is free from visual intrusions (e.g., buildings, structures, equipment, grading).  Unity is the extent to which development is sensitive to and visually harmonious with the natural landscape.

California Green Building Code
The California Green Building Code, CCR Part 11, Title 24, Section 5.106.8, stipulates that new project site lighting must conform to standards that keep light generated on site from leaving the site by using reflectors, shields, screen walls, and any other method which complies with the Code’s intent to limit light pollution.
b. Local
Sonoma 116 Scenic Highway Corridor Study
In 1983, the State legislature passed Assembly Bill (AB) 1026, which added State Route 116 from Highway 101 near Cotati to State Route 1 near Jenner in Sonoma County to the Master Plan of the State Highways Eligible for Scenic Highway Designation. The County had already designated State Route 116 as a scenic corridor, and following the passage of AB 1026, the Sonoma County Board of Supervisors passed a resolution to request that Caltrans conduct studies leading to designation of the route as an Official State Scenic Highway. The ensuing report Caltrans published offers visual quality assessments for scenic corridor segments that include areas where State Route 116 passes.

Sebastopol General Plan
The City of Sebastopol General Plan has developed goals, objectives, and policies related to community design and scenic resources. These include:

Goal CD 1: Preserve and Enhance Sebastopol’s Unique Character, Design, and Sense of Place as a Small, Compact Town
Policy CD 1-1: Ensure that new development is constructed in a manner consistent with the City’s Design Guidelines, and any design guidelines for specific areas or types of development.

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

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

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

Policy CD 1-8: Support and encourage new commercial development to include residential components.

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

Environmental Impact Analysis
Aesthetics
Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.1-3
Policy CD 1-12: Require the design of new residential development to be consistent with the City’s design guidelines, to ensure that new development contributes to the small town character of Sebastopol.

Goal COS 11: Preserve and Enhance Scenic Views of the Laguna de Santa Rosa, Atascadero Creek, the Hills to the West of Sebastopol, and Other Natural Resources within the Sebastopol Planning Area
Policy COS 11-1: Consider existing scenic resources, including views of the Laguna de Santa Rosa, local hills, ridgelines, and open space areas surrounding the City, as resources critical to Sebastopol’s community identity and character.

Policy COS 11-2: Protect Sebastopol’s ridgelines (hill tops and hillsides with slopes of 15 percent or greater) from erosion, slope failure, and development.

Policy COS 11-3: Preserve the topography of Sebastopol’s hills by prohibiting unnecessary leveling/grading activities prior to site-building on hillsides.

Policy COS 11-4: Preserve and protect prominent views of scenic resources, including the Laguna de Santa Rosa, local hills, ridgelines, and open space areas surrounding the City, and consider visual access and view corridors when reviewing development proposals. Policy Policy COS 11-5: Regulate development on hillsides with slopes of 15 percent or greater and ridgelines where structures would interrupt the skyline.

Policy COS 11-6: Encourage structures within new developments on substantially sloped sites to step with the slope of the site. Absorb site topography through the use of split-level designs.

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

Policy COS 11-8: All outdoor lighting shall be constructed with full shielding and/or recessed to reduce light trespass to adjoining properties and to reduce illumination of the night sky.

Each fixture shall be directed downward and away from adjoining properties and public rights-of-way, so that no light fixture directly illuminates an area outside of the site.

4.1.3 Impact Analysis
a. Significance Thresholds and Methodology
This assessment of aesthetic impacts involves qualitative analysis. Reactions to the same aesthetic conditions vary according to the viewer. This evaluation compares the existing visual character of the project site and vicinity (as described above in Section 4.1.2, Setting) to the visual environment after implementation of the proposed project.

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

Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista
Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, unique mature trees, unique rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

City of Sebastopol
The Canopy

4.1-4
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 the project is in an urbanized area, would the project conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area
b. Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Threshold: Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? Impact AES-1 THE PROPOSED PROJECT WOULD NOT HAVE A SUBSTANTIAL ADVERSE IMPACT ON A SCENIC VISTA. IMPACTS WOULD BE LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT.

Scenic vistas are considered expansive views from elevated positions, such as those from a roadway in the mountains, or views provided from a public place where the landscape is visible into the distance (e.g., looking at mountains across a field with little intervening development or vegetation).

As discussed in Section 4.11, Environmental Setting, the City of Sebastopol identifies scenic views within the city as Laguna de Santa Rosa, Atascadero Creek, and the hills west of Sebastopol. None of these areas are within the project vicinity. The project site does not provide views through or from the site of scenic vistas that would be adversely affected as a result of development of the project.

Therefore, the proposed project will not have a substantial adverse impact on a scenic vista or surrounding views of the project site. Impacts would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is required.

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

Threshold: Would the project substantially damage scenic resources, including but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? Impact AES-2 THE PROPOSED PROJECT WOULD NOT SUBSTANTIALLY DAMAGE SCENIC RESOURCES INCLUDING TREES, ROCK OUTCROPPINGS, OR HISTORIC BUILDINGS WITHIN VIEW OF A STATE SCENIC HIGHWAY.

IMPACTS WOULD BE LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT WITH MITIGATION.

A scenic highway is generally defined by Caltrans as a public highway that traverses an area of outstanding scenic quality, containing striking views, flora, geology, or other unique natural attributes. A highway may be designated scenic depending upon how much of the natural landscape can be seen by travelers, the scenic quality of the landscape, and the extent to which development intrudes upon the traveler's enjoyment of the view. The City of Sebastopol offers a variety of scenic views, many of which are visible from roadways. State Route 116 from State Route 1 to the south city limit of Sebastopol (post mile 0.0 to 27.817) is officially designated as a state scenic highway (Caltrans 2019). This segment near the project site is 27.8 miles long and was designated on September 20, 1988. This highway segment includes travel along the Russian River, and passes a Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

Environmental Impact Analysis
Aesthetics
Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.1-5
historic resort area, redwood forests, and eucalyptus groves. Additionally, the portion of State Route 116 southeast of the project and Sebastopol city limits is eligible for designation.

A scenic corridor is the view from the road that may include a distant panorama and/or the immediate roadside area. A scenic corridor encompasses the outstanding natural features and landscapes that are considered scenic. It is the visual quality of the man-made or natural environments within a scenic corridor that are responsible for its scenic value. Commonly, the physical limits of a scenic corridor are broken down into foreground views (zero to one quarter mile) and distant views (over one quarter mile). In addition to distinct foreground and distant views, the visual quality of a scenic corridor is defined by special features such as focal points, transition areas, and gateways. Sonoma County has designated State Route 116 as a scenic corridor.

The project site is set back from State Route 116 approximately 150 feet at the closest point, and intervening development, such as O’Reilly Media Center, occurs to the west of the site and would break up views of the proposed project. Trees directly abutting State Route 116 to the east would remain and would also serve to break up views of the project site along State Route 116. Though the proposed project would be located east of State Route 116, it would be subject to the SMC Chapter

17.450 which would require Design Review of the proposed project prior to its approval.

Development of the project would also be required to comply with SMC Chapter 16.40, which would require that the project would utilize landscaping to minimize views of the project site from State Route 116. While the site would be minimally visible from State Route 116, intervening development and landscaping would serve to minimize views of the project site. Impacts would be less than significant.

There are no rock outcroppings or historic buildings on or adjacent to the project site. As discussed in Section 4.3, Biological Resources, a total of 133 trees greater than six inches occur on the project site. Twenty-two (22) protected trees would be removed as a result of project implementation.

Removed species include coast live oak, Douglas fir, and coast redwood. Existing oak trees and redwoods would be preserved to the maximum extent possible. The project applicant would be required to comply with the Sebastopol Municipal Code Chapter 8.12, Tree Protection, which would include a review of tree removal plans, landscape plans, and specification of a tree replacement ratio by the Planning staff or the City Arborist during the project design review. Pending approval, removed trees must be replaced with an approved tree species on the approved tree List, as described in Mitigation Measure BIO-2. 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. Impacts would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures
Mitigation Measure BIO-2 would apply.

Significance After Mitigation
Mitigation Measure BIO-2 would ensure that Chapter 8.12 of the municipal code is implemented and that the project would not conflict with local policies or ordinances regarding trees, and the impact would be reduced to a level of less than significant.

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

City of Sebastopol
The Canopy

4.1-6
Threshold: Would the project, 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 a publicly accessible vantage point). If the project is in an urbanized area, would the project conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality?
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.

Although the site is not currently developed, the project is surrounded by residential and commercial land uses. While development of the site would not result in substantial changes to the visual character of the project area, it would result in development of a previously undeveloped site.

As such, implementation of Sebastopol Design Guidelines and compliance with 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 discussed in Section 4.11, Environmental Setting, public views of the project 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 site is designated as Office/Light Industrial in the City’s General Plan and zoned as Office/Light Industrial, which would allow for development of residential uses in the area with approval of a Conditional Use Permit. The project, which requires approval of a Conditional Use Permit, would be consistent with existing land use designation and zoning. Therefore, 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.

In addition, the project would comply with the height limitations and setback requirements in the SMC, 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.

Therefore, the proposed project would not substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site or surrounding area. Therefore, this impact would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is required.

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

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

Environmental Impact Analysis
Aesthetics
Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.1-7
Threshold: Would the project create a new source of substantial light or glare that would adversely affect daytime or nighttime views in the area? Impact AES-4 THE PROPOSED PROJECT WOULD NOT CREATE A NEW SOURCE OF SUBSTANTIAL LIGHT OR GLARE THAT WOULD ADVERSELY AFFECT DAYTIME OR NIGHTTIME VIEWS IN THE AREA. IMPACTS WOULD BE LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT.

The project site is undeveloped and does not have existing sources of light or glare. Existing sources of light and glare in the project area are primarily associated with residential and commercial uses nearby, and streetlights lining State Route 116 along the northern edge of the site. Sources of light from the proposed project would include exterior and interior building lighting, path lighting, outdoor area lighting, and decorative outdoor lighting. Sources of glare from the project would include windows and reflective building materials. Light and glare can also be affected by the absence of vegetation, because vegetation acts to screen and filter light and soften the intensity of glare.

The proposed project would introduce nighttime light sources associated with lighting of the proposed buildings. In addition, glare associated with on-site residences and associated passenger vehicles could occur on sunny days. Therefore, the project could affect daytime or 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-ofway, so that no light fixture directly illuminates an area outside of the site. Policy COS 11-8 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 would be required to reduce impacts to a less than significant level.

Mitigation Measures
AES-4 Lighting Specifications
Exterior lighting installed on the project site must be of low intensity, low glare design, and must be hooded to direct light downward onto the subject parcel and prevent spill-over onto adjacent parcels and must otherwise meet dark night sky requirements. Exterior lighting fixtures must be kept to the minimum number and intensity needed to ensure public safety. Upward directed exterior lighting is prohibited. The final lighting plan must be amended to include identification of all types, sizes, and intensities of wall mounted building lights and landscape accent lighting, and a photometric map must be provided.

Significance After Mitigation
Mitigation Measure AES-4 would implement the requirements of the General Plan and design guidelines to ensure lighting onsite would be directed downward and be of sufficient intensity to reduce lighting impacts to a less than significant level.

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

City of Sebastopol
The Canopy

4.1-8

4.1.4 Cumulative Impacts
The geographic scope for cumulative aesthetics and visual quality impacts is the City of Sebastopol, specifically including areas that surround the project site. This geographic scope is appropriate because views of the project site and lighting from the proposed project would most affect areas in the immediate vicinity of the project site.

Past, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects would have limited, site-specific impacts on public viewsheds and scenic resources throughout the county. Cumulative projects would be subject to individual design review and environmental review in order to determine impacts to visual resources. Cumulative development would generally result in increased development intensity within scenic vistas, result in increased development within view of a state scenic highway, change the visual character of individual sites, and increase daytime light, nighttime light, and glare from additional reflective surfaces and light sources.

As with the proposed project, cumulative development would be required to adhere to all applicable zoning and development regulations, local regulations designed to result in visually compatible development (through design guidelines and siting requirements) and control light and glare, including applicable SMC sections, the California Green Building Code, and California Scenic Highways Program. Compliance with these requirements would ensure cumulative aesthetics and light and glare impacts would be less than significant.

The proposed project would not have a significant impact on scenic vistas and with implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-2 aesthetic impacts related to trees would be less than significant. In addition, the project would have no impact on scenic highways due to the distance between the project site and any officially designated routes. The proposed project would be consistent with existing and proposed land uses, and with implementation of Mitigation Measure AES-4, the project would not create significant light or glare that could impact daytime and nighttime views. Because project-specific impacts would be less than significant with mitigation, and because visual resource impacts are generally site-specific, project buildout would not result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to cumulative impacts.

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

Environmental Impact Analysis
Air Quality
Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.2-1

4.2 Air Quality
This section addresses the air emissions generated by construction and operation of the project, including emissions that may lead to odors. The analysis also addresses the consistency of the project with the air quality policies in the Bay Area Air Quality Management District’s (BAAQMD) Clean Air Plan and the City of Sebastopol General Plan (General Plan). The analysis of projectgenerated air emissions focuses on whether the project would cause an exceedance of an ambient air quality standard or BAAQMD significance thresholds. Air emissions related to greenhouse gases are analyzed in Section 4.6, Greenhouse Gas Emissions. Calculation model outputs used in the analysis are included in Appendix B.

4.2.1 Setting
a. Climate and Topography
The City of Sebastopol is located in Sonoma County, a subregion of the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin (SFBAAB). The SFBAAB includes the counties of San Francisco, Santa Clara, San Mateo, Marin, Napa, Contra Costa, and Alameda, along with the southeast portion of Sonoma County and the southwest portion of Solano County. Sonoma County is north of Marin County and Pablo Bay, and west of Napa County.

Due to the proximity of San Francisco Bay and the Pacific Ocean, the climate in the SFBAAB is characterized by warm dry summers and cool moist winters. The nearest weather station data is approximately two miles from the City of Sebastopol in Graton. The average maximum and minimum temperature at this air monitoring site is 83.5 and 56.2 degrees Fahrenheit, respectively.

The average annual rainfall at this air monitoring location is 40.74 inches (Western Regional Climate Center 2016).

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 winter 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. b. Air Pollutants of Primary Concern
The federal and State Clean Air Act (CAA) mandate the control and reduction of certain air pollutants. Under these laws, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) and the California Air Resource Board (CARB) have established the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) and the California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS) for “criteria pollutants” and other pollutants, which are discussed in more detail under Section 4.2.2, Regulatory Setting. Primary criteria pollutants are emitted directly from a source (e.g., vehicle tailpipe, an exhaust stack of a factory, etc.) into the atmosphere and include carbon monoxide (CO), VOC (volatile organic Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

City of Sebastopol
The Canopy

4.2-2
gases)/reactive organic gases (ROG),1 nitric oxide (NOX), particulate matter, sulfur dioxide (SO2), and lead (Pb). Secondary criteria pollutants are created by atmospheric chemical and photochemical reactions primarily between VOC and NOX. Secondary pollutants include oxidants, ozone (O3), and sulfate and nitrate particulates (smog). The characteristics, sources and effects of criteria pollutants are discussed in the following subsections.

Ozone
Ozone (O3) is a highly oxidative unstable gas produced by a photochemical reaction (triggered by sunlight) between NOX and VOC. VOC is composed of non-methane hydrocarbons (with specific exclusions), and NOX is composed of different chemical combinations of nitrogen and oxygen, mainly nitric oxide and nitrogen dioxide (NO2). NOX is formed during the combustion of fuels, while VOC is formed during the combustion and evaporation of organic solvents. As a highly reactive molecule, O3 readily combines with many different atmosphere components. Consequently, high O3 levels tend to exist only while high VOC and NOX levels are present to sustain the O3 formation process. Once the precursors have been depleted, O3 levels rapidly decline. Because these reactions occur on a regional rather than local scale, O3 is considered a regional pollutant. In addition, because O3 requires sunlight to form, it mainly occurs in concentrations considered serious between April and October. People most at risk from O3 include people with asthma, children, older adults, and people who are active outdoors, especially outdoor workers. In addition, people with reduced intake of certain nutrients, such as vitamins C and E, are at greater risk from O3 exposure.

Depending on the level of exposure, O3 can cause coughing and a sore or scratch throat; make it more difficult to breathe deeply and vigorously and cause pain when taking a deep breath; inflame and damage the airways; make the lungs more susceptible to infection; aggravate lung diseases such as asthma, emphysema, and chronic bronchitis; and increase the frequency of asthma attacks (USEPA 2023a).

Carbon Monoxide
Carbon Monoxide (CO) is a localized pollutant found in high concentrations only near its source. The primary source of CO, a colorless, odorless, poisonous gas, is automobile traffic's incomplete combustion of petroleum fuels. Therefore, elevated concentrations are usually only found near areas of high traffic volumes. When CO levels are elevated outdoors, they can be of particular concern for people with some types of heart disease. These people already have a reduced ability to get oxygenated blood to their hearts in situations where they need more oxygen than usual. As a result, they are especially vulnerable to the effects of CO when exercising or under increased stress.

In these situations, short-term exposure to elevated CO may result in reduced oxygen to the heart accompanied by chest pain, also known as angina (USEPA 2023b).

Nitrogen Dioxide
Nitrogen dioxide (NO2) is a by-product of coal, oil, gas or diesel fuel combustion. The primary sources are motor vehicles and industrial boilers, and furnaces. The principal form of NOx produced by combustion is nitric oxide (NO), but NO reacts rapidly to form NO2, creating the mixture of NO and NO2, commonly called NOx. NO2 is a reactive, oxidizing gas and an acute irritant capable of damaging cell linings in the respiratory tract. Breathing air with a high concentration of NO2 can 1 CARB defines VOC and ROG similarly as, “any compound of carbon excluding carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, carbonic acid, metallic carbides or carbonates, and ammonium carbonate,” with the exception that VOC are compounds that participate in atmospheric photochemical reactions. For the purposes of this analysis, ROG and VOC are considered comparable in terms of mass emissions, and the term ROG is used in this EIR.

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

Environmental Impact Analysis
Air Quality
Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.2-3
irritate airways in the human respiratory system. Such exposures over short periods can aggravate respiratory diseases leading to respiratory symptoms (such as coughing, wheezing, or difficulty breathing), hospital admissions, and visits to emergency rooms. Longer exposures to elevated concentrations of NO2 may contribute to the development of asthma and potentially increase susceptibility to respiratory infections. People with asthma and children and the elderly are generally at greater risk for the health effects of NO2 (USEPA 2023c). NO2 absorbs blue light and causes a reddish-brown cast to the atmosphere and reduced visibility. It can also contribute to the formation of O3/smog and acid rain.

Particulate Matter
Suspended atmospheric PM10 (particular matter with diameter of 10 microns or less) and PM2.5 (particulate matter with diameter of 2.5 microns or less) are comprised of finely divided solids and liquids such as dust, soot, aerosols, fumes, and mist. Both PM10 and PM2.5 are emitted into the atmosphere as by-products of coal, gas, or diesel fuel combustion and wind erosion of soil and unpaved roads. The atmosphere, through chemical reactions, can form particulate matter. The characteristics, sources, and potential health effects of PM10 and PM2.5 can be very different. PM10 is generally associated with dust mobilized by wind and vehicles. In contrast, PM2.5 is generally associated with combustion processes and formation in the atmosphere as a secondary pollutant through chemical reactions. PM10 can cause increased respiratory disease, lung damage, cancer, premature death, reduced visibility, surface soiling. For PM2.5, short-term exposures (up to 24-hours duration) have been associated with premature mortality, increased hospital admissions for heart or lung causes, acute and chronic bronchitis, asthma attacks, emergency room visits, respiratory symptoms, and restricted activity days. These adverse health effects have been reported primarily in infants, children, and older adults with preexisting heart or lung diseases (CARB 2023a).

Sulfur Dioxide
Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) is included in a group of highly reactive gases known as “oxides of sulfur.” The largest sources of SO2 emissions are from fossil fuel combustion at power plants (73 percent) and other industrial facilities (20 percent). Smaller sources of SO2 emissions include industrial processes such as extracting metal from ore and burning fuels with a high sulfur content by locomotives, large ships, and off-road equipment. Short-term exposures to SO2 can harm the human respiratory system and make breathing difficult. People with asthma, particularly children, are sensitive to these effects of SO2 (USEPA 2023d).

Lead
Lead (Pb) is a metal found naturally in the environment, as well as in manufacturing products. The major sources of Pb emissions historically have been mobile and industrial. However, due to the USEPA ’s regulatory efforts to remove Pb from gasoline, atmospheric Pb concentrations have declined substantially over the past several decades. The most dramatic reductions in Pb emissions occurred before 1990 due to the removal of Pb from gasoline sold for most highway vehicles. Pb emissions were further reduced substantially between 1990 and 2008, with reductions occurring in the metals industries at least partly due to national emissions standards for hazardous air pollutants (USEPA 2014). As a result of phasing out leaded gasoline, metal processing is currently the primary source of Pb emissions. The highest Pb level in the air is generally found near Pb smelters. Other stationary sources include waste incinerators, utilities, and Pb-acid battery manufacturers. Pb can adversely affect the nervous system, kidney function, immune system, reproductive and Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

City of Sebastopol
The Canopy

4.2-4
developmental systems, and cardiovascular system depending on exposure. Pb exposure also affects the oxygen-carrying capacity of the blood. The Pb effects most likely encountered in current populations are neurological in children. Infants and young children are susceptible to Pb exposures, contributing to behavioral problems, learning deficits, and lowered IQ (USEPA 2023e).

Toxic Air Contaminants
In addition to the criteria pollutants discussed above, Toxic Air Contaminants (TACs) are airborne substances and a diverse group of air pollutants that may cause or contribute to an increase in deaths or serious illness, or that may pose a present or potential hazard to human health. TACs include both organic and inorganic chemical substances that may be emitted from a variety of common sources, including gasoline stations, motor vehicles, dry cleaners, industrial operations, painting operations, and research and teaching facilities. One of the main sources of TACs in California is diesel engine exhaust that contains solid material known as diesel particulate matter (DPM). More than 90 percent of DPM is less than one micron in diameter (about 1/70th the diameter of a human hair) and thus is a subset of PM2.5. Because of their extremely small size, these particles can be inhaled and eventually trapped in the bronchial and alveolar regions of the lungs (CARB 2023a).

TACs are different than criteria pollutants because ambient air quality standards have not been established for TACs. TACs occurring at extremely low levels may still cause health effects and it is typically difficult to identify levels of exposure that do not produce adverse health effects. TAC impacts are described by carcinogenic risk and by chronic (i.e., long duration) and acute (i.e., severe but of short duration) adverse effects on human health. People exposed to TACs at sufficient concentrations and durations may have an increased chance of getting cancer or experiencing other serious health effects. These health effects can include damage to the immune system, as well as neurological, reproductive (e.g., reduced fertility), developmental, respiratory, and other health problems (USEPA 2023f).

Current Air Quality
CARB operates a network of air quality monitoring stations throughout Sonoma County. The monitoring stations aim to measure ambient concentrations of pollutants and determine whether ambient air quality meets the California and federal standards. The closest monitoring station to the project site is the Sebastopol-103 Morris Street, located at 103 Morris Street, approximately one mile southeast of the project site. The nearest monitoring station for PM10 measurements is located approximately 10.5 miles northwest of the project site at Church and First Streets, Guerneville.

Table 4.2-1 indicates the number of days each federal and State standard were exceeded. As shown, hourly O3 measurements exceeded the State standard in 2021. PM10 measurements exceeded the State and federal standards in 2020 and 2021. In addition, PM2.5 measurements exceeded the federal standards in 2020. No other State or federal standards were exceeded at these monitoring stations. Since SO2 is in attainment with the SFBAAB region, it is not monitored at the nearest air monitoring stations and therefore ambient air quality is not reported for this pollutant.

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

Environmental Impact Analysis
Air Quality
Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.2-5
Table 4.2-1 Representative Annual Ambient Air Quality Data Pollutant 2020 2021 2022
Ozone (ppm), Highest 1-Hour1 0.068 0.071 0.064
Number of days above CAAQS (>0.09 ppm) 0 0 0
Ozone (ppm), Highest 8-Hour Average1 0.058 0.063 0.055
Number of days above NAAQS and CAAQS (>0.070 ppm) 0 0 0 Carbon Monoxide (ppm), Highest 8-Hour Average1 1.78 1.83 0.88 Number of days above CAAQS or NAAQS (>9.0 ppm) 0 0 0
Nitrogen Dioxide (ppm), Highest 1 Hour1 0.036 0.026 0.031 Number of days above CAAQS (>0.180 ppm) 0 0 0
Number of days above NAAQS (>0.100 ppm) 0 0 0
PM 10- Particulate Matter <10 microns (µg/m3), Highest 24-Hour Average2 140 58 46 Number of days above CAAQS (>50 µg/m3) 2 2 0
Number of days above NAAQS (>150 µg/m3) 0 0 0
PM 2.5- Particulate Matter <2.5 microns (µg/m3), Highest 24 Hour Average1 124.3 29.5 25.5 Number of days above NAAQS (>35 µg/m3) 7 0 0
ppm = parts per million; µg/m3 = micrograms per cubic meter; CAAQS = California Ambient Air Quality Standard; NAAQS = National Ambient Air Quality Standard
Note: The ambient air quality data presented in this table is intended to be representative of existing conditions and is not a comprehensive summary of all monitoring efforts for all the CAAQS and NAAQS. Additional ambient air quality data can be accessed at https://www.epa.gov/outdoor-air-quality-data/monitor-values-report. 1 Data from the Sebastopol-103 Morris Street monitoring site. 2 Data from a monitoring site at Church and First Streets, Guerneville.

Source: CARB 2023b, USEPA 2023g
Sensitive Receptors
The NAAQs and CAAQS were established to represent the levels of air quality considered sufficient, with an adequate margin of safety, to protect public health and welfare. They are designed to protect that segment of the public most susceptible to respiratory distress as a result of poor air quality, such as children under 14, persons over 65, persons engaged in strenuous work or exercise, and people with pre-existing cardiovascular and chronic respiratory diseases. According to CARB, sensitive receptors include residences, long-term health care facilities, rehabilitation centers, convalescent centers, hospitals, retirement homes, schools, playgrounds, and childcare centers (CARB 2005). The closest sensitive receptors to the project site are residential uses immediately adjacent to the project site. In addition, residential receptors approximately 200 feet west of the project site. The Sebastopol Charter School is located approximately 300 feet northeast of the site; however, it is not within the 200 feet threshold to be considered a sensitive receptor that might be affected by the proposed project. Furthermore, the proposed project would include construction of residential units, which would add more sensitive receptors to the project site. Upon completion of Phase I of building construction, residents onsite would be exposed to the building construction air emissions of Phase II for approximately 20 months.

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

City of Sebastopol
The Canopy

4.2-6

4.2.2 Regulatory Setting
The federal and state governments have authority under the federal and state CAA to regulate emissions of airborne pollutants and have established ambient air quality standards (AAQS) for the protection of public health. An air quality standard is defined as “the maximum amount of a pollutant averaged over a specified period of time that can be present in outdoor air without harming public health” (CARB 2023c). USEPA is the federal agency designated to administer air quality regulation, while CARB is the state equivalent in California. Federal and state AAQS have been established for six criteria pollutants: O3, CO, NO2, SO2, PM10, PM2.5, and lead (Pb). AAQS are designed to protect those segments of the public most susceptible to respiratory distress, such as children under the age of 14, the elderly (over the age of 65), persons engaged in strenuous work or exercise, and people with cardiovascular and chronic respiratory diseases (USEPA 2023h). In addition, the state of California has established health-based ambient air quality standards for these and other pollutants, some of which are more stringent than the federal standards (CARB 2023d).

The federal and state CAA are described in more detail below. a. Federal Regulations
The CAA was enacted in 1970 and amended in 1977 and 1990 [42 United States Code (USC) 7401] for the purposes of protecting and enhancing the quality of the nation’s air resources to benefit public health, welfare, and productivity. In 1971, to achieve the purposes of Section 109 of the CAA [42 USC 7409], USEPA developed primary and secondary national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS).

The primary NAAQS “in the judgment of the Administrator2 , based on such criteria and allowing an
adequate margin of safety, are requisite to protect the public health,” and the secondary standards are to “protect the public welfare from any known or anticipated adverse effects associated with the presence of such air pollutant in the ambient air” [42 USC 7409(b)(2)]. USEPA classifies specific geographic areas as either “attainment” or “nonattainment” areas for each pollutant based on the comparison of measured data with the NAAQS3
. States are required to adopt enforceable plans,
known as a State Implementation Plan (SIP), to achieve and maintain air quality meeting the NAAQS.

State plans also must control emissions that drift across state lines and harm air quality in downwind states. Once a nonattainment area has achieved the air quality standards for a particular pollutant, it may be redesignated to an attainment area for that pollutant. To be redesignated, the area must meet air quality standards and have a 10-year plan for continuing to meet and maintain air quality standards, as well as satisfy other requirements of the federal CAA. Areas that have been redesignated to attainment are called maintenance areas. Table 4.2-2 lists the current federal standards for regulated pollutants. The project site is within Southern Sonoma County jurisdiction, which currently exceeds the NAAQS for 8-hour ozone and 24-hour PM2.5. Southern Sonoma County is currently classified as a nonattainment area under the CAAQS for O3, PM10, and PM2.5 and classified as attainment for the remaining criteria pollutants (CARB 2022). 2 The term “Administrator” means the Administrator of the USEPA. 3 Air quality in a geographic area meets or is cleaner than the national standard is called an attainment area (designated “attainment/unclassifiable”). Areas that don't meet the national standard are called nonattainment areas.

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

Environmental Impact Analysis
Air Quality
Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.2-7
Table 4.2-2 Federal and State Ambient Air Quality Standards Pollutant NAAQS CAAQS NAAQS Status CAAQS Status
Ozone 0.070 ppm (8-hr avg) 0.09 ppm (1-hr avg)

0.070 ppm (8-hr avg)
Nonattainment
(Marginal)
Nonattainment
Carbon Monoxide 35.0 ppm (1-hr avg)

9.0 ppm (8-hr avg)

20.0 ppm (1-hr avg)

9.0 ppm (8-hr avg)
Unclassified/
Attainment
Unclassified/
Attainment
Nitrogen Dioxide 0.100 ppm (1-hr avg)

0.053 ppm (annual avg)

0.18 ppm (1-hr avg)

0.030 ppm (annual avg)
Unclassified/
Attainment
Unclassified/
Attainment
Sulfur Dioxide 0.075 ppm (1-hr avg)

0.5 ppm (3-hr avg)

0.14 ppm (24-hr avg)

0.030 ppm (annual avg)

0.25 ppm (1-hr avg)

0.04 ppm (24-hr avg)
Unclassified/
Attainment
Unclassified/
Attainment
Lead 0.15 mg/m3 (rolling
3-month avg)

1.5 mg/m3 (calendar
quarter)

1.5 mg/m3 (30-day avg) Unclassified/
Attainment
Unclassified/
Attainment
Particulate Matter (PM10) 150 mg/m3 (24-hr avg) 50 mg/m3 (24-hr avg) 20 mg/m3 (annual avg)
Unclassified/
Attainment
Nonattainment
Particulate Matter (PM2.5) 35 mg/m3 (24-hr avg)
12 mg/m3 (annual avg)
12 mg/m3 (annual avg) Nonattainment
(Moderate)
Nonattainment
Visibility-Reducing
Particles
No Federal Standards Extinction coefficient of

0.23 per kilometer –
visibility of ten miles or
more (0.07 - 30 miles or
more for Lake Tahoe) due
to particles when relative
humidity is less than 70
percent. Method: Beta
Attenuation and
Transmittance through
Filter Tape. (8-hr avg)
N/A Unclassified/
Attainment
Sulfates No Federal Standards 25 mg/m3 (24-hr avg) N/A Unclassified/ Attainment
Hydrogen Sulfide No Federal Standards 0.03 ppm (1-hr avg) N/A Unclassified/ Attainment
Vinyl Chloride No Federal Standards 0.01 ppm (24-hr avg) N/A Unclassified/ Attainment
NAAQS = National Ambient Air Quality Standards; CAAQS = California Ambient Air Quality Standards; ppm = parts per million; avg = average; µg/m3 = micrograms per cubic meter
Source: CARB 2016, CARB 2022, USEPA 2023i
To derive the NAAQS, USEPA reviews data from integrated science assessments and risk/exposure assessments to determine the ambient pollutant concentrations at which human health impacts occur, then reduces these concentrations to establish a margin of safety (USEPA 2022). As a result, human health impacts caused by the air pollutants discussed above may affect people when ambient air pollutant concentrations are at or above the concentrations established by the NAAQS.

The closer a region is to attainting a particular NAAQS, the lower the human health impact is from that pollutant (San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District 2015). Accordingly, ambient air pollutant concentrations below the NAAQS are considered to be protective of human health (CARB Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

City of Sebastopol
The Canopy

4.2-8
2023c and 2023d). The NAAQS and the underlying science that forms the basis of the NAAQS are reviewed every five years to determine whether updates are necessary to continue protecting public health with an adequate margin of safety (USEPA 2015).

Construction Equipment Fuel Efficiency Standard
The USEPA sets emission standards for construction equipment. The first federal standards (Tier 1) were adopted in 1994 for all off-road engines over 50 horsepower (hp) and were phased in by 2000.

A new standard was adopted in 1998 that introduced Tier 1 for all equipment below 50 hp and established the Tier 2 and Tier 3 standards. The Tier 2 and Tier 3 standards were phased in by 2008 for all equipment. The current iteration of emissions standards for construction equipment are the Tier 4 efficiency requirements which are contained in 40 Code of Federal Regulations Parts 1039, 1065, and 1068 (originally adopted in 69 Federal Register 38958 [June 29, 2004], and most recently updated in 2014 [79 Federal Register 46356]). Emissions requirements for new off-road Tier 4 vehicles were completely phased in by the end of 2015.
b. State Regulations
California Clean Air Act
The California Clean Air Act (CCAA) was enacted in 1988 (California Health & Safety Code (H&SC) Section 39000 et seq.). Under the CCAA, the state has developed the CAAQS, which are generally more stringent than the NAAQS. Table 4.2-2 lists the current state standards for regulated pollutants. In addition to the federal criteria pollutants, the CAAQS also specify standards for visibility-reducing particles, sulfates, hydrogen sulfide, and vinyl chloride. Similar to the federal CAA, the CCAA classifies specific geographic areas as either “attainment” or “nonattainment” areas for each pollutant, based on the comparison of measured data within the CAAQS.

California Air Toxics Program
A TAC is an air pollutant that may cause or contribute to an increase in mortality or serious illness, or which may pose a present or potential hazard to human health. TACs may result in long-term health effects such as cancer, birth defects, neurological damage, asthma, or genetic damage, or short-term acute effects such as eye watering, respiratory irritation, runny nose, throat pain, and headaches. TACs are considered either carcinogenic or non-carcinogenic based on the nature of the health effects associated with exposure.

In 1983, the California Legislature enacted a program to identify the health effects of TACs and to reduce exposure to these contaminants to protect the public health (Assembly Bill [AB] 1807: Health and Safety Code Sections 39650–39674). The Legislature established a two-step process to address the potential health effects from TACs. The first step is the risk assessment (or identification) phase.

The second step is the risk management (or control) phase of the process.

The California Air Toxics Program establishes the process for the identification and control of TACs and includes provisions to make the public aware of significant toxic exposures and for reducing risk.

Additionally, the Air Toxics "Hot Spots" Information and Assessment Act (AB 2588, 1987, Connelly Bill) was enacted in 1987 and requires stationary sources to report the types and quantities of certain substances routinely released into the air. The goals of the Air Toxics "Hot Spots" Act are to collect emission data, identify facilities having localized impacts, ascertain health risks, notify nearby residents of significant risks, and reduce those significant risks to acceptable levels. The Children's Environmental Health Protection Act, California Senate Bill (SB) 25 (Chapter 731, Escutia, Statutes of Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

Environmental Impact Analysis
Air Quality
Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.2-9
1999), focuses on children's exposure to air pollutants. The act requires CARB to review its air quality standards from a children's health perspective, evaluate the statewide air quality monitoring network, and develop any additional air toxic control measures needed to protect children's health.

State Implementation Plan
The SIP is a collection of documents that set forth the state’s strategies for achieving the AAQS. In California, the SIP is a compilation of new and previously submitted plans, programs (such as monitoring, modeling, and permitting), district rules, state regulations, and federal controls. CARB is the lead agency for all purposes related to the SIP under state law. Local air districts and other agencies, such as the Department of Pesticide Regulation and the Bureau of Automotive Repair, prepare SIP elements and submit them to CARB for review and approval. CARB then forwards SIP revisions to the USEPA for approval and publication in the Federal Register. The items included in the California SIP are listed in the Code of Federal Regulations at 40 Code of Federal Regulations 52.220.

The 2017 Clean Air Plan is the SIP for Sonoma County. The Clean Air Plan accommodates growth by projecting the growth in emissions based on different indicators. For example, population forecasts adopted by BAAQMD are used to forecast population-related emissions, as discussed in Local Regulations. Through the planning process, emissions growth is offset by basin-wide controls on stationary, area, and transportation sources of air pollution.

California Code of Regulations
The California Code of Regulations is the official compilation and publication of the regulations adopted, amended, or repealed by state agencies pursuant to the Administrative Procedure Act.

They are compiled into Titles and organized into Divisions containing the regulations of state agencies. The following policies in the California Code of Regulations would be applicable to the proposed project:
 Engine Idling. In accordance with Section 2485 of Title 13 of the California Code of Regulations, the idling of all diesel-fueled commercial vehicles (weighing over 10,000 pounds) during construction shall be limited to five minutes at any location.  Emission Standards. In accordance with Section 93115 of Title 17 of the California Code of Regulations, operation of any stationary, diesel-fueled, compression-ignition engines shall meet specified fuel and fuel additive requirements and emission standards. c. Local Regulations
Air Quality Management Plan
The BAAQMD is responsible for assuring that the federal and State ambient air quality standards are attained and maintained in the Bay Area. The BAAQMD is also responsible for adopting and enforcing rules and regulations concerning air pollutant sources, issuing permits for stationary sources of air pollutants, inspecting stationary sources of air pollutants, responding to citizen complaints, monitoring ambient air quality and meteorological conditions, awarding grants to reduce motor vehicle emissions, conducting public education campaigns, as well as many other activities.

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

City of Sebastopol
The Canopy

4.2-10
The BAAQMD adopted the 2017 Clean Air Plan (2017 Plan) as an update to the 2010 Clean Air Plan in April 2017. The 2017 Plan provides a regional strategy to protect public health and the climate. To fulfill state ozone planning requirements, the 2017 control strategy includes all feasible measures to reduce emissions of ozone precursors—ROG and NOX—and reduce transport of ozone and its precursors to neighboring air basins. The 2017 Plan builds upon and enhances the BAAQMD’s efforts to reduce emissions of fine particulate matter TACs (BAAQMD 2017).

BAAQMD Rules
The BAAQMD implements rules and regulations for emissions that may be generated by various uses and activities. The rules and regulations detail pollution-reduction measures that must be implemented during construction and operation of projects. Rules and regulations relevant to the project include the following:
 Regulation 8, Rule 3 (Architectural Coatings): This rule limits the quantity of volatile organic compounds that can supplied, sold, applied, and manufactured within the BAAQMD region.

City of Sebastopol 2035 General Plan
On November 15, 2016, the Sebastopol General Plan was adopted. The Sebastopol General Plan includes goals and policies to address sustainability aimed in part at improving air quality. The following are applicable goals and policies that relate to the proposed project (City of Sebastopol 2016):

Goal COS 7: Improve Air Quality in Sebastopol and Reduce Air Quality Impacts from Future Development.

Policy COS 7-1 Improve air quality through continuing to require a compact development pattern that focuses growth in and around existing urbanized areas, locating new housing near places of employment, encouraging non-vehicular modes of transportation, and requiring projects to mitigate significant air quality impacts.

Policy COS 7-2 Minimize exposure of sensitive receptors to concentrations of air pollutant emissions and toxic air contaminants.

Policy COS 7-4 Continue to cooperate with BAAQMD in implementing the regional Clean Air Plan.

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

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

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

Environmental Impact Analysis
Air Quality
Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.2-11

4.2.3 Impact Analysis
a. Significance Thresholds and Methodology
Significance Threshold
To determine whether a project would result in a significant impact to air quality, Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines requires consideration of whether a project would:
 Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan;  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;  Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations; or  Result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people.

The BAAQMD has adopted guidelines for quantifying and determining the significance of air quality emissions in its 2022 CEQA Air Quality Guidelines.

Regional Significance Thresholds
The BAAQMD’s 2022 CEQA Air Quality Guidelines are used in this analysis to evaluate air quality.

Table 4.2-3 shows the significance thresholds for construction and operational-related criteria air pollutant and precursor emissions being used for the purposes of this analysis. These thresholds represent the levels at which a project’s individual emissions of criteria air pollutants or precursors would result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to the SFBAAB’s existing air quality conditions. For the purposes of this analysis, the project would result in a significant impact if construction or operational emissions would exceed thresholds as shown in Table 4.2-3.

Table 4.2-3 BAAQMD Air Quality Significance Thresholds
Pollutant
Construction Thresholds Operational Thresholds
Average Daily Emissions (lbs/day)
Average Daily Emissions
(lbs/day)
Maximum Annual
Emissions (tons/year)
ROG 54 54 10
NOX 54 54 10
PM10 82 (exhaust) 82 15
PM2.5 54 (exhaust) 54 10
ROG = reactive organic gases, NOX = nitrogen oxides, PM10 = particulate matter 10 microns in diameter or less, PM2.5 = particulate matter

2.5 microns or less in diameter; lbs/day = pounds per day Source: BAAQMD 2023
Carbon Monoxide
BAAQMD provides a preliminary screening methodology to conservatively determine whether a proposed project would exceed carbon monoxide thresholds. If the following criteria are met, a project would result in a less than significant impact related to local carbon monoxide concentrations:

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

City of Sebastopol
The Canopy

4.2-12
 The project is consistent with an applicable congestion management program established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways, regional transportation plan, and local congestion management agency plans.  The project traffic would not increase traffic volumes at affected intersections to more than 44,000 vehicles per hour.
 The project traffic would not increase traffic volumes at affected intersections to more than 24,000 vehicles per hour where vertical and/or horizontal mixing is substantially limited (e.g., tunnel, parking garage, bridge underpass, natural or urban street canyon, below-grade roadway).

Toxic Air Containments Thresholds
BAAQMD has developed significance thresholds for the emissions of TACs based on health risks associated with elevated exposure to such compounds. For carcinogenic compounds, cancer risk is assessed in terms of incremental excess cancer risk. An individual project would result in a potentially significant impact if it would generate an incremental excess cancer risk of 10 in 1 million (1 x 10-6
) persons, a chronic and acute hazard index greater than 1.0, and a PM2.5 annual average increase of 0.3 µg/m3
. In addition, a project would result in a potentially significant cumulative impact if it would generate an incremental excess cancer risk of 100 in 1 million (1 x 10-6 ) persons, a
chronic and acute hazard index greater than 10.0, and a PM2.5 annual average increase of 0.8 µg/m3 .
(BAAQMD 2023).

Odor Sources
The BAAQMD provides minimum distances for siting of new odor sources as shown in Table 4.2-4. A significant impact would occur if the project would result in other emissions (such as odors) affecting substantial numbers of people or would site a new odor source within the specified distances of existing receptors.

Table 4.2-4 BAAQMD Odor Source Thresholds Table
Odor Source Minimum Distance for Less than Significant Odor Impacts (in miles) Wastewater treatment plant 2
Wastewater pumping facilities 1
Sanitary Landfill 2
Transfer Station 1
Composting Facility 1
Petroleum Refinery 2
Asphalt Batch Plant 2
Chemical Manufacturing 2
Fiberglass Manufacturing 1
Painting/Coating Operations 1
Rendering Plant 2
Coffee Roaster 1
Food Processing Facility 1
Confined Animal facility/feed lot/diary 1
Green Waste and Recycling Operations 1
Metal Smelting Plants 2
Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

Environmental Impact Analysis
Air Quality
Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.2-13
Methodology
Air pollutant emissions generated by project construction and operation were estimated using CalEEMod version 2022.1. CalEEMod is a statewide land use emissions computer model designed to provide a uniform platform for government agencies, land use planners, and environmental professionals to quantify potential criteria pollutant and GHG emissions associated with both construction and operations from a variety of land use projects. CalEEMod allows for the use of standardized data (e.g., emission factors, trip lengths, meteorology, source inventory) provided by the various California air districts to account for local requirements and conditions, and/or userdefined inputs. The calculation methodology and input data used in CalEEMod can be found in the CalEEMod User’s Guide Appendices C, D, and G (California Air Pollution Control Officers Associated 2022). The analysis reflects the details of construction and operation of the proposed project as described in Section 2.0, Project Description.

Construction
Project construction would primarily generate temporary criteria pollutant emissions from construction equipment operation on-site, construction worker vehicle trips to and from the site, and import of materials off-site. Construction of the proposed project was analyzed based on the land use type, building square footage, construction schedule, and a list of anticipated construction equipment provided by the applicant. The project would construct 80 multi-story townhome-styled condos, 16 accessory dwelling units, and surface parking spaces. Project construction would occur over two phases. Phase I construction would begin in June 2024 and end June 2026, and Phase II would begin in March 2025 and end February 2027. Project construction would occur over approximately 33 months. 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. It is assumed construction equipment used would be diesel-powered and, the project would comply with applicable regulatory standards, such as BAAQMD's Basic Best Management Practices fugitive dust control measures and Regulation 8 Rule 3, Architectural Coating.

Operation
Operational emissions modeled include mobile and area source emissions. The project would not include natural gas consumption and would not emit energy emissions onsite. The Traffic Impact Study (TIS) prepared by W-Trans, estimated the project would generate 684 daily vehicle trips, consisting of 576 daily trips from townhomes/condos and 108 daily trips from the accessory dwelling units (W-Trans 2023). Area source emissions are generated by consumer products and architectural coatings. There currently is no natural gas service provided at the project site; therefore, the energy source emissions are excluded.

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

City of Sebastopol
The Canopy

4.2-14
b. Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Threshold 1: Would the project conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan?
Impact AQ-1 THE PROJECT WOULD NOT CONFLICT WITH OR OBSTRUCT IMPLEMENTATION OF THE 2017 CLEAN AIR PLAN. IMPACTS WOULD BE LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT.

The California CAA requires that air districts create a Clean Air Plan (2017 CAP) that describes how the jurisdiction will meet air quality standards. The most recently adopted air quality plan is the BAAQMD 2017 Plan. The Clean Air Plan builds upon and enhances the BAAQMD’s efforts to reduce emissions of fine particulate matter and TACs. The 2017 Plan does not include control measures that apply directly to individual development projects. Instead, the control strategy includes control measures related to stationary sources, transportation, energy, buildings, agriculture, natural and working lands, waste management, water, and super-GHG pollutants.

The 2017 CAP focuses on two paramount goals:
 Protect air quality and health at the regional and local scale by attaining all national and state air quality standards and eliminating disparities among Bay Area communities in cancer health risk from TACs.
 Protect the climate by reducing Bay Area GHG emissions to 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030, and 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050.

Under BAAQMD’s methodology, a determination of consistency with the 2017 Plan should demonstrate that a project:
 Supports the primary goals of the air quality plan.
 Includes applicable control measures from the air quality plan.  Does not disrupt or hinder implementation of any air quality plan control measures.

A project that would not support the 2017 Plan’s goals would not be consistent with the 2017 Plan.

On an individual project basis, consistency with BAAQMD quantitative thresholds is interpreted as demonstrating support for the clean air plan’s goals. As shown in the response to Threshold 2 (Table 4.2-6 and Table 4.2-7), the project would not result in exceedances of BAAQMD thresholds for criteria air pollutants and thus would not conflict with the 2017 Plan’s goal to attain air quality standards. Furthermore, as shown in Table 4.2-5, the proposed project would include applicable control measures from the 2017 Plan and would not disrupt or hinder implementation of such control measures. Therefore, project impacts related to conflicts with or obstruction of the 2017 Plan would be less than significant.

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

Environmental Impact Analysis
Air Quality
Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.2-15
Table 4.2-5 Project Consistency with Applicable Control Measures of 2017 Plan Table Control Measure Evaluation
TR9: Bicycle and Pedestrian Access and Facilities.

Encourage planning for bicycle and pedestrian facilities in local plans, e.g., general and specific plans, fund bike lanes, routes, paths and bicycle parking facilities.

Consistent. The project would 96 bicycle parking spaces, with 80 long-term spaces located in each residential garage and 16 spaces in onsite bicycle racks.

EN2: Decrease Electricity Demand. Work with local
governments to adopt additional energy-efficiency
policies and programs. Support local government
energy efficiency program via best practices, model
ordinances, and technical support. Work with partners
to develop messaging to decrease electricity demand
during peak times.

Consistent. The proposed project is anticipated to exceed the energy efficiency standards of 2022 Title 24 Standards, California Building Energy Efficiency Standards, by five to 10 percent. The Title 24 standards are updated every three years and become increasingly more stringent over time. In
addition, the proposed building would include all-electric appliances, powered by solar to the project.

BL1: Green Buildings. Collaborate with partners such as KyotoUSA to identify energy-related improvements and
opportunities for on-site renewable energy systems in
school districts; investigate funding strategies to
implement upgrades. Identify barriers to effective local implementation of the CALGreen (Title 24) statewide
building energy code; develop solutions to improve
implementation/enforcement. Work with ABAG’s
BayREN program to make additional funding available
for energy-related projects in the buildings sector.

Engage with additional partners to target reducing
emissions from specific types of buildings.

Consistent. The proposed project would include solar and allelectric 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 dedicated 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.

WR2: Support Water Conservation. Develop a list of
best practices that reduce water consumption and
increase on-site water recycling in new and existing
buildings; incorporate into local planning guidance.

Consistent. 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.

Source: BAAQMD 2017
Threshold 2: Would the project result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard?
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 NONATTAINMENT UNDER AN APPLICABLE FEDERAL OR STATE AMBIENT AIR QUALITY STANDARD. IMPACTS WOULD BE LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT.

Construction Emissions
Project construction would involve construction activities that have the potential to generate air pollutant emissions. Table 4.2-6 summarizes the estimated maximum daily emissions of ROG, NOX, CO, PM10 exhaust, PM2.5 exhaust, and sulfur oxide (SOx) during project construction. As shown in Table 4.2-6, project construction emissions for all criteria pollutants would be below the BAAQMD average daily thresholds of significance. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.

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

City of Sebastopol
The Canopy

4.2-16
Table 4.2-6 Project Construction Emissions
Average Daily Emissions (lbs./day)

ROG NOX CO SOX
PM10
(exhaust)
PM2.5
(exhaust)
2024 1 7 7 <1 <1 <1
2025 2 13 18 <1 1 <1
2026 2 8 153 <1 <1 <1
2027 1 <1 1 <1 <1 <1
Maximum Average Daily Emissions 2 13 153 <1 1 <1
BAAQMD Thresholds (average daily emissions) 54 54 N/A N/A 82 54 Threshold Exceeded? No No N/A N/A No No
Lbs./day = pounds per day; ROG = reactive organic gases; NOx = nitrogen oxide; CO = carbon monoxide; PM10 = particulate matter with a diameter no more than 10 microns; PM2.5 = particulate matter with a diameter no more than 2.5 microns; SOx = sulfur oxide N/A = not applicable (no BAAQMD threshold for CO or SOX); BAAQMD = Bay Area Air Quality Management District.

Source: See CalEEMod worksheets in Appendix B.

The BAAQMD does not have quantitative thresholds for fugitive dust emissions during construction.

Instead, the BAAQMD recommends Best Management Practices (BMPs) be implemented to reduce fugitive dust emissions. With implementation of the BAAQMD fugitive dust BMPs, construction air quality impacts from fugitive dust would be less than significant.

Operational Emissions
Long-term emissions associated with project operation are shown in Table 4.2-7 . As shown in Table 4.2-7 emissions would not exceed BAAQMD daily or annual thresholds for any criteria pollutant. Since project emissions would not exceed BAAQMD thresholds for construction or operation, the project would not violate an air quality standard or result in a cumulatively considerable net increase in criteria pollutants and impacts would be less than significant.

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

Environmental Impact Analysis
Air Quality
Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.2-17
Table 4.2-7 Project Operational Emissions
Average Daily Emissions (lbs./day)
Sources ROG NOX CO PM10 PM2.5 SOX
Mobile 3 3 19 4 1 <1
Area 2 <1 3 <1 <1 <1
Total Project Emissions 5 3 22 4 1 <1
BAAQMD Thresholds 54 54 N/A 82 54 N/A
Threshold Exceeded? No No N/A No No N/A
Annual Emissions (tons/yr.)
Mobile <1 <1 3 1 <1 <1
Area <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1
Total Project Emissions 1 <1 4 1 <1 <1
BAAQMD Thresholds 10 10 N/A 15 10 N/A
Threshold Exceeded? No No N/A No No N/A
Lbs./day = pounds per day; ROG = reactive organic gases; NOx = nitrogen oxide; CO = carbon monoxide; PM10 = particulate matter with a diameter no more than 10 microns; PM2.5 = particulate matter with a diameter no more than 2.5 microns; SOx = sulfur oxide N/A = not applicable (no BAAQMD threshold for CO or SOX); BAAQMD = Bay Area Air Quality Management District.

Source: Average daily and annual emissions. See Table 2.6 “Operations Emissions by Sector, Mitigated”. See CalEEMod worksheets in Appendix B. Numbers may not add exactly due to rounding.

Threshold 3: Would the project expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations?
Impact AQ-3 THE PROJECT WOULD NOT INCREASE CARBON MONOXIDE CONCENTRATIONS SUCH THAT IT WOULD CREATE CARBON MONOXIDE HOTSPOTS. HOWEVER, PROJECT CONSTRUCTION COULD POTENTIALLY

EXPOSE SENSITIVE RECEPTORS TO SUBSTANTIAL POLLUTANT CONCENTRATIONS IN THE FORM OF TOXIC AIR CONTAMINANT EMISSIONS GIVEN THE PROXIMITY TO SURROUNDING AND FUTURE ONSITE SENSITIVE RECEPTORS.

IMPACTS WOULD BE LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT WITH MITIGATION INCORPORATED.

Carbon Monoxide Hotspots
A carbon monoxide hotspot is a localized concentration of carbon monoxide that is above ambient air quality standard. Localized carbon monoxide hotspots can occur at intersections with heavy peak hour traffic. Specifically, hotspots can be created at intersections where traffic levels are sufficiently high such that the local carbon monoxide concentration exceeds the federal one-hour standard of

35.0 parts per million (ppm) or the federal and state eight-hour standard of 9.0 ppm (CARB 2016).

BAAQMD recommends comparing project’s attributes with the following screening criteria as a first step to evaluating whether the project would result in the generation of carbon monoxide concentrations that would substantially contribute to an exceedance of the Thresholds of Significance. The project would result in a less than significant impact to localized carbon monoxide concentrations if:

The project is consistent with an applicable congestion management program for designated roads or highways, regional transportation plan, and local congestion management agency plans The project would not increase traffic volumes at affected intersections to more than 44,000 vehicles per hour.

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

City of Sebastopol
The Canopy

4.2-18
The project traffic would not increase traffic volumes at the affected intersections to more than 24,000 vehicles per hour where vertical and/or horizontal mixing is substantially limited (e.g., tunnel, parking garage).

The project would generate 684 daily vehicle trips. According to the existing traffic volumes shown in the TIS, prepared by W-Trans, the highest peak hour traffic volume is the intersection of Occidental Road and Gravenstein Highway, with a peak traffic volume of 2,296 vehicles. The project would add approximately 180 vehicles during peak hour traffic (W-Trans 2023). Therefore, the project would not increase vehicle traffic at any intersections above the screening thresholds listed above and the impact of localized carbon monoxide emissions would not be significant.

Toxic Air Contaminants
Construction Impacts
Construction-related activities would result in temporary project-generated DPM exhaust emissions from off-road, heavy-duty diesel equipment for site preparation, grading, building construction, and other construction activities. Generation of DPM, which was identified as a TAC by CARB in 1998, from construction projects typically occurs in a single area for a short period. The proposed project's construction would occur in phases over approximately 31 months with sensitive receptors adjacent to the project site. In addition, onsite residents, after the completion of Phase I, would be exposed to 20 months of construction during Phase II construction.

The proposed project would be consistent with the applicable AQMP requirements and control strategies intended to reduce emissions from construction equipment and activities. The proposed Project would comply with the CARB Air Toxics Control Measure that limits diesel powered equipment and vehicle idling to no more than five minutes at a location, and the CARB In-Use OffRoad Diesel Vehicle Regulation; compliance with these would minimize emissions of TACs during construction. However, given the construction area's proximity to nearby and onsite sensitive receptors, and the estimated on-site particulate matter emissions during grading and site preparation, impacts from TACs could be potentially significant and mitigation is required.

Operational Impacts
CARB’s Air Quality and Land Use Handbook: A Community Health Perspective (2005) provides recommendations regarding the siting of new sensitive land uses near potential sources of air toxic emissions (e.g., freeways, distribution centers, rail yards, ports, refineries, chrome plating facilities, dry cleaners, and gasoline dispensing facilities). CARB guidelines recommend siting distances both for the development of sensitive land uses in proximity to TAC sources and for the addition of new TAC sources in proximity to existing sensitive land uses. The project is not near potential sources of TAC emissions as listed above. Townhomes and accessory dwelling units land uses are not considered land uses that generate substantial TAC emissions based on reviewing the air toxic sources listed in CARB’s guidelines. Therefore, the expected hazardous TACs generated on site (e.g., cleaning solvents, paints, landscape pesticides, etc.) for the proposed land uses would be below thresholds warranting further study under the California Accidental Release Program. The project would not expose off-site sensitive receptors to significant amounts of carcinogenic or TACs.

Therefore, operational impacts would be less than significant.

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

Environmental Impact Analysis
Air Quality
Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.2-19
Mitigation Measures
AQ-1 Construction TACs Reduction
The applicant and project engineer shall include the measures listed below on the grading plan, building plans, and specifications. Prior to issuance of grading permits, the City Engineer and the Chief Building Official shall confirm that the grading plan, building plans, and specifications stipulate that the measures listed below shall be implemented during project construction. The construction contractor shall implement these measures for the duration of construction.  All mobile off-road equipment (wheeled or tracked) used during construction activities shall meet the USEPA Tier 4 final standards. Tier 4 certification can be for the original equipment or equipment that is retrofitted to meet the Tier 4 Final standards.  Alternative Fuel (natural gas, propane, electric, other non-diesel fuels) construction equipment shall be incorporated where available. These requirements shall be incorporated into the contract agreement with the construction contractor. A copy of the equipment’s certification or model year specifications shall be available upon request for all equipment on-site.  Electricity shall be supplied to the site from the existing power grid to support the electric construction equipment. If connection to the grid is determined to be infeasible for portions of the project, a non-diesel fueled generator shall be used.

Significance After Mitigation
With the incorporation of Mitigation Measure AQ-1, the project would reduce DPM emissions by approximately 85 to 92 percent compared to standard CalEEMod engine tier assumptions. With these reductions, construction activities would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial toxic air contaminant concentrations, and construction-related health impacts would be less than significant with mitigation.

Threshold 4: Would the project result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people?
Impact AQ-4 THE PROPOSED PROJECT WOULD NOT RESULT IN OTHER EMISSIONS (SUCH AS THOSE LEADING TO ODORS) THAT WOULD ADVERSELY AFFECT A SUBSTANTIAL NUMBER OF PEOPLE. THEREFORE, IMPACTS WOULD BE LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT.

The project would generate oil and diesel fuel odors during construction from equipment use. The odors would be limited to the construction period and would be intermittent and temporary.

Furthermore, these odors would dissipate rapidly with distance from in-use construction equipment. Accordingly, project construction would not result in other emissions, such as those leading to odors, that would adversely affect a substantial number of people, and impacts would be less than significant.

As stated in the BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines, land uses typically producing objectionable odors include agricultural uses, wastewater treatment plants, food manufacturing plants, chemical plants, composting, refineries, landfills, and confined animal facilities. Project development would include townhouse and accessory dwelling unit development. These land uses typically do not produce objectionable odors and are not identified on this list shown in Table 4.2-4. Therefore, the proposed project would not generate objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people, and impacts would be less than significant.

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

City of Sebastopol
The Canopy

4.2-20

4.2.4 Cumulative Impacts
The geographic scope for the cumulative air quality impact analysis is the SFBAAB. Because the SFBAAB is designated a nonattainment area for the federal and State one-hour and eight-hour ozone standards, State PM10 standards, and federal and State annual PM2.5 standard, there is an existing adverse effect in the SFBAAB relative to these pollutants. In addition, unplanned growth in the area has the potential to exacerbate the pollution and hinder the achievement of the NAAQS and CAAQS within the SFBAAB. As identified in Table 3-1, Cumulative Project List, in Section 3.3, Cumulative Development, there are nine currently planned and pending projects in Sebastopol.

This cumulative impact analysis is based on the BAAQMD’s recommendations included in their 2022 CEQA Guidelines (BAAQMD 2023). Individual projects under the BAAQMD’s jurisdiction would cause a cumulatively considerable increase in emissions for which the SFBAAB is in non-attainment if the individual project exceeds the BAAQMD’s recommended thresholds.

Each cumulative project listed in Section 3.3, Cumulative Development, could generate emissions during construction and operation. However, neither the proposed project nor any of the related projects are part of an ongoing regulatory program or are contemplated in a Program EIR.

Therefore, project-specific air quality impacts would be used to determine if a project’s contribution to cumulative air quality impacts would be significant.

As discussed above, the proposed project would be consistent with the BAAQMD 2017 CAP.

Additionally, construction and operation of the project would not exceed regional significance thresholds. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment.

Cumulative projects could expose sensitive receivers to cancer risks that exceed the BAAQMD health risk thresholds; however, similar to the proposed project, cumulative projects would be required to comply with BAAQMD regulations and thresholds to reduce the potential for significant impacts to sensitive receivers. As described under Impact AQ-3 above, TAC emissions from project construction could potentially cause a significant health impact from on-site emissions and proximity to sensitive receptors if unmitigated. Therefore, Mitigation Measure AQ-1 would be implemented to reduce construction TAC emissions to less than significant, and the proposed project’s contribution to cumulative TAC impacts would not be cumulatively considerable. In addition, as shown in Figure 3-1 of Section 3, Environmental Setting, there are no approved or pending cumulative projects within 1,000 feet from the proposed project that could result in cumulative impacts at sensitive receptors. Therefore, the proposed project’s contribution to cumulative TAC emissions would not be cumulatively considerable.

Cumulative projects would adversely affect sensitive receptors from odor emissions if cumulative projects were typical odor-producing land uses. Construction of cumulative projects would result in construction equipment-related odors; however, the temporary nature of construction would ensure less than significant cumulative odor impacts. Since the proposed project’s construction would be temporary and operational activities would not produce substantial odors, the project’s cumulative contribution to cumulative odor emission impacts would not be considerable.

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

Environmental Impact Analysis
Biological Resources
Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.3-1

4.3 Biological Resources
This section provides an assessment of the potential for direct and indirect impacts to sensitive natural communities, special-status plant and wildlife species, regulated waterways and wetlands, sensitive habitat and mature native trees, and wildlife movement corridors associated with the proposed project. The analysis presented herein is based on a Biological Resources Analysis (BRA) [Johnson Marigot Consulting, LLC (Johnson Marigot) 2021, and Integral Consulting Inc. (Integral) 2023; Appendix C], and a Tree Inventory Report (Horticultural Associates 2019, 2023; Appendix D).

4.3.1 Setting
The City of Sebastopol is located in Central Sonoma County, along the western edge of the Santa Rosa Plain, bordered to the west by foothills of the California coastal range and to the east by Laguna de Santa Rosa (a perennial stream) and developed areas of the Valley floor. The project site is located at 1009-1011 Gravenstein Highway North, on the east side of Gravenstein Highway North southeast of its intersection with Mill Station Road, east of Hurlbut Avenue, within developed areas of the city. The vicinity of the project site includes residential and commercial areas. The Laguna de Santa Rosa is approximately 0.8 mile to the east, south of U.S. Highway 101. a. Existing Conditions
General surveys of the project site were conducted on May 21, 2021, and July 18, 2023, to document biological resources and to assess the likelihood of resource agency regulated areas on the project site (Integral 2023). The site consists of a remnant apple orchard with some native trees, including coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia), Douglas fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii), valley oak (Quercus lobata), and coast redwood (Sequoia sempervirens). The understory in the orchard is disced regularly and was mostly bare at the time of the surveys. Dense Himalayan blackberry (Rubus armeniacus) thickets occur around the edges of the site where fence lines prevent discing.

The southwest corner of the site was used as a community garden up until sometime after 2021.

During the site survey in 2023, common weedy nonnative (ruderal) species were observed in this area, including bristly ox-tongue (Helminthotheca echioides), French broom (Genista monspessulana), wild radish (Raphanus sativus), and hair cat’s-ear (Hypochaeris radicata) (Integral 2023).

There is a stormwater basin adjacent to the north end of the site, which likely receives surface flow from the site during rain events (Johnson Marigot 2021). b. Special-status Species
Special-status species are those plants and animals listed, proposed for listing, or candidates for listing as threatened or endangered by the USFWS or National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) under the federal Endangered Species Act (FESA); those listed or proposed for listing as rare, threatened, or endangered by CDFW under the California Endangered Species Act (CESA) or Native Plant Protection Act; animals designated as “Species of Special Concern,” “Fully Protected,” or “Watch List” by CDFW; and plants with a California Rare Plant Rank (CRPR) of 1 or 2, which are defined as:

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

City of Sebastopol
The Canopy

4.3-2
 List 1A = Plants presumed extinct in California
 List 1B.1 = Rare or endangered in California and elsewhere; seriously endangered in California (over 80 percent of occurrences threatened/high degree and immediacy of threat)  List 1B.2 = Rare or endangered in California and elsewhere; fairly endangered in California (20- 80 percent occurrences threatened)
 List 1B.3 = Rare or endangered in California and elsewhere, not very endangered in California (<20 percent of occurrences threatened or no current threats known)  List 2 = Rare, threatened or endangered in California, but more common elsewhere Queries of the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB; CDFW 2023a) and Online Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants of California (Online Inventory; CNPS 2023) were conducted by Rincon biologists to update the list compiled by Integral (2023) regarding special-status species considered to have potential to occur within the project site. For this review, the search included all occurrences within the USGS 7.5-minute topographic quadrangle encompassing the project site (Sebastopol), and the eight surrounding quadrangles (Guerneville, Healdsburg, Mark West Springs, Camp Meeker, Santa Rosa, Valley Ford, Two Rock, and Cotati).

Special-Status Plants
The BRA evaluated 39 special-status plant species for potential to occur on the project site. Rincon identified 39 additional special-status plant species that have been documented within the ninequadrangle search radius in the CNDDB and CNPS (2023). None of these species were observed during the site survey or would be expected to occur within the project site. All seventy-eight special-status plant species could be excluded based on known ranges and elevations, the lack of natural vegetation communities on site, level of development and disturbance from discing, lack of connectivity to natural vegetation communities, and the species-specific habitat requirements.

One Monterey pine (Pinus radiata, California Rare Plant Rank 1B.1) was documented adjacent to the project site (Horticultural Associates 2019); however, this individual occurs as ornamental landscaping and is not a natural occurrence.

Special-status Wildlife
The BRA evaluated eight special-status animal species documented in CNDDB within three miles of the project site, none of which were identified as having the potential to occur on the project site (Integral 2023). Rincon identified 22 additional special-status wildlife species that have been documented within the nine-quadrangle search radius in the CNDDB (2023).

Based on the existing conditions on the project site and updated queries of the CNDDB and Online Inventory, four species not addressed in BRA report were identified for further review: western bumble bee (Bombus occidentalis, state candidate endangered), pallid bat (Antrozous pallidus, California species of special concern [SSC]), Townsend's big-eared bat (Corynorhinus townsendii, SSC), and western red bat (Lasiurus frantzii, SSC).

Western Bumble Bee
The historic range of western bumble bee covered much of the western United States, from the Pacific coast to the Colorado Rocky Mountains. Western bumble bees are eusocial insects living in a colony with workers and one queen. They typically nest underground in rodent burrows or other cavities which may be lined with grass or bird feathers (Hatfield et al., 2015). The flight period for Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

Environmental Impact Analysis
Biological Resources
Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.3-3
queens is early February through late November in California, peaking in late June through late September. The flight period for males and worker females is early April to early November. Most of the colony dies off at the start of winter, including the queen. A cast of reproductive females will continue to forage (gather nectar) and hibernate over the winter. These females will become queens and start new colonies the following spring. This species has a wide variety of plant associations, including but not limited to, species in the genera: Melilotus, Cirsium, Trifolium, Centaurea, Chrysothamnus, and Eriogonum (Koch, Strange, and Williams, 2012). Flowering plants are present; therefore, this species has a moderate potential to occur within the project site.

Special-status BATS
Townsend's big-eared bat is closely associated with mines and caves. Unlike other bats, this species roosts in the open, hanging from walls and ceilings instead of in cracks and crevices. It may also roost in buildings that provide a cave-like environment, such as dark attics or basements. Pallid bat roost in caves and mines as well as crevices; they roost in hollow trees and buildings occasionally.

These species are both highly sensitive to human disturbance. Trees on the project site may provide day roosting habitat, but are unlikely to support maternal colonies due to their size (small, without large hollows), and degree of human presence in the surrounding area. Therefore, Townsend's bigeared bat and pallid bat have a low potential to occur on site while foraging or day roosting.

Western red bat primarily roost in tree foliage, and occasionally shrubs, along habitat edges in woodlands, forests, and urban areas (Ziner, Mayer, and Laudenslayer 1990). This species is largely solitary, and prefers riparian habitats, but may also be found in orchards. Given the site’s location within a mile of Laguna de Santa Rosa and number of trees present, this species has a moderate potential to occur within the project site.

Nesting Birds
Non-game migratory birds and native birds protected under California Fish and Game Code (CFGC) Section 3503 and the federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA), such as native avian species common to developed and ruderal areas, have the potential to breed and forage in the project site and vicinity. Species of birds common to the area that typically occur in the region, such as black phoebe (Sayornis nigricans), house finch (Haemorhous mexicanus), Anna’s hummingbird (Calypte anna), American crow (Corvus brachyrhynchos), and red-shouldered hawk (Buteo lineatus) may nest on the project site. Nesting by a variety of common birds protected by CFGC Section 3503 and the MBTA could occur in virtually any location throughout the project site containing native or nonnative vegetation, bare ground, or buildings. The nesting season in California generally extends from February 1 through August 31 but can vary based on annual climatic conditions. c. Sensitive Natural Communities and Critical Habitat
Sensitive Natural Communities
Plant communities are also considered sensitive biological resources if they have limited distributions, a high-wildlife value, include sensitive species, or are particularly susceptible to disturbance. CDFW ranks sensitive communities as “threatened” or “very threatened” and keeps records of their occurrences in the CNDDB. The CNDDB vegetation alliances are ranked 1 through 5 based on NatureServe's methodology (Jennings et al. 2009), with those alliances ranked globally (G) or statewide (S) as 1 through 3 considered sensitive. Some alliances with the rank of 4 and 5 have also been included in the 2023 sensitive natural communities list under the revised ranking Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

City of Sebastopol
The Canopy

4.3-4
methodology (CDFW 2023b). One sensitive natural community was identified within the ninequadrangle search radius: Valley Oak Woodland. However, this community was not observed on the project site, and no other vegetation alliances that would be considered sensitive by CDFW were observed.

Critical Habitat
No federally designated critical habitats occur on the project site (Integral 2023). d. Jurisdictional Waters and Wetlands
No potential jurisdictional features occur on the project site (USGS 2023). A stormwater basin was observed adjacent to the site, however the basin is dominated by upland nonnative plants, including silver wattle (Acacia dealbata) and Harding grass (Phalaris aquatica) (Johnson Marigot 2021). e. Wildlife Movement
Wildlife movement corridors, or habitat linkages, are generally defined as connections between habitat patches that allow for physical and genetic exchange between otherwise isolated animal populations. Such linkages may serve a local purpose, such as providing a linkage between foraging and denning areas, or they may be regional in nature. Some habitat linkages may serve as migration corridors, wherein animals periodically move away from an area and then subsequently return.

Other corridors may be important as dispersal corridors for young animals. A group of habitat linkages in an area can form a wildlife corridor network.

Habitats within a habitat linkage do not necessarily need to be identical to those habitats being linked. Rather, the linkage needs only to contain sufficient cover and forage to allow temporary utilization by species moving between core habitat areas. Habitat linkages are typically contiguous strips of natural areas, though dense plantings of landscape vegetation can be used by certain disturbance-tolerant species. Some species may require specific physical resources (such as rock outcroppings, vernal pools, or oak trees) within the habitat link for the linkage to serve as an effective movement corridor, while other more mobile or aerial species may only require discontinuous patches of suitable habitat to permit effective dispersal and/or migration. Wildlife movement corridors may occur at either large or small scales. The California Essential Habitat Connectivity Project commissioned by the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) and CDFW identifies “Natural Landscape Blocks” which support native biodiversity and the “Essential Connectivity Areas” which link them (Spencer et al. 2010).

An Essential Connectivity Area is mapped to the west of the City of Sebastopol in the coastal range, but the site is isolated by development (CDFW 2023c). The project site is surrounded by development and therefore does not function as a large- or small-scale corridor for wildlife movement.

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

Environmental Impact Analysis
Biological Resources
Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.3-5

4.3.2 Regulatory Setting
a. Federal Regulations
Endangered Species Act
Under FESA, authorization is required to “take” a listed species. Take is defined under FESA Section 3 as “to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or to attempt to engage in any such conduct.” Under federal regulation (50 Code of Federal Regulations Sections

17.3, 222.102), “harm” is further defined to include habitat modification or degradation where it would be expected to result in death or injury to listed wildlife by significantly impairing essential behavioral patterns, including breeding, feeding, or sheltering. Critical habitat is a specific geographic area(s) that is essential for the conservation of a threatened or endangered species and that may require special management and protection. Critical habitat may include an area that is not currently occupied by the species but that will be needed for its recovery. FESA Section 7 outlines procedures for federal interagency cooperation to conserve federally listed species and designated critical habitat.

Section 7(a)(2) of FESA and its implementing regulations require federal agencies to consult with USFWS or National Marine Fisheries Service to ensure that they are not undertaking, funding, permitting, or authorizing actions likely to jeopardize the continued existence of listed species, or result in the destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat. For projects where federal action is not involved and take of a listed species may occur, the project proponent may seek to obtain an incidental take permit under FESA Section 10(a). Section 10(a) allows USFWS to permit the incidental take of listed species if such take is accompanied by a Habitat Conservation Plan that includes components to minimize and mitigate impacts associated with the take.

The USFWS and National Marine Fisheries Service share responsibility and regulatory authority for implementing FESA (7 United States Code [USC] Section 136, 16 USC Section 1531 et seq.).

Migratory Bird Treaty Act and Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act The MBTA authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to regulate the taking of migratory birds. The act provides that it is unlawful, except as permitted by regulations, “to pursue, hunt, take, capture, kill, attempt to take, capture, or kill, possess, […] any migratory bird, or any part, nest, or egg of any such bird” (16 USC Section 703[a]). The Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act is the primary law protecting eagles, including individuals and their nests and eggs. USFWS implements the MBTA (16 USC Section 703-711) and the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (16 USC Section 668). Under the Act’s Eagle Permit Rule (50 Code of Federal Regulations Section 22.26), USFWS may issue permits to authorize limited, non-purposeful take of bald eagles and golden eagles. b. State Regulations
Endangered Species Act and Fully Protected Species
CESA (CFGC 2050 et seq.) prohibits take of State-listed threatened and endangered species without a CDFW incidental take permit. Take under CESA is restricted to direct harm of a listed species and does not prohibit indirect harm by way of habitat modification.

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

City of Sebastopol
The Canopy

4.3-6
The protection of fully protected species is described in CFGC 3511, 4700, 5050 and 5515. These statutes prohibit take or possession of fully protected species. Incidental take of fully protected species may be authorized under an approved Natural Communities Conservation Plan.

California Fish and Game Code Sections 3503, 3503.5 and 3511 CFGC sections 3503, 3503.5 and 3511 describe unlawful take, possession, or destruction of birds, nests, and eggs. Fully protected birds (CFGC Section 3511) may not be taken or possessed except under specific permit. Section 3503.5 of the Code protects all birds-of-prey and their eggs and nests against take, possession, or destruction of nests or eggs.

California Fish and Game Code Sections 1360-1372
CFGC Sections 1360 through 1372 comprise the Oak Woodlands Conservation Act. The act was enacted to protect oak woodland habitats that were being diminished by development, firewood harvesting, and agricultural conversions. The Oak Woodlands Conservation Program was established as a result of the act and is intended to provide project funding opportunities for private landowners, conservation organizations, and cities and counties to conserve and restore oak woodlands. The program authorizes the Wildlife Conservation Board to purchase oak woodland conservation easements and provide grants for land improvements and oak restoration efforts.

CEQA Guidelines Section 21083.4 requires counties to determine if a project within their jurisdiction may result in conversion of oak woodlands that would have a significant adverse effect on the environment. If the lead agency determines that a project would result in a significant adverse effect on oak woodlands, mitigation measures to reduce the significant adverse effect of converting oak woodlands to other land uses are required.

Native Plant Protection Act
The CDFW also has authority to administer the Native Plant Protection Act (CFGC Section 1900 et seq.). The Native Plant Protection Act requires the CDFW to establish criteria for determining if a species, subspecies, or variety of native plant is endangered or rare. Under Native Plant Protection Act Section 1913(c), the owner of land where a rare or endangered native plant is growing is required to notify the department at least 10 days in advance of changing the land use to allow for salvage of the plant(s).

Natural Communities Conservation Planning Act
The Natural Communities Conservation Planning (NCCP) Act was established by the California Legislature, is directed by the CDFW, and is implemented by the State, as well as public and private partnerships to protect habitat in California. The NCCP Act takes a regional approach to preserving habitat. An NCCP identifies and provides for the regional protection of plants, animals, and their habitats, while allowing compatible and appropriate economic activity. Once an NCCP has been approved, CDFW may provide take authorization for all covered species, including fully protected species, CFGC Section 2835.

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

Environmental Impact Analysis
Biological Resources
Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.3-7
c. Local Regulations
City of Sebastopol General Plan
The Sebastopol General Plan includes conservation and open space policies to protect natural resources, including, but not limited to:

Goal COS 1: Make Proactive, Forward-Thinking Environmental Protection and Resource Management the Cornerstone of Sebastopol’s Identity
Policy COS 1-1: Strive to establish Sebastopol as a leader in environmental protection, environmental stewardship, and sustainability.

Policy COS 1-2: Consider the effects of planning decisions on the overall health and wellbeing of the natural environment and regional ecosystems.

Policy COS 1-3: Consider the “Rights of Nature” as a key principle when making planning decisions and reviewing development and infrastructure project applications.

Policy COS 1-4: Recognize that all life within all ecosystems on our planet are deeply intertwined, and consider the inherent values of ecological goods and services as key principles when making planning decisions.

Actions in Support of Goal COS 1
Action COS 1a: Implement the policies and actions in the Conservation and Open Space Element, and all other relevant and applicable policies and actions throughout the General Plan, to provide for progressive, effective, and forward-thinking strategies to protect the natural environment and promote sustainability to the greatest extent feasible.

Action COS 1b: Consider the establishment and adoption of a Rights of Nature Ordinance.

Consideration should include legal, economic, and human implications of such an ordinance, a timeline for implementation, and standards to provide for robust environmental protection measures, while balancing the other social, economic, and community priorities established by the General Plan.

Goal COS 2: Protect and Enhance Sebastopol’s Ecosystem and Natural Habitats Policy COS 2-1: Protect and enhance sensitive habitats, which include creek corridors, wetlands, vernal pools, riparian areas, wildlife and fish migration corridors, native plant nursery sites, waters of the United States, sensitive natural communities, and other habitats designated by State and Federal agencies.

Policy COS 2-2: Preserve and enhance Sebastopol’s and the region’s natural habitats and rich biodiversity including, but not limited to, grasslands, freshwater marshes, wetlands, vernal pools, riparian areas, aquatic habitat, oak woodlands, and agricultural lands.

Policy COS 2-3: Focus conservation efforts on high priority conservation areas that contain suitable habitat for native, endangered, threatened, migratory, or special-status species and that can be managed with minimal interference from nearby urban land uses and are in proximity to other habitat corridors.

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

City of Sebastopol
The Canopy

4.3-8
Policy COS 2-4: Attempt to resolve conflicts between sensitive habitat areas and adjoining urbanized lands in a manner which recognizes the public interests in both resource protection and the need to provide for residential and job-generating land uses.

Policy COS 2-5: Implement a range of measures and tools in order to protect, enhance and restore environmentally sensitive areas.

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

Policy COS 2-7: Support efforts to eradicate invasive and noxious weeds and vegetation on public and private property.

Actions in Support of Goal COS 2
Action COS 2a: Maintain Zoning Ordinance provisions to require development project proposals, infrastructure projects, long-range planning projects, and other projects that may potentially impact special-status species and sensitive resources to submit a resources analysis as part of the project application which determines whether significant adverse impacts will occur. Evaluations shall be carried out by a qualified professional biologist approved by the Sebastopol Planning Department, and shall be funded by the project applicant. Generally, the resources analysis shall identify, describe, and locate, the following:
 The type and location of all special-status plant and animal species;  Riparian vegetation within at least 50 feet of the subject property;  The location, type, functionality, and offsite connectivity of wetlands, if applicable;  The location of protected native trees onsite (as defined by the Sebastopol Municipal Code);  Potential archaeological, cultural, and historical resources, if applicable; and  Flood hazard areas, as defined by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and/or the Department of Water Resources (DWR).

The resources analysis shall determine, as applicable, the area and location of undeveloped land required to protect and enhance the continued viability of biotic resources, wetlands, and sensitive areas. The resources analysis shall identify land that is functionally a part of the nearby wetlands ecosystem, which should be preserved in a natural state.

Projects shall be designed to avoid impacts to sensitive resources; and in cases where impacts cannot be fully avoided, impacts shall be reduced. Where adverse impacts cannot be feasibly reduced or avoided through project design, projects shall include the implementation of sitespecific or project-specific effective mitigation strategies developed by a qualified professional in consultation with state or federal resource agencies with jurisdiction (if applicable) that may include, but are not limited to, the following strategies:
 Preservation of habitat and connectivity of adequate size, quality, and configuration to support the special-status species. Connectivity shall be determined based on the specifics of the species' needs.

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

Environmental Impact Analysis
Biological Resources
Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.3-9
 Project design measures, such as clustering of structures or locating project features to avoid known locations of special-status species and/or sensitive habitats.  Provision of supplemental planting and maintenance of grasses, shrubs, and trees of similar quality and quantity to provide adequate vegetation cover to enhance water quality, minimize sedimentation and soil transport, and provide adequate shelter and food for wildlife.
 Protection for habitat and the known locations of special-status species through adequate buffering or other means to protect habitat functions.
 Provision of replacement habitat of like quantity and quality on- or off-site for special-status species. Preference shall be given to the preservation of habitat on-site or as close to the area of impact as feasible, so long as that habitat is of comparable quality.  Enhancement of existing special-status species habitat values through restoration and replanting of native plant species.
 Provision of temporary or permanent buffers of adequate size (based on the specifics of the special-status species) to avoid nest abandonment by nesting migratory birds and raptors associated with construction and site development activities.  Incorporation of the provisions or demonstration of compliance with applicable recovery plans for federally listed species.
 Monitoring of construction activities by a qualified biologist to avoid impacts to on-site special status species.

Action COS 2b: Where sensitive biological habitats have been identified on or immediately adjacent to a project site, the project shall include appropriate mitigation measures identified by a qualified biologist, which may include, but are not limited to the following:
 Pre-construction surveys for species listed under the State or Federal Endangered Species Acts, or species identified as special-status by the resource agencies, shall be conducted by a qualified biologist;
 Construction barrier fencing shall be installed around sensitive resources and areas identified for avoidance or protection, and to reduce potential soil compaction in sensitive areas; and
 Employees shall be trained by a qualified biologist to identify and avoid protected species and habitat.

Action COS 2c: During the development review process, require project applicants to incorporate specific measures into project plans and specifications that are intended to prevent invasive and noxious weeds and vegetation from establishing on the project site. Action COS 2d:

Through coordination with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, California Department of Fish and Wildlife, and Sonoma County, continue to maintain and periodically update, a map of sensitive biological communities and habitat within the Sebastopol Planning Area. Ensure that this map and associated information is readily available to potential developers and the public.

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

City of Sebastopol
The Canopy

4.3-10
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.

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.

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.

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

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

Actions in Support of Goal COS 6
Action COS 6a: Make available a list of plants and trees native to the region that are suitable for use in landscaping. The plant and tree species should be drought tolerant, available from local sources, and consideration should be given to the suitability of the plant and tree species for use as habitat to native animals, birds, and insects. The list should be provided online in a userfriendly format, and staff should direct project applicants to the list during site design review and approval.

Action COS 6b: Continue to implement the Tree Protection Ordinance, which protects substantial trees, provides for removals in specified circumstances, and which requires a Tree Protection Plan (TPP) prepared by a certified arborist for projects that may affect protected trees.

Action COS 6c: Review and possibly revise the Tree Protection Ordinance in order to strengthen monitoring provisions for re-planting efforts, in order to ensure the long-term health and viability of replanted trees. Revisions should also address the current fee structure for violations of the TPP to ensure that violations are more costly than compliance with the TPP requirements.

Action COS 6d: Prepare and adopt a Street Tree Planting and Management Program establishing varieties, size and spacing requirements, maintenance standards, and priority planting schedules. This program shall give priority to those streets with heavy vehicular traffic and those which link open space and activity centers. The program shall ensure that trees provide adequate shade and are integrated into parking lots and community spaces in such a manner that tree health is maintained in the long term.

Action COS 6e: Continue requiring the planting of trees in parking lots to provide shade and visual screening.

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

Environmental Impact Analysis
Biological Resources
Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.3-11
City of Sebastopol Municipal Code
The Sebastopol Municipal Code Chapter 8.12, Tree Protection, requires a permit for the removal of “Protected native trees”, with a minimum diameter at breast height (DBH) of 10 inches if it has a single trunk, or which has at least one trunk with a minimum DBH of 10 inches if the tree has two or more trunks, on all properties other than single-family or duplex residential properties, and with a minimum DBH of 20 inches on single-family or duplex properties, and which is also a member of any of the following species:
 Bigleaf maple (Acer macrophyllum)
 Box elder (Acer negundo ssp. Californica)
 Buckeye (Aesculus californica)
 White alder(Alnus rhombifolia)
 Madrone (Arbutus menziesii)
 Hawthorne (Crataegus douglasii)
 Oregon ash (Fraxinus latifolia)
 Douglas fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii)
 Coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia)
 Oregon oak (Quercus garryana)
 Black oak (Quercus kelloggii)
 Valley oak (Quercus lobata)
 Any naturally occurring hybrid of Quercus species listed above  California bay (Umbellularia californica)
 Sandbar willow (Salix hindsiana)
 Yellow willow (Salix lasiolepis)
 Red willow (Salix laevigata)
 Coast redwood1 2 (Sequoia sempervirens)
 Tanbark oak (Lithocarpus densiflora)
 California black walnut (Juglans hindsii)
A Tree Protection Plan prepared by an International Society of Arboriculture (ISA) certified arborist 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. The Tree Protection Plan must include the size, species, state of health, estimated crown diameter, and accurate trunk location of all trees whose dripline is within the development area. Additionally, the plan must describe the proposed measures to protect to remain onsite, proposed landscaping within the dripline of protected native trees, proposed replacement trees, landscape maintenance, and the proposed grading and drainage plans. Additional requirements to protect trees include Environmentally Sensitive Area fencing and non-entry within driplines of protected trees during construction.
1 Generally not appropriate as a replacement tree. Therefore, if proposed as a replacement tree, the request should be reviewed and approved by the City Arborist.
2 Not indigenous to Sebastopol. However, this species is perceived by the public to be native to the area.

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

City of Sebastopol
The Canopy

4.3-12
Replacement trees are selected from the following list of approved trees based on the recommendations, or approved alternates, with approval from the Design Review Board with recommendations from Planning staff and the City Arborist.  Amur maple (Acer ginnala)
 Big leaf maple
 Black oak
 California bay
 Chinese elm (Ulmus parvifolia)
 Chinese pistache (Pistacia chinesis)
 Coast live oak
 Crape myrtle (Lagerstroemia indica)
 Gravenstein apple (Malus Gravenstein)
 Interior live oak (Quercus wislizenii)
 Japanese maple (Acer palmatum)
 Madrone
 Oregon ash
 Port Orford cedar (Chamaecyparis lawsoniana)
 Red alder (Alnus oregona)
 Red oak (Quercus rubra)
 Trident maple (Acer buergeranum)
 Western redbud (Cercis occidentalis)
 Western red cedar (Thuja plicata)
 Valley oak

4.3.3 Impact Analysis
a. Significance Thresholds and Methodology
The impact analysis is based on the existing biological resources documented in the BRA (Integral 2023; Appendix C) and Rincon’s literature review of CDFW’s CNDDB, and CNPS’s Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants of California, described above. Project impacts to biological resources are focused upon rare, threatened, endangered species, or species listed under CEQA Guidelines Section 15380.

According to Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, a proposed project would have a significant impact on biological resources if the project would:

Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service
Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

Environmental Impact Analysis
Biological Resources
Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.3-13
Have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means
Interfere substantially (i.e., direct/indirect reduction) 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 Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance; or
Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan b. Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Threshold 1: Would the project have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? Impact BIO-1 THE PROJECT WOULD HAVE A SUBSTANTIAL ADVERSE EFFECT ON SPECIAL STATUS ANIMAL SPECIES. IMPACTS WOULD BE LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT WITH MITIGATION.

The BRA and database searches identified 78 special-status plant species that have the potential to occur within the nine-quad search radius. None of these species are expected to occur onsite as none were identified during the reconnaissance survey and associated habitats were not present within the project site.

The BRA and database searches identified 30 special-status wildlife species that have the potential to occur within the nine-quad search radius. Four special-status wildlife species were identified as having potential to occur within the project site due to the location within the species known range, presence of potentially suitable habitat, species occurrence records in the vicinity of the project site.

Two species, Townsend's big-eared bat and pallid bat, are not further evaluated as they have a low potential to occur while day roosting or foraging.

Western bumble bee has a moderate potential to occur onsite. Impacts to western bumble bee may occur if a colony or foraging individuals are present and could be injured or killed during construction. This species is a candidate for listing under the CESA, and “take” authorization would be required for impacts. Therefore, impacts would be potentially significant and mitigation measures would be required.

If western red bat maternity colonies are present on or near the site during construction, direct impacts could include injury or mortality from construction activity and roost abandonment from construction noise, dust, and other project activities. Therefore, impacts to western red bat would be potentially significant and mitigation measures would be required.

Non-game migratory birds and native birds protected by CFGC Section 3503 and the MBTA are likely to nest within existing trees located along the western boundary of the project site and along the traversing slope within the project site. These trees are proposed for removal, which would impact nesting birds if active nests are present on site, through nest abandonment or destruction. Impacts may also occur if active nests are present in undeveloped and landscaped areas adjacent to active Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

City of Sebastopol
The Canopy

4.3-14
construction or staging through disturbance and nest abandonment. Therefore, impacts would be potentially significant and mitigation measures would be required.

Mitigation Measures
BIO 1(a) Western Bumble Bee Preconstruction Survey
A qualified biologist(s) shall conduct a pre-construction survey for western bumble bee prior to the onset of work activities at the project site. The pre-construction survey effort shall be conducted for a minimum of one hour. If bumble bees of any species are observed, they shall be photographed for identification following the USFWS guidance in Appendix A Standardized Bee Photography in the Survey Protocols for the Rusty Patched Bumble Bee (Bombus affinis) (USFWS 2019). If construction begins between March 1 and November 1, the ground shall also be searched during the survey for active bumble bee colonies. No capture or handling of bumble bees shall be conducted, and western bumble bee, if identified, shall be avoided during construction. Foraging bees shall be allowed to leave work areas undisturbed.

BIO-1(b) Roosting Bat Surveys and Avoidance
Prior to tree removal or ground disturbance, a qualified biologist shall conduct a focused survey of all trees within the project site, to determine whether active roosts of special status bats are present. If tree removal is planned for the fall or winter, the survey shall be conducted in September to ensure tree removal would have adequate time to occur outside periods of hibernation and during seasonal periods of bat activity (March 1 to April 15, September 1 to October 15, or in any month when evening temperatures rise above 45 degrees Fahrenheit and/or no more than 0.5 inch of rainfall within 24 hours occurs, as described below). If tree removal is planned for the spring, then the survey shall be conducted during the earliest feasible time in March to allow for suitable conditions for the detection of bats, and subsequent tree removal. Trees containing suitable potential bat roost habitat features shall be clearly marked or identified. If day roosts are found to be potentially present, the biologist shall prepare a site-specific roosting bat protection plan to be implemented by the contractor following the City’s approval. The plan shall incorporate the following guidance as appropriate:
1) When feasible, removal of trees and structures identified as suitable roosting habitat shall be seasonally timed to avoid disturbance during the hibernation and breeding seasons, including the following:
a) Between September 1 and about October 15, or before evening temperatures fall below 45 degrees Fahrenheit and/or more than 0.5 inch of rainfall within 24 hours occurs. b) Between March 1 and April 15, or after evening temperatures rise above 45 degrees Fahrenheit and/or no more than 0.5 inch of rainfall within 24 hours occurs. 2) If a tree must be removed during the breeding season and is identified as potentially containing a maternity roost, then a qualified biologist shall conduct visual or acoustic emergence surveys or implement other appropriate methods as determined by the biologist to further evaluate if the roost is an active maternity roost. If it is determined that an active maternity roost of a colonial roosting species is present, the roost shall not be disturbed during the breeding season (April 15 to August 31). If it is determined to not be an active maternity roost, the tree or structure may be removed under the guidance of the qualified biologist.

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

Environmental Impact Analysis
Biological Resources
Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.3-15
3) Potential non-colonial hibernation roosts shall only be removed during seasonal periods of bat activity outside the hibernation and breeding seasons. Potential non-colonial roosts that cannot be avoided shall be removed on warm days in late morning to afternoon when any bats present are likely to be warm and able to fly. Appropriate methods as determined by the qualified biologist shall be used to minimize the potential harm to bats during tree or structure removal. For trees, such methods may include using a two-step tree removal process. This method is conducted over two consecutive days and works by creating noise and vibration by cutting non-habitat branches and limbs from habitat trees using chainsaws only (i.e., no excavators or other heavy machinery) on the first day with the remainder of tree removal occurring on the second day.3
BIO-1(c) Nesting Bird Survey
If construction, vegetation trimming, or tree removals are scheduled to occur during the nesting bird season (February 1 through August 31), the project applicant shall retain a qualified biologist to conduct a pre-construction nesting bird survey no more than 14 days prior to the start of construction to determine the presence/absence of nesting birds and raptors within the project site and adjacent areas. The survey shall include the entire site plus a 100-foot buffer, as accessible. If active nests are found, the qualified biologist shall establish an appropriate avoidance buffer, considering the species sensitivity and physical location of the nest (e.g., line of site to the work area), to comply with CFGC 3503 and 3503.5. The buffer shall be at least 50 feet for non-raptor bird species and 250 feet for raptor species, unless a smaller buffer is determined protective of nesting birds by the qualified biologist. To prevent encroachment, the established buffer(s) shall be clearly marked by high visibility material installed by the contractor. The established buffer(s) shall remain in effect until the young have fledged or the nest has been abandoned as confirmed by the qualified biologist. The City shall review and approve the biologists’ findings and buffer during construction, as appropriate.

Significance After Mitigation
Implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-1(a) would identify whether western bumble bee are present on site and would require avoidance of this species, if necessary. Mitigation Measure BIO1(b) would identify whether western red bat are present, and require avoidance of maternal colonies, if necessary. Mitigation Measure BIO-1(a) would identify nesting birds and would establish avoidance buffers around nesting birds, if present, to avoid direct impacts including nest abandonment and mortality. These mitigation measures would reduce impacts from construction activities on special status animal species to less than significant. 3 In our experience, the noise and vibration disturbance, together with the visible alteration of the tree, is very effective in causing bats that emerge nightly to feed to not return to the roost that night.

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

City of Sebastopol
The Canopy

4.3-16
Threshold 2: Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
Threshold 3: Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands (including but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? Threshold 4: Would the project 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? Impact BIO-2 THE PROJECT WOULD NOT HAVE A SUBSTANTIAL ADVERSE EFFECT ON ANY RIPARIAN

HABITAT OR OTHER SENSITIVE NATURAL COMMUNITY, AND THE PROJECT WOULD NOT HAVE A SUBSTANTIAL ADVERSE EFFECT ON STATE OR FEDERALLY PROTECTED WETLANDS. THE PROJECT WOULD NOT 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. THERE WOULD BE NO IMPACT.

No sensitive natural communities are present on the project site. No adverse effect on sensitive natural communities would occur as a result of project activities. No wetlands or other potentially jurisdictional features occur within or adjacent to the project area. No impacts to jurisdictional wetlands or waters would occur. The project site consists of developed and disturbed areas with primarily ornamental vegetation. Land use in the vicinity is primarily residential or agricultural with no connectivity to natural habitats and the project site is not expected to support wildlife movement. Although Laguna de Santa Rosa is a regional corridor for wildlife movement east of the site, the site itself does not contain suitable natural areas that would contribute to a migratory corridor for wildlife. No impacts to wildlife movement corridors would occur as a result of project activities.

Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is required.

Significance After Mitigation
No impact would occur.

Threshold 5: Would the project conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? Impact BIO-3 THE PROJECT COULD CONFLICT WITH THE CITY OF SEBASTOPOL MUNICIPAL CODE TREE PROTECTION ORDINANCE. THIS IMPACT WOULD BE LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT WITH MITIGATION.

A total of 133 trees greater than six inches occur on the project site, 91 of which are over 10 inches and are protected under the City’s Municipal Code. Twenty-two (22) protected trees would be removed as a result of project implementation. Removed species include coast live oak, Duglas fir, and coast redwood. Existing oak trees and redwoods would be preserved to the maximum extent possible. 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, Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

Environmental Impact Analysis
Biological Resources
Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.3-17
and specification of a tree replacement ratio by the Planning staff or the City Arborist during the project design review. Pending approval, removed trees must be replaced with an approved tree species on the approved tree List. 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 protecting biological resources. Impacts would be less than significant with mitigation.

Mitigation Measures
BIO-2 Tree Replacement
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 protected native trees, as determined by the Tree Board or the City Arborist. Two replacement trees shall be either planted onsite for each protected tree removed or at a Cityapproved offsite location, or a fee of $75 per replacement tree would be provided to the City of Sebastopol tree fund in-lieu for 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.

Significance After Mitigation
Implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-2 would require compliance with the Sebastopol Municipal Code Section 8.12, therefore there would be no conflicts with Threshold 6: Would the project conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan?
Impact BIO-4 THE PROJECT WOULD NOT CONFLICT WITH THE PROVISIONS OF AN ADOPTED HABITAT

CONSERVATION PLAN, NATURAL COMMUNITY CONSERVATION PLAN, OR OTHER APPROVED LOCAL, REGIONAL, OR STATE HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN. THERE WOULD BE NO IMPACT.

The project site does not occur within any Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan. Therefore, no impacts would occur.

Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is required.

Significance After Mitigation
No impact would occur.

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

City of Sebastopol
The Canopy

4.3-18

4.3.4 Cumulative Impacts
The geographic scope for cumulative biological resources impacts includes the areas surrounding the project site, including incorporated Sebastopol and unincorporated Sonoma County lands within approximately 10 miles of the City. This geographic scope is appropriate for biological resources because it encompasses the mosaic of representative land cover and habitat types (and associated biological resources) affected by the project, including primarily urban, residential, commercial, and industrial development with areas of natural habitats.

The planned and pending projects in the project vicinity are listed in Table 3-1 of Section 3, Environmental Setting. Cumulative development in the area could contribute to the loss of habitat for special-status species and the decline of special-status species, cause further fragmentation of habitat and isolation of populations, and decrease movement opportunities. Together, cumulative projects could result in the degradation of the suite of habitat types and associated biological resources, including special-status plant and wildlife species, that occur within the cumulative setting and could result in overall diminished regional ecological functions and values. Impacts to biological resources would most likely be mitigated on a project-by-project basis. However, permanent losses of sensitive habitats, including sensitive natural communities and listed species, would be a potentially significant cumulative impact.

Project implementation would alter the open nature of the site to residential uses and alter the intensity of existing land uses, although the site only supports limited habitat for special-status species. The project would have no impact to riparian habitat, sensitive natural communities, protected wetlands, wildlife movement, or wildlife nursery sites. The presence of flowering plants, open space, and mature trees on site could result in project-level impacts to bumble bees, bats, and nesting birds; however, Mitigation Measure BIO-1(a) would identify if western bumble bee are present, and require avoidance, BIO1(b) would require a roosting bat survey and avoidance, and BIO1(c) would require a nesting bird survey and avoidance; collectively, these measure would reduce impacts to special status species to a less than significant level. Mitigation Measure BIO-2 would require replacement of native protected trees. As such, the project’s contribution to cumulative impacts would not be cumulatively considerable.

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

Environmental Impact Analysis
Cultural Resources
Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.4-1

4.4 Cultural Resources
This section analyzes the proposed project’s potential impacts related to cultural resources, including historical built environment and archeological resources, and human remains. The analysis in this section is based, in part, on a Cultural Resource Evaluation prepared for the project by Archaeological Resource Management in June 2023. The full report is provided in Confidential Appendix E of this EIR.

4.4.1 Regulatory Setting
This section includes a discussion of the applicable state and local laws, ordinances, regulations, and standards governing cultural resources, which must be adhered to before and during implementation of the proposed project.
a. Federal Regulations
National Register of Historic Places
Although the project does not have a federal nexus, properties which are listed in or have been formally determined eligible for listing in the NRHP are automatically listed in the CRHR. The following is therefore presented to provide applicable regulatory context. The NRHP was authorized by Section 101 of the National Historic Preservation Act and is the nation’s official list of cultural resources worthy of preservation. The NRHP recognizes the quality of significance in American, state, and local history, architecture, archaeology, engineering, and culture is present in districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects. Per 36 CFR Part 60.4, a property is eligible for listing in the NRHP if it meets one or more of the following criteria:

Criterion A: Is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history
Criterion B: Is associated with the lives of persons significant in our past Criterion C: Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of installation, or that represent the work of a master, or that possess high artistic values, or that represent a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction
Criterion D: Has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history In addition to meeting at least one of the above designation criteria, resources must also retain integrity. The National Park Service recognizes seven aspects or qualities that, considered together, define historic integrity. To retain integrity, a property must possess several, if not all, of these seven qualities, defined as follows:

Location: The place where the historic property was constructed or the place where the historic event occurred
Design: The combination of elements that create the form, plan, space, structure, and style of a property
Setting: The physical environment of a historic property Materials: The physical elements that were combined or deposited during a particular period of time and in a particular pattern or configuration to form a historic property Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

City of Sebastopol
The Canopy

4.4-2
Workmanship: The physical evidence of the crafts of a particular culture or people during any given period in history or prehistory
Feeling: A property’s expression of the aesthetic or historic sense of a particular period of time
Association: The direct link between an important historic event or person and a historic property
Certain properties are generally considered ineligible for listing in the NRHP, including cemeteries, birthplaces, graves of historical figures, properties owned by religious institutions, relocated structures, or commemorative properties. Additionally, a property must be at least 50 years of age to be eligible for listing in the NRHP. The National Park Service states that 50 years is the general estimate of the time needed to develop the necessary historical perspective to evaluate significance (National Park Service 1997:41). Properties which are less than 50 years must be determined to have “exceptional importance” to be considered eligible for NRHP listing. b. State Regulations
California Environmental Quality Act
California Public Resources Code (PRC) Section 21804.1 requires lead agencies to determine if a project could have a significant impact on historical or unique archaeological resources. As defined in PRC Section 21084.1, a historical resource is a resource listed in, or determined eligible for listing in, the California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR), a resource included in a local register of historical resources or identified in a historical resources survey pursuant to PRC Section 5024.1(g), or any object, building, structure, site, area, place, record, or manuscript that a lead agency determines to be historically significant. PRC Section 21084.1 also states resources meeting the above criteria are presumed to be historically or culturally significant unless the preponderance of evidence demonstrates otherwise. Resources listed in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) are automatically listed in the CRHR and are, therefore, historical resources under CEQA.

Historical resources may include eligible built environment resources and archaeological resources of the precontact or historic periods.

CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(c) provides further guidance on the consideration of archaeological resources. If an archaeological resource does not qualify as a historical resource, it may meet the definition of a “unique archaeological resource” as identified in PRC Section 21083.2.

PRC Section 21083.2(g) defines a unique archaeological resource as an artifact, object, or site about which it can be clearly demonstrated that, without merely adding to the current body of knowledge, there is a high probability that it meets any of the following criteria: 1) it contains information needed to answer important scientific research questions and that there is a demonstrable public interest in that information, 2) has a special and particular quality such as being the oldest of its type or the best available example of its type, or 3) is directly associated with a scientifically recognized important prehistoric or historic event or person.

If an archaeological resource does not qualify as a historical or unique archaeological resource, the impacts of a project on those resources will be less than significant and need not be considered further (CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5[c][4]). CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5 also provides guidance for addressing the potential presence of human remains, including those discovered during the implementation of a project.

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

Environmental Impact Analysis
Cultural Resources
Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.4-3
According to CEQA, an impact that results in a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource is considered a significant impact on the environment. A substantial adverse change could result from physical demolition, destruction, relocation, or alteration of the resource or its immediate surroundings such that the significance of the historical resource would be materially impaired (CEQA Guidelines §15064.5 [b][1]). Material impairment is defined as demolition or alteration in an adverse manner [of] those characteristics of a historical resource that convey its historical significance and that justify its inclusion in, or eligibility for inclusion in, the CRHR or a local register (CEQA Guidelines §15064.5[b][2][A]).

If it can be demonstrated that a project will cause damage to a unique archaeological resource, the lead agency may require reasonable efforts be made to permit any or all of these resources to be preserved in place or left in an undisturbed state. To the extent that resources cannot be left undisturbed, mitigation measures are required (PRC §21083.2[a][b]).

Section 15126.4 of the CEQA Guidelines stipulates an EIR shall describe feasible measures to minimize significant adverse impacts. In addition to being fully enforceable, mitigation measures must be completed within a defined time period and be roughly proportional to the impact of the project. Generally, a project which is found to comply with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties with Guidelines for Preserving, Rehabilitating, Restoring, and Reconstructing Historic Buildings (the Standards) is considered to be mitigated below a level of significance (CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.4 [b][1]). For historical resources of an archaeological nature, lead agencies should also seek to avoid damaging effects where feasible. Preservation in place is the preferred manner to mitigate impacts to archaeological sites; however, data recovery through excavation may be the only option in certain instances (CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.4[b][3]).

California Register of Historical Resources
The CRHR was established in 1992 and codified by PRC §§5024.1 and 4852. The CRHR is an authoritative listing and guide to be used by state and local agencies, private groups, and citizens in identifying the existing historical resources of the state and to indicate which resources deserve to be protected, to the extent prudent and feasible, from substantial adverse change (Public Resources Code, 5024.1(a)). The criteria for eligibility for the CRHR are consistent with the NRHP criteria but have been modified for state use in order to include a range of historical resources that better reflect the history of California (Public Resources Code, 5024.1(b)). Unlike the NRHP however, the CRHR does not have a defined age threshold for eligibility; rather, a resource may be eligible for the CRHR if it can be demonstrated sufficient time has passed to understand its historical or architectural significance (California Office of Historic Preservation 2006). Furthermore, resources may still be eligible for listing in the CRHR even if they do not retain sufficient integrity for NRHP eligibility (California Office of Historic Preservation 2006). Generally, the California Office of Historic Preservation recommends resources over 45 years of age be recorded and evaluated for historical resources eligibility (California Office of Historic Preservation 1995:2).

A property is eligible for listing in the CRHR if it meets one of more of the following criteria:

Criterion 1: Is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of California’s history and cultural heritage
Criterion 2: Is associated with the lives of persons important to our past Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

City of Sebastopol
The Canopy

4.4-4
Criterion 3: Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction, or represents the work of an important creative individual, or possesses high artistic values
Criterion 4: Has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history California Health and Safety Code
Section 7050.5 of the California Health and Safety Code states that in the event of discovery or recognition of any human remains in any location other than a dedicated cemetery, there shall be no further excavation or disturbance of the site or any nearby area reasonably suspected to overlie adjacent remains until the coroner of the county in which the remains are discovered has determined if the remains are subject to the Coroner’s authority. If the human remains are of Native American origin, the coroner must notify the NAHC within 24 hours of this identification.

California Public Resources Code §5097.98
Section 5097.98 of the California Public Resources Code states that the NAHC, upon notification of the discovery of Native American human remains pursuant to Health and Safety Code §7050.5, shall immediately notify those persons (i.e., the Most Likely Descendant [MLD]) that it believes to be descended from the deceased. With permission of the landowner or a designated representative, the MLD may inspect the remains and any associated cultural materials and make recommendations for treatment or disposition of the remains and associated grave goods. The MLD shall provide recommendations or preferences for treatment of the remains and associated cultural materials within 48 hours of being granted access to the site.
c. Local Regulations
Sebastopol Municipal Code 2016
Chapter 17.150 Cultural Heritage of the City of Sebastopol Municipal Code Ordinance authorizes the Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal, to designate (or remove) local landmarks and sites of historic interest by the procedures outlined in the ordinance. Archaeological sites and human remains are not addressed.

Sebastopol General Plan 2016
The Sebastopol General Plan, adopted in 2016, provides a comprehensive framework that guides the City’s development. Both the Conservation and Open Space Element and Community Design Element establish goals and policies to protect historic and cultural resources within Sebastopol.

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

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

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

Environmental Impact Analysis
Cultural Resources
Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.4-5
Policy COS 10-3: Work with Native American representatives to identify and appropriately address, through avoidance or mitigation, impacts to Native American cultural resources and sacred sites during the development review process.

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

Policy COS 10-5: Protect important historic resources and use these resources to promote a sense of place and history in Sebastopol.

Policy COS 10-6: Encourage the voluntary identification, conservation, and re-use of historical structures, properties, and sites with special and recognized historic, architectural, or aesthetic value.

Policy COS 10-7: Encourage historic resources to remain in their original use whenever possible.

The adaptive use of historic resources is preferred when the original use can no longer be sustained.

Policy COS 10-8: Leverage the City’s strong cultural and historic heritage to support and encourage historically-oriented visitor programs and heritage tourism through cooperation with local, regional, and state marketing efforts.

Policy COS 10-9: Continue to support and promote annual festivals and community events that celebrate Sebastopol’s cultural heritage.

Policy COS 10-10: Encourage and support community art projects, including murals, sculptures, educational programs, and events that highlight Sebastopol’s cultural and historic heritage.

Actions in Support of Goal COS 10:

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

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

Action COS 10c: Require all development, infrastructure, and other ground-disturbing projects to comply with the following conditions in the event of an inadvertent discovery of cultural resources or human remains:
 If construction or grading activities result in the discovery of significant historic or prehistoric archaeological artifacts or unique paleontological resources, all work within 100 feet of the discovery shall cease, the Planning Department shall be notified, the resources shall be examined by a qualified archaeologist, paleontologist, or historian for appropriate Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024