2016 S G P UPDATE SCH# J - sebastopol.generalplan.orgsebastopol.generalplan.org/sites/default/files/Final_EIR_Sebastopol...The City of Sebastopol circulated a Notice of Preparation

FINALENVIRONMENTALIMPACTREPORT

FORTHE2016SEBASTOPOLGENERALPLANUPDATESCH#2016032001

JULY2016Preparedfor:

CityofSebastopolPlanningDepartment7120BodegaAvenueSebastopol,CA95472Preparedby:

DeNovoPlanningGroup1020SuncastLane,Suite106ElDoradoHills,CA95762www.denovoplanning.com

D e N o v o P l a n n i n g G r o u p

A L a n d U s e P l a n n i n g , D e s i g n , a n d E n v i r o n m e n t a l F i r m

FINALENVIRONMENTALIMPACTREPORT

FORTHE

2016SEBASTOPOLGENERALPLANUPDATE

SCH#2016032001

JULY2016

Preparedfor:

CityofSebastopol

PlanningDepartment7120BodegaAvenueSebastopol,CA95472

Preparedby:

DeNovoPlanningGroup

1020SuncastLane,Suite106ElDoradoHills,CA95762www.denovoplanning.com

TABLEOFCONTENTS TOC

FinalEnvironmentalImpactReport–2016SebastopolGeneralPlan TOC-1

FINALEIR

Chapter PageNumber

ExecutiveSummary....................................................................................................................ES-1

1.0Introduction........................................................................................................................1.0-1

1.1PurposeandIntendedUsesoftheEIR...................................................................1.0-1

1.2EnvironmentalReviewProcess..............................................................................1.0-2

1.3OrganizationoftheFinalEIR..................................................................................1.0-4

2.0CommentsonDraftEIRandResponses..............................................................................2.0-1

2.1Introduction............................................................................................................2.0-1

2.2ListofCommenters................................................................................................2.0-1

2.3CommentsandResponses.....................................................................................2.0-1

3.0Errata...................................................................................................................................3.0-1

3.1RevisionstotheDraftEIR.......................................................................................3.0-1

Table PageNumberTable2-1:ListofCommentersonDraftEIR..............................................................................2.0-1

TOC TABLEOFCONTENTS

TOC-2 FinalEnvironmentalImpactReport–2016SebastopolGeneralPlan

Thispageleftintentionallyblank.

EXECUTIVESUMMARY ES

FinalEnvironmentalImpactReport–2016SebastopolGeneralPlan ES-1

INTRODUCTIONThe City of Sebastopol (City) has determined that a program-level environmental impact report(EIR)isrequiredfortheproposed2016GeneralPlan(Project)pursuanttotherequirementsoftheCalifornia Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). CEQA requires the preparation of an EIR prior toapprovinganyproject,whichmayhaveasignificantimpactontheenvironment.ForthepurposesofCEQA,theterm"Project"referstothewholeofanaction,whichhasthepotentialforresultinginadirectphysicalchangeorareasonablyforeseeableindirectphysicalchangeintheenvironment(CEQAGuidelinesSection15378[a]).

AProgramEIR isanEIRwhichexaminestheenvironmental impactsofanagencyplan,policy,orregulatory program, such as a general planupdate. ProgramEIRs analyzebroadenvironmentalimpactsof theprogram,with theacknowledgement thatsite-specificenvironmental reviewmaybe required for particular aspects of the program, or particular development projects thatmayoccurinthefuture.

TheCityofSebastopolcirculatedaNoticeofPreparation(NOP)ofanEIRfortheproposedprojectonMarch1,2016totrusteeandresponsibleagencies,theStateClearinghouse,andthepublic.Ascoping meeting was held on March 22, 2016 with the Sebastopol Planning Commission.Subsequently,SebastopolpublishedapublicNoticeofAvailability(NOA)fortheDraftEIRonMay23,2016,invitingcommentfromthegeneralpublic,agencies,organizations,andotherinterestedparties.TheNOAwasfiledwiththeStateClearinghouse(SCH#2016032001)andwaspublishedinpursuant to the public noticing requirements of CEQA. The Draft EIR was available for publicreview fromMay 23, 2016 through July 8, 2016. The Public Draft 2016 General Planwas alsoavailableforpublicreviewandcommentduringthistimeperiod.

ThisFinalEIRwaspreparedtoaddresscommentsreceived inresponsetotheDraftEIR.TheCityhaspreparedawrittenresponsetotheDraftEIRcommentsandmadetextualchangestotheDraftEIRwherewarranted.TheresponsestothecommentsareprovidedinthisFinalEIRinSection2.0,andallchangestothetextoftheDraftEIRaresummarizedinSection3.0.Responsestocommentsreceivedduringthecommentperioddonotinvolveanynewsignificantimpactsor“significantnewinformation”thatwouldrequirerecirculationoftheDraftEIRpursuanttoCEQAGuidelinesSection15088.5.

PROJECTDESCRIPTIONThe 2016 Sebastopol General Plan is the overarching policy document that guides land use,housing,transportation,infrastructure,communityservices,andotherpolicydecisionsthroughoutSebastopol.TheGeneralPlan includesthesevenelementsmandatedbyState law,totheextentthattheyarerelevantlocally,including:Circulation,Conservation,Housing,LandUse,Noise,OpenSpace,andSafety.TheCitymayalsoaddressother topicsof interest; thisGeneralPlan includeselements related toCommunity Services andFacilities, EconomicVitality, CommunityCharacter,andCommunityHealthandWellnesselements.TheGeneralPlansetsoutthegoals,policies,andactions in eachof theseareas, serves as apolicy guide forhow theCitywillmake keyplanning

ES EXECUTIVESUMMARY

ES-2 FinalEnvironmentalImpactReport–2016SebastopolGeneralPlan

decisions in the future, and guides how the Citywill interactwith SonomaCounty, surroundingcities,andotherlocal,regional,State,andFederalagencies.

TheGeneralPlancontainsthegoalsandpoliciesthatwillguidefuturedecisionswithinthecity.ItalsoidentifiesactionsthatwillensurethegoalsandpoliciesintheGeneralPlanarecarriedout.

RefertoSection2.0(ProjectDescription)oftheDraftEIRforamorecomprehensivedescriptionofthedetailsoftheproposedproject.

ALTERNATIVESTOTHEPROPOSEDPROJECTSection 15126.6 of the CEQA Guidelines requires an EIR to describe a reasonable range ofalternativestotheprojectortothelocationoftheprojectwhichwouldreduceoravoidsignificantimpacts, andwhich could feasibly accomplish the basic objectives of the proposed project. ThealternativesanalyzedinthisEIRarebrieflydescribedasfollows:

• Alternative 1:NoProjectAlternative.UnderAlternative 1, theCitywouldnot adopt theGeneralPlanUpdate.The1994GeneralPlanwouldcontinue tobe implementedandnochanges to theGeneral Plan, including the LandUseMap (see Figure 3.10-1), EconomicVitality Element, Community Health and Wellness Element, Circulation Diagram, goals,policies,oractionswouldoccur.

• Alternative2:IncreasedOpenSpaceAlternative.AsshownonFigure5.0-1,Alternative2wouldrevisetheproposedGeneralPlanLandUseMaptoincludeexpandedareasofOpenSpaceandVeryLowDensityResidentialUsesaroundtheperipheryof theCity,primarilywithin the Sphere of Influence (SOI) and Urban Growth Boundary (UGB). UnderAlternative2,alloftheproposedGeneralPlangoals,policies,andactionitemswouldbeadopted,butdevelopment levelsandintensitiesunderCumulativeGeneralPlanBuildoutConditionswoulddecrease.

• Alternative 3: Downtown Intensification Alternative. Under Alternative 3, developmentpotentialwithintheDowntownCorewouldbeintensified,andresidentialuseswouldnotbe permitted in non-residential land use designations outside of the Downtown Core(precludingresidentialdevelopmentintheCommercial/Office,Office/LightIndustrial,andOfficedesignations).TheminimumFARintheDowntownCoredesignationwouldincreasefrom1.0undertheProposedGeneralPlanto1.5underAlternative3.Additionally,allnewdevelopmentwithintheDowntownCoredesignationwouldberequiredtoprovideon-siteresidentialusesatadensityof44dwellingunits/acreaboveground-floorcommercialorofficeuses. Thisalternative furtherassumes thatadowntownparkingdistrictwouldbecreated, and that the majority of on-site parking requirements for structures in theDowntown Core would be accommodated via an in-lieu fee payment towards theconstructionofanewparkingstructure.

AlternativesaredescribedindetailinSection5.0oftheDraftEIR.AssummarizedinTable5.0-8ofthe Draft EIR, Alternative 2 is the environmentally superior alternative because it provides thegreatestreductionofpotentialimpactsincomparisontotheotheralternatives.

EXECUTIVESUMMARY ES


COMMENTSRECEIVEDTheDraft EIR addresses environmental impacts associatedwith the proposed project thatwereknown to the City, raised during the Notice of Preparation (NOP) process, or raised duringpreparationoftheDraftEIR.TheDraftEIRdiscussespotentiallysignificantimpactsassociatedwithaesthetics/visualresources,agricultural/forestresources,airquality,biological/naturalresources,cultural resources, geology/soils/minerals, greenhouse gases/climate change, hazards,hydrology/water quality, land use/population, noise, public services/recreation,transportation/circulation,utilities,andcumulativeimpacts.

NOPCommentsDuring the NOP process, the City received comments from the following public agencies,organizations,orindividuals:

• CaliforniaNativeAmericanHeritageCommission

• CaliforniaDepartmentofTransportation(Caltrans)

• CountyofSonomaPermitandResourceManagementDepartment

DraftEIRCommentsDuring the Draft EIR review process, the City received comments from the following publicagencies,organizations,orindividuals:

• CaliforniaDepartmentofTransportation(Caltrans),District4

• SonomaLocalAgencyFormationCommission

Actingasleadagency,theCityofSebastopolhaspreparedaresponsetotheDraftEIRcomments.TheresponsestothecommentsareprovidedinthisFinalEIR inSection2.0(CommentsonDraftEIR and Responses) and all changes to the text of the Draft EIR are summarized in Section 3.0(Errata). Responses to comments received during the comment period do not involve any newsignificant impactsor“significantnew information” thatwould require recirculationof theDraftEIRpursuanttoCEQAGuidelinesSection15088.5.

ES EXECUTIVESUMMARY


Thispageleftintentionallyblank

INTRODUCTION 1.0

FinalEnvironmentalImpactReport–2016SebastopolGeneralPlan 1.0-1

This Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) was prepared in accordance with the CaliforniaEnvironmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the State CEQA Guidelines (Section 15132). The City ofSebastopol istheleadagencyfortheenvironmentalreviewofthe2016SebastopolGeneralPlan(GeneralPlan,GeneralPlanUpdate,orProject)andhastheprincipalresponsibilityforapprovingtheproject. This FEIRassesses theexpectedenvironmental impacts resulting fromapproval andadoptionof the2016SebastopolGeneralPlanandresponds tocomments receivedontheDraftEIR.

The 2016 Sebastopol General Plan is the overarching policy document that guides land use,housing,transportation,infrastructure,communityservices,andotherpolicydecisionsthroughoutSebastopol.TheGeneralPlan includesthesevenelementsmandatedbyState law,totheextentthattheyarerelevantlocally,including:Circulation,Conservation,Housing,LandUse,Noise,OpenSpace,andSafety.TheCitymayalsoaddressother topicsof interest; thisGeneralPlan includeselements related toCommunity Services andFacilities, EconomicVitality, CommunityCharacter,andCommunityHealthandWellnesselements.TheGeneralPlansetsoutthegoals,policies,andactions in eachof theseareas, serves as apolicy guide forhow theCitywillmake keyplanningdecisions in the future, and guides how the Citywill interactwith SonomaCounty, surroundingcities,andotherlocal,regional,State,andFederalagencies.

1.1 PURPOSEANDINTENDEDUSESOFTHEEIRCEQAREQUIREMENTSFORAFINALEIRThis FEIR for the 2016 Sebastopol General Plan has been prepared in accordance with theCalifornia Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and State CEQA Guidelines. State CEQA GuidelinesSection15132requiresthatanFEIRconsistofthefollowing:

• theDraftEnvironmentalImpactReport(DraftEIR)orarevisionofthedraft;• comments and recommendations received on the Draft EIR, either verbatim or in

summary;• alistofpersons,organizations,andpublicagenciescommentingontheDraftEIR;• the responses of the lead agency to significant environmental concerns raised in the

reviewandconsultationprocess;and• anyotherinformationaddedbytheleadagency.

In accordance with State CEQA Guidelines Section 15132(a), the Draft EIR is incorporated byreferenceintothisFinalEIR.

An EIR must disclose the expected environmental impacts, including impacts that cannot beavoided,growth-inducingeffects, impacts foundnot tobe significant,and significant cumulativeimpacts, as well as identify mitigation measures and alternatives to the proposed project thatcouldreduceoravoiditsadverseenvironmentalimpacts.CEQArequiresgovernmentagenciestoconsiderand,wherefeasible,minimizeenvironmentalimpactsofproposedprojects,andobligatesthem to balance a variety of public objectives, including economic, environmental, and socialfactors.

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.0-2 FinalEnvironmentalImpactReport–2016SebastopolGeneralPlan

PURPOSEANDUSETheCityofSebastopol,as the leadagency,haspreparedthisFinalEIRtoprovidethepublicandresponsibleandtrusteeagencieswithanobjectiveanalysisofthepotentialenvironmentalimpactsresulting fromapprovaland implementationof the2016GeneralPlan. Responsibleand trusteeagenciesthatmayusetheEIRareidentifiedinChapter1.0oftheDraftEIR.

Theenvironmentalreviewprocessenablesinterestedpartiestoevaluatetheproposedprojectintermsof its environmental consequences, to examine and recommendmethods to eliminateorreduce potential adverse impacts, and to consider a reasonable range of alternatives to theproject. While CEQA requires that consideration be given to avoiding adverse environmentaleffects, the lead agency must balance adverse environmental effects against other publicobjectives, including the economic and social benefits of a project, in determining whether aprojectshouldbeapproved.

ThisEIRwillbeusedastheprimaryenvironmentaldocumenttoevaluateallsubsequentplanningand permitting actions associated with the proposed project. Subsequent actions that may beassociated with the proposed project are identified in Chapter 2.0 (Project Description) of theDraft EIR. This EIR may also be used by other agencies within Sonoma County, including theSonoma Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO), which may use this EIR during thepreparationofenvironmentaldocumentsrelatedtoannexations,MunicipalServiceReviews,andSphereofInfluencedecisionsintheSebastopolPlanningArea.

1.2 ENVIRONMENTALREVIEWPROCESSThereviewandcertificationprocessfortheEIRhasinvolved,orwillinvolve,thefollowinggeneralproceduralsteps:

NOTICEOFPREPARATIONTheCityofSebastopolcirculatedaNoticeofPreparation(NOP)ofanEIRfortheproposedprojectonMarch1,2016totrusteeandresponsibleagencies,theStateClearinghouse,andthepublic.AscopingmeetingwasheldonMarch22,2016withtheSebastopolPlanningCommission.NopublicoragencycommentsontheNOPrelatedtotheEIRanalysiswerepresentedorsubmittedduringthescopingmeeting.However,duringthe30-daypublicreviewperiodfortheNOP,whichendedon March 31, 2016, three written comment letters were received. A summary of the NOPcommentsisprovidedinSection1.8oftheDraftEIR.TheNOPandallcommentsreceivedonitarepresentedinAppendixAoftheDraftEIR.

NOTICEOFAVAILABILITYANDDRAFTEIRTheCityofSebastopolpublishedapublicNoticeofAvailability(NOA)fortheDraftEIRonMay23,2016, inviting comment from the general public, agencies, organizations, and other interestedparties. TheNOAwas filedwith theStateClearinghouse (SCH#2016032001)andwaspublishedpursuant to the public noticing requirements of CEQA. The Draft EIR was available for public

INTRODUCTION 1.0


review fromMay 23, 2016 through July 8, 2016. The Public Draft 2016 General Planwas alsoavailableforpublicreviewandcommentduringthistimeperiod.

The Draft EIR contains a description of the project, description of the environmental setting,identificationofproject impacts,andmitigationmeasures for impacts foundtobesignificant,aswell as an analysis of project alternatives, identificationof significant irreversible environmentalchanges, growth-inducing impacts, and cumulative impacts. The Draft EIR identifies issuesdeterminedtohavenoimpactora lessthansignificant impact,andprovidesdetailedanalysisofpotentially significantandsignificant impacts. Comments received in response to theNOPwereconsideredinpreparingtheanalysisintheDraftEIR.

RESPONSETOCOMMENTS/FINALEIRThe City of Sebastopol received 2 comment letters on the Draft EIR from public agencies,organizations, and members of the public during the 45-day review period. These commentletters,andwrittenresponses,areprovidedinChapter2.0ofthisFinalEIR.

In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15088, this Final EIR responds to the writtencomments received on the Draft EIR. The Final EIR also containsminor edits to the Draft EIR,whichareincludedinChapter3.0(Errata).ThisdocumentandtheDraftEIR,asamendedherein,constitutetheFinalEIR.

CERTIFICATIONOFTHEEIR/PROJECTCONSIDERATIONTheSebastopolCityCouncilwillreviewandconsidertheFinalEIR.IftheCityCouncilfindsthattheFinalEIRis"adequateandcomplete,"thenitmaycertifyitinaccordancewithCEQA.TheruleofadequacygenerallyholdsthatanEIRcanbecertifiedif:

1) TheEIRshowsagoodfaitheffortatfulldisclosureofenvironmentalinformation;and

2) TheEIRprovidessufficientanalysistoallowdecisionstobemaderegardingtheproposedprojectincontemplationofenvironmentalconsiderations.

Upon review and consideration of the Final EIR, the Sebastopol City Councilmay take action toapprove,revise,orrejecttheproject.Adecisiontoapprovethe2016SebastopolGeneralPlan,forwhich this EIR identifies significant environmental effects, must be accompanied by writtenfindingsinaccordancewithStateCEQAGuidelinesSections15091and15093.

Policiesandactionstomitigatepotentialenvironmentalimpactshavebeenincorporatedintotheproject, to the extent feasible. No additionalmitigation is feasible or available, as described inChapters 3.1 through 4.0 of the Draft EIR. The annual report on general plan status requiredpursuant to the Government Code will serve as themonitoring and reporting program for theproject.

1.0 INTRODUCTION


1.3 ORGANIZATIONOFTHEFINALEIRThis Final EIR has been prepared consistent with Section 15132 of the State CEQA Guidelines,whichidentifiesthecontentrequirementsforFinalEIRs.ThisFinalEIRisorganizedinthefollowingmanner:

CHAPTER1.0–INTRODUCTIONChapter 1.0 briefly describes the purpose of the environmental evaluation, identifies the leadagency, summarizes the process associated with preparation and certification of an EIR, andidentifiesthecontentrequirementsandorganizationoftheFinalEIR.

CHAPTER2.0–COMMENTSONDRAFTEIRANDRESPONSESChapter 2.0 provides a list of commenters, copies of written commentsmade on the Draft EIR(codedforreference),andresponsestothosewrittencomments.

CHAPTER3.0-ERRATAChapter3.0consistsofminorrevisionstotheDraftEIRinresponsetocommentsontheDraftEIR.TherevisionstotheDraftEIRdonotchangetheintentorcontentoftheanalysisormitigation.

COMMENTSONDRAFTEIRANDRESPONSES 2.0


2.1 INTRODUCTIONNo new significant environmental impacts or issues, beyond those already covered in the DraftEnvironmental Impact Report (Draft EIR) for the 2016 Sebastopol General Plan Update, were raisedduring the comment period. Responses to comments received during the comment period do notinvolveanynewsignificantimpactsor“significantnewinformation”thatwouldrequirerecirculationoftheDraftEIRpursuanttoCEQAGuidelinesSection15088.5.

CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5 states that:New information added to an EIR is not “significant”unless the EIR is changed in away that deprives thepublic of ameaningful opportunity to commentupona substantialadverseenvironmentaleffectof theprojectora feasibleway tomitigateoravoidsuchaneffect (includinga feasibleprojectalternative) that theproject’sproponentshavedeclined toimplement.

Chapters2.0and3.0ofthisFinalEIRincludeinformationthathasbeenaddedtotheEIRsincethecloseofthepublicreviewperiodintheformofresponsestocommentsanderrata.

2.2 LISTOFCOMMENTERSTable2-1liststhecommentsontheDraftEIRthatweresubmittedtotheCityduringthe45-daypublicreview period. The assigned comment letter number, letter date, letter author, and affiliation, ifpresentedinthecommentletterorifrepresentingapublicagency,arealsolisted.

TABLE2-1:LISTOFCOMMENTERSRESPONSELETTER

INDIVIDUALORSIGNATORY AFFILIATION DATE

A PatriciaMaurice,DistrictBranchChief CaliforniaDepartmentofTransportation,District4 7-6-16

B MarkBramfitt,ExecutiveOfficer SonomaLocalAgencyFormationCommission 7-7-2016

2.3 COMMENTSANDRESPONSESREQUIREMENTSFORRESPONDINGTOCOMMENTSONADRAFTEIRCEQAGuidelinesSection15088requiresthat leadagenciesevaluateandrespondtoallcommentsontheDraftEIR that regardanenvironmental issue. Thewritten responsemustaddress the significantenvironmental issue raised and be detailed, especiallywhen specific comments or suggestions (e.g.,additionalmitigationmeasures)arenotaccepted. Inaddition, thewritten responsemustbeagoodfaithandreasonedanalysis.However,leadagenciesonlyneedtorespondtosignificantenvironmentalissuesassociatedwiththeprojectanddonotneedtoprovidealloftheinformationrequestedbythe

2.0 COMMENTSONDRAFTEIRANDRESPONSES


commenter,aslongasagoodfaitheffortatfulldisclosureismadeintheEIR(CEQAGuidelinesSection15204(a)).

CEQAGuidelinesSection15204recommendsthatcommentersprovidedetailedcommentsthatfocuson thesufficiencyof theDraftEIR in identifyingandanalyzing thepossibleenvironmental impactsoftheprojectandways toavoidormitigate thesignificanteffectsof theproject,andthatcommentersprovideevidence supporting their comments. Pursuant toCEQAGuidelinesSection15064,aneffectshallnotbeconsideredsignificantintheabsenceofsubstantialevidence.

CEQAGuidelinesSection15088alsorecommendsthatrevisionstotheDraftEIRbenotedasarevisionin the Draft EIR or as a separate section of the Final EIR. Chapter 3.0 of this Final EIR identifies allrevisionstothe2016SebastopolGeneralPlanUpdateDraftEIR.

RESPONSESTOCOMMENTLETTERSWritten commentson theDraft EIR are reproducedon the followingpages, alongwith responses tothose comments. To assist in referencing comments and responses, the following coding system isused:

• Each comment letter is lettered (i.e., Letter A), each comment within each letter isnumbered (i.e., Comment A-1, Comment A-2, etc.), and each response is numberedcorrespondingly(i.e.,ResponseA-1,ResponseA-2,etc.).

WherechangestotheDraftEIRtextresultfromtheresponsetocomments,thosechangesareincludedintheresponseandidentifiedwithrevisionsmarks(underlinefornewtext,strikeoutfordeletedtext).







ResponsetoLetterA Patricia Maurice, California Department ofTransportation(Caltrans),District4

ResponseA-1: The commenter provides introductory remarks and states that the comments areintendedtopromotetheState’smobilitygoals.ThecommenteralsoreferencestheNOPcommentlettersubmittedbyCaltrans,datedMarch29,2016. TheMarch29thletterwasincludedinAppendixAoftheDraftEIR,andall issuesraisedinthisletterwereaddressedintheDraftEIR.

ResponseA-2: Thecommenterprovidesasummaryoftheprojectcomponents.

ResponseA-3: ThecommenterstatesthatCaltransisintheProjectInitiationDocument(PID)phaseofplannedsafetyimprovementstothesouthernlegoftheMcKinleyStreet/PetalumaAvenue/LagunaParkWay intersection,witha tentative completiondateof January2023.ThecommentersuggeststhattheCitymakeafairsharecontributiontowardsthis improvementproject. TheCityappreciatesthiscomment. GeneralPlanActionItemCIR1rcallsontheCitytocoordinatewithCaltranstoimplementtrafficcalming,vehicle safety, and bicycle/pedestrian network improvements throughoutSebastopol.Additionally,ActionCIR1jcallsfortheCitytoprovidesupportandastaffliaison to agencies such as Caltrans to help improve the efficiency of the roadwaynetworkinwesternSonomaCounty.

The City will continue to coordinate with Caltrans on roadway system and safetyimprovementswithinandaroundthecity.TheCityCouncilwilldetermineiffundingassistance for the improvement identified above is available and warranted.Regardless of City-provided funding for improvements to the above-referencedintersection, this intersection remains under the jurisdictional control of Caltrans,and the City cannot guarantee implementation of the planned improvements. Forthisreason,DEIRImpact3.13.2wouldremainsignificantandunavoidable.

ResponseA-4: ThecommenternotesaminorerrorintheDEIR,whichstatesthatCaltransoverseesoperationsofUS101rampswithintheCity.WhileitiscorrectthatCaltransoverseesoperations of US 101 ramps, this highway does not pass through the City ofSebastopol. This correctionhasbeenmade in Section3.0, Errata, of this Final EIR.Thisminorcorrectiondoesnotalteranyof theconclusionsoranalysiscontained intheDraftEIR.







ResponsetoLetterB Mark Bramfitt, Sonoma Local Agency FormationCommission

ResponseB-1: Thecommenterprovidesintroductoryremarks.

ResponseB-2: ThecommenterprovidesasummaryofLAFCO’spurposeandmandate.

ResponseB-3: The commenter notes that the City appears interested in amending its sphere toincludeafewparcelseastandnorthoftheCity,andthattheDEIRhasanalyzedtheimpactofbuildoutoftheseareasandotherareasoutsideoftheCityboundary.Thiscommentiscorrect,andnochangestotheDEIRarewarranted.

ResponseB-4: ThecommenterprovidesasummaryofthestepsandrequirementsthatLAFCOmustcomplete in order to process and approve revisions to the City’s SOI. The Cityconcurswiththesummaryprovidedbythecommenter.

ResponseB-5: The commenter notes that the DEIR addresses the areas cited in the previousparagraph,andnotestheDEIRconclusionthatsufficientwatersuppliesareavailableatprojectbuildout.TheCityappreciatesthiscommentandagreesthattheDEIRhasaccuratelyandcompletelyanalyzedfullbuildoutoftheGeneralPlan, inclusiveofallareaswithintheCity’sdesiredsphere.

ResponseB-6: The commenter notes the City’s reliance on the Subregional Water ReclamationSystem’s permitted capacity and current restrictions, and acknowledges the City’scommitmenttorequiredevelopmentprojectstodemonstrateadequatecapacityorprovide improvements to meet increased demand prior to approval. The Cityappreciatesthiscomment.

ResponseB-7: The commenter notes some minor inconsistencies in data provided for sewertreatmentcapacityinSection3.14oftheDEIR(2012datausedonpage3.14-20and2015datausedintheanalysisonpage3.14-27).Thiscommentisnoted,andminorcorrections to this information have been provided in Section 3.0 of this Final EIR.TheseminorcorrectionsdonotalteranyoftheanalysisorconclusionscontainedintheDEIR.

ResponseB-8: The commenter notes a minor math error in Table 3.14-3 regarding the Subtotal-TreatmentCapacityUsed,Reserved,andCommitted.Thecommenteriscorrectthatthemathoverstatesthetotaltreatmentcapacityused,reserved,andcommittedby0.01. This is an exceedingly minor discrepancy, and actually overestimates usedcapacity,ratherthanunderestimatingusedcapacity.ThisissuehasnobearingontheenvironmentalanalysisorconclusionscontainedintheDEIR,giventheminutesizeofthemathematicalerror.



ResponseB-9: The commenter lauds the City for including actions in the General Plan and DEIRcalling on the City and other local agencies to attempt to alleviate transportationcongestioninSebastopol.TheCityappreciatesthiscomment.

ResponseB-10: The commenter suggests that the City consider contributing to a regional fund tomitigate traffic impacts from future projects developed in the City. The Cityappreciates this comment, and will continue to coordinate with regional agenciessuch as SCTA, SonomaCounty, Caltrans, etc. to improve regional traffic conditions.ThiscommenthasbeenforwardedtotheCityCouncilfortheirconsideration.



Thispageleftintentionallyblank

ERRATA 3.0


This chapter includes minor edits to the EIR. These modifications resulted from responses tocommentsreceivedduringtheDraftEIRpublicreviewperiod.

Revisions herein do not result in new significant environmental impacts, do not constitutesignificantnew information,anddonotalter theconclusionsof theenvironmental analysis thatwouldwarrantrecirculationof theDraftEIRpursuanttoStateCEQAGuidelinesSection15088.5.Changesareprovidedinrevisionmarkswithunderlinefornewtextandstrikeoutfordeletedtext.

3.1REVISIONSTOTHEDRAFTEIREXECUTIVESUMMARY

NochangesweremadetotheExecutiveSummaryoftheDraftEIR(DEIR).

1.0 INTRODUCTION

NochangesweremadetoChapter1.0oftheDEIR.

2.0 PROJECTDESCRIPTION

NochangesweremadetoChapter2.0oftheDEIR

3.1 AESTHETICSANDVISUALRESOURCES

NochangesweremadetoSection3.1oftheDEIR.

3.2 AGRICULTURALANDFORESTRESOURCES


3.3 AIRQUALITY


3.4 BIOLOGICALANDNATURALRESOURCES


3.5 CULTURALRESOURCES


3.6 GEOLOGY,SOILS,ANDMINERALS


3.7 GREENHOUSEGASESANDCLIMATECHANGE


3.0 ERRATA


3.8 HAZARDS


3.9 HYDROLOGYANDWATERQUALITY


3.10 LANDUSEANDPOPULATION


3.11 NOISE


3.12 PUBLICSERVICESANDRECREATION


3.13 TRANSPORTATIONANDCIRCULATION

Thefollowingchangesaremadetopage3.13-11oftheDEIR:

CALTRANSTRAFFICIMPACTSTUDYGUIDE

TheCaltransGuideforthePreparationofTrafficImpactStudies,2002,includescriteriaforevaluatingtheeffectsof landusedevelopmentandchangestothecirculationsystemonState highways. In Sebastopol, Caltrans oversees operation on US 101, GravensteinHighway (SR116), SR12, and the freewayon-andoff-ramps intersections serving thesetwo facilities. Caltrans generally endeavors tomaintain a target level of service at thetransitionbetweenLOS“C”andLOS“D,”thoughforselectfacilitieshasdesignatedlowerLOStargets.


McKinleyStreet/LagunaParkWay/PetalumaAvenue

TheintersectionofMcKinleyStreet/LagunaParkWay/PetalumaAvenuewouldoperateatLOS F on the Laguna ParkWay andMcKinley Street stop-controlled approaches. ThesevolumesmeetpeakhourtrafficsignalwarrantsduringthePMpeakhourunderboththeGeneral Plan Buildout and General Plan Cumulative Buildout scenarios. Of primaryconcernisthevolumeofpedestriancrossingsonthesouthlegoftheintersectionandthepotential increase to these crossings with continued development to the east in theBarlowarea.ItisrecommendedthataHAWK(High-IntensityActivatedCrosswalk)beaconbe installed at the south leg crossingwhile also narrowing the northbound approach toone lane. The inside lane is generally only used by traffic as a passing lane since themajority of traffic on this approach turns right ontoNorthMain Street. TheHAWKwill

ERRATA 3.0


allowforprotectedpedestriancrossings,stoppingtrafficonlyasneeded.Whenactivated,thebreakintrafficwillprovidegapsfortrafficonthesouthboundapproachofLagunaParkWayandthewestboundapproachofMcKinleyStreettoproceedfromthestop-controlledapproach.

SincethereisnoidentifiedfundingsourceforthisimprovementandtheTheintersectioniscontrolled by Caltrans, outside the control of the City of Sebastopol. Caltrans hasindicated that a project to install a HAWK beacon at the south leg of the crossing iscurrently in the Project Initiation Document (PID) stage, and project completion isanticipatedinJanuary2023.However,theCitycannotguaranteethetimingorfullfundingof this improvement, as the intersection is under Caltrans’ jurisdiction. The City willcontinue to coordinate with Caltrans on this improvement, however, this would beconsideredasignificantandunavoidableimpact.

3.14 UTILITIES


WASTEWATERFLOWSWastewaterflowsaretypicallyevaluatedforseveralconditions,including:

• AverageDryWeatherFlow(ADWF)–Thisistheflowratethatisconsideredtobethe actual wastewater flow from homes and businesses in the community(although it may include some flow resulting from groundwater entering thesewer system). It ismeasuredduring the summer,when theweather is dry andthereisminimalinfiltrationandnoinflow.Thisflowisdependentonthenumberof residents andnumberand typeofbusinesseswithin the community. It variesthroughouttheday,withthepeakdiurnalflowtypicallyoccurringinthemorningasthecommunityresidentswakeupandpreparefortheday.

• InfiltrationandInflow(I&I)–Thisisflowthatentersthesewersystemfromrainfalland from increased levels of groundwater caused by the rainfall or by seasonalvariationofgroundwaterlevels.

• PeakHourWetWeatherFlow(PHWWF)–This is thesumof thepeakWWFandthepeak I&I.ThePHWWF is thepeak flowrate that isexpected tooccurduringlargestormevents.

TheCity’saveragedryweatherflowtotheLagunaWWTPin20122015was.474.413mgd,about56%49%oftheCity’streatmententitlement.The2005SewerMasterPlanindicatesthat the City’s existing wastewater collection and conveyance system is adequatelydesigned to accommodate current collection and conveyance demands. The Plan alsoidentifies areas where sewer lines require replacement. Additionally, assumingrecommended repairs are made, the collection and conveyance system should beadequate toaccommodateprojected futuregrowthwithin theCity limits. However, the

3.0 ERRATA


systemmaynotbeadequate toaccommodate futureprojectedgrowthwithin theCity’ssphereofinfluence(SOI).

TheCity’sabilitytoaccommodatefuturedevelopmentislimitedbytheentitlementintheSubregionalWaterReclamationSystem.Toestimatethetreatmentcapacityavailableforfuturedevelopment,theestimatedflowswerecalculatedbasedon20122015flowrates.Projectedsewerdemandforapprovedprojectsis0.0200.008mgd,andprojecteddemandforpendingapplicationsis0.0210.028mgd.Combiningthesefigureswiththe20122015ADDWF of 0.474 0.413 mgd and the existing General Plan requirement to reservetreatment capacity of 5% (0.042 mgd), the ADDWF for all current and planned futurecommitments is 0.557 0.473mgd. This rate leaves 0.283 0.339mgd available for futureprojectsunderthecurrententitlementof0.840mgd. (WaterProductionandUsage,andWastewaterstatisticsforAnnualLevelofServiceReport20122015).

4.0 OTHERCEQA-REQUIREDTOPICS


5.0 ALTERNATIVES


6.0 REPORTPREPARERS


Documents

2016 S G P UPDATE SCH# J - sebastopol.generalplan.orgsebastopol.generalplan.org/sites/default/files/Final_EIR_Sebastopol...The City of Sebastopol circulated a Notice of Preparation