Consistent (Historical Resources). There are several historicaged buildings or structures located within and immediately adjacent to the project site; however, it is not currently known whether any of these buildings or structures are historical resources. Mitigation Measure CUL-1 requires a historical resources evaluation if historical-age features are present where development would occur and include measures to be followed if a historical resource is found. As such, with implementation of this mitigation, historical resources would be protected in a manner that preserves and/or enhances the resources’ inherent historic value.
Consistent (Archaeological Resources). As described in
Section 4.5, Cultural Resources, implementation of Mitigation Measures CUL-2 and CUL-3 would ensure that archaeological resources are protected.
Goal 8F. Reduce consumption of nonrenewable
energy sources and support the development and
utilization of new energy sources.
Consistent. Future development on the project site would be required to comply with the latest Title 24 Green Building Code and Building Efficiency Energy Standards, including installing energy-efficient LED lighting, water-efficient faucets and toilets, water efficient landscaping and irrigation, and EV charging stations. Furthermore, as described in Section 4.6, Energy, the project would be served by Pacific Gas and
Electric, which is required to increase its renewable energy procurement in accordance with SB 100 targets. SB 100
requires electricity providers to increase procurement from eligible renewable energy resources to 33 percent of total retail sales by 2020, 60 percent by 2030, and 100 percent by 2045.
Geology Element
Goal 9. Reduce the potential level of death, injury,
property damage, economic and social dislocation
(i.e., business closure and homelessness due to
structural damage) and disruption of vital services that could result from earthquake damage.
Consistent. Mandatory compliance with the California
Building Code and American Canyon Municipal Code along
with Mitigation Measure GEO-1 would reduce impacts related to strong seismic ground shaking from an earthquake (see Section 4.7, Geology and Soils).
Goal 9C. Ensure that seismic, geologic, and soils
hazards that might affect areas designated for human
use or habitation are properly mitigated or avoided
entirely prior to development.
Consistent. Development on the project site would
incorporate all necessary seismic requirements of the most recent California Building Code along with Mitigation Measure GEO-1 (see Section 4.7, Geology and Soils).
484
Environmental Impact Analysis
Land Use and Planning
Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.11-9
Goal, Policy, Objective Project Consistency
Goal 9C. Ensure that the City’s public infrastructure is designed in a manner that reduces the risk of system
failure in the event of an earthquake.
Consistent. The Newell Drive Extension would incorporate all necessary seismic requirements of the most recent California Building Code (see Section 4.7, Geology and Soils).
Noise Element
Goal 11. Ensure that American Canyon’s existing and
future residents, employees and employers, as well as
visitors to the City, are protected from the adverse
human health and environmental impacts of excessive
noise levels created by stationary and ambient
(intrusive) noise sources and conditions. Take all
necessary and appropriate action to avoid or mitigate
the detrimental effects of such excessive noise on the
community.
Consistent. As described in Section 4.12, Noise, impacts from stationary sources would be less than significant and no mitigation would be required. Furthermore, the project would comply with the provisions in the American Canyon Municipal Code, the California Building Code, and the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970, which would reduce impacts related to noise.
Objective 11.2. Protect residents, employees, and
visitors to the community from excessive noise
exposure. If possible, mitigate the adverse impacts of
existing or unavoidable excessive noise on these same
groups.
Consistent. As described in Section 4.12, Noise, noise impacts during construction and operation of the project would be reduced to a less than significant level through the
implementation of Mitigation Measures NOI-1, NOI-2, and NOI-3. The project would still be consistent with this policy because the project would minimize noise impacts to the extent feasible.
Objective 11.5. Minimize noise spillover or
encroachment from commercial and industrial land
uses into adjoining residential neighborhoods or
“noise-sensitive” uses.
Consistent. As described in Section 4.12, Noise, operational noise impacts would be less than significant after
implementation of Mitigation Measure NOI-3. In addition, the project would comply with the American Canyon Municipal Code and would not exceed the maximum interior and
exterior noise levels.
Objective 11.7. Minimize the impacts of construction
noise on adjacent land uses.
Consistent. As described in Section 4.12, Noise, future construction would be required to comply with Mitigation Measure NOI-1, which would minimize the impacts of
construction noise on adjacent users. The impact would be less than significant after mitigation and the project would be consistent with this policy because it would minimize noise impacts to the extent feasible.
Objective 11.8. Ensure that buildings are constructed
soundly to prevent adverse noise transmission
between differing uses or tenants located in the same
commercial structure, and individual dwelling units in
multi-family residential structures.
Consistent. As described in Section 4.12, Noise, the project would comply with the provisions in the American Canyon Municipal Code and the California Building Code, which would reduce impacts related to noise. In addition, the project would comply with the American Canyon Municipal Code and would not exceed the maximum interior and exterior noise levels.
Objective 11.11. Ensure that noise impacts of
stationary sources are adequately mitigated.
Consistent. As described in Section 4.12, Noise, impacts from stationary sources would be less than significant and no mitigation would be required.
The Napa County Airport is located approximately 1.2 miles northwest of the project site and development within the Napa County Airport’s sphere of influence is governed by the ALUCP. Nearly the entire project site would be located within Compatibility Zone D, except for the southern portion of the project site is in Zone E; however, that area contains the Union Pacific Railroad rightof-way, and no development would occur in that area. The Napa County ALUC contains “Supporting Compatibility Policies” related to noise, safety, airspace protection, and overflight (ALUC 1991).
Consistency with the ALUCP regarding noise and maintenance of acceptable noise levels is discussed in Section 4.9, Noise, which finds impacts to be less than significant. Consistency with the ALUCP 485
City of American Canyon
Paoli/Watson Lane Annexation
4.11-10
regarding hazards, including those related to safety, airspace protection, and overflight, is discussed in Section 4.9, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, which finds impacts to be less than significant. As such, the project would be consistent with the ALUCP and impacts would be less than significant.
As demonstrated above, the project would be consistent with Plan Bay Area 2050, the General Plan, and the ALUCP. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures
No additional mitigation measures for land use and planning would be required beyond those identified throughout this EIR, including Mitigation Measures AES-1 and AES-2; AQ-1 through AQ-3; BIO-1 through BIO-7; CUL-1 through CUL-5; GEO-1 and GEO-2; GHG-1 through GHG-5; HAZ-1; HYD-1 and HYD-2; PSR-1; and NOI-1 through NOI-3.
Significance After Mitigation
Impacts would be less than significant without mitigation, beyond those identified throughout this EIR.
4.11.4 Cumulative Impacts
Because the project would have no impact related to the division of an established community, the project would not contribute to a cumulative impact. Therefore, cumulative impacts related to the division of an established community are not discussed further.
The geographic scope of the cumulative impacts on a land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect, is the City of American Canyon. If there were several cumulative projects that had inconsistencies with a land use plan, the impacts could accumulate and result in a cumulative impact. The project, however, would be consistent with land use plans through adherence to existing regulations and through compliance with mitigation.
Because the project would be consistent with land us plans, policies, and regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect, the project’s contribution to a cumulative impact would be less than significant.
486
Environmental Impact Analysis
Noise
Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.12-1
4.12 Noise
This section analyzes noise and groundborne vibration impacts associated with the project, including short-term construction and long-term operational noise and vibration. Noise modeling results associated with the analysis herein are included in Appendix C to this EIR.
4.12.1 Environmental Setting
a. Fundamentals of Noise
Sound is a vibratory disturbance created by a moving or vibrating source, which is capable of being detected by the hearing organs. Noise is defined as sound that is loud, unpleasant, unexpected, or undesired and may therefore be classified as a more specific group of sounds. The effects of noise on people can include general annoyance, interference with speech communication, sleep disturbance, and in the extreme, hearing impairment (California Department of Transportation [Caltrans] 2013).
Noise levels are commonly measured in decibels (dB) using the A-weighted sound pressure level (dBA). The A-weighting scale is an adjustment to the actual sound pressure levels so that they are consistent with the human hearing response. Decibels are measured on a logarithmic scale that quantifies sound intensity in a manner similar to the Richter scale used to measure earthquake magnitudes. A doubling of the energy of a noise source, such as doubling of traffic volume, would increase the noise level by 3 dBA; dividing the energy in half would result in a 3 dBA decrease (Caltrans 2013).
Human perception of noise has no simple correlation with sound energy: the perception of sound is not linear in terms of dBA or in terms of sound energy. Two sources do not “sound twice as loud” as one source. It is widely accepted that the average healthy ear can barely perceive changes of 3 dBA, increase or decrease (i.e., twice the sound energy); that a change of 5 dBA is readily perceptible; and that an increase (or decrease) of 10 dBA sounds twice (half) as loud (Caltrans 2013).
Sound changes in both level and frequency spectrum as it travels from the source to the receiver.
The most obvious change is the decrease in sound level as the distance from the source increases.
The manner by which noise declines with distance depends on factors such as the type of sources (e.g., point or line), the path the sound will travel, site conditions, and obstructions. Noise levels from a point source (e.g., construction, industrial machinery, ventilation units) typically attenuate, or drop off, at a rate of 6 dBA per doubling of distance. Noise from a line source (e.g., roadway, pipeline, railroad) typically attenuates at about 3 dBA per doubling of distance (Caltrans 2013). The propagation of noise is also affected by the intervening ground, known as ground absorption. A hard site, such as a parking lot or smooth body of water, receives no additional ground attenuation and the changes in noise levels with distance (drop-off rate) result simply from the geometric spreading of the source. An additional ground attenuation value of 1.5 dBA per doubling of distance applies to a soft site (e.g., soft dirt, grass, or scattered bushes and trees) (Caltrans 2013).
Noise levels may also be reduced by intervening structures. The amount of attenuation provided by this “shielding” depends on the size of the object and the frequencies of the noise levels. Natural terrain features, such as hills and dense woods, and man-made features, such as buildings and walls, can alter noise levels. Generally, any large structure blocking the line of sight will provide at least a 5 dBA reduction in source noise levels at the receiver.
487
City of American Canyon
Paoli/Watson Lane Annexation
4.12-2
Noise Descriptors
The impact of noise is not a function of loudness alone. The time of day when noise occurs, its frequency, and the duration of the noise are also important. In addition, most noise that lasts for more than a few seconds is variable in its intensity. Consequently, a variety of noise descriptors have been developed.
One of the most frequently used noise metrics that considers both duration and intensity is the equivalent noise level (Leq). The Leq is defined as the single steady A-weighted level that is equivalent to the same amount of energy as that contained in the actual fluctuating levels over a period of time. Typically, Leq is equivalent to a one-hour period, even when measured for shorter durations, as the noise level of a 10- to 30-minute period would be the same as the hour if the noise source is relatively steady. Lmax is the highest Root Mean Squared (RMS) sound pressure level within the sampling period, and Lmin is the lowest RMS sound pressure level within the measuring period.
Normal conversational levels at three feet are in the 60- to 65-dBA Leq range and ambient noise levels greater than 65 dBA Leq can interrupt conversations (Federal Transit Administration [FTA] 2018).
Noise that occurs at night tends to be more disturbing than that which occurs during the day.
Community noise is usually measured using Day-Night Average Level (Ldn or DNL), which is a 24-hour average noise level with a +10 dBA penalty for noise occurring during nighttime (10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.) hours, or Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL), which is the 24-hour average noise level with a +5 dBA penalty for noise occurring from 7:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. and a +10 dBA penalty for noise occurring from 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. (Caltrans 2013). Noise levels described by DNL and CNEL usually differ by about 0.5 dBA and are, therefore, generally considered to be interchangeable. b. Overview of Groundborne Vibration
In environmental analysis, groundborne vibration of concern consists of the oscillatory waves that move from a source through the ground to adjacent structures. The number of cycles per second of oscillation makes up the vibration frequency, described in terms of Hertz. The frequency of a vibrating object describes how rapidly it oscillates. Typically, groundborne vibration generated by human activities attenuates rapidly with distance from the source of the vibration.
While people have varying sensitivities to vibrations at different frequencies, in general they are most sensitive to low-frequency vibration. Vibration in buildings, such as from nearby construction activities, may cause windows, items on shelves, and pictures on walls to rattle. Vibration of building components can also take the form of an audible low-frequency rumbling noise, referred to as groundborne noise. Groundborne noise is usually only a problem when the originating vibration spectrum is dominated by frequencies in the upper end of the range (60 to 200 Hertz), or when foundations or utilities, such as sewer and water pipes, physically connect the structure and the vibration source (FTA 2018). Although groundborne vibration is sometimes noticeable in outdoor environments, it is almost never annoying to people who are outdoors. The primary concern from vibration is that it can be intrusive and annoying to building occupants and vibration-sensitive land uses.
Vibration energy spreads out as it travels through the ground, causing the vibration level to diminish with distance away from the source. High-frequency vibrations diminish much more rapidly than low frequencies, so low frequencies tend to dominate the spectrum at large distances from the source. Discontinuities in the soil strata can also cause diffractions or channeling effects that affect the propagation of vibration over long distances (Caltrans 2020). When a building is impacted by 488
Environmental Impact Analysis
Noise
Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.12-3
vibration, a ground-to-foundation coupling loss will usually reduce the overall vibration level.
However, under rare circumstances, the ground-to-foundation coupling may amplify the vibration level due to structural resonances of the floors and walls.
Vibration amplitudes are usually expressed in peak particle velocity (PPV). The PPV is normally described in inches per second (in/sec). PPV is defined as the maximum instantaneous positive or negative peak of a vibration signal. PPV is often used in monitoring of blasting vibration and other construction activity because it is related to the stresses that are experienced by buildings (Caltrans 2020). Table 4.12-1 summarizes the vibration damage criteria recommended by the FTA for evaluating the potential for architectural damage to buildings.
Table 4.12-1 Criteria for Vibration Damage Potential
Building Category PPV (in/sec)
I. Reinforced concrete, steel, or timber (no plaster) 0.5 II. Engineered concrete and masonry (no plaster) 0.3
III. Nonengineered timber and masonry buildings 0.2
IV. Buildings extremely susceptible to vibration damage 0.12 in/sec = inches per second; PPV = peak particle velocity Source: FTA 2018
c. Sensitive Receivers
According to the City’s General Plan (1994), the City defines noise-sensitive land uses as the following:
Residential uses
Visitor lodging – hotels, motels, inns
Schools
Libraries
Places of religious worship
Hospitals
Assisted living facilities
Public parks
Vibration-sensitive receivers, which are similar to noise-sensitive receivers include residences; hotels; and institutional uses, such as hospitals, schools, and churches. However, vibration-sensitive receivers also include buildings where vibrations may interfere with vibration-sensitive equipment (e.g., recording studies or medical facilities with sensitive equipment). Other uses that may have particular sensitivity to groundborne vibration include historic sites and structures.
The project area is surrounded by industrial, commercial, residential, and agricultural uses. The nearest sensitive receiver to the annexation area is a single-family residence located adjacent to the project site to the east on Watson Lane. This residence is located adjacent to an area that would be pre-zoned as Residential Estate and approximately 700 feet from areas that would be pre-zoned as Paoli Light Industrial and Town Center. Multi-family residences (Canyon Ridge at Napa Junction) are located approximately 150 feet west of the southern end of the project site in the area that would be pre-zoned as Railroad Right of Way. These multi-family residences (Canyon Ridge at Napa 489
City of American Canyon
Paoli/Watson Lane Annexation
4.12-4
Junction) are located approximately 3,400 feet from the areas that would be pre-zoned as Paoli Light Industrial and Paoli Light Industrial with Paoli Commercial Overlay. Additional residences are located at further distances. The American Canyon Little League Field is located approximately 1,100 feet southwest of the area of the project site that would be pre-zoned as Residential Estate. There is one residence located approximately 850 feet from where the Newell Drive extension would be located. Within the annexation area, there are existing residences in the central part of the annexation area along Watson Lane adjacent to the areas that would be pre-zoned as Paoli Light Industrial and Paoli Light Industrial with Paoli Commercial Overlay. The property lines of these residences are adjacent to the area that would be pre-zoned as Paoli Light Industrial and Paoli Light Industrial with Paoli Commercial Overlay. In addition, the residential structures are approximately 500 feet from the area that would be pre-zoned as Paoli Light Industrial and Paoli Light Industrial with Paoli Commercial Overlay. A residence within the proposed Paoli Light Industrial with Paoli Commercial Overlay pre-zoning would be demolished and removed as part of the project and would thus not be considered a sensitive receiver.
d. Existing Conditions
Noise Sources
Existing noise at the project site includes noise from mobile and stationary sources. The most prevalent noise source in the City is traffic on freeways and arterial roads. State Route (SR) 29 and Paoli Loop Road are located west of the project site, and Watson Lane is within the annexation area.
Periodic noise sources include trains passing on the Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) tracks located on the project site, aircraft operations in and out of the Napa County Airport, loading docks and machinery within industrial areas, and trucks and mechanical equipment at commercial uses.
Motor vehicle noise is characterized by a high number of individual events that create a sustained noise level in proximity to noise-sensitive uses. Roadways with the highest traffic volumes and speeds produce the highest noise levels. Table 4.12-2 provides existing roadway vehicle noise levels along roadway segments near the project site. Traffic noise modeling data are contained in Appendix C.
Table 4.12-2 Existing Traffic Noise Levels Along Roadway Segments Roadway Segment Existing ADT
Existing Traffic Noise Level
at 50 feet (dBA Ldn)
SR 29 South of SR 37 24,051 72.4
SR 29 North of SR 37 43,483 76.4
SR 29 South of Mini Drive 37,492 75.7
SR 29 North of Mini Drive 43,469 75.8
SR 29 North of American Canyon Road 49,579 76.3
SR 29 South of Napa Junction Road 40,762 76.3
SR 29 North of Napa Junction Road 59,044 77.9
SR 29 North of Green Island Road 60,263 78.5
SR 29 South of SR12 59,200 78.2
SR 29 North of SR 12 88,600 79.6
Airport Boulevard West of SR 29 10,500 69.3
SR 12 East of North Kelly Road 35,033 78.5
490
Environmental Impact Analysis
Noise
Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.12-5
Roadway Segment Existing ADT
Existing Traffic Noise Level
at 50 feet (dBA Ldn)
SR 37 West of SR 29 39,980 76.3
SR 37 East of SR 29 62,495 78.2
American Canyon Road West of SR 29 15,330 68.9
American Canyon Road East of Flosden Road 10,771 66.5
Flosden Road South of American Canyon Road 21,510 70.5
Newell Drive North of American Canyon Road 9,685 63.4
South Kelly Road South of SR 12 1,602 58.7
ADT = average daily traffic
Source: GHD 2023
Vibration Sources
Existing sources of operational vibration in the project site include the adjacent UPRR railroad and vehicle traffic on roadways. Caltrans has studied the effects of propagation of vehicle vibration on sensitive land uses and notes that “heavy trucks, and quite frequently buses, generate the highest earthborn vibrations of normal traffic.” Caltrans further notes that the highest traffic-generated vibrations are along freeways and state routes. Their study finds that “vibrations measured on freeway shoulders (five meters from the centerline of the nearest lane) have never exceeded 0.08 in/sec, with the worst combinations of heavy trucks and poor roadway conditions (while such trucks were moving at freeway speeds). This level coincides with the maximum recommended safe level for ruins and ancient monuments (and historic buildings)” (Caltrans 2013). Construction vibration levels have the potential to be significant when equipment such as impact and vibratory pile drivers, rock blasting, and vibratory rollers are used during construction.
4.12.2 Regulatory Setting
a. Federal
Occupational Health and Safety Administration
The federal government regulates occupational noise exposure common in the workplace through the Occupational Health and Safety Administration (OSHA) under the United State Environmental Protection Agency. Noise limitations would apply to the operation of construction equipment and could also apply to any proposed industrial land uses. Noise exposure of this type is dependent on work conditions and is addressed through a facility’s Health and Safety Plan, as required under OSHA, and is not addressed further in this analysis. Since the federal government has preempted setting noise level standards for transportation sources, local jurisdictions are limited to regulating noise generated by the transportation system through nuisance abatement ordinances and land use planning.
b. State
California General Plan Guidelines
State law requires general plans to include a Noise Element under Government Code Section 65302(f). The California General Plan Guidelines, published by the Governor’s Office of Planning and 491
City of American Canyon
Paoli/Watson Lane Annexation
4.12-6
Research, indicate acceptable, specific land use types in areas with specific noise exposure. The guidelines also offer adjustment factors that may be used to arrive at noise acceptability standards that reflect the noise control goals of the community, the community’s sensitivity to noise, and the community’s assessment of the relative importance of noise pollution. These guidelines are advisory, and local jurisdictions have the authority to set specific noise standards based on local conditions.
California Building Code
California Code of Regulations Title 24, Building Standards Administrative Code, Part 2, Chapter 12, and the California Building Code codify the State noise insulation standards. These noise standards apply to new construction in California to control interior noise levels as they are affected by exterior noise sources and interior noise sources from separate areas. The regulations specify that interior noise levels shall not exceed 45 dB CNEL/Ldn in any habitable room, as well as specifying sound transmission class requirements for walls, floors, and ceilings around sleeping units.
In addition, the standards require an acoustical analysis that demonstrates the manner dwelling units will meet the interior standard, when units are proposed with exterior noise levels greater than 60 dBA CNEL. Title 24 standards are typically enforced by local jurisdictions through the building permit application process.
California Green Building Code
California Green Building Standards Code 2019 (CALGreen) Section 5.507.4, Acoustical Control, regulates construction of non-residential uses within the 65 dBA CNEL/Ldn contour of an airport, freeway, expressway, railroad, industrial noise source, or other fixed source. According to Section
5.507.4.1.1: buildings exposed to a noise level of 65 dB Leq(1-hr) during any hour of operation shall employ sound-resistant assemblies as determined by a prescriptive method (CALGreen Section
5.507.4.1) or performance method (CALGreen Section 5.507.4.2).
Projects may demonstrate compliance through the prescriptive method if wall and roof-ceiling assemblies exposed to the noise source meet a composite sound transmission class (STC) rating of at least 50 or a composite outdoor/indoor transmission class (OITC) rating of no less than 40, with exterior windows of a minimum STC of 40 or OITC of 30. Projects may demonstrate compliance through the performance method if wall and roof-ceiling assemblies exposed to the noise source are constructed to provide an interior noise environment that does not exceed 50 dB Leq-1Hr in occupied areas during hours of operations.
c. Regional
Napa County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan
The Napa County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP) governs land use around the Napa County Airport. The ALUCP was adopted by the Napa County Airport Land Use Commission in April 1991 and revised in December 1999. It identifies acceptable aviation noise levels by land use. 492
Environmental Impact Analysis
Noise
Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.12-7
d. Local
City of American Canyon General Plan
Chapter 11, Noise Element, of the City of American Canyon General Plan, sets forth a goal of ensuring that American Canyon’s existing and future residents, employees and employers, as well as visitors to the City, are protected from the adverse human health and environmental impacts of excessive noise levels created by stationary and ambient (intrusive) noise sources and conditions.
The City takes all necessary and appropriate action to avoid or mitigate the detrimental effects of such excessive noise on the community. The objectives and policies that would apply to the project are as follows (City of American Canyon 1994):
Objective 11.1: Control both ambient and stationary (intrusive) noise conditions and impacts that may occur in American Canyon. Maintain base line information regarding ambient and stationary noise sources within the community.
Policy 11.1.1: Promote noise-compatible land use relationships by implementing the noise standards identified in Figure 11-2 [of the General Plan], to be utilized for design purposes in new development and for establishing a program to attenuate existing noise problems.
Policy 11.1.2: Monitor and update available data regarding the community’s ambient and stationary noise levels.
Objective 11.2: Protect residents, employees, and visitors to the community from excessive noise exposure. If possible, mitigate the adverse impacts of existing or unavoidable excessive noise on these same groups.
Policy 11.2.1: Require that new development for locations in which the exterior or interior noise levels indicated in Figure 11-2 [of the General Plan] are likely to be exceeded, submit a noise attenuation study prepared by a qualified acoustical engineer in order to determine appropriate mitigation measures.
Policy 11.2.2: Enforce the California Noise Insulation Standards (Title 25, California Administrative Code) that apply to new multiple family, hotel, motel, dormitory, and long-term care developments with a Ldn of 60 dBA noise contour adjacent to roads, transit lines, and manufacturing areas to ensure that the units have been designed to limit interior noise levels in habitable rooms to a Ldn of 45 dBA with doors and windows closed.
Policy 11.2.4: Require that new industrial, commercial and related land uses, or the expansion of these existing land uses, demonstrate that they would not directly cause ambient noise levels to exceed an exterior Ldn of 65 dBA in areas containing housing, schools, health care facilities, or other “noise sensitive” land uses. Additionally, require that potentially significant noise generators, including uses such as night clubs that cause sporadic noise intensities, submit noise analyses prepared by an acoustical expert that include specific recommendations for mitigation when: a) the project is located in close proximity to noise-sensitive land uses or land that is planned for noise-sensitive land uses, or b) the proposed noise source could violate the noise provisions of the General Plan or City Noise ordinance.
Policy 11.2.5: Require that new commercial structures located adjacent to existing residential areas shield their HVAC [heating, ventilation, and air conditioning] units so as to limit the units’ adverse noise impacts to the greatest extent possible.
493
City of American Canyon
Paoli/Watson Lane Annexation
4.12-8
Policy 11.2.6: Require that parking lots associated with new commercial structures be designed so as to buffer adjacent residential uses from vehicular noise.
Policy 11.2.8: Consider alternate land uses or mitigation measures if large walls or other physical barriers are required to mitigate noise impacts that will affect or be caused by a proposed development project.
Policy 11.2.9: Require the utilization of site and architectural design features in conjunction with noise barriers to mitigate impacts on sensitive land uses. Design techniques capable of mitigating potential noise impacts include:
a. Site Design
Using building setbacks and dedicating noise easements to increase the distance between the noise source and receiver;
Locating uses and orienting buildings that are compatible with higher noise levels adjacent to noise generators or in clusters to shield more noise-sensitive areas and uses; Placing noise tolerant land uses, such as parking areas, between noise sources and receivers;
Using noise tolerant structures, such as garages or carports, to shield noise-sensitive areas; and
Clustering office, commercial, or multiple family residential structures to reduce interior open space noise levels.
b. Architectural Design
Using building setbacks and dedicating noise easements to increase the distance between the noise source and receiver;
Using dense building materials and tight fitting doors; Employing double glazed and double pane windows;
Placing unopenable windows on the side of the structure facing a major roadway and entry doors on the side of the building facing away from the major roadway; and Avoiding balconies and patio areas facing major transportation routes.
Objective 11.3: Minimize the adverse impacts of traffic-generated noise on residential and other “noise-sensitive” uses as depicted on Figure 11-5 [of the General Plan].
Policy 11.3.1: Minimize motor vehicle noise impacts from streets and highways through proper route location and sensitive roadway design by employing the following strategies:
a. Consider the impacts of truck routes, the effects of a variety of truck traffic, and future motor vehicle volumes on noise levels adjacent to master planned roadways when improvements to the circulation system are planned.
b. Mitigate traffic volumes and vehicle speed through residential neighborhoods. c. Work closely with the State of California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) in the early stages of highway improvements and design modifications to ensure that proper consideration is given to potential noise impacts on the City. 494
Environmental Impact Analysis
Noise
Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.12-9
Policy 11.3.2: Require that all new nonresidential development design and configure on-site ingress and egress points to divert traffic (and its resultant noise) away from “noise- sensitive” land uses to the greatest degree practicable.
Policy 11.4.1: Require that development in the vicinity of Napa Airport comply with the noise standards contained in the Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUP).
Objective 11.5: Minimize noise spillover or encroachment from commercial and industrial land uses into adjoining residential neighborhoods or “noise-sensitive” uses.
Objective 11.7: Minimize the impacts of construction noise on adjacent uses.
Policy 11.7.1: Limit non-emergency construction activities adjacent to existing noise-sensitive uses to daylight hours between 6:30 a.m. and 8:00 p.m.
Policy 11.7.2: Require construction activities to employ practical techniques and practices that minimize the generation of adverse and/or excessive noise impacts on adjacent land uses.
City of American Canyon Municipal Code
Section 8.12.070 of the American Canyon Municipal Code identifies that no person shall create any sound, or allow the creation of any sound, on any property that causes the exterior sound level on any other occupied property to exceed the sound level standards shown in Table 4.12-3 due to stationary sources.
Table 4.12-3 Exterior Noise Limits for Stationary Sources Zone Time Allowable Noise Limit (L50)
Residential Single and Double Nighttime (10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.) Daytime (7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.)
50 60
Residential Multiple Nighttime (10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.) Daytime (7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.)
55 60
Source: Section 8.12.070 of American Canyon Municipal Code Section 8.12.080 of the American Canyon Municipal Code identifies the following requirements. Section 8.12.080 (B)(2)(a). Operating or causing the operation of any tools or equipment used in construction, drilling, repair, alteration or demolition work between the hours of 7:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m., such that the sound therefrom creates a noise disturbance across a residential or commercial real property line, except for emergency work of public service utilities or by variance issued by the appropriate authority.
Section 8.12.080 (B)(2)(b). Noise Restrictions at Affected Properties. Where technically and economically feasible, construction activities shall be conducted in such a manner that the maximum noise levels at affected properties will not exceed those listed in Table 4.12-4. 495
City of American Canyon
Paoli/Watson Lane Annexation
4.12-10
Table 4.12-4 Noise Limits for Construction Activities
Noise Limit by Receiving Land Use (Lmax)
Time Residential Commercial Industrial
7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m.
7:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.
75 60
80 65
85 70
Source: Section 8.12.080 of American Canyon Municipal Code
4.12.3 Impact Analysis
a. Significance Thresholds and Methodology
Significance Thresholds
Based on Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines a project may be deemed to have a significant impact on noise if it would:
1. Generate a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies
2. Generate excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels
3. For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels Construction Noise Thresholds
The City has adopted construction noise standards, as shown in Table 4.12-4. Project impacts would be significant is construction noise exceeds these standards.
Operational Noise Thresholds
The City has adopted noise standards in the American Canyon Municipal Code that regulate stationary operational noise sources in the City. The project would result in a significant impact if it generates noise from stationary sources in excess of the standards shown in Table 4.12-3 or if new industrial, commercial, or related land uses cause exterior ambient noise levels to exceed 65 dBA Ldn at noise sensitive land uses such as housing, schools, and health care facilities pursuant to General Plan Policy 11.2.4.
For traffic noise, the following thresholds of significance similar to those recommended by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) are used to assess traffic noise impacts at sensitive receiver locations:
Greater than 1.5 dBA increase for ambient noise environments of 65 dBA Ldn and higher; Greater than 3 dBA increase for ambient noise environments of 60 - 64 Ldn; and Greater than 5 dBA increase for ambient noise environments of less than 60 dBA Ldn.
Groundborne Vibration Thresholds
The City has not adopted a significance threshold to assess vibration impacts. Therefore, the Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual (FTA 2018) is used to evaluate potential 496
Environmental Impact Analysis
Noise
Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.12-11
construction vibration impacts. Construction vibration impacts would be significant if vibration levels exceed the FTA criteria shown in Table 4.12-1. For example, impacts would be significant if vibration levels exceed 0.2 in/sec PPV for residential structures and 0.3 in/sec PPV for commercial structures, which is the limit where minor cosmetic (i.e., architectural) damage may occur to these buildings.
Methodology
Construction Noise
Construction equipment operate in two modes: stationary and mobile. Stationary equipment operate in a single location for one or more days at a time, with either fixed-power operation (e.g., pumps, generators, and compressors) or variable-power operation (e.g., pile drivers, rock drills, and pavement breakers). Mobile equipment moves around a construction site with power applied in cyclic fashion, such as bulldozers, graders, and loaders (FTA 2018). Each phase of construction has its own noise characteristics due to specific equipment mixes. Some will have higher continuous noise levels than others and some may have high-impact intermittent noise levels (FTA 2018).
Therefore, construction noise levels may fluctuate depending on the type of equipment being used, construction phase, or equipment location. In typical construction projects on vacant sites, grading activities typically generate the highest noise levels because grading involves the largest equipment and covers the greatest area.
Heavy construction equipment during grading and site preparation would typically include bulldozers, excavators, front-end loaders, dump trucks, and graders. It is assumed that diesel engines would power all construction equipment. Construction equipment would not all operate at the same time or location due to the different tasks performed by each piece of equipment. In addition, construction equipment would not be in constant use during the 8-hour operating day.
Impact devices such as pile drivers may be used for construction of the UPRR overcrossing and the span across the North Slough. Typical noise levels associated with the types of heavy equipment most likely to be utilized during development associated with the project are given in Table 4.12-5.
Table 4.12-5 Construction Equipment Noise Levels
Equipment Typical Noise Level (dBA) at 50 Feet from Source Air Compressor 80
Backhoe 80
Compactor 82
Concrete Mixer 85
Concrete Pump 82
Concrete Vibrator 76
Crane, Derrick 88
Crane, Mobile 83
Dozer 85
Generator 82
Grader 85
Jackhammer 88
Loader 80
497
City of American Canyon
Paoli/Watson Lane Annexation
4.12-12
Equipment Typical Noise Level (dBA) at 50 Feet from Source Paver 85
Pile-driver (Impact) 101
Pile-driver (Sonic) 95
Pneumatic Tool 85
Pump 77
Roller 85
Saw 76
Scarifier 83
Scraper 85
Shovel 82
Truck 84
Source: FTA 2018
Operational Stationary Noise
The primary on-site noise sources associated with operation of the project would include noise from stationary heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) equipment and other mechanical equipment and truck loading/unloading at the future light industrial and commercial uses. Since there is no specific development application associated with the project, potential operational stationary source impacts are addressed qualitatively and programmatically.
Operational Traffic Noise
Development accommodated by the project would generate motor vehicle trips, thereby increasing off-site traffic on area roadways. The project’s traffic noise impacts are analyzed based on data provided by GHD, which is included as Appendix C to this EIR. Traffic noise levels for existing and project conditions were estimated using the FHWA traffic noise prediction model methodology.
Traffic noise impacts are analyzed based on average daily traffic (ADT) roadway volume for existing, existing plus project, cumulative, and cumulative plus project conditions,1 as well as speeds, and number of lanes data. The FHWA model predicts noise levels through a series of adjustments to a reference sound level. These adjustments account for distances from the roadway, traffic volumes, vehicle speeds, car/truck mix, number of lanes, and road width.
Groundborne Vibration
Construction activities have the greatest potential to generate ground-borne vibration affecting nearby receivers, especially during grading and excavation. The greatest vibratory source during construction activities is anticipated to be a pile driver during the construction of the proposed Newell Drive extension, particularly the overcrossing segment. Table 4.12-6 shows typical vibration levels for various pieces of construction equipment used in the assessment of construction vibration (FTA 2018).
Because groundborne vibration could cause physical damage to structures and is measured in an instantaneous period, vibration impacts are typically modeled based on the distance from the 1 Cumulative conditions with the project are based on Year 2045 citywide residential and commercial growth, as well as projected regional land use growth.
498
Environmental Impact Analysis
Noise
Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.12-13
location of vibration-intensive construction activities, which is conservatively assumed to be edge of a project site, to the edge of the nearest off-site structures.
Table 4.12-6 Typical Vibration Levels for Construction Equipment Equipment PPV (in./sec.) at 25 Feet
Pile Driver (Impact) 1.518
Pile Driver (Sonic) 0.734
Vibratory Roller 0.210
Hoe Ram 0.089
Large Bulldozer 0.089
Caisson Drilling 0.089
Loaded Truck 0.076
Jackhammer 0.035
Small Bulldozer 0.003
Source: FTA 2018
Impact of the Environment on the Project
As a result of the Supreme Court decision regarding the assessment of the environment’s impacts on projects (California Building Industry Association (CBIA) v. Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD), 62 Cal. 4th 369 (No. S 213478) issued December 17, 2015), it is generally no longer the purview of the CEQA process to evaluate the impact of existing environmental conditions on a proposed project. Therefore, this environmental analysis does not consider the potential impacts of the environment (i.e., existing noise) on the project. b. Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Threshold 1: Would the project result in generation of a substantial temporary increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies?
Impact NOI-1 PROJECT CONSTRUCTION WOULD RESULT IN A TEMPORARY INCREASE IN AMBIENT NOISE.
IMPLEMENTATION OF MITIGATION MEASURES NOI-1 AND NOI-2 WOULD REDUCE CONSTRUCTION NOISE LEVELS. THEREFORE, IMPACTS GENERATED BY TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION NOISE WOULD BE LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT WITH MITIGATION.
Noise from project construction would temporarily increase ambient noise levels at nearby properties. Due to the programmatic nature of the project and since there are no specific plans or detailed construction information for individual development projects, it is not possible to determine exact noise levels, time periods of construction, or construction noise at adjacent properties. Therefore, a reasonable approach is taken based on the likely pieces of construction equipment used, and the estimated distance between the edge of the project site and nearby sensitive receivers.
Construction and demolition work would be limited to the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m., consistent with the allowable construction hours from the American Canyon Municipal Code. No nighttime construction work is assumed as part of the project. Table 4.12-5 illustrates typical noise 499
City of American Canyon
Paoli/Watson Lane Annexation
4.12-14
levels associated with construction equipment at 50 feet. Noise would typically drop at a rate of approximately 6 dBA per doubling of distance. Noise levels would be approximately 6 dBA lower than shown in Table 4.12-5 at 100 feet from the noise source, and 12 dBA lower at 200 feet from the noise source.
Heavy construction equipment during grading and site preparation for future land use development would typically include bulldozers, excavators, front-end loaders, dump trucks, and graders. Based on the reference noise levels from Table 4.12-5, use of these types of equipment would generate a noise level of up to 85 dBA Lmax at 50 feet. The nearest sensitive receivers are single-family residences, whose property lines are adjacent to the proposed Paoli Light Industrial and Paoli Light Industrial with Paoli Commercial Overlay pre-zoning. When non-pile driving construction activities are within approximately 150 feet of off-site receivers, the City’s construction noise limit of 75 dBA Lmax for residential receivers during the daytime could be exceeded. As such, a potentially significant noise impact could occur if construction of future development occurs within 150 feet of a residential receiver. Mitigation Measure NOI-1 would require measures to reduce construction noise levels. The nearest commercial uses are approximately 500 feet west of the project site on Paoli Loop Road. At this distance, non-pile driving construction noise would attenuate to approximately 65 dBA Lmax, which would not exceed the City’s noise standard of 80 dBA Lmax for commercial receivers during the daytime. For non-pile driving activity, the City’s construction noise limit of 85 dBA Lmax for industrial receivers during the daytime would not be exceeded.
Construction of the Newell Drive extension could involve the use of pile drivers. For the purposes of this assessment, it is assumed that impact pile driving could be used, which is louder than vibratory or other alternative methods. As shown in Table 4.12-5, noise levels at 50 feet from pile driving would be up to 101 dBA Lmax at 50 feet. The nearest off-site sensitive receiver to where the Newell Drive extension overcrossing over the UPRR railroad is a residence located approximately 850 feet to the south. At this distance, pile driving noise would attenuate to 76 dBA Lmax or less, which could exceed the City’s construction noise limit of 75 dBA Lmax for residential receivers during the daytime.
Therefore, this impact would be significant. Mitigation Measure NOI-2 would require measures to reduce noise levels from pile driving. Off-site commercial and industrial properties are located over 1,000 feet from the proposed UPRR overcrossing and the City’s noise standards of 80 dBA Lmax and 85 dBA Lmax for commercial and industrial uses, respectively, would not be exceeded during pile driving.
Mitigation Measures
NOI-1 Construction Noise Reduction Measures
The following measures shall be implemented where future development construction sites are located within 150 feet of a sensitive receiver:
Mufflers. During excavation and grading construction phases, all construction equipment, fixed or mobile, shall be operated with closed engine doors and shall be equipped with properly operating and maintained mufflers, consistent with manufacturers’ standards.
Stationary Equipment. All stationary construction equipment shall be placed so that emitted noise is directed away from the nearest sensitive receivers.
Shielding and Silencing. Power construction equipment (including combustion engines), fixed or mobile, shall be equipped with noise shielding and silencing devices consistent with manufacturer’s standards or the Best Available Control Technology. Equipment shall be properly maintained, and the project applicant or owner shall require any construction contractor to 500
Environmental Impact Analysis
Noise
Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.12-15
keep documentation on-site during any earthwork or construction activities demonstrating that the equipment has been maintained in accordance with manufacturer’s specifications.
Construction Staging Areas. Construction staging areas shall be located as far from noisesensitive uses as reasonably possible and feasible in consideration of site boundaries, topography, intervening roads and uses, and operational constraints.
Smart Back-Up Alarms. Mobile construction equipment shall have smart back-up alarms that automatically adjust the sound level of the alarm in response to ambient noise levels.
Alternatively, back-up alarms shall be disabled and replaced with human spotters to ensure safety when mobile construction equipment is moving in the reverse direction and in accordance with all applicable safety laws.
Equipment Idling. Construction vehicles and equipment shall not be left idling for longer than five minutes when not in use.
Workers’ Radios. All noise from workers’ radios, including any on-site music, shall be controlled to a point that they are not audible at off-site noise-sensitive uses.
Noise Complaint Response. Project applicants shall designate an on-site construction project manager who shall be responsible for responding to any complaints about construction noise.
This person shall be responsible for responding to concerns of neighboring properties about construction noise disturbance and shall be available for responding to any construction noise complaints during the hours that construction is to take place. They shall also be responsible for determining the cause of the noise complaint (e.g., bad silencer) and shall require that reasonable measures be implemented to correct the problem. A toll-free telephone number and email address shall be posted in a highly visible manner on the construction site at all times and provided in all notices (mailed, online website, and construction site postings) for receiving questions or complaints during construction and shall also include procedures requiring that the on-site construction manager to respond to callers and email messages. The on-site construction project manager shall be required to track complaints pertaining to construction noise, ongoing throughout demolition, grading, and/or construction and shall notify the City of each complaint occurrence.
Temporary Noise Barriers. For non-pile driving construction activity within 150 feet of residences, erect temporary noise barriers at the edge of the construction site closest to residences. Temporary noise barriers shall be constructed with solid materials (e.g., wood) with a density of at least 1.5 pounds per square foot with no gaps from the ground to the top of the barrier and a height of at least 12 feet. If a sound blanket is used, barriers shall be constructed with solid material with a density of at least 1 pound per square foot with no gaps from the ground to the top of the barrier and be lined on the construction side with acoustical blanket, curtain or equivalent absorptive material rated sound transmission class (STC) 32 or higher.
Plans indicating compliance with these noise reduction measures shall be provided to the City for review and concurrence prior to project approval.
NOI-2 Construction Noise Reduction Measures During Pile Driving The following measures shall be implemented during pile driving:
Alternative Pile Methods. For pile driving, the use of caisson drilling (drill piles), vibratory pile drivers, oscillating or rotating pile installation methods, and jetting or partial jetting of piles into place using a water injection at the tip of the pile shall be used instead of impact pile driving, where feasible.
501
City of American Canyon
Paoli/Watson Lane Annexation
4.12-16
Scheduling. Pile driving will be scheduled to have the least impact on nearby sensitive receivers.
Shrouding. Pile drivers with the best available noise control technology will be used. For example, pile driving noise control may be achieved by shrouding the pile hammer point of impact, by placing resilient padding directly on top of the pile cap, and/or by reducing exhaust noise with a sound-absorbing muffler.
Plans indicating compliance with these pile driving measures shall be provided to the City for review and concurrence prior to project approval.
Significance After Mitigation
With implementation of Mitigation Measures NOI-1 and NOI-2, construction noise levels from the project would be reduced below the City’s construction noise thresholds. For non-pile driving construction within 150 feet, the use of temporary noise barriers would attenuate construction noise by approximately 15 dBA. This would reduce construction noise levels to 70 dBA Lmax or less at the nearest off-site residences, which would not exceed the City’s construction noise limit of 75 dBA Lmax for residential receivers during the daytime. For pile driving at the Newell Drive extension overcrossing, alternate methods to impact pile driving would be considered, as feasible depending on soil conditions and other engineering constraints. The shrouding of pile driving equipment would attenuate pile driving noise levels by 10 dBA or more. This would result in mitigated construction noise levels of 66 dBA Lmax or less at the nearest off-site residences, which would not exceed the City’s construction noise limit of 75 dBA Lmax for residential receivers during the daytime.
Construction noise impacts would be less than significant with mitigation.
Threshold 1: Would the project result in generation of a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies?
Impact NOI-2 DEVELOPMENT FACILITATED BY THE PROJECT COULD INCLUDE MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT (I.E., HVAC) AND ON-SITE ACTIVITIES WOULD BE REQUIRED TO COMPLY WITH APPLICABLE NOISE STANDARDS
IN THE AMERICAN CANYON MUNICIPAL CODE BUT MAY STILL EXCEED NOISE THRESHOLDS FOR OFF-SITE SENSITIVE RECEIVERS. THEREFORE, OPERATIONAL STATIONARY SOURCE IMPACTS WOULD BE LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT WITH MITIGATION. FURTHERMORE, WHILE DEVELOPMENT WOULD GENERATE AN INCREASE IN TRAFFIC NOISE, THE INCREASE WOULD NOT BE SIGNIFICANT. THEREFORE, PERMANENT TRAFFIC NOISE INCREASES DUE TO PROJECT OPERATION WOULD BE LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT.
Development facilitated by the project would include industrial, commercial, and town center development throughout the project site that would generate on-site operational noise from stationary sources and off-site operational noise from vehicle trips.
Stationary and Loading Dock/Truck Noise
Noise generated by on-site stationary sources would be subject to the City’s noise limits, established in Section 8.12.070 of the American Canyon Municipal Code (see Table 4.12-3 for the noise limits).
For large buildings, HVAC units are typically located on the roof, where operational noise is greatly reduced by distance and the intervening building itself. For smaller buildings, HVAC units are often placed at ground level on a concrete pad adjacent to the building. Existing noise sensitive receivers, such as residences, could be affected by the operational noise from HVAC equipment placed on the project site.
502
Environmental Impact Analysis
Noise
Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.12-17
Future light industrial uses may include loading docks or truck deliveries. Data show that truck unloading generates noise levels of approximately 40 Leq and up to 75 dBA Lmax at 50 feet (PlaceWorks 2012).
Since there is no specific development application associated with the project, specific details about the hours of operation, location and number of loading docks, and specific types of mechanical equipment are not known. It is possible that future industrial, commercial, or town center uses of the project could generate noise at the existing nearby residences that exceed the City’s noise standards in Table 4.12-3 or the General Plan Policy 11.2.4 noise standard of 65 dBA Ldn. This impact would be potentially significant. Implementation of Mitigation Measure NOI-3 would require that a noise analysis be prepared for future development and that measures be implemented to reduce operational noise.
Traffic Noise
The overall increase in traffic noise from the project was estimated using traffic data from GHD (GHD 2023). Table 4.12-7 summarizes the estimated project and cumulative traffic noise increases.
As shown in Table 4.12-7, traffic noise due to the project would increase by up to 2.1 dBA Ldn on South Kelly Road, south of SR 12. Since the existing ambient noise on this roadway segment is 58.7 dBA Ldn, as shown in Table 4.12-2, the applicable threshold would be a 5 dBA CNEL increase. Since the estimated traffic noise increase on this segment would not exceed the 5 dBA CNEL threshold, this impact would be less than significant. Traffic noise increases would be less than 1.5 dBA CNEL on all other roadway study segments.
In addition, the proposed extension of Newell Drive would add a new source of roadway traffic noise to the project vicinity. Traffic noise levels for cumulative plus project conditions were estimated using the FHWA traffic noise prediction model methodology and data provided by GHD (GHD 2023). Under cumulative plus project conditions, the Newell Drive extension is estimated to have up to 28,072 vehicles per day. The nearest sensitive receiver to the proposed extension is a residence located approximately 850 feet to the south on Watson Lane. At this distance, traffic noise from the proposed Newell Drive extension would result in noise levels of up to 56 dBA Ldn, which would not exceed the City’s exterior standard of 65 dBA Ldn and impacts from the proposed Newell Drive extension would be less than significant.
503
City of American Canyon
Paoli/Watson Lane Annexation
4.12-18
Table 4.12-7 Summary of Project and Cumulative Traffic Noise Increases Roadway Segment Existing ADT
Existing +
Project ADT Cumulative ADT
Cumulative +
Project ADT
Project Noise
Increase
(dBA Ldn)
Cumulative
Increase
(dBA Ldn)
Project
Cumulative
Contribution
(dBA Ldn)
State Route 29 - South of State Route 37 24,051 23,903 26,193 26,059 0.0 0.3 0.0 State Route 29- North of State Route 37 43,483 43,492 40,578 40,444 0.0 -0.3 0.0 State Route 29 - South of Mini Drive 37,492 37,915 37,689 37,666 0.0 0.0 0.0 State Route 29 - North of Mini Drive 43,469 44,009 43,570 43,575 0.1 0.0 0.0 State Route 29 - North of American Canyon Road 49,579 49,523 50,923 51,132 0.0 0.1 0.0 State Route 29 - South of Napa Junction Road 40,762 42,107 35,274 36,053 0.1 -0.5 0.1 State Route 29 - North of Napa Junction Road 59,044 62,507 59,796 60,310 0.2 0.1 0.0 State Route 29 - North of Green Island Road 60,263 59,161 62,745 62,189 -0.1 0.1 0.0 State Route 29 - South of State Route 12 59,200 58,100 63,560 62,560 -0.1 0.2 0.0 State Route 29 - North of State Route 12 88,600 87,000 107,200 106,300 -0.1 0.8 0.0 Airport Boulevard - West of State Route 29 10,500 10,298 10,551 10,341 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 State Route 12 - East of North Kelly Road 35,033 35,922 35,717 36,038 0.1 0.1 0.0 State Route 37 - West of State Route 29 39,980 39,788 39,156 39,074 0.0 -0.1 0.0 State Route 37 - East of State Route 29 62,495 62,352 63,634 63,592 0.0 0.1 0.0 American Canyon Road - West of State Route 29 15,330 14,396 10,744 10,935 -0.3 -1.5 0.1 American Canyon Road - East of Flosden Road 10,771 9,857 14,419 14,194 -0.4 1.2 -0.1 Flosden Road - South of American Canyon Road 21,510 21,450 29,534 29,362 0.0 1.4 0.0 Newell Drive - North of American Canyon Road 9,685 9,129 28,695 28,072 -0.3 4.6 -0.1 Newell Drive - South of Napa Junction Road - - 19,537 21,790 - - 0.5 South Kelly Road - South of State Route 12 1,602 2,570 11,310 11,310 2.1 8.5 0.0 Notes:
1 Newell Drive south of Napa Junction Road does not exist in 2022.
ADT = average daily trips
Source: GHD 2023
504
Environmental Impact Analysis
Noise
Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.12-19
Mitigation Measures
NOI-3 Operational Stationary Source Noise Control Analysis and Measures Prior to the issuance of a building permit for projects adjacent to the property lines of noisesensitive uses that could exceed noise standards from the American Canyon Municipal Code or General Plan, a noise analysis shall be conducted to assess and mitigate potential noise and impacts related to the operations of the project. The noise analysis shall be conducted by a qualified and experienced acoustical consultant or engineer and shall follow the latest CEQA guidelines, practices, and precedents. Measures to reduce operational stationary sources to acceptable levels include, but are not limited to, operational hour restrictions, equipment optimization, shielding, mufflers, acoustical louvers, sound blankets, and sound walls. The noise analysis and recommended measures to implement shall be provided to the City for review and concurrence prior to project approval.
Significance After Mitigation
With implementation of Mitigation Measure NOI-3 operational stationary noise from future projects adjacent to noise-sensitive uses would be reduced to acceptable noise levels, consistent with noise standards from the City’s Municipal Code and General Plan. Operational stationary source noise impacts would be less than significant with mitigation.
Threshold 2: Would the project result in generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels?
Impact NOI-3 PROJECT CONSTRUCTION WOULD GENERATE TEMPORARY VIBRATION IN THE PROJECT AREA. HOWEVER, CONSTRUCTION-RELATED VIBRATION IMPACTS WOULD BE LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT.
Construction
Construction activities would result in varying degrees of groundborne vibration depending on the equipment and methods employed. As depicted in Table 4.12-6, the greatest source of vibration during non-pile driving construction activities would be caused by the use of vibratory rollers, which would generate vibration levels of up to 0.21 in/sec PPV at a distance of 25 feet (FTA 2018). Beyond distances of approximately 25 feet, vibration levels from a vibratory roller would attenuate below the threshold of 0.2 in/sec PPV. There are no existing residential structures within 25 feet of where construction would occur. As such, vibration impacts during non-pile driving activities would be less than significant.
Additionally, as discussed in Impact NOI-1, it is assumed that pile driving would be used for construction of the overcrossing. Vibration levels from pile driving would be up to 1.518 in/sec PPV at 25 feet (FTA 2018). The nearest residence to the proposed overcrossing where pile activity could occur is approximately 850 feet to the south. At this distance, vibration from pile driving would attenuate to 0.01 in/sec PPV or less, which would not exceed the threshold of 0.2 in/sec PPV. As such, overall project construction vibration impacts would be less than significant.
Operations
The project would include truck movement activity at the project site. These movements would generally be low-speed (i.e., less than 15 miles per hour) and would occur over new, smooth surfaces. Caltrans has studied the effects of propagation of vehicle vibration on sensitive land uses 505
City of American Canyon
Paoli/Watson Lane Annexation
4.12-20
and notes that “heavy trucks, and quite frequently buses, generate the highest earthborn vibrations of normal traffic.” Caltrans further notes that the highest traffic-generated vibrations are along freeways and state routes. Their study finds that “vibrations measured on freeway shoulders (5 meters from the centerline of the nearest lane) have never exceeded 0.08 inches per second, with the worst combinations of heavy trucks and poor roadway conditions (while such trucks were moving at freeway speeds). This level coincides with the maximum recommended safe level for ruins and ancient monuments (and historic buildings)” (Caltrans 2020). Since the project’s truck movements would be a low speed (not at freeway speeds), would be over smooth surfaces (not under poor roadway conditions), project-related vibration associated with truck activity would not result in excessive groundborne vibrations. No vehicle-generated vibration impacts would occur. In addition, there are no sources of substantial groundborne vibration associated with the project, such as rail or subways. The project would not create or cause any vibration impacts due to operations.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures would be required.
Significance After Mitigation
Impacts would be less than significant without mitigation.
Threshold 3: For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?
Impact NOI-4 THE PROJECT IS OUTSIDE THE NAPA COUNTY AIRPORT NOISE CONTOURS AND THE PROJECT WOULD NOT EXPOSE PEOPLE WORKING IN THE PROJECT SITE TO EXCESSIVE NOISE LEVELS. NO IMPACT WOULD OCCUR.
The nearest airport to the project is the Napa County Airport, approximately 1.2 miles to the northwest. According to the ALUCP, the project site is outside of the Napa County Airport’s 55 dBA CNEL/Ldn noise contour (Napa County ALUC 1999). Therefore, people working in the project area would not be exposed to excessive aircraft noise level and there would be no impact.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures would be required.
Significance After Mitigation
There would be no impact and no mitigation would be required.
4.12.4 Cumulative Impacts
Construction Noise
Construction of future development projects in the City and adjacent County area would produce temporary noise impacts that would be localized to a project site and sensitive receivers within the immediate vicinity. Therefore, only sensitive receivers located in close proximity to each 506
Environmental Impact Analysis
Noise
Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.12-21
construction site would be potentially affected by each activity. Nonetheless, construction activities associated with individual development projects accommodated under the project may overlap for some time with construction activities for other development projects. If unmitigated, the combination of construction noise levels could exceed City noise standards.
With implementation of Mitigation Measure NOI-1, construction noise levels associated with the project would be reduced to below the City’s construction noise thresholds. For non-pile driving construction within 150 feet, the use of temporary noise barriers would attenuate construction noise by approximately 15 dBA. This would reduce construction noise levels to 70 dBA Lmax or less at the nearest off-site residences, which would not exceed the City’s construction noise limit of 75 dBA Lmax for residential receivers during the daytime. Assuming that two simultaneous construction projects were both within 150 feet of a nearby residences, the combined mitigated construction noise levels would be up to 73 dBA Lmax. It should be noted that since the criterion is a maximum noise level it is unlikely, though possible, that the two loudest activities would be occurring simultaneously at both construction sites. Nevertheless, because the project would include the implementation of Mitigation Measure NOI-1, the project’s contribution to a cumulative impact would be less than considerable.
Operational Noise
Traffic Noise
A significant cumulative traffic noise increase would be identified if a cumulative traffic noise increase of greater than the 1.5 dBA, 3 dBA, and 5 dBA is calculated. A cumulatively considerable contribution could occur if project traffic is calculated to contribute 1 dBA or more to this cumulative impact.
As shown in Table 4.12-7, traffic noise due to cumulative conditions would increase by up to 8.5 dBA Ldn on South Kelly Road south of SR 12. Since the existing ambient noise level on this roadway segment is 58.7 dBA Ldn, as shown in Table 4.12-2, the applicable threshold would be a 5 dBA increase. Since the estimated traffic noise increase on this segment would exceed the 5 dBA threshold, the cumulative traffic noise impact would be significant. However, as shown in Table 4.12-7, the project would not contribute to this cumulative impact (i.e., the project’s contribution to this cumulative impact is 0.0 dBA).
As shown in Table 4.12-7, traffic noise due to cumulative plus project conditions would increase by up to 0.5 dBA Ldn on Newell Drive south of Napa Junction Road. Since the estimated traffic noise increase would not exceed 1 dBA, the project’s contribution to cumulative traffic noise would be less than cumulatively considerable.
As shown in Table 4.12-7, cumulative traffic noise conditions would increase to 4.6 dBA Ldn on Newell Drive north of American Canyon Road. Since the existing ambient noise level on this roadway segment is 63.4 dBA Ldn, as shown in Table 4.12-2, the applicable threshold would be a 3 dBA increase. Since the estimated traffic noise increase on this segment would exceed the 3 dBA threshold, the cumulative traffic noise impact would be significant. However, as shown in Table 4.12-7, the project would not contribute to this cumulative impact (i.e., the project’s contribution to this cumulative impact is less than 0.0 dBA).
Cumulative plus project traffic noise increases would be less than 0.5 dBA Ldn on all other roadway study segments and cumulative impacts on those segments would be less than significant. 507
City of American Canyon
Paoli/Watson Lane Annexation
4.12-22
Stationary Noise
Noise from stationary sources such as HVAC and truck loading docks is highly localized. The closest cumulative project is the Watson Ranch Specific Plan, approximately 0.1 mile to the southeast of the project site. At this distance and since there are no industrial or commercial uses proposed as part of the project in the southern portion of the project site, stationary noise from the project would not combine with other cumulative projects to result in a cumulative impact. As such, cumulative impacts would be less than significant.
Vibration
Although there could be other cumulative projects simultaneously under construction near the project, the potential for construction vibration impacts is within relatively close distances (e.g., within approximately 25 feet for a vibratory roller). Since no two construction projects would both be within 25 feet of a given sensitive structure, cumulative vibration impacts would be less than significant.
Airport Noise
Because the project would have no noise impact related to being located near an airport, the project would not contribute to a cumulative impact. As such, there would be no cumulative impact related to being located near an airport and is not discussed further. 508
Environmental Impact Analysis
Population and Housing
Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.13-1
4.13 Population and Housing
This section summarizes existing and projected population and housing in the City and analyzes the impacts on population and housing due to the project.
4.13.1 Setting
a. Population
The City of American Canyon was incorporated in 1992. American Canyon was developed following World War II, with the McKnight Acres subdivision in the 1940s and Rancho Del Mar in the 1950s (City of American Canyon 2022). In 1992, when American Canyon was incorporated, the population was 8,341 (California Department of Finance [DOF] 2000). By the year 2000, the population grew approximately 17 percent to 9,774 (DOF 2000). From 2000 to 2010, the City experienced a rapid population growth and population increased approximately 99 percent to 19,454 (DOF 2010b).
Growth after 2010 slowed and experienced an approximately seven percent population increase from 2010 to 2020 (DOF 2020a). From 2020 to 2022, the City’s population continued to slowly increase from 21,544 residents in 2020 to 21,658 residents in 2022, representing a 0.5 percent increase (DOF 2022a).
b. Housing
A household is defined as a group of people who occupy a housing unit (U.S. Census Bureau 2021). A household differs from a dwelling unit because the number of dwelling units includes both occupied and vacant dwelling units. Typically, not all the population in a given area lives in households. A portion of the population lives in group quarters, such as board and care facilities, while others are homeless.
Housing Units
Table 4.13-1 shows the growth in number of housing units in the City, County, and State between 2010 and 2021. As shown in Table 4.13-1, between 2010 and 2022, 515 units were added to the City’s housing inventory resulting in an overall growth of 8.6 percent during this period. Between 2010 and 2022, the County grew at a slower rate of 1.7 percent. The State also grew at a slower rate of 6.7 percent.
Table 4.13-1 Housing Inventory in the City, County, and State American Canyon Napa County California
2010 2022 2010 2022 2010 2022
Total Housing Units 5,982 6,497 54,759 55,685 13,670,304 14,583,998 Occupied 5,657 6,299 48,876 49,719 12,568,167 13,612,650 Vacancy Rate 5.4% 3.0% 10.7% 10.7% 8.1% 6.7%
Percent Change in Total Housing
Units from 2010 to 2022
8.6% 1.7% 6.7%
Note: The number of housing units added to American Canyon exceeds that of the total number of housing units added to Napa County. This can be attributed to the removal of housing units in Napa County between 2010-2021.
Source: DOF 2010a (for 2010 data) and DOF 2022b (for 2022 data) 509
City of American Canyon
Paoli/Watson Lane Annexation
4.13-2
In 2022, approximately 5,012 of the housing units in the City were single-family detached homes, approximately 48 units were single-family attached homes, approximately 571 units were multifamily units (buildings of at least two units), and approximately 865 units were mobile homes (DOF 2022b).
Household Size
Small households (one to two persons per household [pph]) traditionally occupy units with zero to two bedrooms; family households (three to four pph) normally occupy units with three to four bedrooms. Large households (five or more pph) typically occupy units with four or more bedrooms.
The number of units in relation to the household size may reflect preference and economics. Many small households obtain larger units, and some large households live in small units, for economic reasons. Table 4.13-2 compares the size of households in the City, County, and State in 2010 and 2022.
Table 4.13-2 Household Size in the City, County, and State American Canyon Napa County California
2010 2022 2010 2022 2010 2022
Household Size (pph) 3.43 3.43 2.69 2.61 2.90 2.81
Percent Change from 2010 to 2022 0% 3.0% 3.1%
Source: DOF 2020b (for 2010 data) and DOF 2022b (for 2022 data) As shown in Table 4.13-2 the average household size in American Canyon was approximately 3.43 pph for both the year 2010 and 2022. Over the same period, household size in the County decreased from 2.69 to 2.61, a decrease of approximately 3 percent. Household size in the State decreased from 2.90 to 2.81, a decrease of approximately 3.1 percent. Between 2010 and 2019, the City maintained a higher average household size in comparison to the County and State average household sizes.
a. Jobs Housing Ratio
Information on the jobs-housing ratio is provided for informational purposes only. The jobshousehold ratio in a jurisdiction is an overall indicator of jobs availability within the area. A balance of jobs and housing can give residents an opportunity to work locally and avoid employment commutes to other places in the region. DOF estimates that American Canyon has a ratio of 0.95 jobs per dwelling unit. Association of Bay Area Governments’ (ABAG) regional map depicting projected household and job growth also illustrates a 1 percent job growth in south Napa County, including American Canyon, as a share of the regional job growth (ABAG 2021a). That amounts to more than one job per household, which means that workers do not have to travel to other communities to find employment. Most households have more than one worker; therefore, a ratio of jobs to housing should be above 1:1 to have a balance of jobs to households. b. Projections
Table 4.13-3 presents population, dwelling units, and employment projections by DOF and ABAG through 2040 for American Canyon. It is estimated the population of American Canyon will grow approximately 17 percent between 2022 and 2040 (DOF 2022b, ABAG 2019). This translates to an estimated 3,622 new residents by 2040. The available data shows dwelling units decreasing in American Canyon; however, this is unlikely the case because American Canyon will be building 510
Environmental Impact Analysis
Population and Housing
Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.13-3
residences to fulfill its Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) of 622 residential units. The City’s Housing Element is currently being updated based on the 6th Cycle State requirements for the 2023-2031 planning horizon. The City’s Housing Element will help facilitate the development of housing. Jobs are expected to increase 31 percent between 2021 and 2040. American Canyon’s jobshousing ratio would increase by approximately 0.32.
Table 4.13-3 American Canyon Population, Dwelling Units, and Employment American Canyon 2022 2040
Change
2022 to 2040
Percent Change
2021 to 2040
Population 21,658 25,280 3,622 17%
Dwelling Units 6,497 6,420 77 -1%
Jobs 6,2101 8,165 1,955 31%
Jobs-Housing Ratio 0.95 1.27 0.32 14%
Source: ABAG 2019, DOF 2022b 1 Data is from most recent projections for the year 2020 (ABAG 2019)
4.13.2 Regulatory Setting
a. Federal Regulations
There are no federal regulations that would be applicable to the project. b. State Regulations
Senate Bill 375
Senate Bill 375 (SB 375) is summarized in Section 4.11, Land Use and Planning. c. Local Regulations
There are no local regulations that would be applicable to the project.
4.13.3 Impact Analysis
a. Significance Thresholds and Methodology
Significance Thresholds
Based on Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines a project may be deemed to have a significant impact on population and housing if it would:
Induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area either directly or indirectly; or Displace substantial number of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere.
For purposes of this analysis, substantial population growth is defined as growth exceeding ABAG population forecasts for American Canyon. Substantial displacement would occur if implementation of the project would displace more residences than would be accommodated through growth accommodated by the project.
511
City of American Canyon
Paoli/Watson Lane Annexation
4.13-4
Methodology
Population and housing trends in the City were evaluated by reviewing the most current data available from, the DOF, ABAG, and the RHNA Plan. Impacts related to population are generally social or economic in nature. Under CEQA, a social or economic change generally is not considered a significant effect on the environment unless the changes are directly linked to a physical change.
LAFCo has identified the availability of affordable housing as an issue of local interest that should be addressed in the CEQA documentation. Because this project would be limited to commercial, industrial, and town center uses, the project would not affect the availability of affordable housing.
The City of American Canyon has an affordable housing nexus fee, which would require payment by the applicants of any future development on the project site and would fund affordable housing. As such, because the project would not affect the availability of affordable housing and because the project would require the payment of an impact fee to fund affordable housing, the impacts on affordable housing are not discussed any further.
b. Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Threshold 1: Would the project induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? Impact POP-1 THE PROJECT WOULD NOT DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY INDUCE SUBSTANTIAL UNPLANNED POPULATION GROWTH. IMPACTS WOULD BE LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT.
The project would not result in any direct population growth because no residences would be developed as a part of this project. The project could, however, result in indirect population growth, as commercial, industrial, and visitor-serving/hotel uses would result in both temporary and permanent employment during construction and operation. Construction would be temporary and not require construction workers to permanently relocate to American Canyon. Construction workers would most likely already be from American Canyon or the surrounding San Francisco Bay area and would commute to the project site. Construction would not contribute to substantial unplanned growth in the area.
As described in Chapter 2, Project Description, the project is expected to generate 1,650 new employees. Most of the jobs could be filled with the existing population of American Canyon. The current unemployment rate in American Canyon is 2.7 percent or approximately 585 people (EDD 2022). Employment for the project could be pulled from the current pool of unemployed persons in American Canyon. In addition, American Canyon’s population is expected to grow 17 percent by the year 2040 (ABAG 2019).
The Final ABAG RHNA Plan assigned American Canyon 622 housing units for the years 2023 through 2031 to accommodate the state’s housing needs (ABAG 2021b). While the project may induce population growth, there is sufficient planned housing and a need for local jobs that would accommodate potential population growth from the project’s employment. As such, the project would not induce substantial unplanned population growth and impacts would be less than significant.
In addition, the project would include an extension of Newell Drive. Newell Drive currently has a dead end at Donaldson Way and with the extension of Newell Drive, this roadway would be extended north and would border the eastern boundary of the Watson Ranch Specific Plan and then 512
Environmental Impact Analysis
Population and Housing
Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.13-5
cross through the project site until it connects to Paoli Loop Road. This roadway would serve the planned development for both the Watson Ranch Specific Plan and the project. As such, this roadway extension would serve already planned growth. As such, impacts on indirect population growth due the Newell Drive extension would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures would be required.
Significance After Mitigation
Impacts would be less than significant without mitigation.
Threshold 2: Would the project displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? Impact POP-2 THE PROJECT WOULD NOT DISPLACE SUBSTANTIAL NUMBERS OF EXISTING PEOPLE OR HOUSING AND IMPACTS WOULD BE LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT.
The areas where the proposed Railroad Right of Way, Town Center, and Paoli Light Industrial prezone would be located have no existing housing or people who reside in those areas; therefore, the project would not result in any displacement. In addition, there are no existing housing or people that reside in the area where the Newell Drive extension would be located; therefore, the project would not result in any displacement. The area with the proposed Residential Estate pre-zone does have existing residences; however, the application of the Residential Estate pre-zoning is to acknowledge these existing uses and no displacement of any residences would occur.
There is one residence located within the Paoli Light Industrial with Paoli Commercial Overlay prezoning that would be displaced. Displacement of one residential unit would not be considered substantial. Therefore, this displacement would not necessitate the construction of replacement housing elsewhere and impacts would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures would be required.
Significance After Mitigation
Impacts would be less than significant without mitigation.
4.13.4 Cumulative Impacts
The geographic scope of the cumulative population/housing analysis is the City of American Canyon.
Population growth in the City would be a result of any future development that would be allowed within its General Plan, or any Specific Plans developed for the City. For example, two large projects within the City that are expected to induce population growth are the Broadway District Specific Plan (1,200 new residential units) and the Watson Ranch Specific Plan (1,253 residential units). This population growth, however, would be considered planned because the City developed Specific Plans to plan for the population growth. In addition, the project is not adding any residential development and instead would provide commercial, industrial, and town center uses, which would provide new employment opportunities for the existing population. As such, the projects 513
City of American Canyon
Paoli/Watson Lane Annexation
4.13-6
contribution to a cumulative impact related to unplanned population growth would be less than significant.
Future development in the City could result in the demolition of housing. However, as described in Impact POP-1, the City could facilitate development of up to 622 housing units by 2031 and additional housing would be constructed to meet the City’s housing demand. As such, the cumulative impact from displacement of people or housing would be less than significant. 514
Environmental Impact Analysis
Public Services and Recreation
Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.14-1
4.14 Public Services and Recreation
This section analyzes the potential effects on public services and recreation related to implementation of the project. Impacts on schools are addressed in Section 4.19, Effects Found Not to be Significant.
4.14.1 Setting
a. Fire Protection
Fire protection, emergency medical services, and technical rescue services in the City of American Canyon are provided by the American Canyon Fire Protection District (ACFPD). The ACFPD provides a wide range of programs, including fire suppression, training, emergency medical services, hazardous materials cleanup, public education, and urban search and rescue. The ACFPD provides a response to an approximately 15 square mile area that includes the American Canyon city limits and nearby unincorporated areas of southern Napa County (ACFPD 2015). ACFPD is a subsidiary special District of the City of American Canyon, with the elected City Council members serving as the exofficio Board of Directors. ACFPD is funded primarily through property taxes and voter approved special taxes, ACFPD’s budget is separate and distinct from the City of American Canyon.
Personnel, Facilities, and Equipment
The ACFPD currently employs 23 career fire personnel (City of American Canyon 2022a) and is staffed daily with a minimum of six personnel, of which a minimum of two firefighters are Paramedics. Staffing is accomplished by having twenty-one career firefighters assigned to three platoons referred to as “A,” “B,” and “C” shift. All sworn ACFPD employees are trained to the level of Emergency Medical Technician or as an Emergency Medical Technician-Paramedic and can provide advanced live support (ACFPD 2022a). In 2021, the ACFPD responded to 1,689 incidents in their jurisdiction, as well as 98 incidents in Napa County and 61 incidents in Vallejo (ACFPD 2022a). The typical response time by the ACFPD is approximately 5 minutes or less.
The ACFPD operates out of two stations located at 225 James Road and 911 Donaldson Way East, both located centrally within the City. The closest fire station is approximately 3 miles south of the project site. In total, ACFPD has eight firefighting apparatus and five support vehicles. The district also maintains two inflatable rescue boats, and three towable technical rescue equipment trailers (ACFPD 2020). A fire engine is staffed by at least one firefighter who is also a licensed paramedic on a 24/7 basis. The District and American Medical Response have established a public-private partnership that enhances the emergency medical system in Napa County and are working together to provide shorter response times. Table 4.14-1 summarizes ACFPD equipment (ACFPD 2022a).
Services Provided
The Fire District provides emergency operations, fire suppression, advanced life support emergency medical care, and rescue in a public-private partnership with American Medical Response. Other services and functions include fire prevention, public education, business fire safety inspections, plan review, construction site inspection, code enforcement, fire investigation, public education outreach programs, disaster preparedness, emergency operations plan development, emergency operations center operations, and coordination of disaster preparedness training. The Fire District is also recognized by California Emergency Management Agency as a Type 1 (heavy) rescue single resource.
515
City of American Canyon
Paoli/Watson Lane Annexation
4.14-2
Aid Agreements
The ACFPD participates in the Napa Interagency Hazard Team, which responds to hazardous materials incidents that occur within the County (ACFPD 2022a). The ACFPD also participates in the Napa Interagency Rescue Team, which is a joint search and rescue team comprised of fire department personnel from other agencies within Napa County (ACFPD 2022a). In addition, the ACFPD participates in both mutual aid and automatic aid agreements to multiple agencies in Napa and Solano Counties (City of American Canyon 2022a).
Incidents
ACFPD responded to 1,868 incidents in 2021 (ACFPD 2022a). Rescues and emergency services accounted for 63 percent of the incidents (ACFPD 2022a). The Fire District responded to 62 incidents in the industrial area near the Napa County Airport in 2020, with rescue and emergency services accounting for 48 percent of the calls (ACFPD 2022a).
Table 4.14-1 ACFPD Equipment
Equipment Equipment Features
Engine 211 Spartan Cab and Chassis
1,500 Gallons Per Minute Single Stage Pump
500 Gallon Water Tank
20 Gallon of Class A Foam Tank
Advanced Life Support
Engine 411 500 Gallon Water Tank
750 Gallon Per Minute Darley Pump
Truck 11 1,500 Gallon Per Minute Single Stage Pump
500 Gallon Water Tank
20 Gallons of Class A & B Foam
Rescue 11 25 Kilowatt Power Take Off Generator
LED Telescopic Lighting System
Cascade Self Contained Breathing Apparatus Breathing Air Fill System Brush 11 350 Gallon Water Tank
10 Gallon Class A Foam
180 Gallon Per Minute Darley Pump
Advanced Life Support
Engine 11 2018 Pierce Enforcer Cab and Chassis
1,500 Gallon per minute single stage pump
500 gallon water tank
20 gallon class A foam tank
Advanced Life Support
Source: City of American Canyon 2022d
Response Times
ACFPD has an established response time standard of first unit arrival within 5 minutes (total travel time) for 90 percent of all incidents (ACFPD 2022a). ACFPD responded to 13 percent of calls within 5 minutes in the industrial area near the Napa County Airport in 2021 (ACFPD 2022a). 516
Environmental Impact Analysis
Public Services and Recreation
Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.14-3
Insurance Services Office Rating
ACFPD has an Insurance Services Office (ISO) rating of Class 2 on a scale of 1 to 10, with 1 being the best (City of American Canyon 2022a). An ISO rating accounts for factors such as emergency communication systems, personnel, training, equipment, and water supply.
Police Protection
The American Canyon Police Department (ACPD) provides police protection services within the City through a contract with the Napa County Sheriff’s Office. The ACPD is staffed by Napa County Sheriff’s Office personnel who wear ACPD uniforms. ACPD officers serve a variety of roles including patrol, K-9, Drug Abuse Resistance Education, investigations, communications, and school resources.
The ACPD operates out of one station located at 911 Donaldson Way East, approximately 1.3 miles south of the project site. For the Fiscal Year 2021/2022 the ACPD was staffed with 24 sworn officers, two police technicians, and one administrative clerk (ACPD 2022). At a minimum, there are three officers on duty 24 hours a day, 7 days a week and the ACDP ratio is 1.1 offers per 1,000 residents (City of American Canyon 2020). The 24 sworn officers are comprised of the following:
1 Chief
4 Sergeants
2 Traffic Officers
2 K-9 Handlers
2 School Resource Officers
1 Community Resource Officer
12 Patrol Officers
Between 2014 and 2021, ACPD responded to between 15,903 and 18,698 calls for service annually (ACPD 2022).
b. Parks and Recreation
American Canyon has multiple recreational opportunities. There are 22 parks within city limits that total 79 acres and vary in size from 0.25 to 10 acres (American Canyon 2012). Amenities include:
picnic areas, diamond baseball fields, rectangle fields, outdoor basketball multi-use courts, tennis courts, playgrounds, dog parks/off leash areas, skate parks, swimming pool, and trails.
The City’s Parks and Recreation Department is responsible for the maintenance of park land and City recreation facilities, as well as planning all City-sponsored recreation classes, programs, and special events. The City also jointly manages 10 miles of the Napa River Bay Trail with the California Department of Fish and Wildlife and the Napa County Parks and Open Space District (City of American Canyon 2022b). Additionally, the Newell Open Space Preserve includes 620 acres of open space east of the City and is connected via Newell Creek (City of American Canyon 2022c).
There are also several additional nearby open space areas, including the La Vigne Open Space, Lynch Canyon Open Space, Napa-Sonoma Marshes Wildlife Area, Fagan Marsh Ecological Reserve, and Bull Island. Beyond the nearby open space areas and trails provided in Napa and Solano Counties, there are also other nearby regional parks in Sonoma and Marin counties, as well as park and open space amenities provided through the East Bay Regional Parks District, California State Parks system, and 517
City of American Canyon
Paoli/Watson Lane Annexation
4.14-4
the National Parks Service lands. According to the Bay Area Open Space Council, there are almost
1.4 million acres of regional trails and open space areas that are currently provided in the Bay Area (Bay Area Open Space Council 2014). By 2027, the Bay Open Space Council predicts that 2 million acres of regional trails and open space areas would be available for users.
There are several parks located near the project site that may be utilized by employees or visitors.
Main Street Park is located approximately 0.6 mile south of the project site, Gadwall Park is located approximately 1.1 miles southwest of the project site, and Newell Open Space is located 1.2 miles southeast of the project site.
c. Library Services
Library services in the City are provided by the Napa County Library system at the American Canyon Library. This library, located at 300 Crawford Way approximately 1.5 miles south of the project site, is part of the four libraries within the Napa County Library system. The library consists of a 55,550- piece collection (books, DVDs, music CDs, audiobooks, magazines, and subscriptions to area newspapers), a group study area that can accommodate 18 people, 28 computers, and a meeting room, which can seat up to 100 people for a total of 16,000 sf of usable space. During fiscal year 2017/2018, the library had approximately 8,669 registered users (County of Napa 2022).
4.14.2 Regulatory Setting
a. Federal Regulations
There are no federal regulations that would be applicable to the project. b. State Regulations
California Fire and Building Codes
The State of California provides minimum standards for building design through the California Building Code (CBC), which is located in Part 2 of Title 24, California Building Standards Code, of the California Code of Regulations. The CBC is based on the International Building Code but has been amended for California conditions. It is generally adopted on a jurisdiction-by-jurisdiction basis, subject to further modification based on local conditions. Commercial and residential buildings are plan-checked by local building officials for compliance with the CBC. Typical fire safety requirements of the CBC include: the installation of sprinklers in all high-rise buildings; the establishment of fire resistance standards for fire doors, building materials, and particular types of construction; and the clearance of debris and vegetation within a prescribed distance from occupied structures in wildfire hazard areas.
c. Local Regulations
City of American Canyon General Plan
The City’s Public Services and Facilities Element of the General Plan address the following goals:
Goal 6A: Maintain a high level of fire protection and emergency services to City/District businesses and residences.
Goal 6B: Ensure a high level of police protection for the City’s residents, businesses and visitors. 518
Environmental Impact Analysis
Public Services and Recreation
Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.14-5
Goal 6C: Ensure the enhanced provision of library services for the City’s residents and businesses.
The City’s Parks and Recreation Element of the General Plan addresses the following goals:
Goal 7: Enrich the quality of life in American Canyon by providing parks, trails, and recreational services for all of the City’s residents.
Goal 7A: Provide a variety of parks and trials that serve the diverse recreational needs of American Canyon’s residents and take into account the unique features of the City’s natural environment.
Goal 7B: Provide adequate parkland acreage in both location and quantity to meet the range of recreational needs of existing and future residents and preserve natural resources within the City of American Canyon.
Goal 7C: Ensure that American Canyon’s parks are developed so that buildings, open air facilities, and landscaping are unified and functionally related.
Goal 7D: Ensure that City parks are properly operated and maintained in the most effective and efficient manner possible.
Goal 7E: Develop park programming that provides a variety of active and passive activities for American Canyon’s residents.
The City’s Circulation Element of the General Plan addresses the following goals:
Guiding Policy 1.1: Community Priorities. Safe and convenient access to activities in the community is provided by a well-designed local roadway system. That system serves the community’s primary need for mobility and includes a planned hierarchy of roadways to meet that need. The following Community Priorities relate most directly to this Element:
Encourage and foster a strong sense of community and safety, as well as the “hometown” feeling by creation of a town center through land use and circulation planning. Improve a hierarchy of roadway networks to achieve and maintain acceptable traffic LOS and provide a citywide system of bicycle lanes and recreational trails that improve accessibility without the use of an automobile.
Improve SR-29 so that it serves as a visually attractive gateway into the City while providing access to commercial businesses and serving intra and interregional traffic and goods movement.
Policy 1.19 Complete Streets. When constructing or modifying transportation facilities, consistent with Resolution 2012 72, “Complete Streets Policy of the City of American Canyon”, strive to provide for the movement of vehicles, commercial trucks, alternative and low energy vehicles, transit, bicyclists and pedestrians appropriate for the road classification and adjacent land use.
Policy 2.5 Provision of bicycle facilities. Facilities for bicycle travel (Class I bike/multiuse paths; Class II bike lanes, and Class III bike routes) shall be provided to complete a continuous system of cyclists as shown on Figure 5 (The bicycle network map).
Policy 2.20 Bicycle Master Plan. The NVTA Countywide Bicycle Master Plan for the City of American Canyon, as it may be amended from time to time, links all community centers, civic areas, schools, and parks in the City and connects to other neighboring bikeway networks. This plan is hereby incorporated by reference into the City of American Canyon General Plan. 519
City of American Canyon
Paoli/Watson Lane Annexation
4.14-6
American Canyon Fire Protection District Long-Range Master Plan The ACFPD Long-Range Master Plan, (LRMP) guides the efficient future growth and development of the Fire District to provide the community of American Canyon with the highest possible level of service balanced with long term financial sustainability. Adopted in October 2022, (Resolution 2022- 26) the LRMP identifies recommendations to improve long-range planning and delivery of fire and emergency services to the community (ACFPD 2022b).
The Plan recommendations relate to operations, procedures, and community involvement to deliver desired levels of service at the most efficient cost. To maintain long-range service levels, the LRMP recommends construction of a new relocated Fire Station 211.
Impact Fees
Measure B, 1980 and Resolution 83-4 as amended by Resolution 2022-11 In 1980, voters approved Measure B, a special tax assessment to maintain levels of fire protection services in American Canyon. All property and mobile homeowners in American Canyon are required to pay this fee. The fee is calculated based on the physical building characteristics of a project, its use, and its immediate surroundings, to determine the gallons per minute that would be utilized to put out the most serious fire likely to occur near the development. Currently, singlefamily residential pays $0.2585 per square foot, multi-family residential pays $0.3154 per square foot, commercial uses pay $0.4731 per square foot, and industrial uses pay $0.5738 per square foot.
American Canyon Municipal Code Chapter 15.08
Chapter 15.08 of the American Canyon Municipal Code establishes the Civic Facility and Park Impact Fee for all residential, accessory dwelling unit, commercial, office, and industrial developments. The fee is calculated by unit or by square foot depending on the type of development. The Civic Facility and Park Impact Fees collected are utilized for the expansion of City Hall, provision of additional support for the police station, support for the Aquatic Center offices, construction of the City library, corporate yard expansion, public parks, park facilities, and other offsite improvements.
4.14.3 Impact Analysis
a. Significance Thresholds and Methodology
Significance Thresholds
Based on Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines a project may be deemed to have a significant impact on public services and recreation if it would:
1. Result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for any of the following public services:
a. Fire Protection
b. Police Protection
c. Schools
520
Environmental Impact Analysis
Public Services and Recreation
Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.14-7
d. Parks
e. Other public facilities
2. Increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated; or
3. Include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities, which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment.
Threshold 1c. regarding schools is addressed in Section 4.19, Effects Found Not to be Significant.
Methodology
Impacts on fire and police protection services are considered significant if an increase in population or development levels would result in inadequate staffing levels, response times, and/or increased demand for services that would require the construction or expansion of new or altered facilities that have an adverse physical effect on the environment. Impacts on schools are determined by analyzing the project’s effect on the capacity at existing NVUSD schools. The analysis considers whether an increase in use of the City’s parks and recreation facilities resulting from the project would cause the substantial physical deterioration of those facilities (e.g., disturbance of vegetation, accelerated wear on sports facilities and fields, erosion along trails, and an increased potential for increased graffiti and litter) or in the need for new or expanded facilities. The analysis further considers whether the project would diminish or otherwise adversely affect recreational opportunities and existing facilities in the vicinity of the project site, based on existing issues with facility capacity. Impacts on library services are considered significant if an increase in population or development levels would result in an increased demand for library services that would require the need for new or physically altered library facilities to maintain acceptable service ratios, the construction of which could result in substantial adverse environmental effects. b. Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Threshold 1a: Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered fire protection facilities, or the need for new or physically altered fire protection facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives?
Impact PSR-1 THE PROJECT COULD RESULT IN THE NEED FOR ADDITIONAL FIRE FACILITIES; HOWEVER, MITIGATION MEASURE PSR-1 WOULD REQUIRE MEASURES TO MAINTAIN ADEQUATE FIRE SERVICE. IMPACTS WOULD BE LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT WITH MITIGATION.
The project would be served with fire protection and emergency medical services provided by ACFPD. The project includes the extension of Newell Drive. This roadway extension would provide an additional roadway that ACFPD staff can use to access the project site, as well as other areas within the City. However, the introduction of new commercial, industrial, and town-center uses, as well as the Newell Drive extension could result in additional calls. Although the project would not include substantial residential population growth, it would add employees to the area. Thus, there is potential for an increase in calls to the fire department made by employees in the case of an emergency. Development facilitated by the project would increase calls for service throughout the city for issues including (but not limited to) emergency medical service, structure or vegetation fires, 521
City of American Canyon
Paoli/Watson Lane Annexation
4.14-8
and traffic collisions. Since the project site is within ACFPD’s existing service area and within 3 miles of the nearest fire station, emergencies on these sites would generally be responded to within current response times.
The project would be required to meet the standard fire code safety and access requirements administered by the City of American Canyon Building Division and specified by the CBC. In accordance with standard practices, ACFPD would review project plans before permits are issued to ensure compliance with all applicable fire and building code standards and ensure adequate emergency access is provided to the site.
The project would be required to pay two separate special assessments to fund fire protection and emergency medical services. The first is the “Fire Mitigation Fee,” a one-time assessment to all new development. The second is the “Fire Service Fee” and an annual assessment for each parcel based on a formula that includes structure construction type, the fire flow area (square feet), proximity of other structures, the type of occupancy, and the presence of fire protection devices.
Nonetheless, due to the size of the annexation area, there is the potential that future development could result in the need of additional infrastructure, such as a fire station, which could result in a physical impact on the environment (ACFPD personal communication 2023). Therefore, mitigation would be required to reduce potential impacts. To that end, Mitigation Measure PSR-1 would require the City to provide the ACFPD with future development applications so that the ACFPD can identify if any new infrastructure would be needed. Future fire infrastructure or facilities could be located within the City but would require adherence to all applicable building and zoning codes and additional CEQA review from the ACFPD to analyze project and location specific impacts. It is not possible to identify the specific nature, extent, and significance of physical impacts on the environment that could result from the construction and operation of future fire facilities without knowing the size and nature of the facility, or its location. For example, future fire facilities could feasibly be housed in an existing building, which would have less of a physical impact on the environment than the construction of a new facility.
Mitigation Measures
PSR-1 Fire Facilities Coordination
The City shall forward development applications within the project area to the American Canyon Fire Protection District (ACFPD). If the ACFPD determines that Fire Service Mitigation fee program(s) must be updated to fund Fire Service Facilities to serve the site, the City shall cooperate with the ACFPD to update Fire Service Mitigation fee(s) in accordance with its relationship to the ACFPD as a subsidiary special district of the City.
Significance After Mitigation
Because Mitigation Measure PSR-1 would require the City to provide the ACFPD with future development applications so that the ACFPD can identify if any new infrastructure would be needed and because any future fire facilities that could result in a physical impact on the environment would be subject to CEQA, which would be conducted by the ACFPD, impacts from the project related to fire facilities would be less than significant. 522
Environmental Impact Analysis
Public Services and Recreation
Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.14-9
Threshold 1b: Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered police protection facilities, or the need for new or physically altered police protection facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives? Impact PSR-2 THE PROJECT WOULD BE ADEQUATELY SERVED BY EXISTING POLICE PROTECTION SERVICES. PAYMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY TAXES AND DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES WOULD MINIMIZE POTENTIAL IMPACTS TO POLICE SERVICE FACILITIES AND PERFORMANCE AND IMPACTS WOULD BE LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT.
The project would be served with police protection provided by the American Canyon Police Department. The Police Department is staffed by the Napa County Sheriff’s Office, which provides law enforcement services on a contract basis to the City of American Canyon. The project includes extension of Newell Drive. This roadway extension would provide an additional roadway that police staff can use to access the project site, as well as other areas within the City. However, extension of Newell Drive could result in additional calls due to vehicle accidents. In addition, the project would introduce new commercial, industrial, and town-center uses. Although the project would not include substantial residential population growth, it would add employees to the area. Thus, there is potential for an increase in calls to the Police Department made by employees during emergencies.
Development facilitated by the project would increase the number of annual incidents. Since the project site is within Napa County Sheriff’s existing service area and 1.3 miles from the ACPD police stations, emergencies on these sites would generally be responded within current response times.
The Police Department will have the opportunity to review and comment on security measures during the plan check review process for future development on the project site. For these reasons, the project would be expected to generate minimal calls for service and, therefore, would not create a need for new or expanded police facilities. Impacts would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures would be required.
Significance After Mitigation
Impacts would be less than significant without mitigation.
Threshold 1d: Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered parks, or the need for new or physically altered parks, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios or other performance objectives? Threshold 2: Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated?
Threshold 3: Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment?
523
City of American Canyon
Paoli/Watson Lane Annexation
4.14-10
Impact PSR-3 THE PROJECT WOULD BE ADEQUATELY SERVED BY EXISTING PARK FACILITIES. THE
PROJECT WOULD NOT INCLUDE RESIDENCE OR INDUCE GROWTH IN POPULATION THAT WOULD UTILIZE PARK FACILITIES. THUS, IMPACTS WOULD BE LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT.
The project would facilitate development of commercial, industrial, and visitor-serving/hotel use; however, no new residences would be developed due to the project. The project is located within a proposed segment of the Vine Trail, which is a Countywide Trail planned to ultimately connect the City of Calistoga to the Vallejo Ferry. Development contemplated by the project would not substantially increase demand for recreational facilities, as no additional housing or permanent residencies are a part of the project. Since the project would not include additional residences but would complete segments of the Vine Trail located on the frontage of future development, impacts would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures would be required.
Significance After Mitigation
Impacts would be less than significant without mitigation.
Threshold 1e: Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered public facilities, or the need for new or physically altered public facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives?
Impact PSR-4 THE PROJECT WOULD NOT RESULT IN SUBSTANTIAL ADVERSE PHYSICAL IMPACTS ASSOCIATED WITH THE PROVISION OF NEW OR PHYSICALLY ALTERED PUBLIC FACILITIES. NO NEW FACILITIES WOULD BE REQUIRED TO ACCOMMODATE THE PROJECT AND IMPACTS WOULD BE LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT.
Development facilitated by the project would not be expected to substantially increase demand for library services, as no additional residencies are a part of the project. However, people visiting the area may choose to visit the library. The American Canyon Library is located at 300 Crawford Way, approximately 3 miles from the project site. Project generated employees may also choose to utilize the library, however at a lower rate than existing residents in American Canyon. Pursuant to the City’s 2022 Civic Facilities Fees, the project would be required to pay $0.16 per square foot of commercial development and $0.09 per square foot of industrial development. These fees are collected and used to fund expanded library services in the City. While library services demand may increase slightly because of the project, the project would not require the expansion of library facilities. Thus, impacts would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures would be required.
Significance After Mitigation
Impacts would be less than significant.
524
Environmental Impact Analysis
Public Services and Recreation
Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.14-11
4.14.4 Cumulative Impacts
The geographic scope of the cumulative public services analysis is the service area for the public service. Cumulative development projects would all place a demand on police, fire, and library services. The City and Fire District has adopted impact fees that help fund fire and library services.
Cumulative increases in police services would be funded by increases in the City’s General Fund, which is related to increased economic activity within the project area. As such, cumulative impacts on these public services would be less than significant. In addition, a cumulative impact on police, fire, and library services would only be significant if an expanded or new facility would be needed, such that it resulted in a physical impact on the environment. At this time, no plans have been identified for expanded police or library facilities. The ACFPD has identified that cumulative development may require the relocation of Fire Station 211; however, no specific plans have identified the relocation site. When plans for an expanded or new facility are identified for any public service, CEQA review would be conducted and the potential physical impacts on the environment would be assessed.
Furthermore, regarding fire services, it should be noted that ACFPD’s service includes areas beyond the City limits. As such, there could be additional demand for fire services, beyond the cumulative projects identified in this EIR. This project would represent a portion of the cumulative demand on fire services. Because there are already impact fees that both the project and other cumulative projects would be subject to and because the project includes Mitigation Measure PSR-1, requiring the City to coordinate with the ACFPD, the projects contribution to a cumulative impact would not be considered cumulatively considerable.
The geographic scope of the cumulative recreation analysis is the City. Cumulative development projects, especially residential projects would increase residences in the City, which could place an additional demand on recreational facilities. The City has developed a Parks and Recreation fee, which requires the applicants for new residential projects to pay this fee, which will fund park acquisition, park development, community gym, and the aquatic center. Payment of the Parks and Recreation fee would help ensure sufficient recreational resources for any new growth associated with the project. It should be noted that the project is not anticipated to pay the Park Impact fee because the project would not include additional residential development. Furthermore, it is expected that cumulative residential projects would add open space as parts of their projects, to comply with zoning requirements. In addition, the closest and largest cumulative project (Watson Ranch Specific Plan) has identified that it would add approximately 23 acres of parklands to the City.
Overall, cumulative recreational impacts would be less than significant. 525
City of American Canyon
Paoli/Watson Lane Annexation
4.14-12
This page intentionally left blank.
526
Environmental Impact Analysis
Transportation
Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.15-1
4.15 Transportation
This section describes relevant transportation conditions and analyzes the transportation impacts due to the project.
4.15.1 Setting
a. Streets and Highways
The City of American Canyon is located in southern Napa County, approximately 35 miles northeast of San Francisco. Adjacent and south of the City limits is the City of Vallejo in Solano County. North of the City limits, a succession of cities in Napa County are located along State Route (SR) 29, which serves the main commercial corridor through the center of American Canyon. SR 29 is a main route to wine country destinations. These cities include Napa, Yountville, St. Helena, and Calistoga. As with American Canyon, these cities are bisected by SR 29.
The transportation network serving the area includes a network of city and county-maintained streets and state highways. SR 29 runs through the City at grade and serves as a main thoroughfare for local and pass-through traffic. SR 29 provides access to local properties as well as regional connections. In addition, the City of American Canyon streets serve a variety of users, including pedestrians, bicyclists, transit riders, passenger cars, and heavy trucks for freight with a mix of local, recreational, and regional trips. American Canyon Boulevard is a major east-west arterial street that connects with the Interstate (I-) 80 freeway to the east. The City lies generally northwest of the I-80/ SR 37 interchange.
b. Existing Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities
The Highway Design Manual, published by the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), classifies bikeways into four categories:
Class I Multiuse Path: a completely separated right-of-way for the exclusive use of bicycles and pedestrians with cross flows of motorized traffic minimized. Class II Bike Lane: a striped and signed lane for one-way bike travel on a street or highway. Class III Bike Route: signing only for shared use with motor vehicles within the same travel lane on a street or highway.
Class IV Bikeway: also known as a separated bikeway, a Class IV Bikeway is for the exclusive use of bicycles and includes a separation between the bikeway and the motor vehicle traffic lane.
The separation may include, but is not limited to, grade separation, flexible posts, inflexible physical barriers, or on-street parking.
There are currently over 13 miles of bicycle network within the City of American Canyon, including over 8 miles of Class I multiuse paths, 2.8 miles of Class II bike lanes, and over 2 miles of Class III designated bicycle routes on public roadways. While most of the City has sidewalks, given the rural character of many older neighborhoods and the lack of a centralized downtown area, several areas of the City have limited or lacking pedestrian infrastructure. There is minimal sidewalk coverage along SR 29.
527
City of American Canyon
Paoli/Watson Lane Annexation
4.15-2
c. Transit Services
Public transportation within the City is provided by American Canyon Transit, which is a part of the Napa Valley Transportation Authority (NVTA) Vine Transit system. American Canyon Transit is a fixed route and on-demand, door-to-door, transit service within specific areas of the city. Vine’s Route 29 (Napa-BART) Express connects the BART Station in El Cerrito to the Redwood Park n Ride in the City of Napa and stops in American Canyon at the Post Office on Crawford Way.
On-demand private taxi services are available in the project site 24 hours a day. Taxis can be used for trips within the project site and farther destinations, including nearby airports. Other ride-hailing applications are also available in the project site and provide transportation throughout the Bay Area.
d. Rail Transportation
Rail transportation in the City is currently limited to freight service only. No commuter rail service exists in the City or County. The main rail line in the City is owned by Union Pacific Railroad Company and enters the City parallel to and on the east side of SR 29 at the Solano County line. The project site is bisected by the Union Pacific Railroad Line. e. Aviation
The Napa County Airport is northwest of the City limits in unincorporated lands. It is a General Aviation airport with charter flights available, but no scheduled commercial flights. The airport can accommodate most private aircraft including jets, up to 120,000 pounds. The airport was built by the United States Army Air Force in 1942 and was deeded to Napa County after World War II for civilian use. In 1971 International Air Services Company opened a flight training school at the airport.
4.15.2 Regulatory Setting
a. Federal Regulations
Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990
The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990 provides comprehensive rights and protections to individuals with disabilities. The goal of the ADA is to assure equality of opportunity, full participation, independent living, and economic self-sufficiency for people with disabilities. To implement this goal, the United States Access Board, an independent Federal agency created in 1973 to ensure accessibility for people with disabilities, has created accessibility guidelines for public rights-of-way. While these guidelines have not been formally adopted, they have been widely followed by jurisdictions and agencies nationwide in the last decade. The guidelines, last revised in July 2011, address various issues, including roadway design practices, slope and terrain issues, pedestrian access to streets, sidewalks, curb ramps, street furnishings, pedestrian signals, parking, and other components of public rights-of-way. The guidelines apply to all proposed roadways in the City.
Federal Highway Administration
The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) is the agency of the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) responsible for the federally funded roadway system, including the interstate highway 528
Environmental Impact Analysis
Transportation
Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.15-3
network and portions of the primary state highway network. FHWA funding is provided through the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP-21). MAP-21 can be used to fund local transportation improvement projects, such as projects to improve the efficiency of existing roadways, traffic signal coordination, bikeways, and transit system upgrades. b. State Regulations
California Department of Transportation
Caltrans is responsible for planning, designing, constructing, and maintaining all state highways. The jurisdictional interest of Caltrans includes state highways and facilities and extends to improvements to roadways at the interchange ramps serving area freeways. Any federally funded transportation improvements would be subject to review by Caltrans staff and the California Transportation Commission.
California Public Utilities Commission
The California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) is the State agency responsible for rail safety. The CPUC’s jurisdiction includes railroad interlocking plants and public highway grade crossings. CPUC approval is required to modify a railroad interlocking plant (including construction of a new spur track) or modification to an existing public railroad grade crossing. Completion and submittal of a General Order 33-B is required for any proposed work to a railroad interlocking plant (e.g., spur track), and a General Order 88-B is required for any proposed work to a public highway grade crossing.
Complete Streets Act
The California Complete Streets Act (AB 1358) adopted in 2008, requires that cities and other public agencies incorporate “Complete Street” policies when updating their General Plan Circulation Element. The term “Complete Streets” refers to a balanced, multimodal transportation network that meets the needs of all users of streets, including bicyclists, children, persons with disabilities, motorists, movers of commercial goods, pedestrians, public transportation, and seniors. A “Complete Street” is one that provides safe and convenient travel in a manner that is suitable to the local context. Complete Streets make travel safe for all users, including bicyclists, pedestrians, motorists, transit vehicles, and people of all ages and abilities. Each street does not need to provide dedicated space to all users, but the network must accommodate the needs of all users.
Senate Bill 743
California Senate Bill (SB) 743, passed in 2013, addresses a range of topics and aims to better promote statewide policies that (a) combat climate change by reducing greenhouse gas emissions and particulates; (b) encourage infill development and a diversity of uses instead of sprawl; and (c) promote multi-modal transportation networks, providing clean, efficient access to destinations and improving public health through active transportation.
SB 743 changed the way transportation impact analyses are conducted as part of compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). These changes eliminated automobile delay, level of service (LOS), and other similar measures of vehicular capacity or traffic congestion as a basis for determining significant impacts under CEQA. Prior rules treated automobile delay and congestion as an environmental impact. SB 743 required the CEQA Guidelines to prescribe an analysis that better accounts for transit and reducing greenhouse gas emissions. In December 2018, Office of Planning 529
City of American Canyon
Paoli/Watson Lane Annexation
4.15-4
and Research (OPR) released the final update to CEQA Guidelines consistent with SB 743 that went into effect statewide on July 1, 2020, which state that vehicle miles traveled (VMT) is “generally” the most appropriate metric of transportation impacts to align local environmental review under CEQA with California’s long-term greenhouse gas emissions reduction goals. At the same time as the release of the updated CEQA Guidelines, OPR also released a non-binding Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA, which outlines potential VMT analysis methodologies and thresholds of significance for use by agencies in California based on substantial evidence developed by OPR related to achievement of the State’s greenhouse gas emissions reductions targets.
Although OPR provides recommendations for adopting new impact analysis guidelines, lead agencies have the final say in designing their methodology, provided that the selected analysis methodology aligns with the SB 743 goals to promote infill development, reduce greenhouse gases, and reduce VMT. The City’s approved methodology and thresholds for transportation impacts consistent with SB 743 are described in Section 4.15.3, Impact Analysis. c. Regional Transportation Plans
Plan Bay Area 2050
The Regional Transportation Plan and Sustainable Community Strategy (RTP/SCS) for the San Francisco Bay Area, named Plan Bay Area 2050 was jointly produced and adopted by the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) and Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) on October 21, 2021. Plan Bay Area 2050 is the strategic update to Plan Bay Area 2040, and it connects the elements of housing, the economy, transportation, and the environment through 35 strategies that will make the Bay Area more equitable for all residents and more resilient in the face of unexpected challenges. It is a roadmap to help Bay Area cities and counties preserve the character of our diverse communities while adapting to the challenges of future population growth.
The SR 29 corridor has been designated by MTC and ABAG as a Priority Development Area (PDA), meaning that it is recognized as an area with substantial opportunity for infill development near transit. PDAs play a critical role in accommodating future growth in the regional agencies' SCS plans.
Countywide Transportation Plan
The NVTA oversees the countywide transportation plan for Napa County. The countywide transportation plan outlines priorities for the NVTA and Napa County’s transportation system to relieve congestion, improve traffic safety, create more active transportation infrastructure, provide more reliable and frequent bus service, and maintain and repair the existing transportation system.
Local planning efforts led by NVTA have resulted in the development of preliminary concepts for SR 29 that have been presented to the public through workshops for input and comment. Some of these initial concepts were evaluated in more detail through the regional NVTA study and subsequent public workshops. Options already discussed with the community include creative intersection capacity enhancements, including roundabout options. d. Local Regulations
American Canyon General Plan
The Circulation Element of the City of American Canyon General Plan sets forth a guiding vision and principles for the transportation system, and detailed goals and policies which aims to implement a 530
Environmental Impact Analysis
Transportation
Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.15-5
Complete Streets approach to mobility in the future. The build-out street network envisioned by the Circulation Element includes the extension of Newell Drive north from its current terminus concurrent with future development that would include the project site. As envisioned, Newell Drive would eventually connect American Canyon Boulevard in the south with SR 29 at Green Island Road, at the northwest corner of the project site. As identified in the City of American Canyon’s existing Circulation Element, the future extension would be a 2-lane collector with one motor vehicle lane in each direction, bicycle lanes, and sidewalks (City of American Canyon 2018). In addition, the Circulation Element of the City of American Canyon General Plan includes the following relevant policies:
Guiding Policy 1.1: Community Priorities. Safe and convenient access to activities in the community is provided by a well-designed local roadway system. That system serves the community’s primary need for mobility and includes a planned hierarchy of roadways to meet that need. The following Community Priorities relate most directly to this Element:
Encourage and foster a strong sense of community and safety, as well as the “hometown” feeling by creation of a town center through land use and circulation planning. Improve a hierarchy of roadway networks to achieve and maintain acceptable traffic LOS and provide a citywide system of bicycle lanes and recreational trails that improve accessibility without the use of an automobile.
Improve SR-29 so that it serves as a visually attractive gateway into the City while providing access to commercial businesses and serving intra and interregional traffic and goods movement.
Guiding Policy 1.2: Implement planned roadway improvements. Use Figure 3: General Plan Circulation System, and Table 3: Major Circulation Improvements [of the Circulation Element], to identify, schedule, and implement roadway and complementary intersection improvements to support General Plan buildout conditions. Planned improvements may be phased as development occurs and need for increased capacity is identified.
Guiding Policy 1.3: Design circulation system to focus regional travel on SR-29. SR-29 is important for both Citywide and north–south regional travel. As both City and regional travel grow, design the City circulation system to discourage regional traffic from bypassing SR-29 and impacting City streets. Also, cooperatively work with regional partners, including Caltrans, NCTPA and others explore a complete streets approach that will expand the travel capacity of SR-29.
Guiding Policy 1.6: Achieve and maintain a Multimodal LOS D or better for roadways and intersections during peak-hours where possible and as long as possible. However, recognizing that LOS D may not be achievable or cannot be maintained upon full buildout of the General Plan, due to traffic generated from sources beyond the control of the City, the City Council shall have the discretion to only require feasible mitigation measures that may not achieve LOS D, but will reduce the impact of any development use or density planned for in the Land Use Element of the General Plan.
The following locations that may not achieve or maintain LOS D are as follows and therefore will be exempt from the LOS D policy:
State Route 29 through the City
American Canyon Road from SR-29 to Flosden Road–Newell Drive Flosden Road south of American Canyon Road
531
City of American Canyon
Paoli/Watson Lane Annexation
4.15-6
Guiding Policy 1.9: Use of existing facilities. Make efficient use of existing transportation facilities, and improve these facilities as necessary in accordance with the Circulation Map [in the Circulation Element].
Guiding Policy 1.11: Reduce Vehicle Miles Traveled. Through layout of land uses, improved alternate modes, and provision of more direct routes, strive to reduce the total vehicle miles traveled by City residents.
Guiding Policy 1.12: Circulation System Enhancements. Achieve, maintain and/or improve mobility in the City by considering circulation system enhancements beyond improvements identified on the Circulation Map, where feasible and appropriate. Improve the circulation system, in accordance with the Circulation Map, at minimum, to support multimodal travel of all users and goods and where feasible, apply creative circulation system enhancements that increase system capacity and that are acceptable to the City and its residents and where applicable, Caltrans.
Implementing Policy 1.14: Work with Caltrans on highway improvements. Continue to work with the Caltrans to achieve timely context sensitive design solutions, funding, and construction of programmed highway improvements.
Implementing Policy 1.17: Regional fair-share fee program. Work with Caltrans, NCTPA, Napa County, and other jurisdictions to establish a fair-share fee program for improvements to routes of regional significance and State highways. This fee should reflect traffic generated by individual municipalities/unincorporated communities as well as pass-through traffic.
Implementing Policy 1.24: Impacts of new development. Based upon the findings of a transportation impact analysis, consistent with Guiding Policy 1.26, new development will be responsible for mitigation of transportation-related impacts.
Implementing Policy 1.35: General transit and pedestrian access. In reviewing designs of proposed developments, ensure that provision is made for access to current and future public transit services. In particular, pedestrian access to arterial and collector streets from subdivisions should not be impeded by continuous segments of sound walls.
Guiding Policy 2.1: Promote walking and bicycling. Promote walking and bike riding for transportation, recreation, and improvement of public and environmental health.
Guiding Policy 2.3: Develop a safe and efficient non-motorized circulation system. Provide safe and direct pedestrian routes and bikeways between places.
Implementing Policy 2.7: Universal design. Provide pedestrian facilities that are accessible to persons with disabilities and ensure that roadway improvement projects address accessibility by using universal design concepts.
Implementing Policy 2.18: Pedestrian connections to employment destinations. Encourage the development of a network of continuous walkways within new commercial, town center, public, and industrial uses to improve workers’ ability to walk safely around, to, and from their workplaces. Where possible, route pedestrians to grade separated crossings over State Route
29. Guiding Policy 3.1: Promote safe, efficient, and convenient public transportation. Promote the use of public transportation for daily trips, including to schools and workplaces, as well as other purposes.
532
Environmental Impact Analysis
Transportation
Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.15-7
Guiding Policy 4.1: Promote safe and efficient goods movement. Promote the safe and efficient movement of goods via truck and rail with minimum disruptions to residential areas.
Guiding Policy 4.2: Promote railroad safety. Minimize the safety problems associated with the railroad, including the construction and maintenance of at-grade crossings and the physical barrier effect of the track alignment on the City.
Guiding Policy 4.4: New truck route designation. All highways, arterials, and industrial streets shall be designated truck routes.
Guiding Policy 4.6: Location of industrial development. Continue industrial expansion in the north industrial area to minimize the neighborhood impacts of truck movements.
Guiding Policy 4.7: Secure truck parking. Encourage high-security off-street parking for tractor trailer rigs in industrial designated areas.
American Canyon Bicycle Plan
The City of American Canyon updated the Bicycle Plan in February 2020. The Bicycle Plan was prepared in accordance with the California Bicycle Transportation Act as part of the Napa Countywide Bicycle Plan and was coordinated with existing City and Regional Plans at the time of its adoption. The Bicycle Plan adoption was one of several City actions implementing SB 375, the Sustainable Communities Strategy Act. Relevant to the project site: the American Canyon Bicycle Plan envisions the provison of biycle lanes on the Newell Drive extension, as well as multi-use paths along the Union Pass Railroad (UPRR) tracks that pass through the annexation area (City of American Canyon 2020).
American Canyon Pedestrian Plan
The City of American Canyon adopted the Pedestrian Plan in June 2017. The Plan was developed to complement the American Canyon portion of the Countywide Bicycle Master Plan that the City adopted as an appendix into the General Plan Circulation Element in 2012. Together with the Bicycle Plan, the Pedestrian Plan creates an Active Transportation Plan that will position American Canyon to effectively compete for project funding. This plan follows the Caltrans Active Transportation Program (ATP) Guidelines, which outline statewide requirements for what should be included in active transportation plans (City of American Canyon 2017).
4.15.3 Impact Analysis
a. Significance Thresholds and Methodology
Significance Thresholds
Based on Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines a project may be deemed to have a significant impact on transportation if it would:
Conflict with a program, plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities;
Conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision (b); Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible use (e.g., farm equipment); or Result in inadequate emergency access
533
City of American Canyon
Paoli/Watson Lane Annexation
4.15-8
Methodology
The methodology for assessing impacts under thresholds 1, 3 and 4 is qualitative in nature and considers the existing regulations in place that would minimize potential impacts related to transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities; geometric design features; and emergency access.
Impact TRA-2 evaluates whether the project would conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3(b), which describes specific considerations for analyzing transportation impacts as amended on July 1, 2020 pursuant to SB 375. CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3(b) states that VMT is “generally” the most appropriate measure of transportation impacts. No particular methodology or metric is mandated by Section 15064.3(b) and the methodology or metric is left to the lead agency, bearing in mind the criteria the legislature had in mind for determining the significance of transportation impacts in SB-743. These were expressed in Public Resource Code section 21099(b)(1), which states: “[t]hose criteria shall promote the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, the development of multimodal transportation networks, and a diversity of land uses.” The assessment of VMT impacts for this study under Impact TRA-2 was determined by utilizing the American Canyon travel demand model to forecast the rate of VMT per employee for the project land uses at buildout under the following two scenarios:
Scenario A: Existing plus project Conditions. Under this scenario: the Newell Drive extension would extend from SR 29 to provide access to the project site, but would not yet connect with the existing segments of Newell Drive to the south that intersects with American Canyon Boulevard.
Scenario B: Cumulative Conditions (with the project) based on Year 2045 citywide residential and commercial growth as well as projected regional land use growth. Under this scenario: the Newell Drive extension would extend from SR 29 to American Canyon Boulevard, including existing segments of Newell Drive to the south of the project site.
The American Canyon travel demand model is a trip-based model. Therefore, VMT per employee was estimated based on the VMT associated with home-based work (HBW) trips. VMT impacts would be considered potentially significant under either scenario if the forecasted rate of VMT per employee for the project were to exceed 85 percent of the existing rate of VMT per employee for jobs in American Canyon, based on the American Canyon travel demand model. Table 4.15-1 summarizes the existing rate of VMT per employee and corresponding significance threshold. There are an estimated 4,442 jobs in American Canyon under existing conditions (based on U.S. Census Bureau estimates for the years 2017 and 2018, which were adjusted to reflect land use changes since 2018). The existing rate of VMT per employee is estimated to be 34.1 miles per employee.
VMT impacts would therefore be considered significant if the rate of VMT per employee for the project were to exceed 29.0 miles.
Table 4.15-1 VMT Impact Threshold
Scenario Number of Jobs VMT per Employee
Existing Conditions (Jobs In American Canyon) 4,442 34.1 Significant Impact Threshold (85 percent of Existing rate) 29.0 Source: American Canyon Travel Demand Model, GHD, December 2022 534
Environmental Impact Analysis
Transportation
Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.15-9
b. Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Threshold 1: Would the project conflict with a program, plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities? Impact TRA-1 THE PROJECT WOULD NOT CONFLICT WITH A PROGRAM, PLAN, ORDINANCE OR POLICY ADDRESSING THE CIRCULATION SYSTEM AND IMPACTS WOULD BE LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT.
As described in Chapter 2, Project Description, along the northern boundary of the annexation area, the City would extend Newell Drive. The proposed roadway would connect SR 29 with the existing Newell Drive, approximately 1 mile southeast of the annexation area. The purpose of the Newell Drive extension would add a parallel roadway to SR 29 to relieve traffic congestion. The Newell Drive extension would extend east from SR 29 and Paoli Loop Road along the northern boundary of the annexation area and gently curve southeast towards Watson Lane as it approaches the UPRR.
The Newell Drive extension would cross the UPRR tracks via an overcrossing.
The project would therefore be consistent with the build-out street network envisioned by the American Canyon General Plan Circulation Element, and the bikeway network envisioned by the American Canyon Bicycle Plan, that includes the extension of Newell Drive north from its current terminus concurrent with future development, including the project site. As envisioned, Newell Drive would eventually connect American Canyon Boulevard in the south with SR 29 at Green Island Road, at the northwest corner of the project site. The future extension would be a 2-lane collector with one motor vehicle lane in each direction, bicycle lanes and sidewalks. The project would not preclude the future provision of bicycle paths along the UPRR tracks, consistent with the American Canyon Bicycle Plan.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures would be required.
Significance After Mitigation
Impacts would be less than significant without mitigation.
Threshold 2: Would the project conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision (b)?
Impact TRA-2 THE RATE OF VMT PER JOB THAT WOULD BE GENERATED BY THE PROJECT IS ANTICIPATED TO BE LOWER THAN THE SIGNIFICANCE THRESHOLD. THE PROJECT WOULD NOT CONFLICT WITH OR BE INCONSISTENT WITH CEQA GUIDELINES 15064.3(B) AND IMPACTS WOULD BE LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT.
As described in the Methodology subsection of Section 4.15.3, Impact Analysis, transportation impacts due to VMT attributable to the project were analyzed using the City of American Canyon travel demand model. VMT impacts would be considered potentially significant if the forecasted rate of VMT per employee for the project exceed 29.0 miles. The project would allow land uses that would provide an estimated 1,650 jobs at buildout. Table 4.15-2 summarizes the forecasted rate of VMT per employee that would be generated by the project under both Existing plus Project and Cumulative plus Project conditions. The following results were identified from the modeling. 535
City of American Canyon
Paoli/Watson Lane Annexation
4.15-10
Under Existing plus Project conditions: the project would generate 25.2 VMT per employee, below the threshold of 29.0. Therefore, transportation impacts associated with VMT generated by the project would be less than significant under Existing plus Project conditions. Under Cumulative plus Project conditions: the project is forecasted to generate 13.8 VMT per employee, below the threshold of 29.0. Therefore, transportation impacts associated with VMT generated by the project would be less than significant under Cumulative plus Project conditions.
Overall, the project would add new employment opportunities to an area that has fewer jobs than housing. As such, when jobs are added by the project, future employees would be able to reduce their trip distance and overall VMT by being employed closer to their residence.
Table 4.15-2 Project VMT
Scenario
Project VMT
per Employee Impact Threshold Impact Finding
Existing plus Project conditions 25.2 29.0 Less than Significant Cumulative plus Project conditions 13.8 29.0 Less than Significant Source: American Canyon Travel Demand Model, GHD, December 2022 Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures would be required.
Significance After Mitigation
Impacts would be less than significant without mitigation.
Threshold 3: Would the project substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible use (e.g., farm equipment)?
Impact TRA-3 THE PROJECT WOULD NOT SUBSTANTIALLY INCREASE HAZARDS DUE TO A GEOMETRIC DESIGN FEATURE AND IMPACTS WOULD BE LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT.
The project is a proposed annexation that does not directly address geometric design features.
Future development would be required to comply with street design standards, Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) requirements, fire code requirements and zoning regulations, ensuring that the project would not result in design hazards. In addition, the project would include an overcrossing over the Union Pacific Railroad. By separating Newell Drive from the railroad, the project would avoid any potential conflicts between people using the Newell Drive Extension (i.e., people driving vehicles, pedestrians, and bicyclists) and trains. The project would not increase hazards due to a geometric design feature and impacts would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures would be required.
Significance After Mitigation
Impacts would be less than significant without mitigation. 536
Environmental Impact Analysis
Transportation
Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.15-11
Threshold 4: Would the project result in inadequate emergency access? Impact TRA-4 THE PROJECT WOULD NOT RESULT IN INADEQUATE EMERGENCY ACCESS AND IMPACTS WOULD BE LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT.
The project is a proposed annexation that does not directly propose uses that would result in inadequate emergency access. Primary emergency access would be provided by the extension of Newell Drive along the northern boundary of the annexation area, including a grade-separated crossing of the UPRR tracks, that would connect with SR 29 to the northwest and American Canyon Boulevard to the south. The provision of the Newell Drive extension and grade-separated railroad are anticipated to provide adequate emergency access. As such, impacts would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures would be required.
Significance After Mitigation
Impacts would be less than significant without mitigation.
4.15.4 Cumulative Impacts
Cumulative impacts were considered as part of the analysis of Impacts TRA-1, TRA-2, TRA-3 and TRA-4 as described above. As such, the impacts identified above would also represent cumulative impacts.
537
City of American Canyon
Paoli/Watson Lane Annexation
4.15-12
This page intentionally left blank.
538
Environmental Impact Analysis
Tribal Cultural Resources
Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.16-1
4.16 Tribal Cultural Resources
This section analyzes the potential effects on tribal cultural resources related to implementation of the project.
4.16.1 Setting
a. Ethnographic Overview
The project site is in the traditional tribal territory of the Patwin, members of the larger Wintun Tribe. Patwin territory extends from Clear Lake to the San Pablo and Suisun bays. The Patwin may be further separated into River Patwin along Sacramento River, as well as in the Sacramento and Suisun valleys towards the San Pablo and Suisun bays; and the Hill Patwin along the northern Coast Ranges, closer to Clear Lake Basin (Elliott 2011). Patwin language is a subgroup of the Penutian language family along with Wintun (Johnson 1978). Historically, the southern Patwin were distinguished from the northern Wintun, based on the linguistically distinct words for people: Wintun or Win-tu in the north and Pat-win in the south (Kroeber 1925). For this discussion, Patwin refers to both Patwin and Wintun peoples.
Political organization consists of small tribelets and several satellite settlements. A male chief would head each tribelet and direct activities. Their main purpose was to govern ceremonial and economic activities of the village. His administration included tree grove and fishing ownership, how food would be distributed among the villagers, and what ceremonies would be held and who would be invited to join (McKern 1922, Johnson 1978). This position typically passed down patrilineally. Yet, the village could determine a chief to be incompetent and village elders would then elect a new Chief based on qualifications (McKern 1922).
The Patwin family unit had three levels. The first is the paternal family, which includes the extended family following male blood relations. The second is the family social group that dictated marital matrilocality, with the husband moving to the area of his wife. On the third level, the household of the nuclear family would situate in proximity of the family social group. Other types of family-like units would take part in specific activities. Paternal families participated in one of four practices that passed down secret medicines and charms. Trade families engaged in producing or consolidating resources, such as hunted animals or musical instruments for distribution. Shamanistic families utilized supernatural powers to influence the spirits. Official families held one individual that served in an official capacity, such as ceremonial song leader or hesi dance fire tender (McKern 1922).
Additionally, a series of ceremonial dances took place from October to May related to the Kuksu Cult. These dances would take place in a small and secret ceremonial dance hall with an earthcovered roof (Kroeber 1925).
Patwin residential structures were typically elliptical or circular shaped and earth-covered or semisubterranean. The earth covering was imported from outside the villages. Villages consisted of family homes, a ceremonial dance house, menstrual hut, and a sweat lodge.
Patwin subsistence practices centered on the use of acorns and other seeds as a primary food source. River Patwin would process these foods with wooden log mortars, while Hill Patwin preferred flat stone slab-and-basket hopper mortars (Elliott 2011). Both groups engaged in hunting of deer, tule elk, antelope, bear, turtles, and various species of waterfowl. Hunting was done typically with a sinew-backed bow and arrow. Fishing was a particularly important activity for the Patwin, using gates and pens to catch salmon and sturgeon, while pike, steelhead, trout, and smaller 539
City of American Canyon
Paoli/Watson Lane Annexation
4.16-2
salmon were caught with nets. Additionally, tobacco was collected from along the river and dried for smoking but not cultivated (Johnson 1978).
The Patwin made both twined and coiled basketry, usually from willow and redbud. Baskets were an important tool in their daily lives for transporting, preparing, and storing foods and burial remains.
They utilized animal hides for bedding, floor mats, skirts, burial robes, and tobacco sacks. Tule balsa rafts were crafted and used to navigate rivers. Bone, mussel shell, and stone tools were used as knives (Johnson 1978).
4.16.2 Regulatory Setting
a. Federal Regulations
Archaeological Resources Protection Act
The Archaeological Resources Protection Act (ARPA) amended the Antiquities Act of 1906 (16 United States Code [USC] 431–433) and set a broad policy that archaeological resources are important to the nation and should be protected. ARPA requires special permits before the excavation or removal of archaeological resources from public or Indian lands. The purpose of the ARPA was to secure, for the present and future benefit of the American people, the protection of archaeological resources and sites that are on public lands and Indian lands, and to foster increased cooperation and exchange of information between governmental authorities, the professional archaeological community, and private individuals having collections of archaeological resources and data that were obtained before October 31, 1979.
American Indian Religious Freedom Act
The American Indian Religious Freedom Act (AIRFA) established federal policy to protect and preserve the inherent rights of freedom for Native groups to believe, express, and exercise their traditional religions. These rights include but are not limited to access to sites, use and possession of sacred objects, and freedom to worship through ceremonials and traditional rites.
Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act
The Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act of 1990 sets provisions for the intentional removal and inadvertent discovery of human remains and other cultural items from federal and tribal lands. It clarifies the ownership of human remains and sets forth a process for repatriation of human remains and associated funerary objects and sacred religious objects to the Native American groups claiming to be lineal descendants or culturally affiliated with the remains or objects. It requires any federally-funded institution housing Native American remains or artifacts to compile an inventory of all cultural items within the museum or with its agency and to provide a summary to any Native American tribe claiming affiliation. b. State Regulations
Assembly Bill 52
As of July 1, 2015, California Assembly Bill 52 of 2014 (AB 52) was enacted and expands the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) by defining a new resource category, “tribal cultural resources.” AB 52 establishes that “a project with an effect that may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource is a project that may have a significant effect 540
Environmental Impact Analysis
Tribal Cultural Resources
Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.16-3
on the environment” (Public Resources Code [PRC] Section 21084.2). AB 52 further states when feasible, the lead agency shall establish measures to avoid impacts that would alter the significant characteristics of a tribal cultural resource (PRC Section 21084.3). PRC Section 21074 (a)(1)(A) and (B) defines tribal cultural resources as “sites, features, places, cultural landscapes, sacred places, and objects with cultural value to a California Native American tribe,” and meets either of the following criteria:
Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in PRC Section 5020.1(k).
A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of PRC Section 5024.1.
In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of PRC Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe.
In recognition of California Native American tribal sovereignty and the unique relationship of California local governments and public agencies with California Native American tribal governments and with respect to the interests and roles of project proponents, it is the intent AB 52 to accomplish all the following:
Recognize that California Native American prehistoric, historic, archaeological, cultural, and sacred places are essential elements in tribal cultural traditions, heritages, and identities.
Establish a new category of resources in CEQA called “Tribal Cultural Resources” that considers the tribal cultural values in addition to the scientific and archaeological values when determining impacts and mitigation.
Establish examples of mitigation measures for tribal cultural resources that uphold the existing mitigation preference for historical and archaeological resources of preservation in place, if feasible.
Recognize that California Native American tribes may have expertise with regard to their tribal history and practices, which concern the tribal cultural resources with which they are traditionally and culturally affiliated (because CEQA calls for a sufficient degree of analysis, tribal knowledge about the land and tribal cultural resources at issue should be included in environmental assessments for projects that may have a significant impact on those resources).
In recognition of their governmental status, establish a meaningful consultation process between California Native American tribal governments and lead agencies, respecting the interests and roles of all California Native American tribes and project proponents, and the level of required confidentiality concerning tribal cultural resources, early in the CEQA environmental review process, so that tribal cultural resources can be identified, and culturally appropriate mitigation and mitigation monitoring programs can be considered by the decision-making body of the lead agency.
Recognize the unique history of California Native American tribes and uphold existing rights of all California Native American tribes to participate in, and contribute their knowledge to, the environmental review process pursuant to CEQA.
Ensure that local and tribal governments, public agencies, and project proponents have information available, early in CEQA environmental review process, for purposes of identifying and addressing potential adverse impacts to tribal cultural resources and to reduce the potential for delay and conflicts in the environmental review process. 541
City of American Canyon
Paoli/Watson Lane Annexation
4.16-4
Enable California Native American tribes to manage and accept conveyances of, and act as caretakers of, tribal cultural resources.
Establish that a substantial adverse change to a tribal cultural resource has a significant effect on the environment.
AB 52 also establishes a formal consultation process for California tribes regarding those resources.
The consultation process must be completed before a CEQA document can be certified or adopted.
AB 52 requires that lead agencies “begin consultation with a California Native American tribe that is traditionally and culturally affiliated with the geographic area of the proposed project.” Native American tribes to be included in the process are those that have requested notice of projects proposed in the jurisdiction of the lead agency.
Senate Bill 18
California Government Code Section 65352.3 (adopted pursuant to the requirements of Senate Bill [SB] 18) requires local governments to contact, refer plans to and consult with tribal organizations prior to making a decision to adopt or amend a general or specific plan. The tribal organizations eligible to consult have traditional lands in a local government’s jurisdiction and are identified, upon request, by the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC). As noted in the California Office of Planning and Research’s Tribal Consultation Guidelines (2005), “The intent of SB 18 is to provide California Native American tribes an opportunity to participate in local land use decisions at an early planning stage, for the purpose of protecting, or mitigating impacts to, cultural places.” CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(c)—Effects on Archaeological Resources The CEQA Guidelines state that a resource need not be listed on any register to be found historically significant. The CEQA Guidelines direct lead agencies to evaluate archaeological sites to determine whether they meet the criteria for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR). If an archaeological site is a historical resource, in that it is listed or eligible for listing in the CRHR, potential adverse impacts to it must be considered. If an archaeological site is considered not to be a historical resource but meets the definition of a “unique archaeological resource” as defined in Public Resources Code Section 21083.2, then it would be treated in accordance with the provisions of that section.
CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(d)—Effects on Human Remains Native American human remains and associated burial items may be significant to descendant communities and/or may be scientifically important for their informational value. They may be significant to descendant communities for patrimonial, cultural, lineage, and religious reasons.
Human remains may also be important to the scientific community, such as prehistorians, epidemiologists, and physical anthropologists. The specific stake of some descendant groups in ancestral burials is a matter of law for some groups, such as Native Americans (CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(d); PRC Section 5097.98). CEQA and other State regulations regarding Native American human remains provide the following procedural requirements to assist in avoiding potential adverse effects on human remains within the contexts of their value to both descendant communities and the scientific community:
When an initial study identifies the existence or probable likelihood that a project would affect Native American human remains, the lead agency is to contact and work with the appropriate Native American representatives identified through the NAHC to develop an agreement for the 542
Environmental Impact Analysis
Tribal Cultural Resources
Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.16-5
treatment and disposal of the human remains and any associated burial items (CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(d); PRC Section 5097.98).
If human remains are accidentally discovered, the County Coroner must be contacted. If the County Coroner determines that the human remains are Native American, the Coroner must contact the NAHC within 24 hours. The NAHC must identify the Most Likely Descendant (MLD) to provide for the opportunity to make recommendations for the treatment and disposal of the human remains and associated burial items.
If the MLD fails to make recommendations within 24 hours of notification or the project applicant rejects the recommendations of the MLD, the Native American human remains and associated burial items must be reburied in a location not subject to future disturbance within the project site (PRC Section 5097.98).
4.16.3 Impact Analysis
a. Significance Thresholds and Methodology
Significance Thresholds
Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines identifies the following criteria for determining whether a project’s impacts would have a significant impact to tribal cultural resources:
Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is:
Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code section 5020.1(k), or A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code section 5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resource Code section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe.
Methodology
The presence and significance of a potential tribal cultural resource is determined through consultation between lead agencies and local California Native Americans. Impacts to tribal cultural resources are highly dependent on the nature of the resource but, in general, could occur if there is destruction or alteration of the resource and its surroundings, access restrictions to the resource, or other disturbances.
543
City of American Canyon
Paoli/Watson Lane Annexation
4.16-6
b. Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Threshold 1a: Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource as defined in Public Resources Code Section 21074 that is listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code Section 5020.1(k)?
Threshold 1b: Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource as defined in Public Resources Code Section 21074 that is a resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1?
Impact TCR-1 THE PROJECT COULD ADVERSELY IMPACT TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES. IMPACTS WOULD BE LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT THROUGH CONSULTATION CONDUCTED PURSUANT TO AB 52 AND IMPLEMENTATION OF MITIGATION.
As part of the AB 52 and SB18 process, the City of American Canyon sent letters via certified mail on June 10, 2022 to three Native American tribes that had previously requested to be informed through formal notification of projects in the geographic area that is traditionally and culturally affiliated with their Tribes. These Tribes consisted of the Cortina Band of Indians, the Federated Indians of Graton Rancheria, and the Yocha Dehe Wintun Nation. To date, no letters have been received by the City, nor have they received any responses requesting additional consultation under AB 52 or SB 18.
A Sacred Land File (SLF) by the NAHC was also requested on August 5, 2022. On October 11, 2022, the results of the SLF search were received and the NAHC stated that the results were positive. The results letter also stated that the City should contact the Mishewal-Wappo Tribe of Alexander Valley along with 12 additional Tribes who may also have knowledge of cultural resources in the area. On November 4, 2022, the City emailed and mailed out letters to all 13 Tribes provided by the NAHC.
On November 18, 2022, a representative from the Yocha Dehe Wintun Nation provided a response to the City stating the project is within the aboriginal territories of the Yocha Dehe Wintun Nation.
Therefore, the Tribe has a cultural interest and authority in the project area. The Tribe requested project information and any cultural resources studies. The Yocha Dehe Wintun Nation Tribe previously gave the City recommended mitigation measures through the consultation process for the City’s Housing Element, as well as the General Plan Update. The City has incorporated the recommendations that were previously made for the Housing Element into this EIR. A consultation meeting was held on February 8, 2023 between City staff and representatives of the Yocha Dehe Wintun Nation. During the consultation meeting, City staff provided the representatives of the Yocha Dehe Wintun Nation an overview of the project, as well as the approach to include recommendations that were previously made for the Housing Element as mitigation in this EIR. The representative of the Yocha Dehe Wintun Nation requested that they be provided proper notification when development plans are identified and that they be provided a copy of the Draft EIR when it is available. City staff identified that the Yocha Dehe Wintun Nation would be notified of future development plans when those are identified and would be provided the Draft EIR when it is made available for public review.
It remains a possibility that tribal cultural resources may be present within geographic areas affiliated with tribal organizations. In compliance with AB 52, a determination of whether project544 Environmental Impact Analysis
Tribal Cultural Resources
Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.16-7
specific substantial adverse effects on tribal cultural resources would occur, along with identification of appropriate project-specific avoidance, minimization, or mitigation measures.
The project would include industrial, commercial, roadway infrastructure over undeveloped portions of the project site. Due to the programmatic nature of the environmental analysis, it is not possible to fully determine impacts on tribal cultural resources. Implementation of proposed land uses would require grading across most of the project site. The Tribe provided recommended mitigation measures and protocols during consultation for the Housing Element and the General Plan, and these recommendations included construction monitoring of all ground disturbance.
Implementation of Mitigation Measures CUL-2 though CUL-5, as described in Section 4.5, Cultural Resources would reduce potentially significant impacts on tribal cultural resources by requiring identification and evaluation of any archaeological resources that may be present prior to construction; by providing steps for the evaluation and protection of unanticipated finds encountered during construction; by ensuring appropriate protocols are followed if human remains are encountered; and by implementing tribal monitoring, as well as the Yocha Dehe Wintun Nation’s Treatment Protocol.
Mitigation Measures
Mitigation Measures CUL-2 through CUL-5 (see Impacts CUL-2 and CUL-3 in Section 4.5, Cultural Resources).
Significance After Mitigation
Impacts would be less than significant with mitigation.
4.16.4 Cumulative Impacts
Cumulative development within the project site could potentially disturb areas that may contain cultural and tribal cultural resources. While there is the potential for significant cumulative impacts to cultural and tribal cultural resources, it is anticipated that potential impacts associated with individual development projects would be addressed on a case-by-case basis and would be subject to City policies and local and State regulations regarding the protection of such resources. With compliance with existing policies and regulations, future development in the city and region would be required to avoid or mitigate the loss of these resources. Furthermore, with implementation of Mitigation Measures CUL-2 through CUL-5, the project’s contribution to any impacts on tribal cultural resources would be reduced to a less than significant level. Therefore, cumulative impacts would be less than significant.
545
City of American Canyon
Paoli/Watson Lane Annexation
4.16-8
This page intentionally left blank.
546
Environmental Impact Analysis
Utilities and Service Systems
Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.17-1
4.17 Utilities and Service Systems
This section analyzes the potential effects on utilities and service system related to implementation of the project.
4.17.1 Setting
a. Water Supply and Delivery
The City of American Canyon supplies water service to residential, commercial, and industrial users within the City and its sphere of influence (SOI). The City’s potable water service area is approximately 30 square miles. The City water supply is provided from purchased or imported water sources, mainly State Water Project (SWP) water and the City of Vallejo, in addition to supplemental imported water sources. Table 4.17-1 identifies the City’s current sources of water, which are discussed in detail after the table.
Table 4.17-1 Current Sources of Water Supply
Source
Contracted Volume/Capacity
(Acre feet/Year)
State Water Project (Table A Allotment) a 5,200
Vallejo Permit Water b 500
Vallejo Treated Water 2011-2015 2,074
2016-2021 2,640
2021-Onward 3,206
Vallejo Emergency Water c 500
Groundwater d 0
American Canyon Recycled Water e 1,241
Napa Sanitation District-Produced Recycled 591
Notes:
a Includes allotment for American Canyon and additional supply from Kern County Water Agency b Non-Table A Water
c Available only in dry years
d No groundwater is used for citywide supply
e As reported 2020 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP). Maximum capacity of the City’s recycled water treatment system by 2035.
Source: City of American Canyon 2022.
State Water Project
A significant portion of the City’s water supply is obtained through various indirect contracts for water from the SWP. The Napa Flood Control and Water Conservation District is the State Water Contractor with the California Department of Water Resources (DWR), and the City receives its water through subcontracts with the Napa Flood Control and Water Conservation District. 547
City of American Canyon
Paoli/Watson Lane Annexation
4.17-2
Table A Allocation
In January 1967, the American Canyon County Water Agency1 entered into an agreement with the Napa Flood Control and Water Conservation District for water supply from the North Bay Aqueduct.
In 2010, the agreement allowed for the delivery of up to 5,200 acre-feet of water per year.2 This contract runs through 2035 with provisions for extension. The actual amount of SWP water available to the City under the “Table A” allocation process (the method used by the DWR to allocate water in the SWP system) varies from year-to-year due to hydrologic conditions, water demands of other contractors, SWP facility capacity, and environmental/regulatory requirements. Deliveries have varied between 5 percent (in 2014) and 100 percent (last occurring in 2006) of the contracted amount.
City of Vallejo
In 1996, the City of American Canyon entered into an agreement with the City of Vallejo to allow the purchase of additional water supply. Vallejo receives its water from a variety of sources, including SWP water and an appropriative water right. Under the Vallejo Agreement, a specific source is identified for Permit Water supply but not for Treated or Emergency Water.
Vallejo Permit Water (Raw)
The City of Vallejo holds an appropriative right for Sacramento Bay-Delta water from the California State Water Resources Control Board (State Water Board) that pre-dates the construction of the SWP. The City of American Canyon has an agreement with the City of Vallejo for delivery of up to 500 acre-feet of water under this permit. This source of water is more reliable than the City’s Table A supply, but the Vallejo Agreement still allows for reductions. Addendum 2 to the 1996 Vallejo Agreement states that “[i]n the event the State Water Resources Control Board, or any other agency, restricts Vallejo’s diversion of water [under the appropriative pre-SWP contract] for any reason whatsoever, American Canyon’s diversions will be reduced in the same proportion.” As such, curtailment is typically less than that of the City’s Table A supply under environmental or other constraints, but the City may not receive its full allotment during dry years.3 Vallejo Treated Water (Potable)
In 1996, the City of American Canyon entered into an agreement with the City of Vallejo to purchase up to 629 acre-feet of potable treated water supply. This agreement included the option for additional (cumulative) purchases in 5-year increments through 2021. Ultimately, this results in a total of 3,206 acre-feet of treated water available for purchase each year by the City from Vallejo for 2021-2040.
A specific source for Treated Water is not identified in the Vallejo Agreement; thus, the ultimate source of this water is a blend of all of Vallejo’s water sources. Under certain conditions, the maximum delivery of this supply may be “reduced in the same proportions as any reduction to Vallejo customers inside the Vallejo city limits.”4
1 A predecessor agency to the City of American Canyon, which was not incorporated until 1992. 2 A total of 500 acre-feet of this water was obtained through a purchase of water, by the Napa Sanitation District, from Kern County Water Agency in 2000.
3 For example, Vallejo Permit Water delivery was curtailed in both 2014 and 2015. 4 Vallejo Water Service Agreement. May 1, 1996 (Page 7-7 in the 2015 American Canyon UWMP). 548
Environmental Impact Analysis
Utilities and Service Systems
Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.17-3
Vallejo Emergency Water (Raw)
When the City’s Table A water allotment is curtailed, the City of American Canyon has the option to purchase up to 500 acre-feet of emergency raw water supply from Vallejo under an agreement amended in 1996. The 2020 Urban Water Management Program (UWMP) assumes that this water would be available under dry year and multiple dry year scenarios but not during a normal year.
During consecutive dry years 3 to 5, the 2020 UWMP assumes a reduction to 400 AF.
Groundwater
The City of American Canyon does not currently rely on groundwater as a source of water, though the 2020 UWMP states that the City remains open to the possibility and will consider potential supply opportunities as they present themselves.
Other Sources of Potable Supply
Dry Year Water Bank
In 2009, the City of American Canyon (along with other SWP contractors) entered into an agreement with DWR to obtain emergency supplies if rice farmers in the Sacramento Valley are willing to make their supplies available. The year-to-year availability of this supply is not known.
Turn-Back Water Pool Program
DWR has a program for interested SWP contractors called the Turn-back Water Pool Program. SWP contractors may choose to sell Table A water or purchase turn-back pool water that is available through the program. The amount of pool water available to the City of American Canyon is not a significant amount. For example, during 2010 the City purchased 17 acre-feet, and in 2012 it purchased 64 acre-feet. The City of American Canyon has not purchased water through this program since 2016.
Napa Treated Water
The City has an agreement with the City of Napa for the purchase of treated (potable) water under emergency conditions, or when the North Bay Aqueduct system is off-line for maintenance or other reasons. Napa treated water provides operational flexibility (such as providing water to customers even when the City’s water treatment plant is off-line for an extended period of time). During 2010, the City purchased 306 acre feet of treated water when the plant was off-line for maintenancerelated issues. Under this informal arrangement, the Napa treated water purchase counts against the City’s SWP Table A allotment. The City of American Canyon has not purchased water through this program since 2014.
Dry Year Transfer Program
During dry years, varying amounts of additional water may be made available to SWP contractors through DWR’s Dry Year Transfer Program, which allows for transfers through a combination of crop idling, groundwater substitution, and changes in reservoir operation. For example, in 2015 the City of American Canyon purchased 92 acre-feet of additional supply (for that year) through this program. While this option is available to the City on a per year authorization, the long-term reliability of this supply is not known. The City of American Canyon has not purchased water through this program since 2015.
549
City of American Canyon
Paoli/Watson Lane Annexation
4.17-4
Yuba Accord
In 2008, the DWR adopted the Lower Yuba River Accord, an agreement to settle issues related to instream flows in the Yuba River and fisheries habitat. As part of that agreement, the DWR is able to purchase water from the Yuba River Water Agency to, in part, offer to participating SWP contractors as a transfer during dry years. The Napa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District has authorized the execution of Yuba Accord Dry-year Water Purchase Agreement, and the City of American Canyon has the option to purchase water through this agreement in dry years, though at a cost that is considerably higher than under normal conditions. In 2015, the City authorized the purchase of 124 acre-feet through this program to cover projected water supply shortfalls during the drought. The City of American Canyon has not purchased water through this program since 2015.
Recycled Water
American Canyon Recycled Water
The City of American Canyon completed the first phase of its Recycled Water Distribution System Project in 2010, which included a one-million-gallon reservoir, distribution piping, and associated improvements at the City’s water treatment plant. Initially, 13 users were connected to the system and 73 acre-feet of water was delivered in 2010. The Recycled Water Master Plan projected over 1,200 acre-feet of water demand at buildout in 2035 for landscaping and agricultural irrigation (City of American Canyon 2016a). However, utilization of this supply is dependent on connection of additional users and completion of additional distribution pipe segments. Currently, the City produces recycled water to meet demand on an as needed basis. The City is currently taking steps to increase capacity of their system to meet this demand in the future. The 2020 UWMP identifies 1,241 acre-feet per year (AFY) as the full system capacity by 2035.
Napa Sanitation District Recycled Water
In addition to the City’s recycled water supply, Napa Sanitation District (NapaSan) has an existing recycled water supply pipe that extends to northern portions of the Airport Industrial Area (north of Fagan Creek). In 2015, NapaSan provided 210 acre-feet of recycled water to the City’s users. The 2015 UWMP projected that NapaSan will provide up to 391 acre-feet of recycled water in 2020, up to 491 acre-feet in 2025, and 591 acre-feet in 2030 and onwards (City of American Canyon 2015).
Water Treatment Plant
The City owns, maintains, and operates the Water Treatment Plant (WTP), which has a maximum capacity of 5.5 million gallons per day (mgd) with an average daily demand of approximately 3 mgd.
Treated water is delivered by gravity to the 2.5-million-gallon (MG) water storage tank located at the WTP and flows from the tank to the distribution system. The potable water distribution system consists of approximately 102 miles of water mains, 3 storage tanks, and 2 booster pump stations.
The total demand (potable and non-potable) in 2020 was approximately 2,613 acre-feet (AF) (City of American Canyon 2022). Residential demands account for 1,454 AF (56 percent) of the total demand; while commercial, industrial, and institutional demands account for 763 AF (29 percent); and landscape irrigation demands account for 139 AF (5 percent) (City of American Canyon 2022).
Raw water for agricultural irrigation was 63 AF (2 percent). The remaining balance is attributed to other uses (fire hydrants, construction) at 73 AF (3 percent) and water loss of 121 AF (5 percent) (American Canyon 2022). The per capita water demand was 116 gallons per capita per day in 2020. 550
Environmental Impact Analysis
Utilities and Service Systems
Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.17-5
Although the City was able to meet the 2020 target of 162 gallons per capita per day, the year 2020 did not represent a typical year due to the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic. b. Wastewater
Introduction
The City and NapaSan provide municipal wastewater and recycled water services within the City’s water service area. The City’s wastewater collection system consists of gravity pipelines, two force mains (the Main and Industrial Basins from the southern and northern ends of the City, respectively) and a series of pump stations. The wastewater is conveyed to the City’s Water Reclamation Facility (WRF) for treatment. Wastewater collected in the NapaSan systems is conveyed to NapaSan’s Soscol Water Recycling Facility, which produce treated wastewater and recycled water. The City’s recycled water distribution system includes approximately 13 miles of pipeline, a pump station, and two storage tanks with capacities of 1 million gallons and 1.5 million gallons.
Water Reclamation Facility
The City owns, maintains, and operates the WRF. The WRF treats both domestic and industrial wastewater flows and is a secondary/tertiary treatment plant. It began operations in 2002 and employs a Membrane Bio Reactor and ultraviolet light disinfection. Treated wastewater discharges are regulated under National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Waste Discharge Requirements Order No. R2-2022-2019. The WRF has a total wastewater treatment capacity of 2.5 mgd at average dry weather flow conditions and 5.0 mgd at peak wet weather flow conditions. In 2020, the City treated 1,625 AF of wastewater, which is equivalent to 1.45 mgd (City of American Canyon 2022).
5 In 2020, there was 1.05 mgd of remaining capacity for wastewater treatment.
Approximately 17 percent of total influent inflow received at the WRF becomes recycled water. In 2019, 282 acre-feet of recycled water were delivered to various users for non-potable use. The remaining effluent is treated and discharged to the Napa River.
Collection System
The City’s wastewater collection system consists of gravity pipelines (53 miles), force mains (5 miles), and five pump stations that convey wastewater to the City’s Water Reclamation Facility located near the Napa River. The City’s system operates its collection system to segregate domestic water from high strength industrial wastewater flows. The Kimberly Pump Station and the Sunset Meadows Pump Station collect wastewater from residential areas and deliver 75 percent of the flow to the wastewater treatment plant. The Tower Road and Green Island Sewer Pump Stations transport wastewater from industrial areas in the northern part of the City. These two stations discharge a combination of domestic and industrial wastewater to a common force main and deliver the remaining 25 percent of the flow to the Water Reclamation Facility.
The project site is located within the Green Island Pump Station sewershed. The pump station’s sewershed is 2.3 square miles. The City decommissioned the old pump station that had a capacity of 600 gallons per minute (gpm) and replaced it with a new pump station sized for 1,335 gpm (City of American Canyon 2016b).
5 1.45 mgd = [1,625 AF * (325,851 gallons pe 1 acre foot) / 1,000,000 gallons] / 365 days per year 551
City of American Canyon
Paoli/Watson Lane Annexation
4.17-6
Sewer Facilities
The closest sewer facilities to the project site are gravity mains located off Paoli Loop Road. To the west of the project, an existing 18-inch diameter force main that connects the Tower Road Pump Station with the Green Island Pump Station has been replaced with a new 12-inch diameter force main (with the exception of the existing 18-inch diameter forced main from Tower Road to within the Airport).
c. Storm Drainage
An overview of the natural drainage systems and man-made drainage systems are provided in Section 4.10, Hydrology and Water Quality (see subsection 4.10.1). Major storm drainage infrastructure within the City is owned and operated by the City of American Canyon and maintained by the City’s Department of Public Works. Storm drainage infrastructure includes drainpipes, concrete channels, culverts, and swales, which convey storm drainage to Rio Del Mar Creek, American Canyon Creek or North Slough before joining Napa River in the west, and then to San Francisco Bay.
The City maintains a Storm Drainage Master Plan and engineering standards that guide the development of the municipal storm drainage system (City of American Canyon 1996). The City requires stormwater discharges to comply with San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board (San Francisco Bay RWQCB) permit requirements and establishes non-point source pollution control measures as required by federal and State law. Stormwater pollution prevention measures for new development projects, such as bioswales, detention ponds, erosion, and sedimentation control, are incorporated in the planning, design, construction, and operation of projects with the potential to create pollutants in stormwater runoff.
d. Solid Waste and Recycling
Residential and commercial trash and recycling services in the City of American Canyon are provided by American Canyon Recology through a franchise waste hauling agreement with the City of American Canyon. Recology transports solid waste from American Canyon to the Devlin Road Recycling & Transfer Facility (DRRTF) where it is loaded into trucks and sent to Potrero Hills Landfill (PHLF) in Suisun (Solano County).
The DRRTF is a 35-acre regional transfer station operated by the Napa-Vallejo Waste Management Authority (NVWMA), a joint powers agency. NVWMA members include the cities of Napa, American Canyon, and Vallejo (in Solano County), and County of Napa. The DRRTF is permitted by the Napa County Local Enforcement Agency as Large Volume Transfer Processing Facility. DRRTF receives solid waste primarily from NVWMA member jurisdictions and a much smaller portion of the waste stream is received from twenty to thirty non-member jurisdictions in the surrounding area. The DRRTF is permitted to receive 1,440 tons of solid waste per day (County of Napa 2008).
According to the Solid Waste Facility Permit for the PHLF, the peak tonnage of incoming waste is not to exceed 4,330 tons per day. The maximum permitted capacity of the landfill is 83.1 million cubic yards or 87.1 million tons. According to the California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle), the remaining capacity of the landfill is 13.9 million tons (CalRecycle 2022a).
PHLF is designated as a Class III landfill. This means that the landfill can accept only nonhazardous waste for disposal. The San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) may also, at its discretion, allow Class III landfills to accept certain types of “designated wastes.” Designated waste is defined (in the California Water Code, Section 13173) as either: (1) non-hazardous waste 552
Environmental Impact Analysis
Utilities and Service Systems
Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.17-7
that consists of or contains pollutants that, under ambient environmental conditions at a waste management unit could be released in concentrations exceeding applicable water quality objectives, or that could reasonably be expected to affect beneficial uses of the waters of the state as contained in the appropriate state water quality control plan; or (2) hazardous waste that has been granted a variance from hazardous waste management requirements pursuant to Section 25143 of the Health and Safety Code.
e. Natural Gas/Electricity
The electrical and natural gas service in the City of American Canyon is provided by Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E). The company provides natural gas and electric service to approximately 16 million people throughout a 70,000-square-mile service area in northern and central California. PG&E maintains and services all transmission and distribution lines within the region. These transmission lines traverse the City, both underground and above ground. Of note are the high-power electrical transmission lines which run northeast by southwest through the City. (California Energy Commission 2022). These lines are located approximately 1.75 miles from the project site. In addition, there are existing distribution lines on Watson Lane and Paoli Loop Road. A natural gas transmission pipeline runs north to south through the eastern part of the City (PG&E 2022). A portion of this natural gas transmission line is located adjacent to the project site, adjacent to the area that would be pre-zoned as Town Center.
f. Telecommunications
Telecommunication utilities, including phone, internet, and television, are mainly a privately owned enterprise and are offered by a variety of companies in American Canyon and the surrounding area.
The number of providers offering the service, the type of service available, and the transmission speed of the service all affect the quality of telecommunications. This approach differs from that of most other utilities, which are generally publicly owned or offered by limited or individual service providers in a given area. Telecommunications providers will usually complete infrastructure and other service improvements for an area as the need arises to meet customer demand.
Telecommunication services at the project site are offered by a variety of servicers, including AT&T, Comcast, and T-Mobile in the northern portion of the project site (Federal Communications Commission 2022).
4.17.2 Regulatory Setting
a. Protection of Underground Infrastructure
California Government Code Section 4216
California Government Code Section 4216 et seq. requires that persons planning to conduct any excavation first contact the regional notification center. Section 4216 includes several related requirements, including requirements for excavations near “high priority utilities,”6 which include high-pressure natural gas pipelines and other pipelines that are potentially hazardous to workers or the public if damaged or ruptured. Underground Service Alert North (USA North) is the regional notification center for the areas where the project would be located. USA North receives planned 6 Consistent with California Government Code Section 4216(e), high priority utilities include natural gas pipelines carrying petroleum with normal operating pressures greater than 415kPA (60 pounds per square inch gauge); petroleum pipelines; pressurized sewage pipelines; high voltage electric supply lines, conductors, or cables that have a potential to ground of greater than 60 kilovolt; and hazardous materials pipelines that are potentially hazardous to workers or the public if damaged. 553
City of American Canyon
Paoli/Watson Lane Annexation
4.17-8
excavation reports and transmits the information to all participating members that may have underground facilities at the location of excavation. The USA North members then mark or stake their facility, provide information about the location, or advise the excavator of clearance. b. Water Supply and Quality
Federal
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
Pursuant to Section 402 of the Clean Water Act and the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act, municipal stormwater discharges in American Canyon are regulated under the San Francisco Bay Region Municipal Regional Stormwater National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit, MS4 Order No. 2013-001 (General Permit). In 1987, Congress amended the Clean Water Act to mandate controls on discharges from Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems (MS4s). Acting under the federal mandate and the California Water Code, RWQCBs require cities, towns, and counties to regulate activities that can result in pollutants entering their storm drains. All municipalities prohibit non-stormwater discharges to storm drains and require residents and businesses to use Best Management Practices (BMPs) to minimize the amount of pollutants in runoff. The Municipal Regional Permit is overseen by the San Francisco Bay RWQCB. On February 5, 2013, the State Water Board reissued the Phase II Stormwater NPDES Permit for small MS4s.
Provision E.12, “Post-Construction Stormwater Management Program,” mandates municipalities to require specified features and facilities–to control pollutant sources, to control runoff volumes, rates, and durations, and to treat runoff before discharge from the site–be included in development plans of projects that create or replace 5,000 square feet or more impervious surface as conditions of issuing approvals and permits. The new requirements continue a progression of increasingly stringent requirements since 1989.
Provision E.12 requires all municipal permittees to implement these requirements by June 30, 2015, to the extent allowed by applicable law. This includes projects requiring discretionary approvals that have not been deemed complete for processing and discretionary permit projects without vesting tentative maps that have not requested and received an extension of previously granted approvals.
In July of 2014, the Bay Area Stormwater Management Agencies Association (BASMAA), through the BASMAA Phase II Committee, created the BASMAA Manual to assist applicants for development approvals to prepare submittals that demonstrate their project complies with the NPDES permit requirements. Applicants who seek development approvals for applicable projects should follow the manual when preparing their submittals. The manual is designed to ensure compliance with the requirements and promote integrated Low Impact Development (LID) design.
Section E.12.c of the NPDES Permit pertains to LID and how it relates to hydromodification management. This permit provision requires that stormwater discharges not cause an increase in the erosion potential of the receiving stream over the existing condition. Increases in runoff flow and volume must be managed so that the post-project runoff does not exceed estimated preproject rates and durations, where such increased flow and/or volume is likely to cause increased potential for erosion of creek beds and banks, silt pollutant generation, or other adverse impacts on beneficial uses due to increased erosive force.
554
Environmental Impact Analysis
Utilities and Service Systems
Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.17-9
State
Sustainable Groundwater Management Act
In September 2014, the governor signed legislation requiring that California’s critical groundwater resources be sustainably managed by local agencies. The Sustainable Groundwater Management Act gives local agencies the power to sustainably manage groundwater and requires groundwater sustainability plans to be developed for medium- and high-priority groundwater basins, as defined by the California Department of Water Resources. Please refer to Section 4.10, Hydrology and Water Quality, for more detailed descriptions of the groundwater basins at the project site.
California Water Code
The California Water Code contains regulations including, but not limited to water supply, safe drinking water, clean water, and water quality. More specifically, Division 24, Chapter 6, contains provisions for water supply reliability through water conservation and groundwater recharge, local projects, feasibility projects, management of Sacramento Valley water and habitat protection measures, and implementation of the river parkway program.
California Plumbing Code
The California Plumbing Code is codified in Title 24, California Code of Regulations, Part 5. The Plumbing Code contains regulations including, but not limited to, plumbing materials, fixtures, water heaters, water supply and distribution, ventilation, and drainage. More specifically, Part 5, Chapter 4, contains provisions requiring the installation of low flow fixtures and toilets. Existing development will also be required to reduce its wastewater generation by retrofitting existing structures with water efficient fixtures (Senate Bill [SB] 407 [2009] Civil Code Sections 1101.1 et seq.).
Urban Water Management Planning Act
In 1983, the California Legislature enacted the Urban Water Management Planning Act (Water Code, Section 10610 et seq.), which requires urban water suppliers to develop water management plans to actively pursue the efficient use of available supplies. Every five years, water suppliers are required to develop Urban Water Management Plans to identify short-term and long-term water demand management measures to meet growing water demands.
In preparing a UWMP, an urban water supplier must describe or identify the following, among other things (as set forth in Water Code Section 10631):
“The service area of the supplier, including current and projected population, climate, and other demographic factors affecting the supplier’s water management planning.” “Projected population estimates” based on “data from the State, regional, or local service agency population projections within the service area,” in “five-year increments to 20 years or as far as data is available.”
“Past and current water use” and “projected water use.” “Existing and planned sources of water” for each five-year increment of the 20-year planning period.
Specific detailed information about groundwater where it is identified as “an existing or planned source of water available to the supplier.”
555
City of American Canyon
Paoli/Watson Lane Annexation
4.17-10
“All water supply projects and water supply programs” that may be undertaken to meet “total projected water use,” including “specific projects” and the “increase in water supply” expected from each project.
An estimate of “the implementation timeline for each project or program.” “Plans to supplement or replace” any “water source that may not be available at a consistent level of use, given specific legal, environmental, water quality, or climatic factors” with “alternative sources or water demand management measures, to the extent practicable.” “The reliability of the water supply and vulnerability to seasonal or climatic shortage, to the extent practicable,” for (i) an “average water year,” (ii) a “single dry water year,” and (iii) “[m]ultiple dry water years.”
“Opportunities for exchanges or transfers of water on a short-term or long-term basis.” “Opportunities for development of desalinated water, including, but not limited to, ocean water, brackish water, and groundwater, as a long-term supply.” “Water demand management measures.”
Senate Bill 610: Water Supply Assessments
As revised by Senate Bill (SB) 610 (Stats. 2002, ch. 643), Section 10910, et seq. of the California Water Code set forth the circumstances in which California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) lead agencies must seek preparation of, or prepare themselves, “water supply assessments” for defined proposed “projects.” At the time a lead agency determines that a proposed project requires an Environmental Impact Report (EIR), the lead agency shall identify any “public water system” that would serve the project site and shall request that any such entity prepare a WSA for the project. In the absence of such a public water system, the city or county lead agency must prepare its own WSA. SB 610 functions together with CEQA, in that a WSA must be included in “any environmental document” for any “project” subject to SB 610 (Water Code Section 10911(b); see also State CEQA Guidelines Section 15155(e); see also Id. Section 15361 [defines “environmental documents” to include “Negative Declarations…[and] draft and final EIRs”]).
One of the fundamental tasks of a WSA is to determine whether “total projected water supplies available during normal, single dry, and multiple dry water years during a 20-year projection will meet the projected water demand associated with the proposed project, in addition to the public water system’s existing and planned future uses, including agricultural and manufacturing uses” (Water Code Section 10910 (c)(3), (c)(4)). In making such a determination, the authors of the WSA must address several factors. Specifically, the WSA must contain information regarding existing water supplies, projected water demand, and dry year supply and demand. In Vineyard Area Citizens for Responsible Growth v. City of Rancho Cordova (2007) 40 Cal.4th 412, 433 (“Vineyard”), the California Supreme Court briefly summarized the key content requirements as follows:
With regard to existing supply entitlements and rights, a water supply assessment must include assurances such as written contracts, capital outlay programs and regulatory approvals for facilities construction . . . but as to additional future supplies needed to serve the project, the assessment need include only the public water system’s plans for acquiring the additional supplies, including cost and time estimates and regulatory approvals the system anticipates needing (Water Code §§ 10910, subd. (d)(2), and 10911, subd. (a)). (Original italics.) “Existing” water supplies can be based on different kinds of legal rights or arrangements, including entitlements, water rights, and water service contracts. In many cases, these supplies are likely 556
Environmental Impact Analysis
Utilities and Service Systems
Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.17-11
already described in detail in the supplier’s UWMP (Water Code Section 10631(b)). Suppliers are expressly permitted to rely on information contained in the most recently adopted UWMPs, provided that the water needed for proposed development project was accounted for therein (Water Code Section 10910(c)(2)).
In preparing a WSA, the public water system must disclose and document the quantity of water received from these various sources. Such supplies must be demonstrated by providing the following:
Written contracts or other proof of entitlement to an identified water supply. Copies of a capital outlay program for financing the delivery of a water supply that has been adopted by the public water system.
Federal, State, and local permits for construction of necessary infrastructure associated with delivering the water supply.
Any necessary regulatory approvals that are required in order to be able to convey or deliver the water supply.
A finding of insufficiency in a WSA does not require a city or county to deny or downsize a proposed development project. Rather, after identifying a shortfall, the public water system must provide its plans for acquiring “additional supplies” (or what the California Supreme Court called “future” supplies) (Water Code § 10911(a)). These plans should include information concerning the following:
The estimated total costs, and the proposed method of financing the costs, associated with acquiring the additional water supplies.
All federal, State, and local permits, approvals, or entitlements that are anticipated to be required in order to acquire and develop the additional water supplies.
Based on the considerations set forth in bullet points (1) and (2), the estimated timeframes within which the public water system, or the city and county . . . expects to be able to acquire additional water supplies.
These particular Water Code requirements for assessments are action-forcing, in that they require the public water system to lay out a roadmap for obtaining new water supplies once it becomes aware that existing supplies are insufficient for the proposed project together with other foreseeable planned growth.
Regardless of the information provided to a city or county in a WSA, SB 610 stops short of preventing cities and counties from approving the “projects” at issue absent “sufficient” water supplies. But where “existing water supply entitlements, water rights, or water service contracts” are “insufficient” to serve proposed projects, SB 610 does require that, in approving projects in the face of insufficient supplies, cities and counties must “include” in their “findings for the project[s]” their “determination[s]” regarding water supply insufficiency. SB 610 functions together with CEQA, in that a water supply assessment must be included in “any environmental document” for any “project” subject to SB 610. (Id. subd. (b); Guidelines, § 15155, subd. (e); see also id. Section 15361 [defines “environmental documents” to include “Negative Declarations. . . [and] draft and final EIRs”]).
When a project is proposed in the annexation area, the applicant may need to submit a WSA per SB 610 depending on the size of the project.
557
City of American Canyon
Paoli/Watson Lane Annexation
4.17-12
Recycled Water Policy
On February 3, 2009, by Resolution No. 2009-0011, the State Water Board adopted a Recycled Water Policy in an effort to move toward a sustainable water future. The Recycled Water Policy states “we declare our independence from relying on the vagaries of annual precipitation and move toward sustainable management of surface waters and groundwater, together with enhanced water conservation, water reuse and the use of stormwater.” The following goals were included in the Recycled Water Policy:
Increase use of recycled water over 2002 levels by at least 1 million AFY by 2020 and at least 2 million AFY by 2030.
Increase the use of stormwater over use in 2007 by at least 500,000 AFY by 2020 and at least 1 million AFY by 2030.
Increase the amount of water conserved in urban and industrial areas by comparison to 2007 by at least 20 percent by 2020.
Included in these goals is the substitution of as much recycled water for potable water as possible by 2030.
The Recycled Water Policy provides direction to the RWQCBs regarding issuing permits for recycled water projects, addresses the benefits of recycled water, addresses a mandate for use of recycled water and indicates the State Water Board will exercise its authority to the fullest extent possible to encourage the use of recycled water.
The Recycled Water Policy also indicates that some groundwater basins contain salts and nutrients that exceed or threaten to exceed water quality objectives established in basin plans and states that it is the intent of this Recycled Water Policy that all salts and nutrients be managed on a basin-wide or watershed-wide basis through development of regional or subregional management plans.
Finally, the Recycled Water Policy addresses the control of incidental runoff from landscape irrigation projects, recycled water groundwater recharge projects, anti-degradation, control of emerging constituents and chemicals of emerging concern and incentives for use of recycled water.
In accordance with the provisions of the Recycled Water Policy, a Constituents of Emerging Concerns Advisory Panel was established to address questions about regulating constituents of concern (COCs) with respect to the use of recycled water. The Advisory Panel’s primary charge was to provide guidance for developing monitoring programs that assess potential COC threats from various water recycling practices, including groundwater recharge/reuse and urban landscape irrigation. On June 25, 2010, the Advisory Panel provided recommendations to the State Water Board and California Department of Public Health in their Final Report “Monitoring Strategies for Chemicals of Emerging Concern in Recycled Water – Recommendations of a Scientific Advisory Panel”. The State Water Board used those recommendations to amend the Recycled Water Policy in 2013 (State Water Board Resolution No. 2013-003).
The April 2013 amendment provides direction to the RWQCBs on monitoring requirements for COCs in recycled water. The monitoring requirements pertain to the production and use of recycled water for groundwater recharge reuse by surface and subsurface application methods, and for landscape irrigation. The amendment identifies three classes of constituents to monitor:
Human health-based COCs: COCs of toxicological relevance to human health. Performance indicator COCs: An individual COC used for evaluating removal through treatment of a family of COCs with similar physicochemical or biodegradable characteristics. 558
Environmental Impact Analysis
Utilities and Service Systems
Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.17-13
Surrogates: A measurable physical or chemical property, such as chlorine residual or electrical conductivity, that provides a direct correlation with the concentration of an indicator compound. Surrogates are used to monitor the efficiency of COC treatment.
Only groundwater recharge reuse facilities would be required to monitor for COCs and surrogates.
Surface application and subsurface application facilities would have different mandatory COCs and a different monitoring schedule. Monitoring is not required for recycled water used for landscape irrigation projects that qualify for streamlined permitting unless monitoring is required under the adopted salt and nutrient management plan. Streamlined permitting projects must meet the criteria specified in the Policy including compliance with Title 22, application at agronomic rates, compliance with any applicable salt and nutrient management plan, and appropriate use of fertilizers.
Water Conservation Act of 2009
Requirements regarding per capita water use targets are defined in the Water Conservation Act of 2009, which was signed into law in November 2009 as part of a comprehensive water legislation package. Known as SB X7-7, the legislation sets a goal of achieving a 20 percent reduction in urban per capita water use Statewide by 2020. SB X7-7 requires that retail water suppliers define in their 2010 UWMPs the gallons per capita per day targets for 2020, with an interim 2015 target.
Assembly Bill 1881
Assembly Bill (AB) 1881 expanded previous legislation related to landscape water use efficiency. AB 1881, the Water Conservation in Landscaping Act of 2006, enacted landscape efficiency recommendations of the California Urban Water Conservation Council for improving the efficiency of water use in new and existing urban irrigated landscapes in California. AB 1881 required the DWR to update the existing Model Local Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance and local agencies to adopt the updated model ordinance or an equivalent. The law also requires the California Energy Commission (CEC) to adopt performance standards and labeling requirements for landscape irrigation equipment, including irrigation controllers, moisture sensors, emission devices, and valves to reduce the wasteful, uneconomic, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy or water.
Assembly Bill 2882
AB 2882 was passed in 2008 and encourages public water agencies throughout California to adopt conservation rate structures that reward consumers who conserve water. AB 2882 clarifies the allocation-based rate structures and establishes standards that protect consumers by ensuring a lower base rate for those who conserve water.
Local
American Canyon Municipal Code
Section 13.06.090 of American Canyon Municipal Code establishes that at the time of submission of an application for a building permit for connection to the city water system, an applicant shall be required to pay a water capacity fee, in proportion to the new connection’s impact on the water system.
Section 13.10 of the American Canyon Municipal Code limits new industrial water users within the City’s water service area to a net use of 650 gallons per acre per day (GPAD) and requires dual559 City of American Canyon
Paoli/Watson Lane Annexation
4.17-14
plumbing with purple pipe.7 For use greater than 650 GPAD, offset options include, but are not limited to, retrofit of existing residences with low flow fixtures, purchase of otherwise developable land as permanent open space, or acquisition of other water supply resources as provided for by a water supply analysis that follows the Zero Water Footprint (ZWF) methodology (see below).
American Canyon 2020 Urban Water Management Plan
The City’s 2020 Urban Water Management Plan identifies the following policies that would apply to the project:
ZWF Policy: This policy has a goal of no loss in reliability or increase in water rates for existing water service customers due to new demand for water within the City’s water service area.
Developers must ensure that all new developments offset the amount of increased potable water that will be consumed by their project on a one-to-one basis. Developers are required to minimize their demand for new potable water by using water efficient fixtures, consuming recycled water for non-potable uses when available, dual plumbing buildings, installing water wise landscaping and irrigation, and other appropriate measures. Methods for offsetting the increase in potable water consumption might include contributing to the City’s existing conservation programs, converting an existing public use of potable water to recycled water, contributing to projects that reduce potable water demand, increase capacity to produce recycled water, or expand the reclaimed water system, or acquiring water supply from another source.
b. Wastewater
Federal
Federal Clean Water Act
The federal Clean Water Act is described in Section 4.10, Hydrology and Water Quality (see Section
4.10.2)
State and Regional
Standards for wastewater treatment plant effluent are established using State and federal water quality regulations. After treatment, wastewater effluent is either disposed of or reused as recycled water. The Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCBs) set the specific requirements for community and individual wastewater treatment and disposal and reuse facilities through the issuance of Waste Discharge Requirements, required for wastewater treatment facilities under the California Water Code Section 13260.
The California Code of Regulations Title 22, Division 4, Chapter 3, Sections 60301 through 60355 are used to regulate recycled wastewater and are administered by the RWQCBs. Title 22 contains effluent requirements for four levels of wastewater treatment, from un-disinfected secondary recycled water to disinfected tertiary recycled water. Higher levels of treatment have higher effluent standards, allowing for a greater number of uses under Title 22, including irrigation of freeway landscaping, pasture for milk animals, parks and playgrounds, and vineyards and orchards for disinfected tertiary recycled water.
7 Purple pipe allows for use of recycled water for landscaping. 560
Environmental Impact Analysis
Utilities and Service Systems
Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.17-15
Local
American Canyon Municipal Code
Section 14.06.020 establishes that at the time of submission of application for building permit for connection to the city wastewater collection system, an applicant shall pay a wastewater capacity fee in proportion to use of the capacity of the wastewater system. c. Stormwater
Federal
Federal Clean Water Act
The federal Clean Water Act is described in Section 4.10, Hydrology and Water Quality. Pertinent discussions about stormwater are included in the following subsections: CWA Section 402, National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System and Phase II Municipal Storm Water Permit.
State
General Construction Activity Storm Water Permit
The California Construction Stormwater Permit (Construction General Permit) is discussed in Section
4.10, Hydrology and Water Quality (see subsection 4.10.2).
Local
American Canyon Municipal Code
Section 14.28.082 of the American Canyon Municipal Code identifies that the City may establish volume and rate of stormwater controls from new developments and redevelopment as may be appropriate to minimize peak flows or total runoff volume, and to mimic the pre-development site hydrology. This section also includes the requirement that qualifying projects prepare a SCP that meets the criteria in the BASMAA Post Construction Manual. d. Solid Waste
Federal
Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations
Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 258 (Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, Subtitle D), contains regulations for municipal solid waste landfills and requires states to implement their own permitting programs incorporating the Federal landfill criteria.
State
California Code of Regulations Tile 14
The California Code of Regulations Title 14, Division 7, outlines current CalRecycle regulations pertaining to non-hazardous waste management in California, which includes minimum standards for solid waste handling and disposal; compostable materials handling operations and facilities 561
City of American Canyon
Paoli/Watson Lane Annexation
4.17-16
regulatory requirements; standards for handling and disposal of asbestos containing waste; resource conservation programs; enforcement of solid waste standards and administration of solid waste facility permits; special waste standards; used oil recycling program; electronic waste recovery and recycling; mandatory commercial recycling; and short-lived climate pollutants.
Assembly Bill 341
The purpose of Assembly Bill (AB) 341 of 2011 (Public Resource Code [PRC] Chapter 476, Statutes of 2011) is to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by diverting commercial solid waste to recycling efforts and to expand the opportunity for additional recycling services and recycling manufacturing facilities in California. In addition to Mandatory Commercial Recycling, AB 341 sets a statewide goal for 75 percent disposal reduction by the year 2020.
Senate Bill 1383
SB 1383 of 2016 (PRC Chapter 395, Statutes of 2016) established the following goals: a 50-percent reduction in the level of the statewide disposal of organic waste from 2014 levels by 2020, and a 75- percent reduction in the level of the statewide disposal of organic waste from 2014 levels by 2025.
This bill also authorized CalRecycle to adopt regulations, to take effect on or after January 1, 2022, to achieve these targets.
Assembly Bill 939
AB 939 (PRC 41780) requires cities and counties to prepare integrated waste management plans and to divert 50 percent of solid waste from landfills beginning in calendar year 2000 and each year thereafter. AB 939 also requires cities and counties to prepare source reduction and recycling elements as part of the integrated waste management plans. These elements are designed to develop recycling services to achieve diversion goals, stimulate local recycling in manufacturing, and stimulate the purchase of recycled products.
Assembly Bill 1826
AB 1826 of 2014 (PRC Chapter 727, Statutes of 2014) requires businesses that generate a specified amount of organic waste per week to arrange for recycling services for that waste, and that jurisdictions implement a recycling program to divert organic waste from businesses subject to the law. The jurisdictions must report to CalRecycle on their progress in implementing an organic waste recycling program. As of January 1, 2017, businesses that generate four cubic yards or more of organic waste per week shall arrange for organic waste recycling services.
Senate Bill 1016
SB 1016 requires that the 50 percent solid waste diversion requirement established by AB 939 be expressed in pounds per person per day. SB 1016 changed the CalRecycle review process for each municipality’s integrated waste management plan. After an initial determination of diversion requirements in 2006 and establishing diversion rates for subsequent calendar years, the Board reviews a jurisdiction’s diversion rate compliance in accordance with a specified schedule. Since January 1, 2018, the Board is required to review a jurisdiction’s source reduction and recycling element and hazardous waste element once every two years. 562
Environmental Impact Analysis
Utilities and Service Systems
Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.17-17
Local
American Canyon Municipal Code
Section 8.20 of the American Canyon Municipal Code includes requirements for mandatory municipal solid waste, recycling, and composting material disposal reductions. Section 8.20.030 includes the requirements for commercial businesses, which would apply to the project. Section
8.20.100 requires new buildings to comply with California Green Building Standards (CALGreen), including the requirements for new commercial buildings to provide readily accessible areas identified for blue container and green container material storage and collection, consistent with the three-container collection program offered by the city, as well as compliance with CALGreen requirements for diverting construction and demolition debris. e. Electric Power and Natural Gas
State
California Energy Commission
As the State’s primary energy policy and planning agency, the CEC collaborates with State and federal agencies, utilities, and other stakeholders to develop and implement State energy policies.
Since 1975, the CEC has been responsible for reducing the State’s electricity and natural gas demand, primarily by adopting new Building and Appliance Energy Efficiency Standards that have contributed to keeping California’s per capita electricity consumption relatively low. The CEC is also responsible for the certification and compliance of thermal power plants 50 megawatts and larger, including all project-related facilities in California (CEC 2022).
California Public Utilities Commission
The California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) regulates investor-owned electric and natural gas utilities operating in California. The energy work responsibilities of the CPUC are derived from the California State Constitution, specifically Article XII, Section 3 and other sections more generally, numerous State legislative enactments and various Federal statutory and administrative requirements. The CPUC regulates natural gas utility service for approximately 10.8 million customers that receive natural gas from PG&E and other natural gas utilities across California (CPUC 2022a).
Local
American Canyon Municipal Code
Section 18.40.120 of the American Canyon Municipal Code requires that all utilities be installed underground in accordance with the provisions of the American Canyon Municipal Code. It also requires that all underground utilities be installed before preparation of subgrade for paving or any other site improvements that may affect the orderly installation of the underground utilities.
American Canyon General Plan
The City of American Canyon General Plan sets forth the following goals and policies relevant to public services and utilities:
563
City of American Canyon
Paoli/Watson Lane Annexation
4.17-18
Goal 5: It shall be the goal of American Canyon to establish and maintain a secure water supply and treatment, distribution and storage system to serve the land uses proposed under the general plan.
Policy 5.2.5: In the event that sufficient capacity is not available to serve a proposed project, the City shall not approve the project until additional capacity or adequate mitigation is provided.
Goal 5C: Establish and maintain adequate planning, construction, maintenance, and funding for storm drain and flood control facilities to support permitted land uses and preserve the public safety; upgrading existing deficient systems and expanding, where necessary, to accommodate new permitted development and to protect existing development in the City. Pursue public funding sources (i.e., grants) to reduce fiscal impacts of implementation to the City.
Policy 5.10.3: Require that adequate storm drain and flood control facilities be constructed coincident with new development.
Policy 5.10.12: Require that new development be designed to prevent the diversion of floodwaters onto neighboring parcels.
Policy 5.10.18: Require that development projects maximize the use of pervious surface materials (grass, ground cover, and other) that minimize stormwater runoff.
Goal 5D: Maintain the quality of surface and subsurface water resources within the City of American Canyon.
Policy 5.12.2: Incorporate features in new drainage detention facilities which enhance the water quality of discharges from the facility.
Policy 5.13.1: Require that development activities comply with the State General Storm Water Permit for Construction Activities with measures that protect surface water quality to the maximum extent practicable.
Goal 6A: Maintain a high level of fire protection and emergency services to City/District businesses and residents.
Goal 6B: Ensure a high level of police protection for the City’s residents, businesses, and visitors.
Policy 6.7.1: Work with the Sheriff’s Department to ensure that enough personnel are added to the department to serve the needs of a growing population and a developing City.
4.17.3 Impact Analysis
a. Significance Thresholds and Methodology
Significance Thresholds
Based on Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines a project may be deemed to have a significant impact on utilities and service systems if it would:
Require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or stormwater drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects; Have insufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry, and multiple dry years; 564
Environmental Impact Analysis
Utilities and Service Systems
Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.17-19
Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments;
Generate solid waste in excess of State or local standards or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals; or Comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste.
Methodology
This analysis considers the existing capacity of utilities serving the City, estimates qualitatively and quantitively the potential additional demand on utilities, and identifies whether the existing system can serve the demand of the existing demand plus the project’s estimated demand. b. Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Threshold 1: Would the project require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or storm water drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects?
IMPACT UTL-1 THE PROJECT WOULD INCREASE DEMAND FOR WATER, WASTEWATER, ELECTRIC POWER, TELECOMMUNICATIONS, AND STORMWATER DRAINAGE; HOWEVER, NO ADDITIONAL RELOCATION OR
CONSTRUCTION OF UTILITY SERVICES WILL BE REQUIRED TO SERVICE THE PROJECT BEYOND CONNECTIONS TO EXISTING UTILITIES. THE PROJECT WOULD NOT INCREASE DEMAND ON NATURAL GAS. IMPACTS WOULD BE LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT.
Water and Wastewater
The Newell Drive Extension would not induce water demand or wastewater. Development facilitated by the project would require installation of potable and recycle water connections, fire hydrants, and connections to sewer.
Such facilities would be installed during individual project construction and generally within the disturbance area of such projects or the rights-of-way of previously disturbed roadways; therefore, the construction of these infrastructure improvements is within the anticipated project disturbance area and would not otherwise cause significant environmental effects beyond those already identified throughout this EIR.
The City of American Canyon has several policies to address and minimize additional potable water demand and wastewater. Sections 13.06.090 and 14.06.020 of the American Canyon Municipal Code would require any applicants of future development on the project site to pay a water capacity fee and wastewater capacity fee, respectively in proportion to the new connection’s impact on the water and wastewater system. The payment of this fee would help ensure that the City would have sufficient capacity within its water and wastewater system to accommodate the project.
In addition, and as described in further detail in Impact UTIL-2, the project would implement the Zero Water Footprint (ZWF) policy to cause a net zero potable water demand increase.
Furthermore, as described in Impacts UTIL-2 and UTIL-3, there would be sufficient water capacity and wastewater treatment capacity to accommodate the project’s demand. 565
City of American Canyon
Paoli/Watson Lane Annexation
4.17-20
The project would include connections to the existing water and wastewater system but would not create a substantial water demand (due to implementation of the American Canyon Municipal Code and policies), such that new or expanded water or wastewater facilities would be needed. The water connections associated with the project would not cause significant environmental effects beyond those already identified throughout this EIR. As such, impacts related to potential new water and wastewater facilities would be less than significant.
Stormwater
The project would extend Newell Drive and accommodate construction of 494,942 square feet of commercial development; 696,888 square feet of industrial development; and 189,698 square feet of visitor-servicing/Hotel uses. The project would increase the amount of impervious surface coverage on the project site and would create the potential for increased runoff leaving the project site that may create potential flooding conditions in downstream waterways.
As discussed in Section 4.10, Hydrology and Water Quality, runoff associated with the project would be regulated by Section 14.28 of the American Canyon Municipal Code, which ensure compliance with the Phase II MS4 Permit. Compliance with these regulations would ensure that future development and the Newell Drive Extension mimic the pre-development site hydrology, which would ensure that there is proper stormwater drainage on the project site and would minimize any operational impacts related to water quality or flooding.
The project would require new or expanded stormwater facilities pursuant to the regulatory requirements in Section 14.28 of the American Canyon Municipal Code. There would be no additional impacts related to installation of these facilities beyond those already disclosed in this EIR. Therefore, impacts related to potential new stormwater facilities would be less than significant.
Electricity
The project would require connections to existing electrical transmission and distribution systems in the City to serve development facilitated by the project. This service would be provided in accordance with the rules and regulations of PG&E and under the authority of the CPUC. Dry utilities for the project site are served with overhead utility lines on Paoli Loop and Watson Lane. In accordance with existing Engineering standards, new utilities on Newell Drive would be placed underground. Existing overhead utilities within Paoli Loop would be placed underground at the time Paoli Loop is improved to its ultimate width. Based on availability of existing electrical infrastructure, the project would connect to existing infrastructure. Therefore, there would be adequate electrical facilities to serve development facilitated by the project and impacts related to potential new electrical facilities would be less than significant.
Natural Gas
As described in Section 4.8, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, the project would not use natural gas, as required by Mitigation Measure GHG-3. As such, the project would not place demand on natural gas facilities and there would be no impact related to natural gas facilities.
Telecommunications
Implementation of the project would require connections to existing utility infrastructure to meet the needs of future development. Based on the availability of existing telecommunications infrastructure along Watson Lane, Paoli Loop Road, the northern boundary of the project site, and 566
Environmental Impact Analysis
Utilities and Service Systems
Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.17-21
bisecting the middle of the project site from east to west, construction of new telephone and cable lines would not be required, and all sites would be able to connect to existing infrastructure.
Development facilitated by the project would be required to adhere to applicable laws and regulations related to the connection to existing telecommunication infrastructure. Therefore, there would be adequate telecommunications facilities to serve the development facilitated by the project and impacts related to potential new telecommunications facilities would be less than significant.
Conflicts with Existing Utilities
An existing underground natural gas transmission line is located along the private segment of Watson Lane. Project excavation and construction, including the Newell Drive extension may conflict with existing underground utilities, including the natural gas transmission line located along Watson Lane. As required by Government Code Section 4216, applicants for future development and the Newell Drive Extension, would be required to contact USA North to avoid underground utilities during construction. As such, impacts on underground utilities would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures would be required.
Significance After Mitigation
Impacts would be less than significant without mitigation.
Threshold 2: Would the project have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry and multiple dry years?
IMPACT UTL-2 THE PROJECT WOULD INCREASE DEMAND FOR WATER; HOWEVER, WITH ADHERENCE TO THE
ZWF POLICY, WATER SUPPLIES WOULD BE SUFFICIENT TO SERVE THE PROJECT AND REASONABLY FORESEEABLE FUTURE DEVELOPMENT IN NORMAL, DRY, AND MULTIPLE DRY YEARS. IMPACTS WOULD BE LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT.
Future development facilitated by the project would create additional demand for water in the City of American Canyon. Water demand for the project was estimated using water demand rates for land use types identified in the Broadway District Specific Plan EIR (City of American Canyon 2016c).
Each development type has its own associated water use factor by unit, which were used to calculate projected water demand volumes for each type of development. Table 4.17-2 summarizes the estimated water demand from the project. Overall, the project is estimated to increase water demand by 0.82 mgd or 914 AFY. The City’s UWMP identifies the existing and projected supply and water demand for normal, dry, and multiple dry years. These projections are summarized in Table 4.17-3.
The City’s Urban Water Management Plan considers the reliability of meeting customer demand by analyzing plausible hydrological variability, regulatory variability, climate conditions, and other factors that could affect the City’s water supply and its customers’ water uses (City of American Canyon 2022). Water demand projections are based on future population projections and the implementation of required policies (City of American Canyon 2022). 567
City of American Canyon
Paoli/Watson Lane Annexation
4.17-22
Table 4.17-2 Projected Water Demand
Development Type
Estimated
Project Buildout a Water-use factor b
Projected Water Demand
gpd mgd AFY
Commercial 494,942 sf 0.21 gpd/sf 103,938 0.10 116
Industrial 696,888 sf 1 gpd/sf 696,888 0.70 781
Hotel 200 roomsc 75 gpd/hotel room 15,000 0.02 17
Total 815,826 0.82 914
Source: City of American Canyon 2016c
Notes:
a. gpd = gallons per day; sf = square foot; mgd = million gallons per day; AFY = acre feet per year b. The water use factors are from the Draft EIR for the Broadway District Specific Plan EIR (City of American Canyon 2016c). c. No proposed hotel has been identified at this time. For the purposes of this analysis, a conservative assumption is made to estimate potential water use. The 200 hotel rooms is estimated based on the Watson Ranch Specific Plan, south of the project, which includes a 200-room hotel. This is a conservative assumption.
Table 4.17-3 Projected Water Supply and Demand
2025 2030 2035 2040
Normal Years
Supply Totals (af/yr) 4,959 4,959 5,575 5,575
Demand Totals (af/yr) 3,543 3,785 4,580 4,822
Difference 1,416 1,174 994 753
Single-Dry Year
Supply Totals (af/yr) 1,897 1,897 2.132 2,132
Demand Totals (af/yr) 3,543 3,785 4,580 4,822
Difference -1,646 -1,888 -2,448 -2,689
Multiple Dry Years (First Year)
Supply Totals (af/yr) 3,359 3,359 3,776 3,776
Demand Totals (af/yr) 3,543 3,785 4,580 4,822
Difference -184 -426 -804 -1,046
Multiple Dry Years (Second Year)
Supply Totals (af/yr) 3,359 3,359 3,776 3,776
Demand Totals (af/yr) 3,543 3,785 4,580 4,822
Difference -184 -426 -804 -1,046
Multiple Dry Years (Third Year)
Supply Totals (af/yr) 3,251 3,251 3,655 3,655
Demand Totals (af/yr) 3,543 3,785 4,580 4,822
Difference -291 -534 -925 -1,167
Multiple Dry Years (Fourth Year)
Supply Totals (af/yr) 3,251 3,251 3,655 3,655
Demand Totals (af/yr) 3,543 3,785 4,580 4,822
Difference -291 -534 -925 -1,167
Multiple Dry Years (Fifth Year)
Supply Totals (af/yr) 3,251 3,251 3,655 3,655
Demand Totals (af/yr) 3,543 3,785 4,580 4,822
Difference -291 -534 -925 -1,167
Source: City of American Canyon 2022
568
Environmental Impact Analysis
Utilities and Service Systems
Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.17-23
According to the UWMP, the City’s combined projected water supplies are sufficient to meet projected demands during normal water year conditions. Under single-dry water year and multi-dry water year conditions, the supply is insufficient to meet demands. The City has a Water Shortage Contingency Plan (WSCP), which details the stages of actions to be taken during a reduction in available water supply. These actions are broken up based on six possible stages of water shortage.
Such actions include limiting landscape irrigation, providing rebates on plumbing fixtures and other water-saving devices, prohibiting use of potable water for washing hard surfaces, and restricting water usage for decorative features such as fountains (City of American Canyon 2022).
The project would be required to comply with the ZWF Policy. Under this policy, developers must ensure that new development will offset the increased potable water demand that would be consumed by their project on a one-to-one basis. Developers are required to minimize demand for new potable water by using water efficient fixtures; using recycled water for non-potable uses when available; using recycled water for toilet flushing via dual plumbing at commercial and industrial buildings; installing water wise landscaping and irrigation; and other appropriate measures (City of American Canyon 2022). Methods for offsetting any increase in potable water consumption may include contributing to the City’s existing conservation programs; converting an existing public use of potable water to recycled water; contributing to projects that reduce potable water demand; increasing capacity to produce recycled water; expanding the reclaimed water system; or acquiring water supply from another source.
In addition, the American Canyon Municipal Code Chapter 13.10 (New Water and Sewer Connections and Services) limits new industrial water users within the City’s water service area to a net use of 650 gallons per acre per day and requires dual plumbing with purple pipe.8 For use greater than 650 gallons per acre per day, offset options include but are not limited to, retrofit of existing residences with low flow fixtures, purchase of otherwise developable land as permanent open space, or acquisition of other water supply resources as provided for by a water supply analysis that follows the ZWF methodology (City of American Canyon 2022).
Compliance with the ZWF Policy and American Canyon Municipal Code Chapter 13.10 would ensure that the project would have no net increase in water demands. Thus, impacts would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures would be required.
Significance After Mitigation
Impacts would be less than significant without mitigation. 8 Purple pipe allows for use of recycled water for landscaping. 569
City of American Canyon
Paoli/Watson Lane Annexation
4.17-24
Threshold 3: Would the project result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments? IMPACT UTL-3 THE PROJECT WOULD INCREASE DEMAND FOR WASTEWATER TREATMENT BUT THERE IS ADEQUATE WASTEWATER TREATMENT CAPACITY TO SERVE THE PROJECT’S PROJECTED DEMAND IN ADDITION TO EXISTING COMMITMENTS. IMPACTS WOULD BE LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT.
The amount of wastewater generated by the project was estimated based on the estimated water demand calculated in Impact UTIL-2 and the principle that water demand is 120 percent of wastewater generation (due to evaporation and system losses, meaning that not all water that is used ends up going to the wastewater treatment plan). The total wastewater demand due to the project is estimated to be approximately 0.68 mgd. However, this is a conservative calculation that does not account for the reductions in wastewater demand from implementing the ZWF Policy. It is expected that the project’s demand on wastewater would be substantially less than 0.68 mgd.
Nonetheless, this number is used to provide a conservative analysis.
The WFR had an existing wastewater treatment capacity of 2.5 mgd in 2020 at average dry weather flow conditions. In 2020, the City treated 1,625 AF of wastewater, which is equivalent to 1.45 mgd (City of American Canyon 2022). In 2020 there was 1.05 mgd of remaining capacity for wastewater treatment. Therefore, the WFR would have enough capacity to treat wastewater induced by the project. Impacts would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures would be required.
Significance After Mitigation
Impacts would be less than significant without mitigation.
Threshold 4: Would the project generate solid waste in excess of State or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals?
Threshold 5: Would the project comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste?
IMPACT UTL-4 THE PROJECT WOULD NOT GENERATE SOLID WASTE IN EXCESS OF STATE OR LOCAL
STANDARDS, WOULD NOT EXCEED THE CAPACITY OF LOCAL INFRASTRUCTURE, AND WOULD NOT IMPAIR THE ATTAINMENT OF SOLID WASTE REDUCTION GOALS. IMPACTS WOULD BE LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT.
Implementation of the project would generate additional solid waste. Project construction would create construction debris, such as scrap lumber and flooring materials. Project operation would create typical wastes associated with industrial, commercial, and hotel development.
As described in Section 4.13.1, Setting, the DRRTF is permitted to receive 1,440 tons of solid waste per day (County of Napa 2008). Between 2020 and 2021, the City of American Canyon disposed a total of approximately 17,128 tons (CalRecycle 2022b). Per capita waste disposal averaged averages
20.50 pounds per employee per day (CalRecycle 2022c). As described in Chapter 2, Project Description, the project is expected to generate 1,650 new employees. Total waste generation based on the number of employees would be approximately 17 tons per day, which would 570
Environmental Impact Analysis
Utilities and Service Systems
Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.17-25
represent approximately 1.2 percent of the permitted daily solid waste allowed at the DRRTF. 9 While it is anticipated that the project would increase solid waste generation, it is expected that solid waste facilities would have enough capacity.
AB 939 requires the City to divert 50 percent of solid waste from landfills, and SB 1383 would require the City to reduce organic waste disposal by 75 percent by 2025. New development would be required to comply with Section 8.20 of the American Canyon Municipal Code, which includes requirements for mandatory municipal solid waste, recycling, and composting material disposal reductions, as well as compliance with CALGreen requirements for diverting construction and demolition debris. As discussed above, local infrastructure would have the capacity to accommodate solid waste generated by development facilitated by the project. Therefore, impacts on solid waste infrastructure would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures would be required.
Significance After Mitigation
Impacts would be less than significant without mitigation.
4.17.4 Cumulative Impacts
The geographic scope of the cumulative utilities and service systems analysis is the service area for the utilities. Cumulative development projects would all place a demand on water; wastewater utilities and treatment; stormwater utilities; electricity and natural gas utilities; telecommunication utilities; and solid waste facilities.
Cumulative projects would be required to comply with similar policies as identified for the project.
For example, other cumulative projects would also be required to pay a water capacity fee and wastewater capacity fee in proportion to the new connection’s impact on the water and wastewater system. Cumulative projects in the City would also be required to implement the ZWF policy. As such, cumulative water and wastewater impacts would be less than significant.
Cumulative projects would be required to comply with Section 14.28 of the American Canyon Municipal Code (for projects in the City of American Canyon) and Section 16.28 of the Napa County Municipal Code (for projects in unincorporated Napa County). Section 16.28 of the Napa County Municipal Code includes similar requirements as Section 14.28 of the American Canyon Municipal Code. Implementation of both municipal codes would ensure that there is proper stormwater drainage on cumulative project sites. Through compliance with Section 14.28 of the American Canyon Municipal Code and Section 16.28 of the Napa County Municipal Code, cumulative projects would not require additional stormwater utilities beyond those identified for each cumulative project. As such, cumulative stormwater utility impacts would be less than significant.
Cumulative projects within the City are located in a built out area where they could connect to existing electricity, natural gas, and telecommunication utilities. Because cumulative projects would connect to existing electricity, natural gas, and telecommunication utilities in an already built out area, cumulative projects would not result in significant environmental effects and cumulative impacts would be less than significant.
9 0.07 percent = (17 tons per day / 1,440 tons per day) * 100 571
City of American Canyon
Paoli/Watson Lane Annexation
4.17-26
In addition, cumulative projects in the City would be required to comply with Section 8.20 of the American Canyon Municipal Code to minimize solid waste generation. Cumulative projects in unincorporated Napa County would be required to comply with CALGreen requirements for diverting construction and demolition debris, pursuant to Chapter 15.14 of the Napa County Municipal Code (which adopts CALGreen). In addition, cumulative projects in unincorporated Napa County would be required to comply with the County’s Integrated Waste Management Plan.
Because each cumulative project would minimize solid waste generation, in compliance with federal, state, and local regulations, cumulative impacts on solid waste facilities would be less than significant.
572
Environmental Impact Analysis
Wildfire
Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.18-1
4.18 Wildfire
This section summarizes the wildfire risks in and near the project site and analyzes the impacts related to wildfire risks due to the project.
4.18.1 Setting
a. Overview of Wildfire
Wildfires are a regular feature of the ecosystem in large parts of California and many of the State’s native species have evolved to cope with the natural fire cycle, although increasing development into wildfire-prone areas makes wildfires a hazard of concern. A wildfire is an uncontrolled fire in an area of combustible vegetation that is generally extensive in size. Wildfires differ from other fires in that they take place outdoors in areas of grassland, woodlands, brush land, scrubland, peatland, and other wooded areas that act as a source of fuel, or combustible material. Buildings may become involved if a wildfire spreads to adjacent communities.
Wildland-urban interface fires are hazards because they threaten areas located near the border between urban and wildlands. The primary factors that increase an area’s susceptibility to wildfire include slope and topography, vegetation type and condition, and weather and atmospheric conditions. Factors such as narrow, winding roads and vegetation also can slow response to fire, increasing risk of spread. Wildfires that burn exclusively in natural areas generally pose little risk to lives or property, although the smoke from such fires may cause respiratory problems for people nearby. The fire season in the State of California is starting earlier and ending later each year, with climate change considered to be a key factor for this phenomenon (California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection [CalFire] 2022a).
b. Wildfire Factors
Slope and Aspect
According to CalFire, sloping land increases susceptibility to wildfire because fire typically burns faster up steep slopes (CalFire 2018). Additionally, steep slopes may hinder firefighting efforts.
Following severe wildfires, sloping land is also more susceptible to landslide or flooding from increased runoff during substantial precipitation events. Aspect is the direction that a slope faces, and it determines how much radiated heat the slope will receive from the sun. Slopes facing south to southwest will receive the most solar radiation. As a result, such slopes are warmer and the vegetation drier than on slopes facing a northerly to northeasterly direction, increasing the potential for wildfire ignition and spread (CalFire 2018).
Generally, the urbanized area of the City is located west of Newell Drive/Flosden Road. Topography in this area of the City is nearly flat with a slight westward slope towards the Napa-Sonoma Marshes Wildlife Area (U.S. Geological Survey [USGS] 2022). The La Vigne neighborhood, American Canyon High School, and Canyon Estates neighborhood are located east of Newell Drive/Flosden Road, closer to the hillside areas just outside of the City. In this area the topography is slightly sloping upwards to the rolling hills east of the City.
Average slope on the project site is minimal and ranges from approximately 2 percent to 4 percent; however, western facing slopes are present east of the project site in the Newell Open Space Preserve. 573
City of American Canyon
Paoli/Watson Lane Annexation
4.18-2
Vegetation
Vegetation is “fuel” to a wildfire and it changes over time. The relationship between vegetation and wildfire is complex, but generally some vegetation is naturally fire resistant, while other types are very flammable. For example, cured grass is much more flammable than standing trees (CalFire 2018). Grass is considered an open fuel, in which oxygen has free access to promote the spread of fire. Additionally, weather and climate conditions, such as drought, can lead to increasing dry vegetation with low moisture content, increasing its flammability. In addition, wildfire behavior depends on the type of fuel present, such as ladder, surface, and aerial fuels. Ladder fuels provide a path for a surface fire to climb upward, into the crowns of trees. Surface fuels include grasses, logs, and stumps low to the ground. Aerial fuels include limbs, foliage, and branches not in contact with the ground (CalFire 2022b).
Naturally occurring (native and exotic non-native) vegetation cover within the City, consists of wetlands, and annual grasslands at the western edge of the City along the Napa-Sonoma Marshes Wildlife Area. This vegetation cover does not present a high risk of wildland fire fuel because grasses do not represent a large volume of fuel. Along the eastern hills east of the city, the two dominant vegetation communities are Oak Woodlands and Annual/Native Grasslands. Both of these vegetation communities, as well as the other minor vegetation communities mapped within the hillside area are susceptible to wildfire.
The project site is surrounded by agricultural and industrial lands directly to the north and east, which include large dirt patches, dry grasses, field crops, and scattered trees and shrubs. Further east of the project site a mix of grasses, oak, and chapparal vegetation can be found in the Newell Open Space Preserve and Lynch Canyon Open Space. The project site itself includes grasslands.
Weather and Atmospheric Conditions
Wind, temperature, and relative humidity are the most influential weather elements in fire behavior and susceptibility (CalFire 2018). Fire moves faster under hot, dry, and windy conditions. Wind may also blow embers ahead of a fire, causing its spread. Drought conditions also lead to extended periods of excessively dry vegetation, increasing the fuel load and ignition potential.
According to the Western Regional Climate Center, average annual precipitation in American Canyon is 20.26 inches. Generally, in an average or typical year, most precipitation is received from October through April (Western Regional Climate Center 2016). May through September are the driest parts of the year and coincide with what has traditionally been considered the fire season in California. However, increasingly persistent drought and climatic changes in California have resulted in drier winters and fires during the autumn, winter, and spring months are become more common.
Power Lines
Above-ground power lines have the potential to contribute to wildfire risk, especially when they are near or traverse wilderness areas. In some instances, high winds can blow nearby trees and branches into powerlines, sparking fires. Wind can also snap wooden poles, causing live wires to fall onto nearby grass or other fuel, igniting it. While the California Public Utilities Commission estimates only about 10 percent of California’s wildfires are triggered by power lines, the frequency and severity of wildfires has spurred the agency to make new requirements for power line safety practices.
PG&E transmission lines traverse the City, both underground and above ground. Of note are the highpower electrical transmission lines which run northeast by southwest through the City (California 574
Environmental Impact Analysis
Wildfire
Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.18-3
Energy Commission 2022). These lines are located approximately 1.75 miles from the project site. In addition, there are existing distribution lines on Watson Lane and Paoli Loop Road. c. Wildfire Hazards
Once a fire is started, the spread and behavior of a fire become a function of fuel characteristics, terrain, and weather conditions. Fires are typically classified by type and intensity. Fire types may include understory fires, crown fires, surface fires, and broadcast fires, among others. Fire intensity, or severity, is the heat energy released by a fire either during a smoldering or raging fire event (CalFire 2022b).
Wildfire activity is closely related to temperature and drought conditions, and in recent decades, increasing drought frequency and warming temperatures have resulted in increased fire activity and the largest, most destructive, and deadliest wildfires in the State’s history. Climate change will continue to produce conditions that facilitate a longer fire season, which, when coupled with human-caused changes in the seasonality of ignition sources, will produce more, longer, and bigger fires during more times of the year. According to California’s Fourth Climate Change Assessment, Statewide Summary Report (OPR 2018), if greenhouse gas emissions continue to rise, the frequency of extreme wildfires burning over 25,000 acres could increase by 50 percent by 2100, and the average area burned Statewide could increase by 77 percent by the end of the century.
CalFire has mapped areas of significant fire hazards in the state through its Fire and Resources Assessment Program. These maps place areas of the state into different Fire Hazard Severity Zones (FHSZ) based on a hazard scoring system using subjective criteria for fuels, fire history, terrain influences, housing density, and occurrence of severe fire weather. Typically, these classifications include Non-Wildland, Non-Urban, Moderate, High and Very High. As part of this mapping system, land where CalFire is responsible for wildland fire protection and generally located in unincorporated areas is classified as a State Responsibility Area (SRA), which are managed by CalFire. Where local fire protection agencies are responsible for wildfire protection, the land is classified as a Local Responsibility Area (LRA) (CalFire 2020). CalFire responds to wildland fires from several fire stations, depending on their proximity and availability.
CalFire maps three zones on SRA: 1) Moderate FHSZ; 2) High FHSZ; and 3) Very High FHSZ. Each of the zones influence how people construct buildings and protect property to reduce risk associated with wildland fires. Under state regulations, areas within very high fire hazard risk zones must comply with specific building and vegetation management requirements intended to reduce property damage and loss of life within these areas. As shown in Figure 4.18-1, the project site is located within an LRA, with portions of the project site designated as a Moderate FHSZ. Please note that Figure 4.18-1 includes a correction to CalFire mapping. CalFire mapping indicates that the northeastern corner (the area that is pre-zoned as Town Center) is within an SRA; however, mapping from the American Canyon Fire Protection District (ACFPD) indicates that the entirety of the project site is within the ACFPD jurisdictional boundary (ACFPD 2022a). For that reason, the northeastern corner of the project site is shown to be within an LRA. Furthermore, the project site is not located in a High or Very High FHSZ. The project site is bordered to the east by areas within an SRA designated as a Moderate FHSZ.
575
City of American Canyon
Paoli/Watson Lane Annexation
4.18-4
Figure 4.18-1 SRA Fire Hazard Severity Zones
576
Environmental Impact Analysis
Wildfire
Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.18-5
4.18.2 Regulatory Setting
a. Federal Regulations
The Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000
The Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 requires a state-level mitigation plan as a condition of disaster assistance. There are two different levels of state disaster plans: “Standard” and “Enhanced.” States that develop an approved Enhanced State Plan can increase the amount of funding available through the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program. The Act also established new requirements for local mitigation plans.
National Fire Plan
The National Fire Plan was developed in August 2000, following a historic wildfire season. Its intent is to establish plans for active response to severe wildfires and their impacts to communities while ensuring sufficient firefighting capacity. The plan addresses firefighting, rehabilitation, hazardous fuels reduction, community assistance, and accountability. b. State Regulations
California Board of Forestry
The Board of Forestry maintains fire safe road regulations, as part of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations (CCR). This includes requirements for road width, surface treatments, grade, radius, turnarounds, turnouts, structures, driveways, and gate entrances. These regulations are intended to ensure safe access for emergency wildland fire equipment and civilian evacuation.
California Fire Code
The California Fire Code (Fire Code) is Chapter 9 of CCR Title 24. It establishes the minimum requirements consistent with nationally-recognized best practices to safeguard public health, safety, and general welfare from the hazards of fire, explosion, or dangerous conditions in new and existing buildings, structure, and premises, and to provide safety and assistance to firefighters and emergency responders during emergency operations. The Fire Code is the primary means for authorizing and enforcing procedures and mechanisms to ensure the safe handling and storage of any substance that may pose a threat to public health and safety. The Fire Code regulates the use, handling and storage requirements for hazardous materials at fixed facilities. The Fire Code and the California Building Code (CBC) use a hazard classification system to determine what protective measures are required to protect property and life from fire hazards. These measures may include construction standards, separations from property lines and specialized equipment. To ensure that these safety measures are met, the Fire Code employs a permit system based on hazard classification. The provisions of the Fire Code apply to the construction, alteration, movement, enlargement, replacement, repair, equipment, use and occupancy, location, maintenance, removal, and demolition of every building or structure or any appurtenances connected or attached to such building structures throughout California.
More specifically, the Fire Code is included in Title 24 of the CCR. Title 24, part 9, Chapter 7 addresses fire-resistance-rated construction; CBC (Part 2), Chapter 7A addresses materials and construction methods for exterior wildfire exposure; Fire Code Chapter 8 addresses fire related 577
City of American Canyon
Paoli/Watson Lane Annexation
4.18-6
Interior finishes; Fire Code Chapter 9 addresses fire protection systems; and Fire Code Chapter 10 addresses fire related means of egress, including fire apparatus access road width requirements.
Fire Code Section 4906 also contains existing regulations for vegetation and fuel management to maintain clearances around structures. These requirements establish minimum standards to protect buildings located in all FHSZs within SRAs and Wildland-Urban Interface Fire Areas. This Fire Code includes provisions for ignition-resistant construction standards for new buildings.
The City adopted the most recent 2019 California Fire Code under Ordinance No. 2019-03.
California Fire Plan
The Strategic Fire Plan for California is the State’s road map for reducing the risk of wildfire. The most recent version of the Plan was finalized in August 2018 and directs each CalFire Unit to prepare a locally specific Fire Management Plan (CalFire 2018). In compliance with the California Fire Plan, individual CalFire units are required to develop Fire Management Plans for their areas of responsibility. These documents assess the fire situation within each of the 21 CalFire units and six contract counties. The plans include stakeholder contributions and priorities, and identify strategic areas for pre-fire planning and fuel treatment as defined by the people who live and work with the local fire problem. The plans are required to be updated annually.
California Office of Emergency Services
The California Office of Emergency Services (OES) prepares the State of California Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan (SHMP). The SHMP identifies hazard risks, and includes a vulnerability analysis and a hazard mitigation strategy (OES 2018). The SHMP is federally required under the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 in order for the State to receive Federal funding. The Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 requires a State mitigation plan as a condition of disaster assistance (Federal Emergency Management Agency 2022).
State Emergency Plan
The foundation of California’s emergency planning and response is a statewide mutual aid system, which is designed to ensure that adequate resources, facilities, and other support is provided to jurisdictions whenever their own resources prove to be inadequate to cope with an emergency situation.
The California Disaster and Civil Defense Master Mutual Aid Agreement (California Government Code Sections 8555–8561) requires signatories to the agreement to prepare operational plans to use within their jurisdiction, and outside their area. These operational plans include fire and non-fire emergencies related to natural, technological, and war contingencies. The State of California, all State agencies, all political subdivisions, and all fire districts signed this agreement in 1950.
Section 8568 of the California Government Code, the “California Emergency Services Act,” (Act) states that “the State Emergency Plan shall be in effect in each political subdivision of the state, and the governing body of each political subdivision shall take such action as may be necessary to carry out the provisions thereof.” The Act provides the basic authorities for conducting emergency operations following the proclamations of emergencies by the Governor or appropriate local authority, such as a City Manager. The provisions of the act are further reflected and expanded on by appropriate local emergency ordinances. The Act further describes the function and operations of government at all levels during extraordinary emergencies, including war. 578
Environmental Impact Analysis
Wildfire
Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.18-7
All local emergency plans are extensions of the State of California Emergency Plan. The State Emergency Plan conforms to the requirements of California’s Standardized Emergency Management System (SEMS), which is the system required by Government Code 8607(a) for managing emergencies involving multiple jurisdictions and agencies. The SEMS incorporates the functions and principles of the Incident Command System (ICS), the Master Mutual Aid Agreement, existing mutual aid systems, the operational area concept, and multi-agency or inter-agency coordination.
Local governments must use SEMS to be eligible for funding of their response-related personnel costs under state disaster assistance programs. The SEMS consists of five organizational levels that are activated as necessary, including: field response, local government, operational area, regional, and state. OES divides the state into several mutual aid regions. The City is located in Mutual Aid Region II, which includes Del Norte, Humboldt, Mendocino, Sonoma, Lake, Napa, Marin, Solano, Contra Costa, San Francisco, San Mateo, Alameda, Santa Clara, Santa Cruz, San Benito, and Monterey counties (OES 2019).
Government Code Sections 65302 and 65302.5, Senate Bill 1241 (Kehoe) of 2012
Senate Bill (SB) 1241 requires cities and counties to address fire risk in SRAs and Very High FHSZs in the safety element of their general plans. The bill also amended CEQA to direct amendments to the CEQA Guidelines Appendix G environmental checklist to include questions related to fire hazard impacts for projects located in or near lands classified as SRAs and Very High FHSZs. In adopting these Guidelines amendments, the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research recognized that generally, low-density, leapfrog development may create higher wildfire risks than high-density, infill development. 1 Zoning around the project site is low density housing, allowing up to six dwelling units per acre.
California Public Utilities Commission General Order 166 General Order 166 Standard 1.E requires that investor-owned utilities (IOU) develop a Fire Prevention Plan which describes measures that the electric utility will implement to mitigate the threat of power-line fires generally. Additionally, this standard requires that IOUs outline a plan to mitigate power line fires when wind conditions exceed the structural design standards of the line during a Red Flag Warning in a high fire threat area. Fire Prevention Plans created by IOUs are required to identify specific parts of the utility’s service territory where the conditions described above may occur simultaneously. Standard 11 requires that utilities report annually to the California Public Utilities Commission regarding compliance with General Order 166. In compliance with Standard 1.E of this General Order, Pacific Gas and Electric Company adopted a Fire Prevention Plan dated October 31, 2018.
c. Local Regulations
Napa County Operational Area Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan In 2020, the Napa County prepared an updated Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan (HMP) to guide County and City Officials and Special Districts Managers in protecting the people and property within the County from the effects of natural disasters and hazards events. The HMP provides an explanation of prevalent hazards within the County and how hazards may affect the County and 1 “Leapfrog development” describes the construction of new development at a distance from existing developed areas, with undeveloped land between the existing and new development.
579
City of American Canyon
Paoli/Watson Lane Annexation
4.18-8
participating cities and special districts differently based upon proximities to natural hazards. The HMP also identifies risks to vulnerable assets, both people and property. Most importantly, the mitigation strategy presented in the HMP responds to the identified vulnerabilities within each community and provides prescriptions or actions to achieve the greatest risk reduction based upon available resources.
The City of American Canyon (Resolution No. 2020-44) and the American Canyon Fire Protection District adopted the HMP on June 2, 2020 (Resolution No. 2020-08). The HMP includes an Annex that details the hazard mitigation planning elements specific to the City of American Canyon. The Annex identifies that American Canyon is required to update building codes to meet the minimum standards to those required in the California Building Code last updated in 2019, which reduce risk from wildfire. Chapter 16.02 of the American Canyon Municipal Code adopts the 2019 California Building Code.
Sonoma-Lake-Napa Unit Strategic Fire Plan
The CalFire Strategic Fire Plan for the Sonoma-Lake-Napa Unit, last updated in 2020, applies to Napa County as well as neighboring Sonoma and Lake counties. This plan documents an assessment of wildfire hazards in the Sonoma-Lake-Napa Unit and identifies strategic targets to minimize fire risks, such as fire prevention and vegetation management.
American Canyon Fire Protection District Long-Range Master Plan The ACFPD Long-Range Master Plan, (LRMP) guides the efficient future growth and development of the Fire District to provide the community of American Canyon with the highest possible level of service balanced with long term financial sustainability. Adopted in October 2022, (Resolution 2022- 26) the LRMP identifies recommendations to improve long-range planning and delivery of fire and emergency services to the community (ACFPD 2022b).
The Plan recommendations relate to operations, procedures, and community involvement, to deliver desired levels of service at the most efficient cost. To maintain long-range service levels, the LRMP recommends construction of a new relocated Fire Station 211.
American Canyon Municipal Code
Chapter 8.08 of the American Canyon Municipal Code contains ordinances relating to fire regulations including fire protection district regulations and the authority of the designated fire chief to enforce the Uniform Fire Code within city limits.
Section 18.40.120 of the American Canyon Municipal Code requires that all utilities be installed underground in accordance with the provisions of the American Canyon Municipal Code. It also requires that all underground utilities be installed before preparation of subgrade for paving or any other site improvements that may affect the orderly installation of the underground utilities.
Ordinance 2022-02
The ACFPD Board adopted the most recent 2022 California Fire Code under Ordinance No. 2022-02.
Section 4904 of the California Fire Code calls for a fire protection plan that addresses water supply, access, building ignition and fire-resistance factors, fire protection systems and equipment, defensible space, and vegetation management for any new residential building within a wildlandurban interface fire area. 580
Environmental Impact Analysis
Wildfire
Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.18-9
City of American Canyon General Plan
The City of American Canyon General Plan sets forth the following goals relevant to wildfire:
Goal 6A: Maintain a high level of fire protection and emergency services to City/District businesses and residents.
Objective 6.3: Ensure that the Fire District's facility, manpower and equipment needs keep pace with the City's growth.
Policy 6.3.1: Require that City planning staff work closely with Fire District officials to ensure that fire facilities and personnel are expanded commensurably to serve the needs of the City's growing population and development base.
Policy 6.3.2: Identify possible locations on the Land Use Map for a future fire station. These locations should be optimally sited to maintain adequate response times to all City and District residents in addition to being based on growth patterns.
Policy 6.3.3: Continue to respond to 90% of all calls within five minutes or less.
Objective 6.4: Utilize proactive measures to ensure protection of life and property of City and District residents and to maximize use of available resources.
4.18.3 Impact Analysis
a. Methodology and Thresholds of Significance
Significance Thresholds
Based on Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines a project may be deemed to have a significant impact on wildfire if it would:
1. If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan
2. If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose project occupants to pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire
3. If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment
4. If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes
5. Expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires
Methodology
The assessment of impacts related to wildfire hazards and risks were evaluated using FHSZ mapping for Napa County, aerial imagery, and topographic mapping. Additionally, weather patterns related 581
City of American Canyon
Paoli/Watson Lane Annexation
4.18-10
to prevailing winds and precipitation trends were evaluated as they relate to the spread and magnitude of wildfire.
In addition, on October 10, 2022, the State’s Office of the Attorney General issued guidance for analyzing wildfire impacts in a document titled Best Practices for Analyzing and Mitigating Wildfire Impacts of Development Projects under the California Environmental Quality Act (State’s Office of the Attorney General 2022). The analysis in this section used this guidance from the State’s Office of the Attorney General. This analysis used the following guidance from State’s Office of the Attorney General in considering the potential impacts of the project. Project Density. Project density influences how likely a fire is to start or spread, and how likely it is that the development and its occupants will be in danger when a fire starts. Project Location: Project placement in the landscape relative to fire history, topography, and wind patterns also influences wildfire risk.
Water Supply and Infrastructure: The analysis should consider the adequacy of water supplies and infrastructure to address firefighting within the project site. Evacuation and Emergency Access: Local governments should consider placing developments close to existing road and evacuation infrastructure, and where appropriate, constructing additional roads to facilitate evacuations.
Fire Hardening Structures: Home hardening has been shown to be an extremely effective measure for preventing structure loss during a wildfire. Local governments should require developers to upgrade building materials and use installation techniques to increase the development’s resistance to heat, flames, and embers beyond what is required in applicable building codes.
b. Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Threshold 1: If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the project substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
Impact WF-1 THE PROJECT WOULD NOT IMPAIR AN EMERGENCY RESPONSE PLAN AND IMPACTS WOULD BE LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT.
One parcel of the project east of the railroad line, pre-zoned as Town Center is within an LRA with a moderate fire risk. The project site is not located in a designated High FHSZ or Very High FHSZ (CalFire 2022d).
The Napa County’s Emergency Operations Plan (EOP) provides a framework for Napa County to use in performing emergency functions before, during, and after an emergency event (County of Napa 2020). The EOP aims to protect and preserve life, property, and the environment in Napa County, as well as the City. The project would not conflict with this plan and would not impair evacuation, as described in detail below.
The City of American Canyon has identified evacuation procedures in the event of a natural disaster, including a wildfire. During an emergency, individuals would receive notifications from emergency sirens, alarms, or local radio stations. In addition, the City has partnered with the Napa County Office of Emergency Services to provide residents with official evacuation order notifications supported by Zonehaven, a California-based company under contract with Napa County thanks to funding from the Napa Valley Community Foundation. Future development on the project site is 582
Environmental Impact Analysis
Wildfire
Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.18-11
located in evacuation zone NPA-E257 (City of American Canyon 2022). The City of American Canyon identifies the following three different evacuation alerts that would be provided to residents and employees in the City of American Canyon:
Evacuation Advisory: This is a precautionary notice designed to give residents time to prepare for a possible evacuation.
Voluntary Evacuation: This is a notice where people are strongly urged to leave the area and if a person chooses to remain, they should be prepared to take action immediately if danger approaches.
Mandatory Evacuation: This is a notice where danger is imminent and a person should find their emergency supply kit and leave the area immediately.
The roadway that would primarily be used for evacuation in the event of a wildfire would be SR 29.
Future development on the project site would include streets to access the site, as well as to connect to Paoli Loop Road and the future Newell Drive Extension, which would provide access to SR 29. The City would review and approve future projects to ensure that emergency access meets City standards. Development facilitated by the project, as well as all development in the city, must comply with road standards, and are reviewed by the American Canyon Fire Protection District to ensure development would not interfere with evacuation routes or impede the effectiveness of evacuation plans. In addition, the project would include a new roadway, the Newell Drive Extension, which would provide an additional roadway for evacuation.
Because the risk for a wildfire is moderate, because the City would review the project to ensure that emergency access meets City standard, because the project site is located near a roadway that can be used for evacuation, and because the project would add a new roadway that would provide another route for evacuation, impacts related to impairing an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures would be required.
Significance After Mitigation
Impacts would be less than significant without mitigation.
Threshold 2: If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the project due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, exacerbate wildfire risks and thereby expose project occupants to pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire? Threshold 5: Would the proposed project expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires? Impact WF-2 THE PROJECT COULD EXPOSE EMPLOYEES AND STRUCTURES TO WILDFIRE RISK; HOWEVER,
WILDFIRE RISKS WOULD BE REDUCED WITH MITIGATION AND IMPACTS WOULD BE LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT WITH MITIGATION.
Once annexed, the project site would be located on LRA lands. One parcel east of the railroad lines is classified as a moderate fire risk. In addition, the project site is adjacent to areas within an SRA with a moderate fire risk. The project would have multiple connections to Newell Drive, Paoli Loop, 583
City of American Canyon
Paoli/Watson Lane Annexation
4.18-12
and SR-29. As such, adequate emergency response and evacuation routes would be available in the event of an emergency.
Wildfire risk in American Canyon is generally concentrated on the hillside area east of the City. This area is largely undeveloped and contains large tracts of vegetation cover that can act as fire fuel.
This area is also adjacent to large areas of vegetation cover and open space outside the City limits, which further increases the potential for wildfires. To the west of the project site, there are existing developed areas. To the north, south, and east of the project site, there are undeveloped areas, including agricultural areas. Beyond the agricultural areas to the east of the project site are hills with vegetation that could act as fuel for wildfires. A total of 526 acres of land burned in 2019 during a wildfire known as the American Fire incident (CalFire 2019; ACFPD 2019). This fire was located east of the City, approximately 1.2 miles from where future development on the project site is proposed.
Prevailing winds in American Canyon generally blow from the west during the summer months, which is typically fire season, moving west to east across the City (Western Regional Climate Center 2022). Therefore, the prevailing winds would move wildfire in the hillside area and the related smoke and air pollutants, eastward, away from the urbanized areas of the City. Additionally, fire tends to burn and spread uphill, and the hillside area generally slopes uphill toward the east, away from the developed areas of the City. The topography of the annexation area is relatively flat with hills to the east (USGS 2022). Given prevailing wind patterns, it is likely that a fire would move away from the project site.
Construction of the project would use equipment with combustion engines, which are known to create fires. As such, there is a potential wildfire risk, especially during dry months, that could result in a potential significant impact. Therefore, Mitigation Measure WF-1 would be required to reduce wildfire risk from construction activities.
The project site is in proximity to agricultural and undeveloped areas with flammable vegetation. As such, operation of future development from the project could result in potentially significant wildfire impacts, including exposure of people to pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or a significant risk from a wildfire.
New structures would be constructed following the current fire and building codes and safety standards. Construction of future development would be subject to the California Fire Code, which includes safety measures to minimize the threat of fire, including ignition-resistant construction with exterior walls of noncombustible or ignition resistant material from the surface of the ground to the roof system and sealing any gaps around doors, windows, eaves and vents to prevent intrusion by flame or embers. In addition, American Canyon Municipal Code Section 16.02.130 requires installation of fully automatic fire sprinkler systems for new buildings. The Board of Forestry, via California Code of Regulations Title 14, sets forth the minimum development standards for emergency access, fuel modification, setback, signage, and water supply, which help prevent loss of structures and life by reducing wildfire hazards. These codes and regulations would reduce the risk of loss, injury, or death from wildfire for new developments facilitated by the project. In addition, any electrical lines associated with future development would be undergrounded, pursuant to Section 18.40.120 of the American Canyon Municipal Code.
Due to the moderate wildfire risk and the history of wildfires in the area, further mitigation would be required to address risks from wildfire. Implementation of Mitigation Measure WF-2 would ensure that there is proper water; implementation of Mitigation Measure WF-3 would require future development to use construction methods and materials that would harden the proposed 584
Environmental Impact Analysis
Wildfire
Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.18-13
residences from future wildfires; and implementation of Mitigation Measure WF-4 would require use of fire-resistant vegetation for landscaping.
Mitigation Measures
WF-1 Wildfire Risk Reduction During Construction
Prior to issuance of a grading or building permit, whichever occurs first, the applicant shall submit documentation that they will implement the following measures to reduce risk of loss, injury, or death from wildfire during construction:
Construction equipment powered by internal combustion engines shall be equipped with spark arresters. The spark arresters shall be maintained pursuant to manufacturer recommendations to ensure adequate performance.
Certain project construction activities with potential to ignite wildfires during red-flag warnings issued by the National Weather Service for the project site location shall be prohibited. Example activities that shall be prohibited during red-flag warnings include welding and grinding outside of enclosed buildings.
Fire extinguishers shall be required to be onsite during construction. Fire extinguishers shall be maintained to function according to manufacturer specifications. Construction personnel shall receive training on the proper methods of using a fire extinguisher.
WF-2 Fire Suppression Requirements
Prior to issuance of improvement plans, the applicant shall submit plans that demonstrate all fire hydrants on the project site satisfy the Fire District’s minimum fire flow requirements.
WF-3 California Building Code Chapter 7A Compliance
Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall submit plans that demonstrate compliance with Chapter 7A of the California Building Code.
WF-4 Fire Resistant Vegetation and Landscaping
Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall submit landscape plans prepared by a registered Landscape Architect that are consistent with applicable Building and Fire Codes at the time the building permit is issued.
Significance After Mitigation
With implementation of Mitigation Measures WF-1 through WF-4 the risk of loss of structures and the risk of injury or death due to wildfires would be reduced. These measures would make structures more fire resistant and less vulnerable to loss in the event of a wildfire. These mitigation measures would also reduce the potential for construction to inadvertently ignite a wildfire and require the use of fire-resistant native vegetation. Given the moderate risk for wildfires at the project site and that mitigation would be implemented to reduce the risk, impacts would be less than significant with mitigation.
585
City of American Canyon
Paoli/Watson Lane Annexation
4.18-14
Threshold 3: If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the project require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment?
Impact WF-3 THE PROJECT WOULD INCLUDE THE INSTALLATION OF UTILITIES AND A ROADWAY EXTENSION (NEWELL DRIVE EXTENSION). HOWEVER, IMPACTS WOULD BE LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT BECAUSE THE NEWELL
DRIVE EXTENSION WOULD ALLOW FOR SIMULTANEOUS EGRESS AND INGRESS DURING AN EVACUATION, WHICH WOULD NOT EXACERBATE A FIRE RISK.
As discussed in Section 4.17, Utilities and Service Systems, the project would require utility connections to existing utilities. The only utility that poses a potential wildfire risk are electrical lines; however, any electrical lines associated with future development would be undergrounded, pursuant to Section 18.40.120 of the American Canyon Municipal Code. As such, the project would not exacerbate fire risk from the installation of electrical lines. Furthermore, the project would extend Newell Drive along the northern portion of the project site. The Newell Drive extension would provide egress in the case of a wildfire or other emergency. Newell Drive would be designed in such a way to allow for simultaneous egress and ingress during an evacuation which would not exacerbate a fire risk.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures would be required.
Significance After Mitigation
Impacts would be less than significant without mitigation.
Threshold 4: If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the project expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslopes or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes? Impact WF-4 THE PROJECT SITE IS RELATIVELY FLAT AND NOT DOWNSLOPE FROM A HILLSIDE THAT COULD RESULT IN A LANDSLIDE FOLLOWING A WILDFIRE. THERE WOULD BE ADEQUATE DRAINAGE ON THE PROJECT SITE TO PREVENT FLOODING. WILDFIRE RISKS FROM FLOODING OR LANDSLIDES WOULD BE LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT.
The project site is located on LRA lands with one parcel east of the railroad classified as having a moderate fire risk. In addition, the project site is adjacent to areas within an SRA with a moderate fire risk. The project site is not on lands classified as having a high or very high fire hazard risk.
Topography in the project site is relatively flat with hills to the east.
Severe wildfires damage the forest or shrub canopy, the plants below, as well as the soil. In general, this can result in increased runoff after intense rainfall, which can put residences and other structures below a burned area at risk of localized floods and landslides. The project site is mostly flat. Vegetative wildfire fuels are currently present in the agricultural areas to the north and east of the project site. The nearest slope that may result in a landslide is approximately 0.5 mile to the east. Therefore, the project site is far enough from the slope and would not be impacted from a landslide. Additionally, as discussed in Section 4.10, Hydrology and Water Quality of the Draft EIR, the project site would not be in a designated flood zone. Furthermore, future projects would be 586
Environmental Impact Analysis
Wildfire
Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.18-15
required to develop a Stormwater Control Plan, which would further minimize adverse impacts of flooding following a wildfire. The project site’s flat grade, distance from any hillside, and adequate drainage would prevent exposure of people or residences to downslope landslides and flooding.
Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures would be required.
Significance After Mitigation
Impacts would be less than significant without mitigation.
4.18.4 Cumulative Impacts
The geographic scope for cumulative wildfire impacts is the areas surrounding the project site, including the City and unincorporated Napa County. This geographic scope is appropriate for wildfire because wildfires can cause impacts to large areas.
Development that is considered part of the cumulative analysis include projects involving primarily residential, mixed-use, commercial, and industrial uses near the project site. Cumulative development in the project vicinity could contribute to increased wildfire and evacuation impacts.
Together, cumulative projects cover a substantial area, primarily within or along the edges of previously developed areas. Cumulative impacts to wildfire could be potentially significant by providing additional fuel for wildfire.
However, development of the project site would convert existing non-native vegetation to industrial and commercial uses that are less susceptible to wildfire. In addition, it should be noted that only one parcel the project site is in an area that is identified as having a moderate fire risk.
Project development and infrastructure would be subject to statewide standards for fire safety in the California Fire Code. Additionally, Mitigation Measures WF-1 through WF-4 would reduce wildfire impacts of the project. The project would also include the Newell Drive Extension, which would improve emergency evacuation for the City and the County, if a wildfire to occur. Overall, due to the following, the project would have a less than cumulatively considerable contribution to a cumulative wildfire impact:
The project site is in a low wildfire risk, except for one parcel in a moderate wildfire risk. The project would replace existing wildfire fuels with urban, less flammable development. The project would extend Newell Drive, which would provide an additional emergency evacuation route.
The project would implement the California Fire Code, Napa County HMP, and Mitigation Measures in this EIR.
587
City of American Canyon
Paoli/Watson Lane Annexation
4.18-16
This page intentionally left blank.
588
Environmental Impact Analysis
Effects Found Not to be Significant
Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.19-1
4.19 Effects Found Not to be Significant
During evaluation of the project, certain impact areas included in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Appendix G checklist were found to have a less than significant impact or no impact. As allowed under CEQA Guidelines Section 15128, this section discusses why impacts to these environmental topics were determined to have no impact and therefore are not discussed in detail in the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) as individual sections.
4.19.1 Mineral Resources
Would the project:
Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state?
Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? There are no mineral resources, existing mines, major mineral deposits, or critical minerals within the project site (United States Geological Survey 2022). According to the City’s current General Plan, there are no known mineral resources in economically viable quantities within the City’s Planning Area (City of American Canyon 1994). According to the State Department of Conservation, Division of Mine Reclamation, there are three quarries designated as active within Napa County (Department of Conservation 2022). However, none of the quarries are within the project vicinity.
The quarry nearest to the project site is the Napa Quarry and it is located approximately 4.5 miles north. There are no active mineral extraction operations on the project site. Therefore, no impacts to mineral resources would occur.
4.19.2 Public Services (Schools)
Setting
Napa Valley Unified School District (NVUSD) provides elementary school (Kindergarten through 12th grade), Transitional Kindergarten, independent study, and one adult education program that serve the residents of the City. There are 27 schools in NVUSD, five of which are in the City: American Canyon High, American Canyon Middle, Canyon Oaks Elementary, Donaldson Way Elementary, and Napa Junction Elementary (National Center for Education Statistics [NCES] 2022a). Table 4.19-1 identifies the enrollments and staffing for the 2020-2021 school year for the schools in American Canyon. Table 4.19-2 shows enrollment trends for these five schools. As shown in Table 4.14-3, enrollment at all middle and elementary schools has decreased and enrollment at American Canyon High school has increased between the 2017-2018 and 2020-2021 school years. 589
City of American Canyon
Paoli/Watson Lane Annexation
4.19-2
Table 4.19-1 2020-2021 Enrollment for NVUSD Schools in American Canyon School Name Grades Enrollment
American Canyon High 9-12 1,707
American Canyon Middle 6-8 1,011
Canyon Oaks Elementary K-5 674
Donaldson Way Elementary K-5 524
Napa Junction Elementary K-5 420
“K” = Kindergarten
Source: NCES 2022b, 2022c, 2022d, 2022e, 2022f
Table 4.19-2 Enrollment Trends for NVUSD Schools in American Canyon School Name 2017-2018 2018-2019 2019-2020 2020-2021
Percent Change
2017-2018 to
2020-2021
American Canyon High 1,572 1,617 1,670 1,707 8.6%
American Canyon Middle 1,041 1,013 1,025 1,011 -2.9%
Canyon Oaks Elementary 682 682 681 674 -1.2%
Donaldson Way Elementary 602 591 574 524 -13.0%
Napa Junction Elementary 446 409 417 420 -5.8%
Source: California Department of Education 2022; NCES 2022b, 2022c, 2022d, 2022e, 2022f Regulatory Setting
California Code of Regulations
The California Code of Regulations, Title 5 Education Code, governs all aspects of education within the State. California State Assembly Bill 2926 (AB 2926) – School Facilities Act of 1986 – was enacted by the State of California in 1986 and added to the California Government Code (Section 65995). It authorizes school districts to collect development fees, based on demonstrated need, and generate revenue for school districts for capital acquisitions and improvements. It also established that the maximum fees which may be collected under this and any other school fee authorization are $1.50 per square foot for residential development and $0.25 per square foot for commercial and industrial development. AB 2926 was expanded and revised in 1987 through the passage of AB 1600, which added Section 66000 et seq. of the Government code. Under this statute, payment of statutory fees by developers serves as total mitigation under CEQA to satisfy the impact of development on school facilities. However, subsequent legislative actions have alternatively expanded and contracted the limits placed on school fees by AB 2926.
California Senate Bill 50
As part of the further refinement of the legislation enacted under AB 2926, the passage of SB 50 in 1998 defined the Needs Analysis process in government Code Sections 65995.5-65998. Under the provisions of SB 50, school districts may collect fees to offset the costs associated with increasing school capacity as a result of development. SB 50 generally provides for a 50/50 State and local school facilities match. SB 50 also provides for three levels of statutory impact fees. The application level depends on whether State funding is available; whether the school district is eligible for State 590
Environmental Impact Analysis
Effects Found Not to be Significant
Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.19-3
funding; and whether the school district meets certain additional criteria involving bonding capacity, year-round schools, and the percentage of moveable classrooms in use.
California Government Code sections 65995-65998 sets forth provisions to implement SB 50.
Specifically, in accordance with section 65995(h), the payment of statutory fees is “deemed to be full and complete mitigation of the impacts of any legislative or adjudicative act, or both, involving, but not limited to, the planning, use, or development of real property, or any change in governmental organization or reorganization…on the provision of adequate school facilities.” The school district is responsible for implementing the specific methods for mitigating school impacts under the Government Code.
Pursuant to Government Code section 65995(i), “A State or local agency may not deny or refuse to approve a legislative or adjudicative act, or both, involving, but not limited to, the planning, use, or development of real property, or any change in governmental organization or reorganization as defined in section 56021 or 56073 on the basis of a person's refusal to provide school facilities mitigation that exceeds the amounts authorized pursuant to this section or pursuant to section 65995.5 or 65995.7, as applicable.”
California Education Code section 17620(a)(1) states that the governing board of any school district is authorized to levy a fee, charge, dedication, or other requirement against any construction within the boundaries of the district, for the purpose of funding the construction or reconstruction of school facilities. NVUSD has developed an impact fee schedule with requires a payment of $0.66 per square foot of commercial and industrial development.
City of American Canyon General Plan
The City’s Public Services and Facilities Element of the General Plan address the following goal related to schools:
Goal 6: Promote a high level of education quality for the City’s residents.
Impact Analysis
Would the project:
Result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered schools, or the need for new or physically altered schools, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios or other performance objectives?
The project would introduce new commercial, industrial, and town-center uses into the area. The project is not expected to induce substantial residential population growth since residences are not proposed as part of the project. Thus, the project would not substantially increase the number of school-aged children in American Canyon. To offset a future project’s potential impact to schools, Government Code 65995 (b) establishes the base amount of allowable developer fees a school district can collect from development projects located within its boundaries. The fees obtained by NVUSD are used to maintain the desired school capacity and the maintenance and/or development of new school facilities. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant would be required to pay the NVUSD school impact fee.
Pursuant to Section 65995 (3)(h) of the California Government Code (Senate Bill 50, chaptered August 27, 1998), the payment of statutory fees “is deemed to be full and complete mitigation of 591
City of American Canyon
Paoli/Watson Lane Annexation
4.19-4
the impacts of any legislative or adjudicative act, or both, involving, but not limited to, the planning, use, or development of real property, or any change in governmental organization or reorganization.” Therefore, existing laws and regulations would require funding for the provision or expansion of new school facilities to offset impacts from the project and impacts would be less than significant. In addition, because cumulative projects would also be required to pay impact fees to fund school facilities, cumulative impacts would be less than significant. 592
Other CEQA Required Discussions
Draft Environmental Impact Report 5-1
5 Other CEQA Required Discussions
This section discusses other issues for which the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires analysis in addition to the specific issue areas discussed in Section 4, Environmental Impact Analysis. These additional issues include the project’s potential to induce growth and create significant and irreversible impacts on the environment. CEQA Guidelines Section 15126(b) requires a discussion of the significant environmental effects which cannot be avoided if the project is implemented. The project would not result in any significant unavoidable impacts and for that reason, is not discussed further.
5.1 Growth Inducement
CEQA Guidelines Section 15126(d) requires a discussion of a project’s potential to foster economic or population growth, including ways in which a project could remove an obstacle to growth.
Growth does not necessarily create significant physical changes to the environment. However, depending upon the type, magnitude, and location of growth, it can result in significant adverse environmental effects. A project’s growth inducing potential is therefore considered significant if project-induced growth could result in significant physical effects in one or more environmental issue areas.
5.1.1 Population Growth and Economic Growth
As discussed in Section 4.13, Population and Housing, the project would not result in any direct population growth because no residences would be developed as a part of this project. The project could, however, result in indirect population growth and economic activity due to temporary and permanent employment from commercial, industrial, and visitor-serving/hotel uses. As described in Section 4.13, Population and Housing, construction would be temporary and not require construction workers to permanently relocate to American Canyon, especially given the available labor force in the city and region. Likewise, the estimated 1,650 employees (see Section 2, Project Description) generated from new commercial, industrial, and visitor-serving/hotel uses would be drawn from the local and regional workforce. In addition, the City has planned for the addition of new residences to the City. For example, the Watson Ranch Specific Plan would add 1,253 new residences to the City (City of American Canyon 2018b) and the Broadway District Specific Plan would add 1,200 new residences to the City (City of American Canyon 2020). The project would provide future employment opportunities to future residents in American Canyon. Therefore, the project would not induce uncontrolled population or economic growth and associated environmental impacts.
5.1.2 Removal of Obstacles to Growth
Development of vacant lands within the project site would require new utility connections, including connections to water, hydrants, sewers, electricity, telecommunications, or other utilities like stormwater facilities. However, these connections would generally occur within individual project site footprints or rights-of-way that were previously disturbed, minimizing the impact of development on existing infrastructure and services. As described in Section 4.17 Utilities and Service Systems, development in those areas would use existing facilities and major infrastructure extensions would not occur in or be designed to serve areas beyond the sites analyzed in this 593
City of American Canyon
Paoli/Watson Lane Annexation
5-2
environmental impact report (EIR). Additionally, the extension of Newell Drive would not induce unplanned growth since its construction would serve approved or pending development, such as the project and Watson Ranch.
5.2 Significant Irreversible Environmental Effects
CEQA Guidelines Section 15126(c) requires a discussion of significant irreversible environmental changes that would be involved in the project, should the project be implemented. This section addresses non-renewable resources, the commitment of future generations to the proposed uses (roadway improvements), environmental accidents, and irreversible impacts associated with the project.
The project would irreversibly increase local demand for non-renewable energy resources such as petroleum products. However, increasingly efficient building design would offset this demand to some degree by reducing energy demands of the project. As described in Section 4.6, Energy, development facilitated by the project would be subject to the energy conservation requirements of the California Energy Code (Title 24, Part 6, of the California Code of Regulations, California’s Energy Efficiency Standards for Residential and Nonresidential Buildings) and the California Green Building Standards Code (Title 24, Part 11 of the California Code of Regulations). The California Energy Code provides energy conservation standards for all new and renovated buildings, and the Green Building Standards Code requires solar access, natural ventilation, and stormwater capture. Consequently, development facilitated by the project would not use unusual amounts of energy or construction materials and impacts related to consumption of non-renewable and renewable resources would be less than significant. Consumption of these resources would occur with any development in the region and is not unique to the project.
Furthermore, as discussed in Section 4.9, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, regulatory requirements, including those from the Napa County Division of Environmental Health would minimize potential accidents related to the spills of hazardous materials. Therefore, the project would not lead to significant irreversible environmental changes due to environmental accidents.
The Newell Drive Extension would serve planned development (City of American Canyon 2018a) consistent with planning in the Circulation Element of the General Plan. In addition, the project’s vehicle miles traveled (VMT) impacts would be less than significant because the project would add new employment opportunities to an area that has fewer jobs than housing, and future employees would be able to reduce their trip distance and overall VMT by working closer to their residence.
Overall, impacts related to the trips associated with the project were found to be less than significant, including traffic noise impacts, operational air quality impacts, and greenhouse gas emissions.
594
Alternatives
Draft Environmental Impact Report 6-1
6 Alternatives
As required by California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15126.6, this environmental impact report (EIR) examines a range of reasonable alternatives to the project that would attain most of the basic project objectives but would avoid or substantially lessen the significant adverse impacts.
As discussed in Section 2, Project Description, the project objectives are to:
1. Promote economic growth in American Canyon by attracting new industries.
2. Promote development that generates net positive tax revenues for the City by generating more in new tax revenues than are consumed by City expenditures on services provided to the development.
3. Create new employment opportunities for residents of Napa County and the surrounding region.
4. Extend Newell Drive which would augment north-south travel parallel to SR 29.
5. Improve American Canyon’s jobs-housing ratio by adding new employment opportunities.
6. Further the goals and policies of the City of American Canyon General Plan by developing land contemplated to support urban development to its highest and best use.
7. Preserve the most biologically sensitive portions of the project site as open space.
8. Install circulation improvements along Paoli Loop and Watson Lane that provide efficient ingress and egress to the project while also ensuring these facilities operate at acceptable levels.
9. Promote public safety by incorporating security measures into the project design.
10. Mitigate impacts on the environment through implementation of feasible mitigation measures.
This analysis presents four alternatives, including the CEQA-required “no project” alternative, that involve changes to the project that may reduce the project-related environmental impacts identified in this EIR. These alternatives have been developed to provide a reasonable range of options that would help decision-makers and the public understand the general implications of revising or eliminating certain components of the proposed project. The following alternatives are evaluated in this EIR:
Alternative 1: No Project
Alternative 2: At-Grade Newell Drive Crossing
Alternative 3: Reduced Buildout
Alternative 4: Watson Lane Reconfiguration
Table 6-1 provides a comparison of the project characteristics and of each of the alternatives considered. More detailed descriptions of the alternatives are included in the impact analysis for each alternative. The potential environmental impacts of each alternative are compared with those of the project in Sections 6.1 through 6.4. Each alternative incorporates components of the project and relies on the existing analysis to the extent those components are covered. Each alternative was chosen to reduce at least one significant impact that was associated with the project. Alternatives 2 595
City of American Canyon
Paoli/Watson Lane Annexation
6-2
through 4 reduce impacts related to construction, such as air quality, energy, greenhouse gas emissions, and noise. Alternative 3 has reduced impacts related to ground disturbance as well, such as impacts on biological resources, cultural resources, geology and soils, and tribal cultural resources.
Table 6-1 Comparison of the Alternatives
Project
Alternative 1:
No Project
Alternative 2:
At-Grade Newell
Drive Crossing
Alternative 3:
Reduced Buildout
Alternative 4:
Watson Lane
Reconfiguration
Total allowable nonresidential area
(square feet)
1,321,528 0 1,321,528 660,764 1,321,528
Change in total area
compared to project
(square feet)
n/a -1,321,528 0 660,764 0
Total employees 1,650 0 1,650 825 1,650
Change in employee
compared to project
n/a -1,650 0 825 0
6.1 Alternative 1: No Project Alternative
6.1.1 Description
The No Project Alternative assumes that the project site is not annexed into the City of American Canyon and existing land uses and Napa County zoning and land use designations remain. Current uses on the sites would continue under this alternative. No additional development would be assumed on the project site nor within the city. In addition, the Newell Drive extension would not be constructed. This alternative would not accomplish any of the project objectives.
6.1.2 Impact Analysis
Under the No Project Alternative, the project site would not be annexed into the City and no buildout would occur. The No Project Alternative would avoid all the project’s significant impacts as well as the need to implement any mitigation measures. While this Alternative would reduce all impacts, it would not advance any of the project objectives, including those related to promoting economic growth in American Canyon, promoting development that generates net positive tax revenues, creating employment opportunities, extended Newell Drive, and other project objectives.
6.2 Alternative 2: At-Grade Newell Drive Crossing
6.2.1 Description
Alternative 2 assumes that the Newell Drive extension would utilize an at-grade crossing instead of an overcrossing at the Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) in the northeastern corner of the project site.
An at-grade crossing would require approval from the California Public Utilities Commission pursuant to California Public Utilities Code Section 1201.
Development would occur with the same intensity and land uses as described in Section 2, Project Description and buildout totals would remain unchanged. Alternative 2 would increase the total 596
Alternatives
Draft Environmental Impact Report 6-3
developable industrial and Town Center square footage, since an at-grade crossing requires less area, but this increase in development area would not be substantial and would not alter the programmatic analysis of this alternative. Therefore, the estimated change in square footage is not quantified.
Alternative 2 would achieve all project objectives while reducing the intensity of construction required for an overcrossing as compared to an at-grade crossing. In addition, an at-grade railroad crossing would cost less than a grade-separated crossing which makes extending Newell Drive more feasible. However, an at-grade crossing would reduce the utility of Newell Drive by halting traffic during times of railroad use. Buildout of Alternative 2 would result in the same buildout as the project (refer to Table 6-1) but would decrease construction intensity of the Newell Drive extension.
Alternative 2 would accomplish all the project objectives.
6.2.2 Impact Analysis
a. Aesthetics
Alternative 2 would have slightly less aesthetics impacts because it results in less overhead roadway structure. Alternative 2 offers no change from the project with respect to the American Canyon Municipal Code and the General Plan goals and policies, which would be required for future development projects. Development would occur at a similar intensity and in the same location as the project and impacts to scenic vistas, scenic highways, and scenic quality, would remain the same under Alternative 2. Like the project, impacts to light and glare would be reduced with compliance with Mitigation Measure AES-1 and AES-2, which requires a lighting plan during construction and operation. Overall, the impacts on aesthetics would be reduced by Alternative 2. Nonetheless, Alternative 2 would have the same less than significant with mitigation CEQA conclusion as the project.
b. Agriculture and Forestry Resources
Neither the overcrossing for the project or the at-grade crossing for Alternative 2 would be located on agricultural or forestry lands. Alternative 2 would have the same no impact CEQA conclusion as the project.
c. Air Quality
Under Alternative 2, temporary construction-related air quality impacts from grading and construction would be reduced due to the reduced intensity of construction for an at-grade crossing compared to an overcrossing. Construction of an overcrossing requires more intensive construction activities and associated criteria air pollutants than an at-grade crossing. Nonetheless, long-term air quality impacts from building operation (energy usage, maintenance) would be the same as the project. Similarly, odor impacts from Alternative 2 would be similar to the impacts of the project.
Mitigation Measures AQ-1, AQ-2, and AQ-3 would also be required under Alternative 2 to reduce construction-related criteria air pollutants impacts, as well as toxic air contaminant and particulate matter impacts. Overall, the impacts on air quality from construction would be reduced by Alternative 2. Nonetheless, Alternative 2 would have the same less than significant with mitigation CEQA conclusion as the project.
597
City of American Canyon
Paoli/Watson Lane Annexation
6-4
d. Biological Resources
Under Alternative 2, the intensity of development would remain the same as under the project but the intensity of construction for the Newell Drive overcrossing would be reduced. Ground disturbance would be reduced for Alternative 2 because an at-grade crossing would disturb less area than an overcrossing. Nonetheless, Alternative 2 would be expected to impact the same biological resources as the project (special status wildlife species, migratory birds, waters, and wildlife movement). Like the project, Mitigation Measures BIO-1 through BIO-7 would be required to reduce impacts from Alternative 2. Overall, the impacts on biological resources would be reduced by Alternative 2. Nonetheless, Alternative 2 would have the same less than significant with mitigation CEQA conclusion as the project.
e. Cultural Resources
Under Alternative 2, the intensity of development would remain the same as under the project but the intensity of construction for the Newell Drive overcrossing would be reduced. Ground disturbance would be reduced for Alternative 2 because an at-grade crossing would disturb less area than an overcrossing. Nonetheless, Alternative 2 would be expected to impact the same cultural resources as the project. Potential impacts to cultural resources or human remains would be addressed by the same regulations identified for the project, including California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5, California Public Resources Code Section 5097.98, and the American Canyon Municipal Code. To further strengthen protection of cultural resources, implementation of Mitigation Measures CUL-1 through CUL-5 would be required for Alternative 2. Overall, the impacts on cultural resources would be reduced by Alternative 2. Nonetheless, Alternative 2 would have the same less than significant with mitigation CEQA conclusion as the project. f. Energy
Alternative 2 would use less energy than the project because construction of an at-grade crossing would require less equipment and less fuel than an overcrossing. Operational energy use would remain the same as the project and would require the implementation of Mitigation Measures GHG4 and GHG-5, which would improve energy efficiency and require use of carbon-free electric sources. Overall, Alternative 2 would have fewer energy impacts than the project and impacts would be reduced compared to the project. Nonetheless, Alternative 2 would have the same less than significant with mitigation CEQA conclusion as the project. g. Geology & Soils
Under Alternative 2, the intensity of development would remain the same as under the project but the intensity of construction for the Newell Drive overcrossing would be reduced. Ground disturbance would be reduced for Alternative 2 because an at-grade crossing would disturb less area than an overcrossing. Under Alternative 2, construction or ground disturbance for development could expose and loosen soils and result in erosion. However, this would be slightly less of an impact compared to the project because Alternative 2 would disturb less soils and would require less ground disturbance.
There would be no difference in impacts between an at-grade crossing (Alternative 2) and an overcrossing (project) for impacts related to the buildout of future development. For the same reasons as the project, impacts on geology and soils (i.e., seismic impacts, expansive soils, liquefaction, paleontological resources) from the buildout of future development under Alternative 598
Alternatives
Draft Environmental Impact Report 6-5
2 would be reduced to a less than significant level after application of existing regulations (including the California Building Code and the American Canyon Municipal Code) and Mitigation Measure GEO-1, GEO-2, and HYD-1. Overall, the impacts on geology soils would be reduced by Alternative 2 due to the reduced potential for erosion. Nonetheless, Alternative 2 would have the same less than significant with mitigation CEQA conclusion as the project. h. Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Under Alternative 2, temporary construction-related greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from grading and other construction would be lower than the project since an at-grade crossing would require a shorter construction duration. However, Alternative 2 would marginally increase GHG emissions from halted vehicles idling during railroad use at the crossing.
Long-term impacts from building operation (energy use, maintenance, and traffic) would be the same as the project. Like the project, Alternative 2 would require compliance with Mitigation Measures GHG-1 through GHG-5, which would require the implementation of GHG reduction measures. Overall, the impacts on GHG emissions would be reduced by Alternative 2 due to less intense construction. Nonetheless, Alternative 2 would have the same less than significant with mitigation CEQA conclusion as the project.
i. Hazards and Hazardous Materials
There would be no difference in impacts between an at-grade crossing (Alternative 2) and an overcrossing (project) for impacts related to the transport, storage, and use of hazardous materials; hazards from existing contamination; and conflicts with an airport land use compatibility plan.
Under Alternative 2, the transport, storage, and use of hazardous materials during construction and operation, such as paints and solvents, would be required to comply with existing hazardous material regulations, similar to the project. Sites containing existing or potential contamination would continue to require remediation and compliance with State and local regulations, as well as Mitigation Measure HAZ-1. Development facilitated by Alternative 2 would not result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the area because development would occur in compliance with the Napa County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan.
Alternative 2 evacuation and emergency response times would increase when emergency or vehicles evacuating during an emergency wait at an at-grade crossing for a train to cross Newell Drive. The American Canyon police and fire station are located south of the project site off Donaldson Way. If a train is crossing Newell Drive, responders from the police and fire station would be able to access the portion of the project site west of the railroad tracks, without having to cross the railroad tracks, using SR 29, Paoli Loop Road, Watson Lane, and the portion of the proposed Newell Drive located west of the railroad crossing. In the future, when Newell Drive is extended as part of the Watson Ranch Specific Plan, responders from the police and fire station would be able to access the portion of the project site east of the railroad tracks using Donaldson Way and the extended Newell Drive. In addition, the wait times from a railroad crossing would be relatively short.
As such, while Alternative 2 would have greater impacts on hazards due to its impacts on emergency access, Alternative 2 would have the same less than significant with mitigation CEQA conclusion as the project.
j. Hydrology and Water Quality
There would be no difference in impacts on hydrology and water quality between an at-grade crossing (Alternative 2) and an overcrossing (project). Like the project, Alternative 2 would be 599
City of American Canyon
Paoli/Watson Lane Annexation
6-6
required to comply to the same regulations related to hydrology and water quality and would also require the implementation of Mitigation Measures HYD-1 and HYD-2, which would require the implementation of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan and Stormwater Control Plan.
Alternative 2 would have the same less than significant with mitigation CEQA conclusion as the project.
k. Land Use and Planning
There would be no difference in impacts on land use and planning between an at-grade crossing (Alternative 2) and an overcrossing (project). Neither the at-grade crossing nor the overcrossing would divide an established community. In addition, there would be no substantial differences in inconsistencies with established plans between an at-grade crossing and overcrossing. Alternative 2 would have the same less than significant CEQA conclusion as the project. l. Noise
Alternative 2 would result in temporary construction related noise and long-term operational noise.
Short-term noise would be reduced for Alternative 2 compared to the project because the at-grade crossing would require less intense construction. For example, the at-grade crossing would not require pile driving. Alternative 2 would, therefore, reduce construction noise compared to the project. Due to the distance from the nearest sensitive receiver to the at-grade crossing (850 feet) and given that pile driving would not occur for Alternative 2, construction noise impacts would be less than significant and would not require the implementation of Mitigation Measure NOI-2. The impacts from construction of the future buildings would, however, be the same as the project and would require the implementation of Mitigation Measure NOI-1. Long-term noise for Alternative 2 would be the same as the project because both would include the same buildout and the same total increase in vehicle trips and because there would be no substantial difference in noise between an at-grade crossing and overcrossing. Like the project, Alternative 2 would require the implementation of Mitigation Measure NOI-3 to reduce potential operational noise impacts from stationary sources. Alternative 2 would result in less construction noise than the project and would result in less than significant impacts after mitigation. m. Population and Housing
There would be no difference in impacts on population and housing between an at-grade crossing (Alternative 2) and an overcrossing (project). Like the project, Alternative 2 would not induce substantial population growth or displace substantial people or housing. Alternative 2 would have the same less than significant CEQA conclusion as the project. n. Public Services and Recreation
Alternative 2 would result in the same emergency calls rate within the city and the same demand for schools, parks, libraries, recreational facilities, or other public services compared to the project.
Alternative 2 would have the same impacts on public services and recreation as the project because it would result in the same magnitude of development.
Alternative 2 would have a greater impact on response times for police and fire services than the project overcrossing because police and fire vehicles would need to wait at an at-grade crossing when a train crosses Newell Drive. While police and fire vehicles would have to wait at the at-grade crossing, this would only occur for a short time and they could use alternative routes. Alternative 2 600
Alternatives
Draft Environmental Impact Report 6-7
would have slightly greater impacts on public services but would have the same less than significant with mitigation CEQA conclusion as the project.
o. Transportation
There would be no difference in impacts on conflicts with policies or ordinances addressing the circulation system of VMT between an at-grade crossing (Alternative 2) and an overcrossing (project). VMT would not be affected by an at-grade crossing or an overcrossing because the crossing design would not increase trip lengths or frequency which are central variables in VMT measurements.
Alternative 2 could result in greater impacts related to increased hazards due to the at-grade crossing design, as well as emergency access. Alternative 2 increases hazards and reduce emergency access due to interaction between vehicles and moving trains. Alternative 2 would be comply with existing federal and state laws governing safety for at-grade crossings, including providing railway signals to avoid vehicle, bicycle, or pedestrian collisions. In addition, while emergency vehicles would have to wait at the at-grade crossing, this would only occur for a short time, and they could use alternative routes, depending on the emergency. As such, impacts from hazards due to a design feature and emergency access would be less than significant for Alternative 2. Overall, the impacts on transportation would be greater for Alternative 2. Nonetheless, Alternative 2 would have the same less than significant CEQA conclusion as the project. p. Tribal Cultural Resources
Under Alternative 2, the intensity of development would remain the same as under the project but the intensity of construction for the Newell Drive overcrossing would be reduced. Ground disturbance would be reduced for Alternative 2 because an at-grade crossing would disturb less area than an overcrossing. Potential impacts on tribal cultural resources would be addressed by the same existing regulations identified for the project, as well as Mitigation Measures CUL-2, through CUL-5. Overall, the impacts on tribal cultural resources would be reduced by Alternative 2.
Alternative 2 would have the same less than significant with mitigation CEQA conclusion as the project.
q. Utilities and Service Systems
There would be no difference in impacts on utilities and service systems between an at-grade crossing (Alternative 2) and an overcrossing (project). Alternative 2 would have the same demand on utilities as the project. Alternative 2 would have the same less than significant CEQA conclusion as the project.
r. Wildfire
Alternative 2 would increase emergency response times in the event of a wildfire because emergency vehicles and evacuating vehicles must wait at an at-grade crossing during a train crossing Newell Drive, whereas these vehicles would not have to wait when using the overcrossing for the project. While emergency vehicles would have to wait at the at-grade crossing, this would only occur for a short time and they could use alternative routes, depending on the emergency.
Alternative 2 would have slightly greater impacts on wildfire, due to its impacts on emergency access. After application of existing regulations and Mitigation Measures WF-1 through WF-4, Alternative 2 would have the same less than significant with mitigation CEQA conclusion as the project.
601
City of American Canyon
Paoli/Watson Lane Annexation
6-8
6.3 Alternative 3: Reduced Buildout
6.3.1 Description
Alternative 3 assumes that buildout would decrease from 80 percent of the project site area to 40 percent. Alternative 3 estimated maximum buildout is shown in Table 6-2. Alternative 3 would reduce environmental impacts due to reduced construction. Alternative 3 would generate fewer employees than the project (refer to Table 6-1). Alternative 3 would configure Newell Drive the same as the project (i.e., an overcrossing over the UPRR). Alternative 3 would accomplish all the project objectives but to a lesser extent than the project.
Table 6-2 Estimated Maximum Buildout for Alternative 3
Land Use Area (Square Feet)
Commercial 247,471
Industrial 348,444
Visitor-Serving/Hotel 94,849
6.3.2 Impact Analysis
a. Aesthetics
Alternative 3 would have slightly less aesthetics impacts because half the land area would be urbanized compared to the Project. Alternative 2 offers no change from the project with respect to the American Canyon Municipal Code and the General Plan goals and policies, which would be required for future development projects. Like the project, impacts to light and glare would be reduced with compliance with Mitigation Measure AES-1 and AES-2, which requires a lighting plan during construction and operation. Overall, the impacts on aesthetics would be reduced by Alternative 3. Nonetheless, Alternative 3 would have the same less than significant with mitigation CEQA conclusion as the project.
b. Agriculture and Forestry Resources
Neither Alternative 3 or the project site would be located on agricultural or forestry lands.
Alternative 3 would have the same no impact CEQA conclusion as the project. c. Air Quality
Alternative 3 would result in temporary construction related air quality emissions and long-term air quality emissions from operation. Short-term emissions would be reduced for Alternative 3 compared to the project because the reduced buildout would require less intense construction. In addition, long-term emissions would be reduced for Alternative 3 compared to the project because the reduced buildout would result in fewer total vehicle trips. In addition, Alternative 3 would have fewer potential sources of toxic air contaminants. Mitigation Measures AQ-1, AQ-2, and AQ-3 would also be required under Alternative 3 to reduce air quality impacts, like the project. While Alternative 3 would result in lower air quality emissions than the project, Alternative 3 would have the less than significant with mitigation CEQA conclusion as the project. 602
Alternatives
Draft Environmental Impact Report 6-9
d. Biological Resources
Under Alternative 3, the intensity of development would be lower, compared to the project and the intensity of construction, including ground disturbance would be reduced for Alternative 3.
Nonetheless, Alternative 3 would be expected to impact the same biological resources as the project (special status wildlife species, migratory birds, waters, and wildlife movement). Like the project, Mitigation Measures BIO-1 through BIO-7 would be required to reduce impacts from Alternative 3. Overall, the impacts on biological resources would be reduced by Alternative 3.
Nonetheless, Alternative 3 would have the same less than significant with mitigation CEQA conclusion as the project.
e. Cultural Resources
Under Alternative 3, the intensity of development would be lower, compared to the project and the intensity of construction, including ground disturbance would be reduced for Alternative 3.
Nonetheless, Alternative 3 would be expected to impact the same cultural resources as the project.
Potential impacts to cultural resources or human remains would be addressed by the same regulations identified for the project, including California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5, California Public Resources Code Section 5097.98, and the American Canyon Municipal Code. To further strengthen protection of cultural resources, implementation of Mitigation Measures CUL-1 through CUL-5 would be required for Alternative 3. Overall, the impacts on cultural resources would be reduced by Alternative 3. Nonetheless, Alternative 3 would have the same less than significant with mitigation CEQA conclusion as the project.
f. Energy
Because Alternative 3 would be developed at the half of the intensity as the project, energy use for construction and operation of this alternative would be lower. Alternative 3 would comply with the same regulations identified for the project and would also require the implementation of Mitigation Measures GHG-4 and GHG-5, which would improve energy efficiency and require use of carbon-free electric sources. Overall, Alternative 3 would have a reduced energy impact, compared to the project. Nonetheless, Alternative 3 would have the same less than significant with mitigation CEQA conclusion as the project.
g. Geology & Soils
Under Alternative 3, the intensity of development would be lower, compared to the project and the intensity of construction, including ground disturbance would be reduced for Alternative 3. Under Alternative 3, construction or ground disturbance for development could expose and loosen soils and result in erosion. However, this would be a reduced impact compared to the project because Alternative 3 would disturb less soils and would require less ground disturbance.
There would be no difference in impacts between this reduced buildout alternative (Alternative 3) and the project for impacts related to the buildout of future development. For the same reasons as the project, impacts on geology and soils (i.e., seismic impacts, expansive soils, liquefaction, paleontological resources) from the buildout of future development under Alternative 3 would be reduced to a less than significant level after application of existing regulations (including the California Building Code and the American Canyon Municipal Code) and Mitigation Measure GEO-1, GEO-2, and HYD-1. Overall, the impacts on geology soils would be reduced by Alternative 3 due to 603
City of American Canyon
Paoli/Watson Lane Annexation
6-10
the reduced potential for erosion. Nonetheless, Alternative 3 would have the same less than significant with mitigation CEQA conclusion as the project. h. Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Alternative 3 would result in temporary construction related GHG emissions and long-term GHG impacts from building operation (energy use, maintenance, and traffic). Short-term emissions would be reduced for Alternative 3 compared to the project because the reduced buildout would require less intense construction. In addition, long-term emissions would be reduced for Alternative 3 compared to the project because the reduced buildout would require less energy for the smaller buildings and would also result in fewer total vehicle trips that use fuel. Alternative 3 would comply with the same regulations and policies of the project and would also implement Mitigation Measures GHG-1 through GHG-5, which would require the implementation of GHG reduction measures. Overall, the impacts on GHG emissions would be reduced by Alternative 3 due to less intense construction and a reduced buildout. For the same reasons as the project, impacts on GHG emissions for Alternative 3 would be less than significant. i. Hazards and Hazardous Materials
There would be no difference in impacts between Alternative 3 and the project for impacts related to the transport, storage, and use of hazardous materials; hazards from existing contamination; emergency response; and conflicts with an airport land use compatibility plan. Under Alternative 3, the transport, storage, and use of hazardous materials during construction and operation, such as paints and solvents, would be required to comply with existing hazardous material regulations, similar to the project. Sites containing existing or potential contamination would continue to require remediation and compliance with State and local regulations, as well as Mitigation Measure HAZ-1.
Compliance with policies within the General Plan, the Napa County Hazard Mitigation Plan, the American Canyon Municipal Code, and applicable emergency response plans would ensure that development facilitated by Alternative 3 would not increase risk of exposure to hazardous materials and would not impair or interfere with implementation of evacuation or emergency response plans.
Development facilitated by Alternative 3 would not result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the area because development would occur in compliance with the Napa County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan. Alternative 3 would have the same less than significant with mitigation CEQA conclusion as the project.
j. Hydrology and Water Quality
Under Alternative 3, hydrology and water quality impacts would be reduced compared to the project because Alternative 3 would reduce buildout area, which generates fewer impervious surfaces than the project. Nonetheless, Alternative 3 would be required to comply with the same regulations as the project. Potential impacts to hydrology and water quality would be addressed by complying with existing regulations, including the American Canyon Municipal Code. In addition, Alternative 3 would implement Mitigation Measures HYD-1 and HYD-2, which would require the implementation of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan and Stormwater Control Plan. Overall, the impacts on hydrology and water quality from Alternative 3 would be reduced compared to the project. Nonetheless, Alternative 3 would have the same less than significant CEQA conclusion as the project.
604
Alternatives
Draft Environmental Impact Report 6-11
k. Land Use and Planning
There would be no difference in impacts on land use and planning between Alternative 3 and the project. In addition, there would be no substantial differences in inconsistencies with established plans between Alternative 3 and the project. Alternative 3 would have the same less than significant CEQA conclusion as the project.
l. Noise
Alternative 3 would result in temporary construction related noise and long-term operational noise.
Short-term noise would be reduced for Alternative 3 compared to the project because the reduced buildout would require less intense construction. In addition, long-term noise would be reduced for Alternative 3 compared to the project because the reduced buildout would result in fewer total vehicle trips and less operation of sources that could generate noise. Nonetheless, while Alternative 3 would result in less construction and operation noise, Alternative 3 would still require the implementation of Mitigation Measures NOI-1, NOI-2, and NOI-3. Like the project, Alternative 3 would result in less than significant noise impacts after mitigation. While Alternative 3 would result in lower noise than the project, Alternative 3 would have the same less than significant with mitigation CEQA conclusion as the project.
m. Population and Housing
There would be no difference in impacts on population and housing between Alternative 3 or the project. Like the project, Alternative 3 would not induce substantial population growth or displace substantial people or housing. Alternative 3 would have the same less than significant CEQA conclusion as the project.
n. Public Services and Recreation
Due to the reduced buildout associated with Alternative 3, this alternative would result in fewer emergency calls and a reduced demand for police services, fire services, schools, parks, libraries, or other public services compared to the project. Overall, the impacts on public services and recreations from Alternative 3 would be reduced compared to the project. Nonetheless, Alternative 3 would have the same less than significant with mitigation CEQA conclusion as the project. o. Transportation
Alternative 3 is expected to result in similar impacts related to consistency with circulation plans, hazards due to a design feature, and emergency access. In addition, Alternative 3 would generate fewer jobs than the project due to the reduced buildout. Because there would be fewer total jobs, then there would be fewer total vehicle trips and total VMT would be less than the VMT of the project. The VMT per employee for Alternative 3 is expected to be the same as the project because employees under both the project and Alternative 3 scenario are likely to have similar travel patterns (i.e., employees would travel to work from similar origin destinations). As such, VMT impacts for Alternative 3 would be the same as the project. Overall, the impacts on transportation from Alternative 3 would be the same as the project and Alternative 3 would have the same less than significant CEQA conclusion as the project.
605
City of American Canyon
Paoli/Watson Lane Annexation
6-12
p. Tribal Cultural Resources
Under Alternative 3, the development area would be reduced, compared to the project and the intensity of construction, including ground disturbance would be reduced for Alternative 3.
Nonetheless, Alternative 3 would be expected to impact the same tribal cultural resources as the project. Potential impacts on tribal cultural resources would be addressed by Mitigation Measures CUL-2 through CUL-5. Overall, the impacts on tribal cultural resources would be reduced by Alternative 3. Nonetheless, Alternative 3 would have the same less than significant CEQA conclusion as the project.
q. Utilities and Service Systems
Due to the reduced buildout associated with Alternative 3, this alternative would result in a reduced demand on utilities, including water, wastewater, electricity, natural gas, telecommunications, and solid waste services. Overall, the impacts on utilities and service systems from Alternative 3 would be reduced compared to the project. Nonetheless, Alternative 3 would have the same less than significant CEQA conclusion as the project.
r. Wildfire
There would be no substantial difference in impacts between Alternative 3 and the project related to wildfire because both would result in buildout at the same location. The reduced buildout associated with Alternative 3 would not substantially change the potential wildfire impacts identified for the project. For the same reasons as the project, wildfire impacts from the buildout of future development under Alternative 3 would be reduced to a less than significant level after application of existing regulations and Mitigation Measures WF-1 through WF-4. Overall, the wildfire impact from Alternative 3 would be similar to the project. Alternative 3 would have the same less than significant with mitigation CEQA conclusion as the project.
6.4 Alternative 4: Watson Lane Reconfiguration
6.4.1 Description
Alternative 4 assumes that the Newell Drive extension would not extend north of Watson Lane, and that travelers would instead utilize Watson Lane and Paoli Loop Road for travel between Newell Drive and SR 29, and between Newell Drive and the planned extension of South Kelly Road.
Alternative 4 would utilize an existing at-grade crossing of the UPRR tracks on Watson Lane, instead of an overcrossing.
Under Alternative 4, the existing at-grade crossing on Watson Lane would be modernized to accommodate increased travel. Improvements would include expanding Watson Lane to meet City standards for a major collector street, consistent with the planned configuration for the proposed Newell Drive extension, which requires an 80-foot right-of-way width to accommodate two motor vehicle lanes (one per direction), bicycle lanes, sidewalks and landscape strips on both sides, with a raised center median. Figure 6-1 shows the approximate width of the right-of-way that would be anticipated along Watson Lane under Alternative 4, including a focused view of the at-grade crossing.
606
Alternatives
Draft Environmental Impact Report 6-13
Figure 6-1 Configuration of Watson Lane under Alternative 4 607
City of American Canyon
Paoli/Watson Lane Annexation
6-14
Additional improvements near the at-grade crossing for Alternative 4 would include providing railroad crossing gates and flashers, as well as raising the elevation of Watson Lane to reduce changes in elevation near the railroad tracks. Under existing conditions, the railroad tracks are approximately 8 feet higher than the adjacent portion of Watson Lane to the west of the tracks and approximately 2 feet higher than the adjacent portion of Watson Lane to the east of the tracks, with an abrupt change in elevation on Watson Lane near the tracks. To the west, Watson Lane continues to slope downward, with an estimated 2 percent downward slope towards Paoli Loop Road. The elevation of Watson Lane would thus be raised to provide a roughly level segment within 30 feet of edge of rail in both directions, consistent with applicable guidelines, and to provide gently sloping approaches for up to approximately 500 feet to the west of the tracks, and approximately 100 feet to the east of the tracks. The total extent of potential fill to raise the elevation of Watson Lane would extend approximately 670 feet (west to east).
Development would occur with the same intensity and land uses as described in Chapter 2, Project Description, and buildout totals would remain unchanged. Like Alternative 2, Alternative 4 would increase the total developable industrial and Town Center square footage, since elimination of the proposed grade-separated crossing requires less area, but this increase in development area would not be substantial and would not alter the programmatic analysis of this alternative. Therefore, the estimated change in square footage is not quantified.
Alternative 4 would achieve most of the project objectives while reducing the intensity of construction required for an overcrossing as compared to an at-grade crossing. Alternative 4 would not meet the objective of extending Newell Drive. Buildout of Alternative 2 would result in the same buildout as the project (refer to Table 6-1) but would decrease construction intensity related to the Watson Lane roadway reconfiguration.
6.4.2 Impact Analysis
a. Aesthetics
Alternative 4 would have slightly less aesthetics impacts because it results in less overhead roadway structure. Alternative 4 would not require the installation of the overcrossing over the UPRR railroad tracks. Alternative 4 offers no change from the project with respect to the American Canyon Municipal Code and the General Plan goals and policies, which would be required for future development projects. Development would occur at a similar intensity and in the same location as the project and impacts to scenic vistas, scenic highways, and scenic quality, would remain the same under Alternative 4. Like the project, impacts to light and glare would be reduced with compliance with Mitigation Measure AES-1 and AES-2, which requires a lighting plan during construction and operation. Overall, the impacts on aesthetics would be reduced by Alternative 4. Nonetheless, Alternative 4 would have the same less than significant with mitigation CEQA conclusion as the project.
b. Agriculture and Forestry Resources
Neither the Newell Drive extension for the project or the Watson Lane reconfiguration for Alternative 4 would be located on agricultural or forestry lands. Alternative 4 would have the same no impact CEQA conclusion as the project.
608
Alternatives
Draft Environmental Impact Report 6-15
c. Air Quality
Under Alternative 4, temporary construction-related air quality impacts from grading and construction would be reduced due to the reduced intensity of construction for an at-grade crossing compared to an overcrossing. Construction of an overcrossing requires more intensive construction activities and associated criteria air pollutants than an at-grade crossing. However, Alternative 4 would still require intensive construction related to the roadway expansion of Watson Lane and the importing of fill to raise the elevation along 670 feet of Watson Lane. Long-term air quality impacts from building operation (energy usage, maintenance) would be the same as the project. Similarly, odor impacts from Alternative 4 would be similar to the impacts of the project. Mitigation Measures AQ-1, AQ-2, and AQ-3 would also be required under Alternative 4 to reduce construction-related criteria air pollutants impacts, as well as toxic air contaminant and particulate matter impacts.
Overall, the impacts on air quality from construction would be reduced by Alternative 4.
Nonetheless, Alternative 4 would have the same less than significant with mitigation CEQA conclusion as the project.
d. Biological Resources
Under Alternative 4, the intensity of development would remain the same as under the project but the intensity of construction for the roadway (Watson Lane reconfiguration instead of Newell Drive extension and overcrossing) would be reduced. The widening of Watson Lane to 80 feet and the atgrade UPRR crossing, would require less ground disturbance than the proposed Newell Drive extension. Ground disturbance for the Alternative 4 roadway would occur primarily within already developed areas, would avoid the crossing of North Slough, and would not inhibit wildlife movement. Nonetheless, Alternative 4 would be expected to impact similar biological resources as the project (special status wildlife species, migratory birds, waters, and wildlife movement). Like the project, Mitigation Measures BIO-1 through BIO-7 would be required to reduce impacts from Alternative 4. Overall, the impacts on biological resources would be reduced by Alternative 4.
Nonetheless, Alternative 4 would have the same less than significant with mitigation CEQA conclusion as the project.
e. Cultural Resources
Under Alternative 4, the intensity of development would remain the same as under the project but the intensity of construction for the roadway would be reduced. The roadway improvements for Alternative 4 would require less ground disturbance than extension of Newell Drive and construction of an overcrossing. Additionally, ground disturbance for the Alternative 4 roadway would occur primarily within already developed areas and would avoid the crossing of North Slough.
Nonetheless, Alternative 4 would be expected to impact similar cultural resources as the project.
Potential impacts to cultural resources or human remains would be addressed by the same regulations identified for the project, including California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5, California Public Resources Code Section 5097.98, and the American Canyon Municipal Code. To further strengthen protection of cultural resources, implementation of Mitigation Measures CUL-1 through CUL-5 would be required for Alternative 4. Overall, the impacts on cultural resources would be reduced by Alternative 4. Nonetheless, Alternative 4 would have the same less than significant with mitigation CEQA conclusion as the project.
609
City of American Canyon
Paoli/Watson Lane Annexation
6-16
f. Energy
Alternative 4 would use less energy than the project because construction of the Alternative 4 roadway would be reduced and would require less equipment and less fuel. Operational energy use would remain the same as the project and would require the implementation of Mitigation Measures GHG-4 and GHG-5, which would improve energy efficiency and require use of carbon-free electric sources. Overall, Alternative 4 would have fewer energy impacts than the project and impacts would be reduced compared to the project. Nonetheless, Alternative 4 would have the same less than significant with mitigation CEQA conclusion as the project. g. Geology & Soils
Under Alternative 4, the intensity of development would remain the same as under the project but the intensity of construction for the Alternative 4 roadway would be reduced. Ground disturbance would be reduced for Alternative 4 because an at-grade crossing would disturb less area than an overcrossing. Under Alternative 4, construction or ground disturbance for development could expose and loosen soils and result in erosion. However, this would be less of an impact compared to the project because Alternative 4 would disturb less soils and would require less ground disturbance.
There would be no difference in impacts between an at-grade crossing at Watson Lane (Alternative 4) and an overcrossing at the Newell Drive extension (project) for impacts related to the buildout of future development. For the same reasons as the project, impacts on geology and soils (i.e., seismic impacts, expansive soils, liquefaction, paleontological resources) from the buildout of future development under Alternative 4 would be reduced to a less than significant level after application of existing regulations (including the California Building Code and the American Canyon Municipal Code) and Mitigation Measure GEO-1, GEO-2, and HYD-1. Overall, the impacts on geology soils would be reduced by Alternative 4 due to the reduced potential for erosion. Nonetheless, Alternative 4 would have the same less than significant with mitigation CEQA conclusion as the project.
h. Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Under Alternative 4, temporary construction-related GHG emissions from grading and other construction would be lower than the project since roadway construction duration would be shorter. However, Alternative 4 would marginally increase operational GHG emissions from halted vehicles idling during railroad use at the at-grade crossing.
Long-term impacts from building operation (energy use, maintenance, and traffic) would be the same as the project. Like the project, Alternative 4 would require compliance with Mitigation Measures GHG-1 through GHG-5, which would require the implementation of GHG reduction measures. Overall, the impacts on GHG emissions would be reduced by Alternative 4 due to less intense construction. Nonetheless, Alternative 4 would have the same less than significant with mitigation CEQA conclusion as the project.
i. Hazards and Hazardous Materials
There would be no difference in impacts between an at-grade crossing at the Watson Lane reconfiguration (Alternative 4) and an overcrossing at the Newell Drive extension (project) for impacts related to the transport, storage, and use of hazardous materials; hazards from existing contamination; and conflicts with an airport land use compatibility plan. Under Alternative 4, the 610
Alternatives
Draft Environmental Impact Report 6-17
transport, storage, and use of hazardous materials during construction and operation, such as paints and solvents, would be required to comply with existing hazardous material regulations, similar to the project. Sites containing existing or potential contamination would continue to require remediation and compliance with State and local regulations, as well as Mitigation Measure HAZ-1.
Development facilitated by Alternative 4 would not result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the area because development would occur in compliance with the Napa County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan.
Under Alternative 4, emergency vehicles would periodically have to cross the at-grade railroad crossing at Watson Lane. There is already an existing at-grade crossing at Watson Lane; therefore, the conditions associated with Alternative 4 related to emergency vehicles crossing railroad tracks would not be substantially different compared to existing conditions. Nonetheless, compared to the project, Alternative 4 evacuation and emergency response times would be greater than the proposed overcrossing due to emergency vehicles having to potentially wait at an at-grade crossing for a train to cross Watson Lane. The American Canyon police and fire station are located south of the project site off Donaldson Way. If a train is crossing Watson Lane, responders from the police and fire station would be able to access the portion of the project site west of the railroad tracks, without having to cross the railroad tracks, using SR 29, Paoli Loop Road, and Watson Lane. In the future, when Newell Drive is extended as part of the Watson Ranch Specific Plan, responders from the police and fire station would be able to access the portion of the project site east of the railroad tracks using Donaldson Way and the extended Newell Drive. In addition, the wait times from a railroad crossing would be relatively short. As such, while Alternative 4 would have greater impacts on hazards due to its impacts on emergency access, Alternative 4 would have the same less than significant with mitigation CEQA conclusion as the project. j. Hydrology and Water Quality
Alternative 4 would have slightly reduced impacts on hydrology and water quality compared to the project because Alternative 4 would avoid the roadway crossing over North Slough. Nonetheless, like the project, Alternative 4 would be required to comply to the same regulations related to hydrology and water quality and would also require the implementation of Mitigation Measures HYD-1 and HYD-2, which would require the implementation of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan and Stormwater Control Plan. Alternative 4 would have the same less than significant with mitigation CEQA conclusion as the project.
k. Land Use and Planning
Alternative 4 would require the widening of Watson Lane to 80 feet. This roadway widening would encroach on existing private properties and would require the take of portions of impacted properties. It is expected that this roadway widening would not require the displacement of residences located along Watson Lane; however, portions of those properties (i.e., driveways, yards, or landscaped areas) would need to be taken in order to accommodate the roadway widening envisioned by Alternative. In addition, the Alternative 4 roadway configuration would be inconsistent with the City’s General Plan Circulation Element, which identifies the Newell Drive Extension.
Alternative 4 is not expected to result in the displacement of any residences and Watson Lane is an existing roadway. The take of properties associated with the Alternative 4 roadway is not expected to result in the division of an established community and Alternative 4 would have the same no CEQA impact as the project. The project would result in greater conflicts with the General Plan, due 611
City of American Canyon
Paoli/Watson Lane Annexation
6-18
to the Alternative 4’s inconsistency with the Circulation Element. Nonetheless, this conflict would not result in any additional physical impacts on the environment beyond those already identified in this analysis. As such, Alternative 4 would have the same less than significant CEQA conclusion as the project.
While the CEQA impacts would remain the same, Alternative 4 is expected to result in more land use impacts than the project due to the fact that Alternative 4 would require the take of properties. l. Noise
Alternative 4 would result in temporary construction related noise and long-term operational noise.
Long-term noise for Alternative 4 would be the same as the project because both would include the same buildout and the same total increase in vehicle trips. There would be no substantial difference in noise between an at-grade crossing at Watson Lane and an overcrossing at the Newell Drive extension. Like the project, Alternative 4 would require the implementation of Mitigation Measure NOI-3 to reduce potential operational noise impacts from stationary sources and would result in a less than significant with mitigation impact (for long-term impacts). Short-term construction noise impacts would be greater for Alternative 4 compared to the project. While Alternative 4 would result in less intense construction (i.e., Alternative 4 would not require pile driving), construction for Alternative 4 would occur closer to sensitive receivers than for the project. Residences along Watson Lane would be located adjacent to where construction for the Alternative 4 roadway would occur. Alternative 4 would implement Mitigation Measure NOI-1 to reduce construction noise. Like the project, Alternative 4 is expected to reduce construction impacts to a less than significant level after mitigation; however, due to the proximity of construction to sensitive receivers, Alternative 4 would have a greater noise impact during construction than the project. m. Population and Housing
There would be no difference in impacts on population and housing between Alternative 4 and the project. Like the project, Alternative 4 would not induce substantial population growth or displace substantial people or housing. Alternative 4 would have the same less than significant CEQA conclusion as the project.
n. Public Services and Recreation
Alternative 4 would result in the same emergency calls rate within the city and the same demand for schools, parks, libraries, recreational facilities, or other public services compared to the project.
Alternative 4 would have the same impacts on public services and recreation as the project because it would result in the same magnitude of development.
Alternative 4 would have a greater impact on response times for police and fire services than the project overcrossing because police and fire vehicles would need to wait at an at-grade crossing when a train crosses Watson Lane. While police and fire vehicles would have to wait at the at-grade crossing, this would only occur for a short time, and they could use alternative routes. Alternative 4 would have slightly greater impacts on public services but would have the same less than significant with mitigation CEQA conclusion as the project.
o. Transportation
Alternative 4 would include a reconfiguration of Watson Lane instead of the proposed Newell Drive extension. This would conflict with the City’s existing General Plan Circulation Element, which 612
Alternatives
Draft Environmental Impact Report 6-19
identifies the Newell Drive Extension. The project would result in greater conflicts with the General Plan, due to the Alternative 4’s inconsistency with the Circulation Element. Nonetheless, this conflict would not result in any additional physical impacts on the environment beyond those already identified in this analysis. As such, Alternative 4 would have the same less than significant CEQA conclusion as the project related to consistency with plans. VMT would not be affected by an atgrade crossing or an overcrossing because the crossing design would not increase trip lengths or frequency which are central variables in VMT measurements.
Alternative 4 could result in greater impacts related to increased hazards due to the at-grade crossing design, as well as emergency access. Alternative 4 increases hazards and reduced emergency access due to interaction between vehicles and moving trains. Alternative 4 would comply with existing federal and state laws governing safety for at-grade crossings, including providing railway signals to avoid vehicle, bicycle, or pedestrian collisions. In addition, while emergency vehicles would have to wait at the at-grade crossing, this would only occur for a short time, and they could use alternative routes, depending on the emergency. As such, impacts from hazards due to a design feature and emergency access would be less than significant for Alternative
4. Overall, the impacts on transportation would be greater for Alternative 4. Nonetheless, Alternative 4 would have the same less than significant CEQA conclusion as the project. p. Tribal Cultural Resources
Under Alternative 4, the intensity of development would remain the same as under the project but the intensity of construction for the roadway would be reduced. The roadway improvements for Alternative 4 would require less ground disturbance than extension of Newell Drive and construction of an overcrossing. Additionally, ground disturbance for the Alternative 4 roadway would occur primarily within already developed areas and would avoid the crossing of North Slough.
Potential impacts on tribal cultural resources would be addressed by the same existing regulations identified for the project, as well as Mitigation Measures CUL-2, through CUL-5. Overall, the impacts on tribal cultural resources would be reduced by Alternative 4. Alternative 4 would have the same less than significant with mitigation CEQA conclusion as the project. q. Utilities and Service Systems
There would be no difference in impacts on utilities and service systems between Alternative 4 and the project. Alternative 4 would have the same demand on utilities as the project. Alternative 4 would have the same less than significant CEQA conclusion as the project. r. Wildfire
Alternative 4 would increase emergency response times in the event of a wildfire because emergency vehicles and evacuating vehicles must wait at an at-grade crossing during a train crossing Watson Lane, whereas these vehicles would not have to wait when using the overcrossing for the project. While emergency vehicles would have to wait at the at-grade crossing, this would only occur for a short time and they could use alternative routes, depending on the emergency.
Alternative 4 would have slightly greater impacts on wildfire, due to its impacts on emergency access. After application of existing regulations and Mitigation Measures WF-1 through WF-4, Alternative 4 would have the same less than significant with mitigation CEQA conclusion as the project.
613
City of American Canyon
Paoli/Watson Lane Annexation
6-20
6.5 Alternatives Considered but Rejected
This section summarizes those alternatives considered, but ultimately rejected for inclusion in the analysis as they would not meet most of the project objectives, would not substantially reduce impacts compared to the proposed project, or were determined to be infeasible.
The City considered an alternative that would include residential development on the project site.
However, this alternative would conflict with allowable uses within Zone D of the Napa County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan, as discussed in Section 4.9, Hazards and Hazardous Materials.
Therefore, this scenario was rejected from further consideration.
The City considered annexing the project site, but not changing land use designations, such that the northern portion designated for agriculture, as shown on Figure 2-3 in Section 2, Project Description, would remain in agricultural use instead of being converted to industrial uses. This alternative was rejected considering that the land had no historically been used for agriculture and surrounding land uses were already in industrial use. Additionally, this alternative would not serve the project objectives.
6.6 Environmentally Superior Alternative
CEQA requires identification of the environmentally superior alternative among the alternatives to the proposed project. The environmentally superior alternative must be an alternative that reduces some of the project’s environmental impacts, regardless of the financial costs associated.
Identification of the environmentally superior alternative is an informational procedure and the alternative identified as the environmentally superior alternative may not be that which best meets the goals or needs of the proposed project. Table 6-3 indicates whether each alternative’s environmental impact is greater than (in red), less than (in green), or similar to that of the project for each of the issue areas studied.
Based on the analysis of alternatives in this section, the No Project Alternative is the environmentally superior alternative as it would lessen the severity of every impact of the project.
However, this alternative would not meet the project objectives, including those related to facilitating the development of land planned for business park/industrial uses to its highest and best use; positively contributing to the local economy; providing the City of American Canyon with a high-quality, employment-generating industrial development; serving local and regional demand for manufacturing, logistics warehouse, and other industrial uses; and extending Newell Drive to augment north-south travel parallel to SR 29. Finally, it should be noted that the northern portions of the project site are planned for industrial use by the Napa County General Plan. Taken together with the need to extend Newell Drive, should the proposed project not advance, it would be expected that another industrial development proposal would be submitted.
If the No Project Alternative is determined to avoid or reduce more impacts than any other alternative, CEQA requires that the EIR identify an environmentally superior alternative among the other alternatives (CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6[e]). Of the other alternatives evaluated in this EIR, Alternative 3 would be the environmentally superior alternative.
Second to the No Project Alternative, Alternative 3 is the environmentally superior alternative as it would reduce the severity of 12 impacts (aesthetics, air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, energy, geology and soils, GHG emissions, hydrology and water quality, noise, public services and recreation, tribal cultural resources, and utilities and service systems) compared to the 614
Alternatives
Draft Environmental Impact Report 6-21
project. Alternative 3 would meet the project objectives identified in Section 2, Project Description, as it would provide additional acreage for industrial uses and facilitate development of the Newell Drive extension. However, it should be noted that Alternative 3 would meet the project objectives to a reduced extent because it would provide lower buildout opportunities.
Like Alternative 3, Alternative 2 would generally result in similar or incrementally decreased environmental impacts compared to the project and meet all project objectives. Alternative 2 would reduce the severity of nine impacts (aesthetics, air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, energy, geology and soils, GHG emissions, noise, tribal cultural resources) due to reduced construction intensity. However Alternative 2 would increase the severity of four impacts (hazards, public services, transportation, and wildfire) due to potential conflicts between evacuating and emergency vehicles and train traffic. In addition, Alternative 2 may not be feasible depending on coordination with UPRR and the CPUC. Coordination with UPRR and the CPUC would be required for either an at-grade crossing or an overcrossing; however, both the UPRR and the CPUC prefer implementing overcrossings instead of at-grade crossings due to safety and other reasons.
In comparing the proposed project and Alternatives 2 through 4, Alternative 4 would result in the greatest environmental impacts. Alternative 4 would reduce the severity of eight impacts (aesthetics, air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, energy, geology and soils, GHG emissions, hydrology and water quality, and tribal cultural resources) due to reduced construction intensity. While the Watson Lane roadway widening for Alternative 4 would have reduced construction intensity compared to the project, the roadway widening for Alternative 4 would have a greater construction intensity compared to the at-grade crossing for Alternative 2. This is due to the fill that would be required for the Watson Lane at-grade crossing, in order to raise the elevation along 670 feet of Watson Lane. Alternative 4 would increase the severity of impacts for six environmental resources. Like the at-grade crossing for Alternative 2, the at-grade crossing along Watson Lane associated with Alternative 4 would increase the severity of hazards, public services, transportation, and wildfire due to potential conflicts between evacuating and emergency vehicles and train traffic. Alternative 4 would also increase the impacts for land use and planning due to Alternative 4’s inconsistency with the existing General Plan Circulation Element, which identifies the Newell Drive extension as the proposed roadway alignment. Alternative 4 would also result in greater construction noise impacts due to the increased proximity of construction to residences.
Furthermore, unlike the proposed project or Alternative 2 and 3, Alterative 4 would require the take of portions of private residences located along Watson Lane. For all these reasons, Alternative 4 would result in the greatest environmental impacts.
615
City of American Canyon
Paoli/Watson Lane Annexation
6-22
Table 6-3 Comparison of Alternative’s Impacts
Issue Project
Alternative 1:
No Project
Alternative 2:
At-Grade Newell
Drive Crossing
Alternative 3:
Reduced
Buildout
Alternative 4:
Watson Lane
Reconfiguration
Aesthetics LTSM NI (+) LTSM (+) LTSM (+) LTSM (+)
Agricultural and Forestry
Resources
NI NI (+) NI (=) NI (=) NI (=)
Air Quality LTSM NI (+) LTSM (+) LTSM (+) LTSM (+)
Biological Resources LTSM NI (+) LTSM (+) LTSM (+) LTSM (+) Cultural Resources LTSM NI (+) LTSM (+) LTSM (+) LTSM (+) Energy LTSM NI (+) LTSM (+) LTSM (+) LTSM (+)
Geology and Soils LTSM NI (+) LTSM (+) LTSM (+) LTSM (+) Greenhouse Gas
Emissions
SU NI (+) SU (+) SU (+) SU (+)
Hazards and Hazardous
Materials
LTSM NI (+) LTSM (-) LTSM (=) LTSM (-)
Hydrology and Water
Quality
LTS NI (+) LTS (=) LTS (+) LTS (+)
Land Use and Planning LTS NI (+) LTS (=) LTS (=) LTS (-) Noise LTSM NI (+) LTSM (+) LTSM (+) LTSM (-)
Population and Housing LTS NI (+) LTS (=) LTS (=) LTS (=) Public Services and
Recreation
LTSM NI (+) LTSM (-) LTSM LTSM (-)
Transportation LTS NI (+) LTS (-) LTS (=) LTS (-)
Tribal Cultural Resources LTSM NI (+) LTSM (+) LTSM (+) LTSM (+) Utilities and Service
Systems
LTS NI (+) LTS (=) LTS (+) LTS (=)
Wildfire LTSM NI (+) LTSM (-) LTSM (=) LTSM (-)
NI = No Impact; LTS = Less than Significant; LTSM = Less than Significant with Mitigation; SU = Significant and Unavoidable
Green: + Superior to the proposed project (reduced level of impact) Red: - Inferior to the proposed project (increased level of impact) No color: = Similar level of impact to the project
616
References and List of Preparers
Draft Environmental Impact Report 7-1
7 References and List of Preparers
7.1 Bibliography
Project Description
City of American Canyon. 2018. City of American Canyon General Circulation Element. Updated October 16, 2018. Available at:
https://lf.cityofamericancanyon.org/WebLink/Browse.aspx?id=46453&dbid=1&repo=Ameri canCanyon (accessed December 2022).
Napa County LAFCo. 2020. Napa Countywide Water and Wastewater Municipal Service Review Final. Approved November 2, 2020 (accessed August 2022).
Environmental Setting
Weatherbase. 2022. American Canyon, California.
https://www.weatherbase.com/weather/weather.php3?s=85241&cityname=American+Can yon%2C+California%2C+United+States+of+America (accessed October 2022).
Aesthetics
California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). 2008. Scenic Highway Guidelines. https://dot.ca.gov/-/media/dot-media/programs/design/documents/scenic-hwy-guidelines04-12-2012.pdf (accessed October 2022) ______.2018. California State Scenic Highway System Map. https://caltrans.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=465dfd3d807c46cc8e 8057116f1aacaa (accessed October 2022)
______.2022. Scenic Highways. https://dot.ca.gov/programs/design/lap-landscape-architectureand-community-livability/lap-liv-i-scenic-highways (accessed November 2022).
City of American Canyon. 1994. City of American Canyon General Plan 1994. Available at:
https://lf.cityofamericancanyon.org/WebLink/Browse.aspx?id=46471&dbid=1&repo=Ameri canCanyon (accessed August 2022).
______.2016. Napa Airport Corporate Center Draft Environmental Impact Report. State Clearinghouse Number 2014122005.
______.2018. Watson Ranch Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report. State Clearinghouse Number 2015022030. July.
Agriculture and Forestry Resources
City of American Canyon. 2018. Watson Ranch Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report.
State Clearinghouse Number 2015022030. July.
County of Napa. 2022. Napa County Online Public Map.
https://gis.countyofnapa.org/portal/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=0bbafe490c58430d a719ff851c78b7fa (accessed September 2022).
617
City of American Canyon
Paoli/Watson Lane Annexation
7-2
______.2021. Napa County Agricultural Crop Report 2021. https://www.countyofnapa.org/DocumentCenter/View/25200/2021-Agricultural-CropReport-English-PDF?bidId= (accessed September 2022). ______. 2015. Napa County Zoning. As of 01/23/2015. Available:
https://www.countyofnapa.org/DocumentCenter/View/8436/Napa-County-ZoningMap?bidId= (accessed November 2022). ______. 2013. Agricultural Preservation and Land Use Element. June 4, 2013. https://www.countyofnapa.org/DocumentCenter/View/3331/Agricultural-Preservationand-Land-Use-Element-PDF (accessed September 2022).
California Department of Conservation (DOC). 2019a. Farmland Mapping & Monitoring Program. https://www.conservation.ca.gov/dlrp/fmmp/ (accessed September 2022). ______. 2019b. Land Conservation (Williamson) Act.
https://www.conservation.ca.gov/dlrp/wa/Pages/LCA_QandA.aspx (accessed September 2022).
______. 2018. California Important Farmland Finder. https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/DLRP/CIFF/ (accessed September 2022).
Environmental Risk Information Services. 2022. Paoli Loop Annexation Historical Aerials. July 19, 2022.
PBED (County of Napa Planning, Building, and Environmental Services Department. 2018. Napa Co.
Agricultural Contracts. May 24, 2018.
https://gis.napa.ca.gov/giscatalog/viewXML.asp?Name=planning.gis.ag_contracts_public& meta_style=fgdc (accessed October 2022).
Air Quality
Association of Bay Area Governments. 2021. Plan Bay Area 2050. October 2021. https://www.planbayarea.org/sites/default/files/documents/Plan_Bay_Area_2050_October _2021.pdf (accessed November 2022).
Bay Area Air Quality Management District. 2016. Air Toxics NSR Program Health Risk Assessment Guidelines. December. https://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/files/planning-andresearch/permit-modeling/hra_guidelines_12_7_2016_clean-pdf.pdf?la=en. (accessed November 2022).
______. 2017a. Air Quality Standards and Attainment Status. Last Updated January 5, 2017. https://www.baaqmd.gov/about-air-quality/research-and-data/air-quality-standards-andattainment-status (accessed November 2022). ______. 2017b. California Environmental Quality Act: Air Quality Guidelines. May. http://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/files/planning-andresearch/ceqa/ceqa_guidelines_may2017-pdf.pdf?la=en (accessed November 2022). ______. 2017c. Spare the Air Cool the Climate Final 2017 Clean Air Plan. April. https://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/files/planning-and-research/plans/2017-clean-airplan/attachment-a_-proposed-final-cap-vol-1-pdf.pdf?la=en (accessed November 2022). 618
References and List of Preparers
Draft Environmental Impact Report 7-3
California Air Resource Board (CARB). 2005. Air Quality and Land Use Handbook: A Community Health Perspective. Available at: https://www.arb.ca.gov/ch/handbook.pdf (accessed November 2022).
______. 2011. Health Effects of Diesel Exhaust. http://www.arb.ca.gov/research/diesel/dieselhealth.htm (accessed November 2022). ______. 2016. “Ambient Air Quality Standards.” https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2020- 07/aaqs2.pdf (accessed November 2022).
______. 2019a. “National Ambient Air Quality Standards.” https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/resources/national-ambient-air-quality-standards (accessed November 2022).
______. 2019b. “California Ambient Air Quality Standards.” https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/resources/california-ambient-air-quality-standards (accessed November 2022).
______. 2022a. “Inhalable Particulate Matter and Health (PM2.5 and PM10).” https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/resources/inhalable-particulate-matter-and-health (accessed November 2022).
______. 2022b. “Overview: Diesel Exhaust & Health.” https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/resources/overviewdiesel-exhaust-and-health (accessed November 2022). ______. 2022c. “Top 4 summary: Select Pollutant, Years, & Area.” https://www.arb.ca.gov/adam/topfour/topfour1.php (accessed November 2022).
California Department of Conservation, 2000. A General Location Guide for Ultramafic Rocks in California - Areas More Likely to Contain Naturally Occurring Asbestos. August.
GHD. 2022. Transportation Volumes for Model Scenarios. Watson Lane Project.
Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment. 2015. Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments. https://oehha.ca.gov/air/crnr/noticeadoption-air-toxics-hot-spots-program-guidance-manual-preparation-health-risk-0. (accessed November 2022).
United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2016. “NAAQS Table.” https://www.epa.gov/criteria-air-pollutants/naaqs-table (accessed November 2022). ______. 2020. “Health and Environmental Effects of Hazardous Air Pollutants.” https://www.epa.gov/haps/health-and-environmental-effects-hazardous-air-pollutants (accessed November 2022).
______. 2022a. “Health Effects of Ozone Pollution.” https://www.epa.gov/ground-level-ozonepollution/health-effects-ozone-pollution (accessed November 2022). ______. 2022b. “Basic Information about Carbon Monoxide (CO) Outdoor Air Pollution.” https://www.epa.gov/co-pollution/basic-information-about-carbon-monoxide-co-outdoorair-pollution#Effects (accessed November 2022). ______. 2022c. “Basic Information about NO2.” https://www.epa.gov/no2-pollution/basicinformation-about-no2#Effects (accessed November 2022). ______. 2022d. “Sulfur Dioxide Basics.” https://www.epa.gov/so2-pollution/sulfur-dioxidebasics#effects (accessed November 2022). 619
City of American Canyon
Paoli/Watson Lane Annexation
7-4
Biological Resources
American Canyon, City of. 1994. City of American Canyon General Plan. November 1994. https://lf.cityofamericancanyon.org/WebLink/Browse.aspx?id=46453&dbid=1&repo=Ameri canCanyon (accessed August 2022).
Bechard, M. J., C. S. Houston, J. H. Sarasola, and A. S. England. 2020. Swainson's Hawk (Buteo swainsoni), version 1.0. In Birds of the World (A. F. Poole, Editor). Cornell Lab of Ornithology, Ithaca, NY, USA.
California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). 2022a. Biogeographic Information and Observation System (BIOS). Retrieved August, 2022 from www.wildlife.ca.gov/data/BIOS ______. 2012. Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation. March 7, 2012. https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=83843. Accessed May 2021.
California Native Plant Society. 2022. Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants. V.7-08c-Interim 8- 22-02. Updated online and accessed via: www.rareplants.cnps.org.
City of American Canyon. 2018. Watson Ranch Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report.
State Clearinghouse Number 2015022030. July.
eBird. 2022. eBird: An online database of bird distribution and abundance. eBird, Cornell Lab of Ornithology, Ithaca, New York. Updated online and accessed via: http://www.ebird.org.
Accessed: September, 2022.
Poulin, R. G., L. D. Todd, E. A. Haug, B. A. Millsap, and M. S. Martell. 2011. Burrowing Owl (Athene cunicularia), version 2.0. In The Birds of North America (A. F. Poole, Editor). Cornell Lab of Ornithology, Ithaca, NY, USA.
Spencer, W.D., P. Beier, K. Penrod, K. Winters, C. Paulman, H. Rustigian-Romsos, J. Strittholt, M.
Parisi, and A. Pettler. 2010. California Essential Habitat Connectivity Project: A Strategy for Conserving a Connected California. Prepared for California Department of Transportation, California Department of Fish and Game, and Federal Highways Administration.
United States Department of Agricultural, Natural Resources Conservation Service. 2022a. Critical Habitat Portal. Available at: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/report/table/critical-habitat.html ______. 2022b. Information for Planning and Consultation online project planning tool. Available at:
https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/
Zeiner, D.C., W.F.Laudenslayer, Jr., K.E. Mayer, and M. White, eds. 1990. California’s Wildlife. Vol. IIII. California Department of Fish and Game, Sacramento, California. https://wildlife.ca.gov/Data/CWHR/Life-History-and-Range Cultural Resources
American Canyon Historical Committee (ACHC). n.d. From the Footsteps of Time, 2000 BC through 1/1/1992, Volume 1 and Volume 2. Available:
https://www.cityofamericancanyon.org/home/showpublisheddocument/10467/637122866 632900000.
https://www.cityofamericancanyon.org/home/showpublisheddocument/10469/637122866 559600000. Accessed August 2022.
620
References and List of Preparers
Draft Environmental Impact Report 7-5
Bean, Walton. 1968. California: An Interpretive History. New York, New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company.
Burns, G.R., S.C. Talcott, K. Demps, J.L. Edmonds, J.M. Lambert, A. Tremayne, and J.W. Eerkens. 2012. Isotopic Evidence for Changing Residence Patterns Through the Middle to Late Holocene in Central California. Society for California Archaeology Proceedings 26:164-171.
Byrd, Brian, Adrian Whitaker, Patricia Mikkelsen, Jeffrey Rosenthal, Todd Jaffke, Philip Kaijankoski, Jack Meyer, Randall Milliken, and Eric Wohlgemuth. 2017. San Francisco Bay-Delta Regional Context and Research Design for Native American Archaeological Resources, Caltrans District 4. Report on file with the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans).
California Missions Foundation. n.d. “History of Mission San Rafael Arcangel”. Accessed August 2022 at http://californiamissionsfoundation.org/mission-san-rafael/ California Office of Historic Preservation. 2006. California Register and National Register: A Comparison (for purposes of determining eligibility for the California Register),” California Office of Historic Preservation Technical Assistance Series #6. Department of Parks and Recreation, Sacramento, 2006.
______. 1995. Instruction for Recording Historical Resources. https://ohp.parks.ca.gov/pages/1054/files/manual95.pdf
City of American Canyon. 1994. City of American Canyon General Plan 1994. Available at:
https://lf.cityofamericancanyon.org/WebLink/Browse.aspx?id=46471&dbid=1&repo=Ameri canCanyon. Accessed August 2022.
City of American Canyon. 2018. Watson Ranch Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report.
State Clearinghouse Number 2015022030. July.
______. 2019. City of American Canyon General Plan Final EIR 2019. Available at:
https://lf.cityofamericancanyon.org/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=46476&dbid=1&repo=Amer icanCanyon. Accessed August 2022.
City of Vallejo. 2018. “History”. https://www.cityofvallejo.net/about_vallejo/history. Accessed August 2022.
City of Sonoma. n.d. “General Vallejo”. https://www.sonomacity.org/general-vallejo/. Accessed August 2022.
Cook, S.F. 1957. The Aboriginal Population of Alameda and Contra Costa Counties, California.
Anthropological Records Vol. 16, No. 4. University of California Press, Berkeley and Los Angeles.
D’Oro, Stella. 2009. Native California Prehistory and Climate in the San Francisco Bay Area. Master’s Thesis, Department of Anthropology, San Jose State University, San Jose, California.
Felix, Karlo Antonio Manalang. 2013. Reinterpreting City Alleys: Design Guidelines for the City of Vallejo. December 2013. City and Regional Planning Department, College of Architecture and Environmental Design, California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo. https://digitalcommons.calpoly.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1112&context=crpsp FirstCarbon Solutions. 2016. City of American Canyon ‐ Napa Airport Corporate Center Project, Draft Environmental Impact Report. Prepared for the City of American Canyon. July 1, 2016. https://www.cityofamericancanyon.org/Home/ShowDocument?id=9881, accessed August 2022.
621
City of American Canyon
Paoli/Watson Lane Annexation
7-6
Gase, Thomas. 2019. “Mare Island once a thriving community for military, naval shipyard workers”, Vallejo Times Herald. 9 November. Accessed January 29, 2020 at https://www.timesheraldonline.com/2019/11/09/mare-island-once-a-thriving-communityfor-military-naval-shipyard-workers/ Gifford, Edward W. 1916. Composition of California Shellmounds. American Archaeology and Ethnology 12(1):1-29.
Hylkema, Mark G. 2002. Tidal Marsh, Oak Woodlands, and Cultural Florescence in the Southern San Francisco Bay Region. In Catalysts to Complexity: Late Holocene Societies of the California Coast, edited by Jon M. Erlandson and Terry L. Jones, pp.233–262. Perspectives in California Archaeology, Vol. 6. Cotsen Institute of Archaeology, University of California, Los Angeles.
Lentz, Kari. 2012. Flaked and Groundstone Technology at CA-ALA-554: Mortar Bowls and Stockton Points. SCA Proceedings 26:192-211.
Lightfoot, Kent G., and Edward M. Luby. 2002. Late Holocene in the San Francisco Bay Area:
Temporal Trends in the Use and Abandonment of Shell Mounds in the East Bay. In Catalysts to Complexity: Late Holocene Societies of the California Coast, edited by Jon M. Erlandson and Terry L. Jones, pp.263-281. Perspectives in California Archaeology, Vol. 6. Cotsen Institute of Archaeology, University of California, Los Angeles.
Luby, Edward M. and Mark F. Gruber. 1999. The Dead Must be Fed: Symbolic Meanings of the Shellmounds of the San Francisco Bay Area. Cambridge Archaeological Journal 9(1):95-105.
Milliken, R. T., R.T. Fitzgerald, M. G. Hylkema, R. Groza, T. Origer, D. G. Bieling, A. Leventhal, R. S.
Wiberg, A. Gottsfield, D. Gillette, V. Bellifemine, E. Strother, R. Cartier, and D. A.
Fredrickson. 2007. Punctuated Cultural Change in the San Francisco Bay Area. In California Prehistory: Colonization, Culture, and Complexity, edited by Terry L. Jones and Kathryn A.
Klar, pp. 99-124. AltaMira Press, Lanham, Maryland.
Moratto, Michael J. 1984. California Archaeology. Academic Press, New York.
National Park Service (NPS). 1983. Archaeology and Historic Preservation: Secretary of the Interior’s Standards and Guidelines. Electronic document, online at https://www.nps.gov/subjects/historicpreservation/upload/standards-guidelinesarcheology-historic-preservation.pdf, accessed August 2022.
NETR Online. 2021. Historic Aerials. https://www.historicaerials.com/viewer. Accessed August 2022.
Presidio Trust. 2020. “History Experiences”. https://www.presidio.gov/activities/history-of-thepresidio Accessed August 2022.
Ragir, Sonia. 1972. The Early Horizon in Central California Prehistory. Contributions of the University of California Archaeological Research Facility, No. 15. Berkeley.
Rolle, Andrew. 2003. California: A History. Arlington Heights, Illinois: Harlan Davidson, Inc.
Simons, Dwight and Tim Carpenter. 2009. Fish Remains from CA-MRN-44/H, Angel Island, Marin County, California. Proceedings of the Society for California Archaeology 21:69-81.
Shumway, Burgess McK. 2007. California Ranchos: Patented Private Land Grants Listed by County.
Michael Burgess and Mary Wickizer Burgess, eds. Rockville, Maryland: Borgo Publishing Press.
622
References and List of Preparers
Draft Environmental Impact Report 7-7
Vallejo Chamber of Commerce. 2020. “History of Vallejo”. http://www.vallejochamber.com/aboutvallejo. Accessed August 2022.
Vallejo Convention and Visitors Bureau. 2019. “About Vallejo”. http://www.visitvallejo.com/aboutvallejo/history. Accessed August 2022.
Von Der Porten, Peter, Katherine Dixon, and Alex DeGeorgey. 2014. Seriation of Clam Shell Disk Beads in Central California. SCA Proceedings 28:267-281.
Vellanoweth, Rene L., Amira F. Ainis, Jon M. Erlandson, and Lisa D. Thomas-Barnett. 2014. An Olivella Grooved Rectangle Bead Cluster from San Nicolas Island, California. Journal of California and Great Basin Anthropology , 2014, Vol. 34, No. 2 (2014), pp. 229-246.
Electronic document available at http://www.jstor.com/stable/45154987, Accessed August 2022.
Energy
California Department of Finance (DOF). 2022. E-1 Cities, Counties, and the State Population Estimates with Annual Percent Change — January 1, 2021 and 2022. https://dof.ca.gov/forecasting/demographics/estimates-e1/ (accessed October 2022).
California Energy Commission (CEC). 2015. Gasoline Market Share in California for 2014. https://ww2.energy.ca.gov/almanac/transportation_data/gasoline/market_share/ (accessed November 2022).
______. 2021. 2022 Building Energy Efficiency Standards Summary. August 2021. https://www.energy.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2021-
08/CEC_2022_EnergyCodeUpdateSummary_ADA.pdf (accessed November 2022). ______. 2022a. 2021 Total System Electric Generation. https://www.energy.ca.gov/datareports/energy-almanac/california-electricity-data/2021-total-system-electric-generation (accessed November 2022).
______. 2022b. Gas Consumption By County. https://ecdms.energy.ca.gov/gasbycounty.aspx (accessed November 2022).
______. 2022c. California Gasoline, Data, Facts, and Statistics. https://www.energy.ca.gov/datareports/energy-almanac/transportation-energy/california-gasoline-data-facts-and-statistics (accessed November 2022).
______. 2022d. 2010-2021 CEC-A15 Results and Analysis – Diesel Sales by County. https://www.energy.ca.gov/media/3874 (accessed November 2022).
California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC). 2022. Natural Gas and California. https://www.cpuc.ca.gov/industries-and-topics/natural-gas/natural-gas-and-california (accessed October 2022).
Governor’s Interagency Working Group on Zero-Emission Vehicles. 2016. 2016 ZEV Action Plan.
October 2016. https://dot.ca.gov/-/media/dotmedia/programs/sustainability/documents/2016-zev-action-plan-a11y.pdf accessed November 2022).
______. 2018. 2018 ZEV Action Plan Priorities Update. https://business.ca.gov/wpcontent/uploads/2020/02/2018-ZEV-Action-Plan-Priorities-Update.pdf (accessed November 2022).
623
City of American Canyon
Paoli/Watson Lane Annexation
7-8
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. 2022. Corporate Average Fuel Economy. https://www.nhtsa.gov/laws-regulations/corporate-average-fuel-economy (accessed November 2022).
PG&E. 2019. Where your electricity comes from.
https://www.pge.com/pge_global/common/pdfs/your-account/your-bill/understand-yourbill/bill-inserts/2020/1220-PowerContent-ADA.pdf (accessed November 2022).
Schremp. 2015. California Transportation of Petroleum: Second Northern California Refinery Safety Forum. https://calepa.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/sites/6/2016/10/Refinery-Documents2015yr-Petroleum.pdf (accessed November 2022).
U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT). 2018. National Transportation Statistics 2018. https://www.bts.gov/sites/bts.dot.gov/files/docs/browse-statistical-products-anddata/national-transportation-statistics/223001/ntsentire2018q4.pdf (accessed November 2022).
U.S. Energy Information Administration (USEIA). 2022. US Electricity Profile 2021. https://www.eia.gov/electricity/state/ (accessed November 2022).
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2018. Exhaust and Crankcase Emission Factors for Nonroad Compression-Ignition Engines in MOVES2014b. July 2018. https://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyPDF.cgi?Dockey=P100UXEN.pdf (accessed November 2022).
Geology & Soils
City of American Canyon. 1994. General Plan FEIR.
https://lf.cityofamericancanyon.org/WebLink/Browse.aspx?id=46471&dbid=1&repo=Ameri canCanyon (accessed September 2022).
______. 2018. Watson Ranch Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report. State Clearinghouse Number 2015022030. July.
California Department of Conservation (DOC). 2021. Earthquake Zones of Required Investigation.
September 23, 2021. https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/EQZApp/app/ (accessed September 2022).
California Geological Survey (CGS). 2011. Susceptibility to Deep-Seated Landslides in California. https://www.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/Documents/Publications/Map-Sheets/MS_058.pdf (accessed September 2022).
Clark, B.L. 1938. Fauna from the Markley Formation (upper Eocene) on Pleasant Creek, California.
Geological Society of America Bulletin. Volume 49, pp. 683-730.
Grant, U.S. and R.E. Stevenson. 1948. A new pecten from the upper Miocene of California. Journal of Paleontology. Volume 22, pp. 804-805.
Jefferson, G.T. 2010. A catalogue of late Quaternary vertebrates from California. Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County Technical Report. Volume 7, pp. 5-172.
Napa County. 2007. Napa County General Plan Update. Draft Environmental Impact Report. https://www.countyofnapa.org/DocumentCenter/View/7936/410-Geology-General-PlanDEIR PDF#:~:text=Napa%20County%20is%20located%20in,to%20near%20the%20Oregon%20bor der. (accessed September 2022).
624
References and List of Preparers
Draft Environmental Impact Report 7-9
Paleobiology Database (PBDB). 2022. The Paleobiology Database, http://paleobiodb.org/ (accessed August 2022).
Savage, D.E. 1951. Late Cenozoic vertebrates of the San Francisco Bay region. University of California Bulletin of the Department of Geological Sciences. Volume 28, pp. 215-314.
Society of Vertebrate Paleontology (SVP). 2010. Standard Procedures for the Assessment and Mitigation of Adverse Impacts to Paleontological Resources. Society of Vertebrate Paleontology Impact Mitigation Guidelines Revision Committee. https://vertpaleo.org/wpcontent/uploads/2021/01/SVP_Impact_Mitigation_Guidelines-1.pdf.
Stirton, R.A. 1939. Cenozoic mammal remains from the San Francisco Bay region. University of California Publications in Geological Sciences. Volume 24, pp. 338-409.
United States Geographical Survey. 2007. Earthquake Hazards of The Bay Area Today. https://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/events/1868calif/virtualtour/modern.php (accessed September 2022).
University of California Berkeley. 2022. Berkeley Seismology Lab. Historical Earthquakes. https://seismo.berkeley.edu/outreach/index_historic_quakes.html (accessed September 2022).
University of California Museum of Paleontology (UCMP). 2022. UCMP online database specimen search portal, http://ucmpdb.berkeley.edu/ (accessed August 2022).
Wagner, D.L. and C.I. Gutierrez. 2017. Preliminary geologic map of the Napa and Bodega Bay 30’ x 60’ quadrangles, California. [map.] California Geological Survey, Preliminary Geologic Map Series, scale 1:100,000.
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
American Canyon, City of. 2012. City of American Canyon Energy Efficiency Climate Action Plan.
December 2012.
https://www.cityofamericancanyon.org/home/showpublisheddocument/5024/6371235410 56170000 (accessed November 2022).
California Air Resource Board (CARB). 2017. California’s 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan.
December 14, 2017. https://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/scopingplan/scoping_plan_2017.pdf (accessed November 2022).
______. 2021. “California Greenhouse Gas Emissions for 2000 to 2019 – Trends of Emissions and Other Indicators.”
https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/classic/cc/inventory/2000_2019_ghg_inventory_ trends_20220516.pdf (accessed November 2022).
______. 2022a. “2022 Scoping Plan Documents.” https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/our-work/programs/ab32-climate-change-scoping-plan/2022-scoping-plan-documents (accessed November 2022). ______. 2022b. “Regional Plan Targets.” https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/our-work/programs/sustainablecommunities-program/regional-plan-targets (accessed November 2022).
California Climate Change Center (CCCC). 2006. Climate Scenarios for California. March. https://research.fit.edu/media/site-specific/researchfitedu/coast-climate-adaptationlibrary/united-states/west-coast-amp-hawaix27i/california---statewide/CCCC.--2006.-- Climate-Scenarios-for-California.pdf (accessed November 2022). 625
City of American Canyon
Paoli/Watson Lane Annexation
7-10
California Department of Water Resources. 2018. Indicators of Climate Change in California. May 2018. https://oehha.ca.gov/media/downloads/climatechange/report/2018caindicatorsreportmay2018.pdf (accessed November 2022).
California Energy Commission. 2021. 2022 Building Energy Efficiency Standards Summary. August 2021. https://www.energy.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2021- 08/CEC_2022_EnergyCodeUpdateSummary_ADA.pdf (accessed November 2022).
California Natural Resources Agency. 2009. 2009 California Climate Adaptation Strategy. March 2009. http://resources.ca.gov/docs/climate/Statewide_Adaptation_Strategy.pdf (accessed November 2022).
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. 2007. Summary for Policymakers. In: Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis.
Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
______. 2021. IPCC Sixth Assessment Report.
https://report.ipcc.ch/ar6/wg3/IPCC_AR6_WGIII_Full_Report.pdf (accessed November 2022).
National Aeronautics and Space Administration. 2022. “Global Climate Change – Vital Signs of the Planet – Sea Level.” https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/sea-level/ (accessed November 2022).
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. 2022. Corporate Average Fuel Economy. https://www.nhtsa.gov/laws-regulations/corporate-average-fuel-economy (accessed November 2022).
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 2020. “Global Climate Report for Annual 2019.” State of the Climate. January 2020. https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/201813 (accessed November 2022).
Parmesan, C. 2006. Ecological and Evolutionary Responses to Recent Climate Change. August. https://www.fws.gov/southwest/es/documents/R2ES/LitCited/LPC_2012/Parmesan_2006.p df (accessed November 2022).
State of California. 2018. California’s Fourth Climate Change Assessment Statewide Summary Report. https://www.energy.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2019-11/Statewide_Reports-SUMCCCA4-2018-013_Statewide_Summary_Report_ADA.pdf (accessed November 2022).
United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2022a. “Overview of Greenhouse Gases.” Last updated: May 18, 2022. https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/overview-greenhousegases (accessed November 2022). ______. 2022b. “Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990-2019.” February 2022. https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/inventory-us-greenhouse-gas-emissions-and-sinks1990-2019 (accessed November 2022). ______. 2022c. “Endangerment and Cause or Contribute Findings for Greenhouse Gases Under Section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act.” April 25, 2022. https://www.epa.gov/climatechange/endangerment-and-cause-or-contribute-findings-greenhouse-gases-under-section202a (accessed November 2022). 626
References and List of Preparers
Draft Environmental Impact Report 7-11
World Meteorological Organization. 2013. WMO statement on the status of the global climate in 2013. https://library.wmo.int/doc_num.php?explnum_id=7862 (accessed November 2022).
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
California Department of Resources, Recycling, and Recovery (CalRecycle). 2022. SWIS Facility/Site Search. https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/SolidWaste/Site/Search (accessed September 2022).
Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC). 2022. Envirostor Database. https://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/ (accessed September 2022).
Napa County. 2022. Napa County Division of Environmental Health. https://www.countyofnapa.org/1904/Environmental-Health-Division (accessed September 2022).
Napa County Airport Land Use Commission. 1991. Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan. Adopted April 22, 1991. Revised December 15, 1999.
https://www.countyofnapa.org/DocumentCenter/View/1980/Airport-Land-UseCompatibility-Plan-PDF (accessed September 2022).
State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB). 2022. GeoTracker Database. https://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/ (accessed September 2022).
United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2022a. Learn About Asbestos. https://www.epa.gov/asbestos/learn-about-asbestos#effects (accessed September 2022). ______. 2022b. Learn About Lead. https://www.epa.gov/lead/learn-about-lead#effects (accessed September 2022).
______. 2022c. “Asbestos National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP).” Last updated on March 25, 2021. https://www.epa.gov/hw/household-hazardous-wastehhw (accessed September 2022).
Hydrology and Water Quality
American Canyon, City of. 1994. General Plan for the City of American Canyon. https://lf.cityofamericancanyon.org/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=46469&dbid=1&repo=Amer icanCanyon (accessed August 2022).
______. 2015. Urban Water Management Plan for the City of American Canyon. https://www.cityofamericancanyon.org/home/showpublisheddocument/17856/637123637 363600000 (accessed August 2022).
______. 2016. Potable Water Master Plan.
https://www.cityofamericancanyon.org/home/showpublisheddocument/17957/637123637 178300000 (accessed August 2022).
______. 2022. 2021 Water Quality Report.
https://www.cityofamericancanyon.org/home/showpublisheddocument/19312/637908120 538130000 (accessed August 2022)
627
City of American Canyon
Paoli/Watson Lane Annexation
7-12
Bay Area Stormwater Management Agencies Association. 2019. Pos Construction Manual. https://www.countyofnapa.org/DocumentCenter/View/3780/Bay-Area--StormwaterManagement-Agencies-Association-BASMAA-Post-Construction-Manual-PDF (accessed August 2022).
County of Napa. 2022. What Groundwater Basins are located in Napa County? https://www.countyofnapa.org/Faq.aspx?QID=856 (accessed August 2022).
Department of Water Resources (DWR). 2022a. Groundwater Basin Boundary Assessment Tool. https://gis.water.ca.gov/app/bbat/ (accessed August 2022).
Federal Emergency Management (FEMA). 2016. National Flood Insurance Program Flood Insurance Rate Map.
https://msc.fema.gov/portal/search?AddressQuery=166%20Watson%20Ln%2C%20America n%20Canyon%2C%20CA%2094503#searchresultsanchor (accessed August 2022).
San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). 2017. Water Quality Control Plan for the San Francisco Bay Basin.
https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/sanfranciscobay/water_issues/programs/planningtmdls/b asinplan/web/bp_ch1-7_print.html (accessed August 2022).
California State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB). 2022. Storm Water - Industrial General Permit.
https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/losangeles/water_issues/programs/stormwater/sw_index .html#1(accessed November 2022).
United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2022. https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/water_quality_assessment/2020 _2022_integrated_report.html (accessed August 2022).
Land Use and Planning
ALUC (Napa County Airport Land Use Commission). 1991. Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan.
Adopted April 22, 1991. Revised December 15, 1999.
https://www.countyofnapa.org/DocumentCenter/View/1980/Airport-Land-UseCompatibility-Plan-PDF (accessed September 2022).
American Canyon, City of. 1994. The City of American Canyon General Plan. November 3, 1994. https://lf.cityofamericancanyon.org/WebLink/Browse.aspx?id=46453&dbid=1&repo=Ameri canCanyon (accessed September 2022)
______. 2015. City of American Canyon Zoning Map. September 2015. cityofamericancanyon.org/home/showpublisheddocument/168/637123500845870000 (accessed August 2022)
Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG). 2021. Plan Bay Area 2050. October 21, 2021. https://www.planbayarea.org/finalplan2050 (accessed September 2022).
Noise
California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). 2013. Technical Noise Supplement to the Traffic Noise Analysis Protocol. (CT-HWANP-RT-13-069.25.2) September. https://dot.ca.gov/- /media/dot-media/programs/environmental-analysis/documents/env/tens-sep2013- a11y.pdf (accessed June 2022).
628
References and List of Preparers
Draft Environmental Impact Report 7-13
______. 2020. Transportation and Construction Vibration Guidance Manual. April 2020. https://dot.ca.gov/-/media/dot-media/programs/environmentalanalysis/documents/env/tcvgm-apr2020-a11y.pdf (accessed August 2022).
City of American Canyon. 1994. City of American Canyon General Plan 1994. Available at:
https://lf.cityofamericancanyon.org/WebLink/Browse.aspx?id=46471&dbid=1&repo=Ameri canCanyon (accessed August 2022).
Federal Highway Administration. 2018. Final Report – Noise Measurement Handbook. https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/noise/measurement/fhwahep18065.pdf (accessed July 2022).
Federal Transit Administration (FTA). 2018. Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual. https://www.transit.dot.gov/sites/fta.dot.gov/files/docs/researchinnovation/118131/transit-noise-and-vibration-impact-assessment-manual-fta-report-no0123_0.pdf (accessed June 2022).
GHD. 2023. Transportation Volumes for Model Scenarios. Watson Lane Project.
Harris, Cyril, 1991. Handbook of Acoustical Measurements and Noise Control Third Edition.
Napa County Airport Land Use Commission. 1999. Napa County Airport Land Use Commission Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan.
PlaceWorks. 2012. City of Industry- Macy's Trucking Yard Noise Survey.
Population and Housing
Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG). 2019. Plan Bay Area 2040 forecasts. [tabular dataset].
San Francisco, CA. May 1, 2019. https://data.bayareametro.gov/Demography/Projections2040-by-Jurisdiction/grqz-amra (accessed August 2022). ______. 2021a. Plan Bay Area 2050 Growth Pattern.
https://www.planbayarea.org/sites/default/files/FinalBlueprintRelease_December2020_Gr owthPattern_Jan2021Update.pdf (accessed August 2022).
______. 2021b. Final Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) Plan. https://abag.ca.gov/sites/default/files/documents/202112/Final_RHNA_Allocation_Report_ 2023-2031-approved_0.pdf (accessed August 2021).
California Department of Finance. 2000. Historical City, County, and State Population Estimates, 1991-2000, with 1990 and 2000 Census Counts.
https://dof.ca.gov/forecasting/demographics/estimates/e-4-revised-historical-city-countyand-state-population-estimates-1991-2000-with-1990-and-2000-census-counts/ (accessed August 2022)
______. 2010a. E-5 City/County Population and Housing Estimates, 4/1/2010. https://dof.ca.gov/forecasting/demographics/estimates/estimates-e5-2010-2020/ (accessed August 2022).
______. 2010b. E-8 County/State Population and Housing Estimates, 4/1/2010.https://dof.ca.gov/forecasting/demographics/estimates/estimates-e8-2000- 2010/(accessed August 2022).
629
City of American Canyon
Paoli/Watson Lane Annexation
7-14
______. 2020a. E-4 Population Estimates for Cities, Counties, and State 2011-2020 with 2010 Benchmark. https://dof.ca.gov/forecasting/demographics/estimates/e-4-populationestimates-for-cities-counties-and-the-state-2011-2020-with-2010-census-benchmarknew/(accessed August 2022). ______. 2020b. E-5 City/County Population and Housing Estimates, 1/1/2020. https://dof.ca.gov/forecasting/demographics/estimates/estimates-e5-2010-2020/ (accessed August 2022)
______. 2022a. E-4 Population Estimates for Cities, Counties, and State 2021-2022 with 2020 Benchmark. https://dof.ca.gov/forecasting/demographics/estimates/e-4-populationestimates-for-cities-counties-and-the-state-2021-2022-with-2020-census-benchmark/ (accessed August 2022)
______. 2022b. Table E-5 City/County Population and Housing Estimates, 1/1/2022. https://dof.ca.gov/forecasting/demographics/estimates/e-5-population-and-housingestimates-for-cities-counties-and-the-state-2020-2022/ (accessed August 2022).
City of American Canyon. 2022. 30 Interesting Facts About American Canyon. https://www.cityofamericancanyon.org/government/30th-anniversary/30interesting-factsabout-americancanyon#:~:text=American%20Canyon%20was%20incorporated%20on,school%20with%20in credible%20sports%20facilities (accessed August 2022).
Employment Development Department (EDD). 2022. Monthly Labor Force Data for Cities and Census Designated Places (CDP). https://www.labormarketinfo.edd.ca.gov/data/laborforce-and-unemployment-for-cities-and-census-areas.html (accessed August 2022).
U.S. Census. 2021. Households and Persons Per
Household. https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/note/US/HSD410220#:~:text=Definitio n,occupancy)%20as%20separate%20living%20quarters (accessed December 2022).
Public Services and Recreation
American Canyon Fire Protection District (ACFPD). 2022a. Annual Report 2021. https://www.cityofamericancanyon.org/government/public-safety/fire-district (accessed August 2022).
______. 2022b. Long-Range Master Plan. September 2022. https://legistarwebproduction.s3.amazonaws.com/uploads/attachment/pdf/1622974/American_Canyon_FPD_ Master_Plan__FINAL_REPORT_.pdf (accessed January 2023). ______. 2015. 2015-2020 Strategic Plan.
https://www.cityofamericancanyon.org/home/showpublisheddocument/9429/6371236845 12600000 (accessed August 2022).
ACFPD. Personal communication between Geoff Belyea, Fire Chief and Leo Mena, Rincon Consultants. March 19, 2023.
American Canyon Police Department (ACPD). 2022. 2021 Annual Report. https://www.cityofamericancanyon.org/government/public-safety/police (accessed August 2022).
630
References and List of Preparers
Draft Environmental Impact Report 7-15
Bay Area Open Space Council. 2014. We’re getting there—almost 1.4 million acres and counting! February 26.
https://conservationcorridor.org/cpb/Bay_Area_Open_Space_Council_2014.pdf (accessed August 2022).
California Department of Education. 2022. DataQuest.
https://dq.cde.ca.gov/dataquest/dqcensus/EnrGrdLevels.aspx?cds=2866266&agglevel=distr ict&year=2017-18&ro=y (accessed August 2022).
City of American Canyon. 2022a. District Information.
https://www.cityofamericancanyon.org/government/public-safety/fire-district/districtinformation (accessed August 2022). ______. 2022b. Wetlands & Napa River Bay Trail.
https://www.cityofamericancanyon.org/government/parks-trails-open-space/wetlands (accessed August 2022).
______. 2022c. Newell Open Space Preserve.
https://www.cityofamericancanyon.org/government/parks-trails-open-space/newell-openspace (accessed August 2022). ______. 2022d. Fire Apparatus. https://www.cityofamericancanyon.org/government/publicsafety/fire-district/fire-apparatus (accessed August 2022). ______. 2012. Parks and Community Services Master Plan. https://americancanyon.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?view_id=5&clip_id=533&meta_id= 40730 (accessed August 2022).
County of Napa County. 2022. American Canyon Library.
https://www.countyofnapa.org/library/americancanyon/ (accessed August 2022).
National Center for Education Statistics (NCES). 2022a. Search for Public Schools. https://nces.ed.gov/ccd/schoolsearch/school_list.asp?Search=1&DistrictID=0626640&Scho olPageNum=1 (accessed August 2022).
______. 2022b. American Canyon High School Directory Information. https://nces.ed.gov/ccd/schoolsearch/school_detail.asp?Search=1&DistrictID=0626640&Sc hoolPageNum=1&ID=062664012535 (accessed August 2022).
______. 2022c. American Canyon Middle School Directory Information. https://nces.ed.gov/ccd/schoolsearch/school_detail.asp?Search=1&DistrictID=0626640&Sc hoolPageNum=1&ID=062664007575 (accessed August 2022).
______. 2022d. Canyon Oaks Elementary School Directory Information. https://nces.ed.gov/ccd/schoolsearch/school_detail.asp?Search=1&DistrictID=0626640&Sc hoolPageNum=1&ID=062664010976 (accessed August 2022).
______. 2022e. Donaldson Way Elementary School Directory Information. https://nces.ed.gov/ccd/schoolsearch/school_detail.asp?Search=1&DistrictID=0626640&Sc hoolPageNum=1&ID=062664004017 (accessed August 2022).
______. 2022f. Napa Junction Elementary School Directory Information. https://nces.ed.gov/ccd/schoolsearch/school_detail.asp?Search=1&DistrictID=0626640&Sc hoolPageNum=1&ID=062664004023 (accessed August 2022).
631
City of American Canyon
Paoli/Watson Lane Annexation
7-16
Transportation
City of American Canyon. 2017. American Canyon Pedestrian Plan. ______. 2018. City of American Canyon General Circulation Element. Updated October 16, 2018.
Available at:
https://lf.cityofamericancanyon.org/WebLink/Browse.aspx?id=46453&dbid=1&repo=Ameri canCanyon (accessed December 2022).
______. 2020. Napa Countywide Bicycle Plan.
Tribal Cultural Resources
Elliott, Evan. 2011. “Bringing the Hill Patwin into the North Coast Ranges Cultural Region.” SCA Proceedings 25: 1–10.
Johnson, Patti. 1978 . Patwin. In Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 8: California, Robert F.
Heizer, editor, William G. Sturtevant, general editor, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.
Kroeber, Alfred. 1925. Handbook of the Indians of California. Dover Publications Inc., New York.
McKern, Will. C. 1922. “Functional Families of the Patwin.” American Archaeology and Ethnology 13(7): 235–258.
Utilities and Service Systems
American Canyon, City of. 1996. Storm Drainage Master Plan. December 1996. https://www.cityofamericancanyon.org/home/showdocument?id=15292 (accessed January 2023).
______. 2015. Urban Water Management Plan.
https://www.cityofamericancanyon.org/home/showpublisheddocument/17856/637123637 363600000 (accessed January 2023).
______. 2016a. Recycled Water Master Plan. May 2016.
https://www.cityofamericancanyon.org/home/showpublisheddocument/9735/6371236375 60170000 (accessed January 2023).
______. 2016b. Sewer Master Plan. May 2016.
https://www.cityofamericancanyon.org/home/showpublisheddocument/9733/6371236386 34130000 (accessed January 2023).
______. 2016c. Broadway District Specific Plan Draft EIR. ______. 2022. Urban Water Management Plan. Revised August 2022. [link] (accessed November 2022).
California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle). 2022a. SWIS Facility/Site Activity Details.
https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/SolidWaste/SiteActivity/Details/1194?siteID=3591 (accessed August 2022).
______. 2022b. Jurisdiction Disposal Tonnage Trend.
https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/LGCentral/AnnualReporting/ReviewReports (accessed September 2022).
632
References and List of Preparers
Draft Environmental Impact Report 7-17
______. 2022c. Jurisdiction Per Capita Disposal Trends. https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/LGCentral/AnnualReporting/ReviewReports (accessed September 2022).
California Energy Commission. 2022. California Electric Transmission Lines. https://cecgiscaenergy.opendata.arcgis.com/datasets/CAEnergy::california-electric-transmissionlines/explore?location=38.162108%2C-122.243704%2C12.94 (accessed November 2022).
County of Napa. 2008. Amended Countywide Non-Disposal Facility Element. https://services.countyofnapa.org/AgendaNet/DownloadDocument.aspx?type=BOS&doctyp e=ATTACHMENT&id=10840 (accessed September 2022).
Federal Communications Commission. 2022. Fixed Broadband Deployment. https://broadband477map.fcc.gov/#/locationsummary?version=jun2021&lat=38.188073&lon=- 122.252632&tech=acfosw&speed=25_3&vlat=38.19017305177701&vlon=- 122.24805573691799&vzoom=12.882808222764455 (accessed November 2022).
Pacific Gas and Electric. 2022. Natural Gas Transmission Pipeline Map. https://www.pge.com/en_US/safety/how-the-system-works/natural-gas-systemoverview/gas-transmission-pipeline/gas-transmission-pipelines.page (accessed November 2022).
Wildfire
American Canyon Fire Protection District (ACFPD). 2019. Annual Report. https://lf.cityofamericancanyon.org/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=48911&dbid=1&repo=Amer icanCanyon&cr=1 (accessed November 2022).
______. 2022a. American Canyon Fire Protection District Jurisdictional Boundary. July 5. ______. 2022b. Long-Range Master Plan. September 2022. https://legistarwebproduction.s3.amazonaws.com/uploads/attachment/pdf/1622974/American_Canyon_FPD_ Master_Plan__FINAL_REPORT_.pdf (accessed January 2023).
California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CalFire). 2018. 2018 California Strategic Fire Plan for California. August 22, 2018. https://osfm.fire.ca.gov/media/5590/2018-strategicfire-plan-approved-08_22_18.pdf (accessed November 2022). ______. 2019. American Fire Incident. https://www.fire.ca.gov/incidents/2019/10/6/american-fire/ (accessed November 2022).
______. 2020. Sonoma-Lake-Napa Unit 2020 Strategic Fire Plan. https://osfm.fire.ca.gov/media/zvlgib2a/2020-lnu-fire-plan.pdf (accessed November 2022). ______. 2022a. 2022 Fire Season Outlook. https://www.fire.ca.gov/incidents/2022/ (accessed September 2022).
______. 2022b. Fire and Fuels Treatment. https://www.fire.ca.gov/programs/resourcemanagement/resource-protection-improvement/wildfire-resilience/forest-stewardship/fireand-fuels-treatment/ (accessed September 2022). ______. 2022c. Fire Hazard Severity Zone Viewer. https://egis.fire.ca.gov/FHSZ/ (accessed September 2022).
633
City of American Canyon
Paoli/Watson Lane Annexation
7-18
California Energy Commission. 2022. California Electric Transmission Lines. https://gis.data.ca.gov/datasets/260b4513acdb4a3a8e4d64e69fc84fee_0/explore?location =37.202012%2C-118.629288%2C7.00 (accessed November 2022).
California Office of Emergency Services (OES). 2018. State of California Hazard Mitigation Plan. https://www.caloes.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/002-2018-SHMP_FINAL_ENTIRE-PLAN.pdf (accessed September 2022).
California Office of Planning and Research (OPR). 2018. Statewide Summary Report. https://www.energy.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2019-11/Statewide_Reports-SUM-CCCA4- 2018-013_Statewide_Summary_Report_ADA.pdf (accessed September 2022).
City of American Canyon. 2022. Evacuation Procedures.
https://www.cityofamericancanyon.org/government/public-safety/emergencypreparedness/evacuation-procedures (accessed November 2022).
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). 2022. Disaster Mitigation ACT of 2000. https://www.fema.gov/emergency-managers/risk-management/hazard-mitigationplanning/regulationsguidance#:~:text=The%20Disaster%20Mitigation%20Act%20of,of%20non%2Demergency%2 0disaster%20assistance. (accessed September 2022).
Napa, County of. 2020. Napa County Operational Area Emergency Operations Plan. December 2020. https://www.countyofnapa.org/DocumentCenter/View/20613/EOP-Napa-County_Dec-2020 (accessed September 2020).
______. 2021. Napa County Road and Street Standards. Revised January 1, 2021. https://www.countyofnapa.org/DocumentCenter/View/20064/Napa-County-Road-andStreet-Standards---2021-PDF (accessed September 2022).
State’s Office of the Attorney General. 2022. Best Practices for Analyzing and Mitigating Wildfire Impacts of Development Projects under the California Environmental Quality Act. October
10. https://oag.ca.gov/news/press-releases/attorney-general-bonta-issues-guidance-localgovernments-mitigate-wildfire-risk (accessed December 2022).
United States Geological Survey (USGS). 2022. TopoView. https://ngmdb.usgs.gov/topoview/viewer/#4/40.00/-100.00 (accessed September 2022).
Western Regional Climate Center. 2016. Dutton’s Landing, California Monthly Climate Record. https://wrcc.dri.edu/cgi-bin/cliMAIN.pl?ca2580 (accessed September 2022). ______. 2022. Climate of California. https://wrcc.dri.edu/Climate/narrative_ca.php (accessed December 2022).
Effects Found Not to be Significant
American Canyon, City of. 1994. American Canyon General Plan Natural & Historic/Cultural Element. https://lf.cityofamericancanyon.org/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=46465&dbid=1&repo=Amer icanCanyon (accessed October 2022).
California Department of Conservation. 2022. Mines Online. https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/mol/index.html (accessed October 2022).
United State Geologic Survey. 2022. Mineral Resources Online Spatial Data. https://mrdata.usgs.gov/general/map-us.html (accessed October 2022). 634
References and List of Preparers
Draft Environmental Impact Report 7-19
Other CEQA Required Discussions
City of American Canyon. 2020. Broadway District Specific Plan. https://lf.cityofamericancanyon.org/WebLink/Browse.aspx?id=65287&dbid=1&repo=Ameri canCanyon (accessed December 2022).
______. 2018a. City of American Canyon General Circulation Element. Updated October 16, 2018.
Available at:
https://lf.cityofamericancanyon.org/WebLink/Browse.aspx?id=46453&dbid=1&repo=Ameri canCanyon (accessed December 2022).
______. 2018b. Watson Ranch Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report. State Clearinghouse Number 2015022030. July.
7.2 List of Preparers
This EIR was prepared by the City of American Canyon, with the assistance of Rincon Consultants, Inc. and GHD. Consultant staff involved in the preparation of the EIR are listed below.
RINCON CONSULTANTS, INC.
Darcy Kremin, Director-in-Charge
Leo Mena, Senior Environmental Planner, Project Manager Jesse Voremberg, Environmental Planner, Assistant Project Manager David Brodeur, Planner
Ethan Knox, Environmental Planner
Josh Carman, Director
Lucas Carneiro, Environmental Planner
Destiny Breneisen, Environmental Planner
Christian Knowlton, Biologist
Kristin Asmus, Senior Biologist and Senior Project Manager Matt Gonzalez, Archaeologist
JulieAnn Murphy, Senior Architectural Historian
Andrew McGrath, Paleontologist
Virginia Dussel, Environmental Planner
Antonia Davetas, Planner
Gina Gerlich, GIS Analyst
Chris Jackson-Jordan, GIS Analyst
Luis Apolinar, Publishing Specialist
GHD
Colin Burgett, Senior Project Manager
Jill Hough, Travel Demand Modeling Lead
Todd Tregenza, Project Director
Paige Thornton, GIS/Modeling
635
Appendix A
Notice of Preparation and Scoping Comments Received
ATTACHMENT 1.B
636
NOTICE OF PREPARATION
City of American Canyon Paoli/Watson Lane Annexation
Date: September 7, 2022
To: Reviewing Agencies, Interested Parties, and Organizations Subject: Notice of Preparation of a Draft Environmental Impact Report for the City of American Canyon Paoli/Watson Lane Annexation Project The City of American Canyon (City) intends to annex into the City, property within its Sphere of Influence (SOI) off Paoli Loop and Watson Lane. The City has determined that a Program Environmental Impact Report (EIR) will be necessary to evaluate environmental impacts of the annexation pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). In compliance with CEQA, the City will be the Lead Agency and will prepare the Program EIR. The City is requesting comments and guidance on the scope and content of the Program EIR from responsible and trustee agencies, interested public agencies, organizations, and the general public (CEQA Guidelines Section 15082).
This Notice of Preparation (NOP) provides a summary of the proposed annexation; includes the City’s preliminary identification of the potential environmental issues to be analyzed in the Program EIR; and provides information on how to comment on the scope of the Program EIR.
Notice of Preparation Public Review Period: September 7, 2022 to October 7, 2022 The City requests your careful review and consideration of this notice, and it invites any and all input and comments from interested agencies, persons, and organizations regarding the preparation of the Program EIR.
Comments and responses to this notice must be in writing and submitted to the Lead Agency Contact through October 7, 2022 at 4:00 p.m. If applicable, please indicate a contact person for your agency or organization. If your agency is a responsible agency as defined by CEQA Guidelines Section 15381, your agency may use the environmental documents prepared by the City when considering permits or approvals for action regarding the project.
Lead Agency Contact
Sean Kennings, LAK Associates
PO Box 7043
Corte Madera, CA 94976
[email protected]
Written Comments: Please submit written comments within 30 days of the date of this notice to Sean Kennings by 4:00 p.m. on October 7, 2022:
▪ Email: [email protected]
▪ Regular Mail: Sean Kennings, LAK Associates, PO Box 7043, Corte Madera, CA 94976 637
Notice of Preparation
City of American Canyon Paoli/Watson Lane Annexation