American Canyon City Council
November 7, 2023

CW128476. 1}
An additional item on page 4.17-2 is footnote Number 3 which states, “ For example, Vallejo Permit Water delivery was curtailed in 2014 and 2015.” It should be clarified in the text, and not the footnotes, that the State imposed curtailments on Vallejo’ s License 7848 and not an action by Vallejo. The DEIR should also disclose and consider that License 7848 was curtailed again in 2021, and 2022 and that the Barker Slough Pumping Plant ( a State Water Project facility), which is the starting point of the North Bay Aqueduct ( NBA), was curtailed in 2021 and 2022 due to the presence of Delta Smelt larvae in accordance with the Incidental Take Permit ( ITP) in place for SWP facilities. This ITP has the potential to curtail the NBA for up to six months out of the year during dry years, significantly impacting the availability of water supplies to the region, including American Canyon.

3. The DEIR utilized incorrect water volumes available from the City of Vallejo and may affect thresholds relying on sufficient water supplies including, but not limited to, the findings of PSR-1, UTL-1, UTL-2, WF-1, WF-2, WF-3, and WF-4.

The 1996 Water Service Agreement Vallejo has with American Canyon outlines a Basic Agreement capacity of 1 million gallons per day (MGD), with an annual volume of 629 acre-feet AF) and provides options for American Canyon to purchase more capacity in Vallejo’s system during specific timeframes. American Canyon exercised two of the available options and the volume of Vallejo Treated Water available for American Canyon’ s use under the 1996 Water Service Agreement is 2,074 AF, instead of the 3,206 AF referenced in Table 4.17-1.

The City of American Canyon’ s 2020 Urban Water Management Plan only identifies 628. 6 acrefeet per year of Vallejo Treated Water available for purchase in Section 6.1.2.2. on page 6-2 stating the following:

The agreement with Vallejo allows the City to purchase up to 628. 6 AFY of Vallejo Treated Water potable water). Vallejo Treated Water is delivered via an intertie connection following treatment of water at Vallejo’ s Fleming Hill WTP.

This volume is further characterized as “ reasonably available” in Table 6-9 on page 6-13 of the UWMP from 2025 to 2045. Given that the published value considered available in the UWMP is less than 20% of what is identified as available in the DEIR, the water supply should be reevaluated to ensure it is adequate to serve the preferred alternative and any future project associated with the Annexation.

Beyond the incorrect assumptions of the water available through the 1996 Water Service Agreement, the DEIR relies on American Canyon’ s Zero Water Footprint (“ZFW”) policy to assert that there would be “ no net increase in water demands.” ( DEIR at 4.1-23.) While the ZFW policy requires that “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,” there is no analysis of how the project will comply with that policy. ( Id.) Therefore the finding that no A.3-7
A.3-8
A.3-9
2-30
787

CW128476. 1}
mitigation measures are required for the increased water demand that is a result of the project is not supported.

4. The street improvements set forth in the DEIR are growth inducing impacts.

A portion of the project involves the extension of Newell Drive to augment north- south travel parallel to SR 29 and to install circulation improvements along Paoli Loop and Watson Lane.

All of these improvements are growth- inducing improvements which should be discussed in the DEIR with appropriate mitigation. As growth increases environmental impacts increase. These improvements will have effects on VMT, noise, population, greenhouse gas emissions, energy, air quality, aesthetics and other potential areas. The City has failed to recognize these growthinducing attributes and to adequately address the issues caused thereby.

5. The DEIR fails to adequately address affordable housing.

The DEIR says that the project “would not affect the availability of affordable housing” and that 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.” However, the City is adding 83 acres and pre-zoning a significant portion of that land as “ Residential Estates.” In such a large annexation, the City should be discussing how it intends to supply additional affordable housing in line with LAFCO’ s stated policy which the DEIR identifies as follows: “ LAFCo has identified the availability of affordable housing as an issue of local interest that should be addressed in the CEQA documentation.” Despite this requirement by LAFCo, the City has failed to address affordable housing at all and instead says it isn’ t necessary Given LAFCo’ s policy as well as the state’ s policy of increasing the availability of housing, the DEIR should address this important issue rather than simply saying it’ s not necessary. Also, the DEIR should address how any fee charged for affordable housing will ensure that an adequate amount of affordable housing will be constructed to meet requirements.

Thank you for taking the time to review our concerns,
Sincerely,
Melissa Cansdale,
Water Resources Manager
Attorneycc: Veronica Nebb, City
Randy Risner, Chief Assistant City Attorney
Beth Schoenberger, Water Director
Christina Ratcliffe, Planning and Economic Development Director Barbara Brenner, Partner, White Brenner LLP
Melissa
Cansdale
Digitally signed by Melissa Cansdale
DN: cn=Melissa Cansdale, o=City of Vallejo,
ou=Water Department,
email= melissa. cansdale@cityofvallejo. net, c=US
Date: 2023.04.28 08:52:25 -07'00'
A.3-9
cont.

A.3-10
A.3-11
2-31
788
City of American Canyon
Paoli/ Watson Lane Annexation Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR Final Environmental Impact Report
Letter A.3
COMMENTER: City of Vallejo
DATE: April 28, 2023
Response A.3-1
The commenter introduces the project and states their intention to provide comments that the City of Vallejo deems vital to Vallejo residents and regional water customers.

The City thanks the City of Vallejo for their interest in the project. This comment does not pertain to the DEIR or CEQA, other than describing the intent of the commenter to provide comments on the DEIR. Therefore, no additional revisions to the Draft EIR are required in response to this comment.

Response A.3-2
The commenter states that the DEIR failed to identify areas of known controversy because it failed to consider ongoing litigation between American Canyon and Vallejo relative to the 1996 Water Service Agreement. The commenter states that litigation began in July 2022, which is prior to issuance of the NOP for this DEIR in September 2022; therefore, there was ample time to consider the litigation in the EIR.

As of publication of this FEIR, litigation over the 1996 Water Service Agreement ( WSA) is in its discovery stages in the trial court and it would be speculative to assume that it will result in any particular outcome especially since any outcome may result in an appeal by the party who was adversely affected. It is a dispute that is assigned to another branch of government for resolution. In contrast, an understanding of project water availability, particularly in light of Vallejo’ s adopted 2020 UWMP, which states the contract water cannot be reduced, responds to the commenter’ s statement.

The Vallejo 2020 UWMP 1 stated the following regarding its sale of water to American Canyon: “ The City’s] contract does not allow for restrictions or reductions ( page 4-3 of the Vallejo 2020 UWMP).

For demand projection purposes, the full 3,074 acre feet per year (AFY) is assumed.” In this case, the cited 3,074 AFY refers to the sum of raw (500 AFY), treated (2,074 AFY), and emergency water (500 AFY).

As shown in Table 4.17-3 of the Draft EIR, the projected water supply was based on the City of American Canyon 2020 UWMP. Importantly, the American Canyon 2020 UWMP assumed a total supply from Vallejo of only up to 1,129 AFY (500 AFY of raw water plus 629 AFY of treated water) in normal years through the full planning period, and still concludes that sufficient water is available through purchase of supplemental water to meet demand ( see page 6-2 of the American Canyon 2020 UWMP). In addition, page 7-4 of American Canyon’ s 2020 UWMP identifies that water supplies from Vallejo would be reduced during single-dry and consecutive- dry years, including the following:

Vallejo Treated Water: Assumed to be full contracted volume (628.6 AFY) for average year water type and to be reduced by 20 percent for single-dry and consecutive- dry year water types based on City of Vallejo’ s Water shortage Contingency Plan Stage 2. 1 City of Vallejo. 2021. 2020 Urban Water Management Plan Final Adopted: October 12, 2021. Prepared by: Zanjero Tully & Young, Comprehensive Water Planning
2-32
789
City of American Canyon
Paoli/ Watson Lane Annexation Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR Final Environmental Impact Report
Vallejo Emergency Water: Assumed to be full contracted volume (500 AFY) for single- dry and consecutive- dry years 1 to 2, 400 AFY consecutive- dry years 3 to 5, and to be 0 AFY for average year water type (based on historical past practice).

Overall, American Canyon’ s 2020 UWMP identifies less water supply from Vallejo than what is identified in the Vallejo 2020 UWMP. Because the Draft EIR relies on the water supply identified in American Canyon’ s 2020 UWMP, the Draft EIR analysis considers a conservative analysis where water supply from Vallejo is less than what is identified in the Vallejo 2020 UWMP.

American Canyon has available supply to meet the project’ s estimated 914 AFY demand, without Vallejo water. Only 23 percent of the City’s water supply is from the City of Vallejo in a “ normal” year. As noted by Vallejo, the project site is outside the place of use for Vallejo Permit Water, and thus the litigation could have no direct impact on that source of water for project water supply.

The City has alternative water supplies, including the option to purchase water if needed. Because the Draft EIR analysis relied on the water supply identified in the American Canyon 2020 UWMP, the analysis in the Draft EIR assumed a reduction in supply from Vallejo during single-dry and multi-dryyear scenarios. Furthermore, the American Canyon 2020 UWMP assumed only 629 AFY of treated water supplied from Vallejo (as opposed to the 2,074 assumed in the Vallejo 2020 UWMP). Should the litigation over the 1996 Agreement result in a further reduction in the City’ s portfolio of supply, it is reasonable to assume the City would acquire a substitute supply. The City of American Canyon’ s 2015 and 2020 UWMPs both concluded that predicted water supply constraints can be resolved through the purchase of “supplemental imported water through existing agreements through the planning horizon (2045) for all water year scenarios” ( 2020 UWMP 2, pp. 1-2.) The fact is that water purchases, both temporary and permanent, are commonly used in California to redirect water resources to areas of greatest need, consistent with the legislative policy of the state to facilitate water transfers. (See Wat. Code, Sections 475, 480 et seq.) In addition, the DEIR identified several other features that would ensure that the impacts would remain less than significant ( see Impact UTL-2). The Draft EIR identified that the City of American Canyon has a Water Shortage Contingency Plan that identifies the stages of actions to be taken during a reduction in available water supply. Furthermore, the Draft EIR identifies the application of the City’ s Zero Water Footprint (ZWF) Policy, which would require developers 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. Furthermore, new industrial uses would require dual plumbing and would set limits for daily water use, pursuant to American Canyon Municipal Code Chapter 13.10 (New Water and Sewer Connections and Services).

Therefore, no revisions to the DEIR are necessary.
2 City of American Canyon. 2023. 2020 Urban Water Management Plan Final: January 2023. Prepared by: Carollo Engineers, Inc. 2-33
790
City of American Canyon
Paoli/ Watson Lane Annexation Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR Final Environmental Impact Report
Response A.3-3
The commenter expresses concern over the finding of less than significant impacts under Impact UTL-2 because the DEIR failed to consider the impacts of the ongoing litigation. The commenter recommends that American Canyon refrain from relying on Vallejo Water to serve the project and other developments while litigation is ongoing.

Please refer to Response A.3-2, which explains why impacts would remain less than significant. No revisions to the DEIR are necessary.

Response A.3-4
The commenter states that the DEIR mischaracterizes the nature of water Vallejo supplies to American Canyon. Specifically, the commenter states that Section 4.17.1 of the DEIR fails to recognize the place of use restrictions associated with Vallejo’ s water rights. The commenter explains that Vallejo’ s only water right with an authorized place of use that includes American Canyon is License 7848, which does not extend to the whole of American Canyon.

Please refer to Response A.3-2, which provides further explanation of the assumptions about water supply used in the Draft EIR analysis. No revisions to the DEIR are necessary.

Response A.3-5
The commenter recommends that American Canyon perform a Cumulative Water Supply Assessment for all planned projects near the Paoli/ Watson Lane annexation area. The commenter recommends American Canyon consult with Vallejo ta part of this process and should consider developing an alternative water supply for the project.

The DEIR provides a programmatic and conservative overview of potential environmental impacts that may result from annexation of the project site. Specific development plans for the project site are not yet available and thus a Cumulative Water Supply Assessment is not feasible at this stage. A Cumulative Water Supply Assessment may be reasonable when specific development proposals are available, at the discretion of the City, so that the assessment includes the most recent planned and existing projects. In the interim, Section 4.17.4, Cumulative Impacts, addresses cumulative water supply impacts and finds such impacts to be less than significant. Therefore, no revisions to the DEIR are necessary.

Response A.3-6
The commenter states that completing a cumulative water supply assessment supports the purpose of the DEIR as a programmatic EIR. The commenter states that the DEIR should evaluate the impact of increasing the average of the residential estate zoning area to ensure that the programmatic issues are properly addressed and mitigated in the DEIR.

While some of the project site would be pre-zoned, as discussed in Section 2.5.7, Project Buildout, the Residential Estate pre-zoning is intended to acknowledge the existing residential uses on the project site and residential growth is not considered in the DEIR ( also refer to Responses A.1-3 and A.3-11). As such, there would be no additional water demand from this change in pre-zoning. Please also refer to Response A.3-5. No revisions to the DEIR are necessary. 2-34
791
City of American Canyon
Paoli/ Watson Lane Annexation Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR Final Environmental Impact Report
Response A.3-7
The commenter recommends that footnote number 3 be amended on page 4.17-2 of the DEIR to clarify that the State imposed curtailments on Vallejo’ s License 7848 and these curtailments were not an action of Vallejo. The commenter also recommends that the DEIR be amended to disclose and consider that License 7848 was curtailed again in 2021 and 2022 and the Barker Slough Pumping Plant was curtailed in 2021 and 2022 for the presence of Delta Smelt larvae in accordance with the ITP in place for SWP facilities. The commenter states the ITP has the potential to significantly impact the availability of water supplies to the region including American Canyon.

Please refer to Response A.3-2, which explains how the numbers used in the water supply analysis are reasonable and why impacts would be less than significant. The commenter has not presented any new information that would change the impact analysis and for that reason no revisions to the DEIR are necessary.

Response A.3-8
The commenter states that the DEIR used incorrect water volumes. Specifically, the commenter states under the 1996 Water Services Agreement the volume of Vallejo treated water available to American Canyon is 2,074 acre feet (AF) instead of 3,206 AF which is referenced in Table 4.17-1 of the DEIR. The commenter cites American Canyon’ s 2020 Urban Water Management Plan which identifies 628.6 AF of Vallejo Treated Water available for purchase and recommends that the water supply for the project be reevaluated.

Please refer to Response A.3-2, which explains that the analysis of water supply relies on the water supply presented in American Canyon’ s 2020 UWMP. The Draft EIR analysis assumes the approximately 629 AFY of Vallejo Treated Water. Please refer to the numbers in Table 6-9 of the American Canyon 2020 UWMP, which presents the water supply numbers during normal-dry years, including the approximately 629 AFY from Vallejo Treated Water. These numbers are consistent with the numbers presented in Table 4.17-3 of the Draft EIR. No revisions to the DEIR are necessary.

Response A.3-9
The commenter states that the DEIR relies on American Canyon’ s Zero Water Footprint policy to find that there would be no net increase in water demands. The commenter expresses concern that there is no analysis of how the project will comply with that policy.

Please refer to Response A.3-2. The ZWF policy is enforceable during the project approval stage for development facilitated by the project. The City of American Canyon disagrees that there is no analysis of how the project would comply with this policy. In fact, the Draft EIR includes a list of measures to achieve this policy. Below is an excerpt from Section 4.17 the Draft EIR that outlines these actions:

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).

As such, no revisions to the DEIR are necessary.
2-35
792
City of American Canyon
Paoli/ Watson Lane Annexation Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR Final Environmental Impact Report
Response A.3-10
The commenter states that the street improvements such as extending Newell Drive and the circulation improvements along Paoli Loop and Watson Lane as discussed in the DEIR are growth inducing impacts. The commenter states that these improvements will have effects on VMT, noise, population, greenhouse gas emissions, energy, air quality, and aesthetics.

The City of American Canyon disagrees with the assertion that the extension of Newell Drive and associated circulation improvements are growth inducing impacts. These roadway improvements are aimed at increasing local and regional circulation and would not induce population or economic growth as they will serve existing users. Even if roadway improvements are determined to be growth inducing impacts, Section 5.1, Growth Inducement, in Section 5, Other CEQA Required Discussions, discusses the project’ s overall potential to foster economic or population growth. The DEIR concludes that, while the project, including roadway improvements, could induce economic growth, the City anticipates that the local and regional labor force would adequately support this growth especially given the new housing anticipated from approved projects, such as the Watson Ranch Specific Plan and Broadway District Specific Plan. Therefore, no revisions to the DEIR are necessary.

Response A.3-11
The commenter states that the DEIR does not adequately address affordable housing. The commenter states that the City has disregarded LAFCO’ s policies and failed to address affordable housing. The commenter recommends that the DEIR address how any fee charged for affordable housing will ensure that an adequate amount of affordable housing would be constructed to meet requirements.

The City of American Canyon is aware of the need to add affordable housing in the region and is pursuing its Regional Housing Needs Allocation through other projects that aim to add residential units. None of the project objectives, as listed in Section 2.7, Project Objectives, are related to housing, and therefore, affordable housing is outside of the scope of the project. Furthermore, and as discussed in Section 4.13, Population and Housing on page 4.13-4:

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.

While some of the project site would be pre-zoned, as discussed in Section 2.5.7, Project Buildout, the Residential Estate pre-zoning is intended to acknowledge the existing residential uses on the project site and residential growth is not considered in the DEIR. Lastly, Napa County LAFCo is responsible for reviewing and approval of the City’ s annexation application, which includes this DEIR. No revisions to the DEIR are necessary.
2-36
793
2-37
794
2-38
795
2-39
796
2-40
797
2-41
798
City of American Canyon
Paoli/ Watson Lane Annexation Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR Final Environmental Impact Report
Letter P.1
COMMENTER: Leslie E. Lawson and Margaret E. Lawson
DATE: April 21, 2023
Response P.1-1
The commenters request that the American Canyon Planning Commission revise the proposed zoning for their properties as included in the DEIR to reflect the zoning as presented in the 2019 annexation project proposal.

The City revised the proposed pre-zoning between 2019 and commencement of preparation of the DEIR in 2022 by extending the Residential Estates pre-zoning border north to ensure that entire parcels were pre-zoned for one use. Under the 2019 proposal, pre-zoning of certain parcels in the middle of the project site (parcels I and M as indicated on Table 2-1 on page 2-4 and Figure 2-3 on page 2-5 of the DEIR) would have been split into two uses. Regardless, the proposed pre-zoning is a component of the proposed project which is outside of the scope of analysis within the DEIR. The DEIR analyzes and discloses the potential environmental impacts and mitigation measures to reduce potentially significant impacts of the proposed project. The DEIR does not propose zoning, but instead evaluates impacts of proposed zoning. Therefore, no additional revisions to the DEIR are necessary in response to this comment.

Response P.1-2
The commenters state that there are differences in the 2019 proposed zoning and the current proposed zoning for their property (APN 057-120-050 and 057-120-051) and their neighbor’ s property (APN 057-120-045). The commenters state that the current proposed zoning for these parcels is RE and that in the 2019 proposal the zoning for these parcels was RE with the back of the properties zoned as Paoli light industrial (PLI).

Please refer to Response P.1-1. This comment does not pertain the DEIR or CEQA. Therefore, no additional revisions to the DEIR are necessary in response to this comment.

Response P.1-3
The commenters state that they submitted inquiries to both Sean Kennings, Lake Associates, and City staff asking about the purpose of this change and to request that the proposed zoning be changed to reflect the 2019 proposal. The commenters state that City staff informed them that the previous project was a property owner-initiated project while the current proposal is a City-initiated project.

The City staff further indicated that the current proposal maintains a status-quo zoning for Watson Lane properties to minimize environmental impacts and mitigation and that land use changes may be considered any time following annexation.

The City concurs its previous response as referenced by the commenter from November 29, 2022. In addition, please refer to Response P.1-1 regarding consistency of pre-zoning across individual parcels. Additionally, as discussed in Response P.1-1, pre-zoning is a component of the proposed project and is not proposed by the DEIR. The DEIR evaluates potential environmental impacts of the proposed project. Therefore, no additional revisions to the DEIR are necessary in response to this comment.
2-42
799
City of American Canyon
Paoli/ Watson Lane Annexation Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR Final Environmental Impact Report
Response P.1-4
The commenters express an opinion that it is more appropriate to discuss proposed zoning before annexation rather than request a change after annexation.

Please refer to Response P.1-1. As described therein, no additional revisions to the DEIR are necessary, as zoning is a component of the proposed project and is only evaluated for potential environmental impacts in the DEIR.

Response P.1-5
The commenters state that the uses allowed on their properties under the 2019 proposal are more consistent with the uses allowed under the airport zoning. The commenters state that their properties are located in Zone D in the Napa Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan which, in part, prohibits residential uses except for those allowable under agricultural land use zoning designations.

The commenters state that light industrial land use appears to be allowed in Zone D.

The DEIR states on page 2-16 under Section 2.8, Required Approvals, that the City will not approve a residential use application in Zone D until an amendment to the Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan has been approved or December 31, 2023, whichever occurs first. The City notes that revisions to the Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan are underway and future residential development with additional environmental review under CEQA may be possible. Further, as noted under Response P.1-1, proposed pre-zoning is a component of the proposed project. The DEIR evaluates the environmental impacts of the proposed project. No additional revisions to the DEIR are required in response to this comment.

Response P.1-6
The commenters state that the zoning proposed in 2019 was adopted by the City Council through Resolution No. 2019-11 and Resolution No. 2019-44. The commenters also request assistance in locating documents from the Planning Commission/ City Council meetings that revised or replaced these resolutions.

Resolution 2019-11 relates to the City participating in Phase 2 of the Sites Reservoir project.

Resolution 2019-44 is a First Amended Pre-Annexation Agreement for the Cecil Augusto Paoli Revocable Family Trust property as a portion of the Paoli Loop/ Watson Lane Area Annexation affected area. Thus, neither resolution relate to rezoning. Furthermore, rezoning must occur by Ordinance and not Resolution. This comment does not pertain to the DEIR or CEQA. Therefore, no additional revisions to the DEIR are necessary in response to this comment.

The commenter requests assistance in obtaining documents from meetings where Resolution No. 2019-11 was addressed. Copies of these documents can be obtained by submitting a public records act request at City Hall located at 4381 Broadway, American Canyon, California 94503 or on the following website address: https:// rb.gy/ laozg.
2-43
800
City of American Canyon
Paoli/ Watson Lane Annexation Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR Final Environmental Impact Report
Response P.1-7
The commenters express an opinion that their property should be zoned according to the 2019 proposal because light industrial will be directly behind their properties, so allowing light industrial on the back of their properties would give them more options on their properties. The commenters express an opinion that this change should not affect the environmental impact report because their parcels are in close proximity to the Paoli property that will also be zoned light industrial.

This comment pertains to a zoning request for a specific property. This comment does not pertain to the DEIR or CEQA. The commenter acknowledges this comment does not pertain to the DEIR.

Therefore, no additional revisions to the DEIR are necessary in response to this comment.

Response P.1-8
The commenters express an opinion that the proposed zoning should reflect the 2019 proposal because the current proposal prohibits and restricts future development on their properties and because their request is consistent with previously adopted City Council resolutions.

This comment pertains to a zoning request for a specific property or properties. This comment does not pertain to the DEIR or CEQA. No additional revisions to the DEIR are necessary in response to this comment.
2-44
801
2-45
802
2-46
803
2-47
804
City of American Canyon
Paoli/ Watson Lane Annexation Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR Final Environmental Impact Report
Letter P.2
COMMENTER: Leslie E. Lawson, Margaret E. Lawson, Sam Clerici, and Leann Clerici DATE: April 26, 2023
Response P.2-1
The commenters state that they reviewed the staff report and are providing comments in reference to Alternative 4. The commenters state that according to the staff report, Alternative 4 assumes the Newell Drive extension would not extend north of Watson Lane and that travelers would instead utilize Watson Lane and Paoli Loop Road to travel between Newell Drive and SR 29, and between Newell Drive and the planned extension of South Kelly Road. The commenters also state that the staff report indicates that Alternative 4 would utilize an existing-at-grade crossing of the Union Pacific Railroad tracks on Watson Lane and require an 80-foot right-of-way width.

The commenter stated their understanding of Alternative 4. No additional revisions are required in response to this comment.

Response P.2-2
The commenters request that the City not choose Alternative 4 in the DEIR because it is the only alternative that negatively impacts current private residences.

As required by CEQA, an EIR must describe a reasonable range of alternatives to a proposed project that could feasibly attain most of the basic project objectives, and would avoid or substantially lessen any of the proposed project' s significant effects. The Draft EIR does not recommend approval of the proposed project or alternatives to the proposed project, such as Alternative 4. The City Council will make a decision on whether to approve the Proposed Project and is required to make Findings regarding Alternatives considered, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15091. Letter P.2 will become part of the FEIR and thus, will be provided to the advisory bodies and City Council. No additional revisions to the DEIR are required in response to this comment.

Response P.2-3
The commenters state an opinion that the 80-foot right-of-way required as part of Alternative 4 would make Watson Lane a “major collector street” that would require four times its current width of 20 feet. The commenters state this would require 30-foot-wide encroachments on each private residence along Watson Lane. The commenters express concern over the cost incurred by the city to acquire these encroachments.

Please refer to Response P.2-2. As described therein and on page 6-17 of the DEIR, implementation of Alternative 4 would encroach on private property. Please also see Figure 6-1 in the DEIR, which shows the potential areas that may need to be encroached on for this alternative, including driveways for residences. The cost associated with acquiring land is not a CEQA environmental topic or issue, which are identified in Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines. Accordingly, no additional revisions to the DEIR are required in response to this comment. 2-48
805
City of American Canyon
Paoli/ Watson Lane Annexation Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR Final Environmental Impact Report
Response P.2-4
The commenters express concerns over the proximity of homes to the widened road required as part of Alternative 4. The commenters raise questions regarding city setback requirements, traffic and noise levels, increased pollution, property values, increase in emergency services due to an increase in crime, and the control of traffic along Watson Lane if Alternative 4 is chosen.

New roadway development would comply with City setback requirements as a regulatory requirement of the Municipal Code. As noted on page 6-19 in Section 6, Alternatives, there is no substantial evidence that Alternative 4 would increase VMT, and the commenter does not provide supporting evidence or documentation. Congestion, traffic, and speed are not impacts discussed under CEQA ( see both Section 15064.3 and Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines). Since there would be no increase in VMT, associated air quality and noise impacts from vehicles is not assumed to increase either. Impacts to property values are not analyzed under CEQA, as property value impacts are not environmental impacts subject to environmental review under CEQA. As discussed on page 6-18 in Section 6, Alternatives, Alternative 4 is not anticipated to result in an increase in emergency calls rates, such as calls to respond to crimes. Please refer to Response P.2-2 regarding the environmental impacts of Alternative 4. No additional revisions to the DEIR are required in response to this comment.

Response P.2-5
The commenters express concerns over encroachment on leach lines or septic systems required as part of Alternative 4. The commenters raise questions regarding the use of septic systems within the encroachment area and if the City would incur the cost for new septic systems.

As discussed on page 6-17 in Section 6, Alternatives, the DEIR notes that roadway widening under Alternative 4 would encroach on existing private properties and would require the take of portions of encroached properties. Potential replacement or movement of septic systems is outside of the scope of this DEIR because septic relocation is not proposed. Additionally, please refer to Response P.2-2 regarding the environmental viability of Alternative 4. No additional revisions to the DEIR are required in response to this comment.

Response P.2-6
The commenters express concerns about the impact to residents during the construction on Watson Lane included as part of Alternative 4, such as impacts to utilities and delays in emergency service responses. The commenters raise questions regarding where large equipment would be staged during construction.

Impacts related to travel delays are not relevant to CEQA analysis for land use projects, such as the proposed project (see Section 15064.3 of the CEQA Guidelines). Construction staging is not determined because no specific construction projects have been designed or proposed as part of the proposed project or alternatives, including Alternative 4. As discussed on page 6-19 in Section 6, Alternatives, impacts to utilities resulting from Alternative 4 were determined to be less than significant, similar to the proposed project. As discussed on page 6-18 in Section 6, Alternatives, the DEIR acknowledges that impacts to response times for police and fire services would be impacted more severely than analyzed under the project. Additionally, please refer to Response P.2-2 regarding the environmental viability of Alternative 4. No additional revisions to the DEIR are required in response to this comment.
2-49
806
City of American Canyon
Paoli/ Watson Lane Annexation Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR Final Environmental Impact Report
Response P.2-7
The commenters express an opinion that Alternative 4 would result in major traffic delays during railroad use time which would block entrances to Watson Lane residences. The commenters note this is addressed in the DEIR.

Traffic and vehicle delay are not issues required for analysis under CEQA for land use projects, such as the proposed project and alternatives to the project (CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3).

Additionally, please refer to Response P.2-2 regarding the environmental impacts of Alternative 4.

No additional revisions to the DEIR are required in response to this comment.

Response P.2-8
The commenters state that they believe Alternative 4 is not the best option for the current residents of Watson Lane, future residents of Watson Ranch, or the City as a whole.

As discussed under Response P.2-2, the DEIR notes that Alternative 4 is the least environmentally superior alternative of the alternatives analyzed in the DEIR. Also described in Response P.2-2, the Draft EIR does not recommend approval of Alternative 4, other alternatives, or the proposed project, but instead discloses the potential environmental effects of the project and alternatives, compared to the project. City Council will make a decision on whether to approve the Proposed Project and is required to make Findings regarding Alternatives considered, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15091. Therefore, no additional revisions to the DEIR are required in response to this comment.
2-50
807
To: Sean Kennings 4/ 28/ 2023
From: Charles Lemmon, 193 Watson Lane, American Canyon
Subject: Watson Lane annexaon Dra EIR comments
The EIR is a well wrien comprehensive discussion of potenal impacts. I do have 3 comments / concerns. If the comments are incorporated into the report, they have the potenal to increase the reports acceptance and credibility.
1) Alternaves secon
The Alternaves secon should include the LAFCO recommended alternave. The LAFCO recommended preferred alternave is to extend Newell Drive to connect with South Kelly road with No green island cross connecon. Most residents of Watson Lane and the City of American canyon strongly favor the LAFCO roung. I understand the City Manager' s concerns about potenal project schedule impacts due to Napa County being in control of the process. The uncertainty of Newell extension to South Kelly could be listed as the negave impact that lowers the score of this alternave below the City recommended project. Leaving out the Cizens and the LAFCO agency’ s most favored Newell Drive Extension alternave signicantly lowers the credibility of the EIR alternaves analysis secon. 2) Ulies impacts, wastewater.

Refer to the snip below.

Please add the words “ and the exisng residenal properes on Watson Lane” aer the words “ capacity to serve the project’ s”. Referencing the residenal properes capacity needs, will make the EIR more inclusive to the residents needs. The discussion of available capacity does not commit the City to migate the lack of sewer service to the residences.
3) Environmental impacts TAC PM 2.5
Refer to snip below
Letter P.3
P.3-2
P.3-3
P.3-4
P.3-1
2-51
808
The EIR should provide the details of the trac load calculaon as an appendix justlike the noise calculaons shown in appendix C. TAC / PM2. 5 is an important health impact topic of concern for the residents living on Watson Lane as well as exisng Newell drive residents. As wrien the esmated number of vehicles islisted, but the basis ofthe number is only discussed ingeneral terms. This lowers the report’scredibility inthis important area. General
comment on Report Focus areas. The
report primarily focuses onimpacts from “potenal future developments”. The report does not highlight the more certain impacts ofthe City recommended Newell Drive extension. The Newell Drive extension is not required toconstruct future developments onthe former Paoli Property. The Newel Drive extension is a separate project that has benets tothe City of American canyon. The Newell Drive extension is what created theneed toannex the Watson Lane neighborhood, notthe potenal development ofthe former Paoli property. As such the Newel Drive extension impacts should have been more highlighted as itis much more certain inthe near term versus “future possible developments”. I don’t have any recommendaonsonhow to x that now, Its just an observaon. P. 3-4 cont. P.
3-5 2-
52 809
City of American Canyon
Paoli/ Watson Lane Annexation Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR Final Environmental Impact Report
Letter P.3
COMMENTER: Charles Lemmon
DATE: April 28, 2023
Response P.3-1
The commenter states that the DEIR is well written and they have three comments which, if incorporated into the report, would have the potential to increase the DEIR’ s acceptance and credibility.

The City thanks the commenter for their interest in the project. Responses to the referenced comments are provided in Response P.3-2 through P.3-5, below. No additional revisions to the DEIR are required in response to this comment.

Response P.3-2
The commenter states an opinion that the alternative section should include the LAFCO recommended alternative to extend Newell Drive to connect with South Kelly Road. The commenter states an opinion that this alternative is strongly favored by most residents of Watson Lane and American Canyon and that to leave it out of the DEIR lowers the credibility of the alternatives analysis section.

Section 6, Alternatives, of the DEIR evaluates feasible alternatives to the project to reduce one or more potentially significant impacts of the proposed project, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6. Extending Newell Drive northward to South Kelly Road and forgoing the connection to Paoli Loop Road/ Green Island Road is not feasible for analysis under the DEIR since the lead agency for such a project would include Napa County. Extension of Newell Drive into South Kelly Road would require approval from Napa County under CEQA. The DEIR analyzes discretionary actions proposed by and potentially undertaken by the City of American Canyon. According to CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(f), jurisdictional boundaries, such as the boundary serving as the city/ county limits, are factors to consider when determining the feasibility of an alternative in CEQA.

Additionally, CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(b) states that the purpose of including alternatives in an EIR is to attempt to reduce one or more of the significant impacts identified for the proposed project. The commenter does not provide explanation or details on how their suggested alternative would reduce potentially significant impacts of the project. Therefore, no additional revisions to the DEIR are required in response to this comment.

Response P.3-3
The commenter requests that “and the existing residential properties on Watson Lane” should be added to the discussion of impact UTIL-3 to make the DEIR more inclusive to resident’ s needs.

As discussed on page 4.17-24 of Section 4.17, Utilities and Service Systems, as of 2020 there was remaining capacity of 1.05 million gallons per day at the City’s water reclamation facility. The City would have substantial capacity to service the residents on the project site in addition to new development that may be facilitated by the project. The project site would be added to the City’s water service area and therefore, the existing residences would have the opportunity to be provided service. It is unnecessary to describe this in the DEIR. Therefore, no additional revisions to the DEIR are required in response to this comment.
2-53
810
City of American Canyon
Paoli/ Watson Lane Annexation Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR Final Environmental Impact Report
Response P.3-4
The commenter requests that details of traffic load as it relates to air quality impacts be added as an appendix to the EIR.

Traffic load volume is included in Appendix C, whereby volumes on the Newell Drive extension is estimated at 28,072 vehicles per day. The methodology to estimate traffic load is not in the purview of air quality analysis. Traffic volume, as discussed in Section 4.15, Transportation, was estimated using the American Canyon travel demand model. Accordingly, no additional revisions to the DEIR are required in response to this comment.

Response P.3-5
The commenter states an opinion that there should be more focus on the Newell drive Extension project throughout the DEIR as it is a separate project that created the need to annex the Watson Lane neighborhood.

The Newell Drive extension is discussed continuously throughout the DEIR where applicable. As a project feature as described under Section 2.5.2, Newell Drive Extension, it is thoroughly analyzed in Sections 4.1 through 5 for potentially significant environmental impacts. Accordingly, no additional revisions to the DEIR are required in response to this comment. 2-54
811
Comments on the Pauli/ Waton Lane Annexaon Project
From: Yvonne Baginski, 707-694-5486
yvonnebaginski@gmail. com
I am very concerned about the environmental impact of this project, which promises paving over another substanal poron of grasslands that will further work to annihilate local wildlife, increase GHG emissions, and destroy open space views. The current Environmental Impact Report is inadequate.

Specically, AES- 1 claims that the project would not have an adverse impact on scenic vistas. That statement bears no evidence. This project has no protecons in place to ensure that scenic vistas will remain in view of the public eye. There are no restricons for residences or industrial areas to remain single- story, no determinaon of space requirements between buildings, no buer zones, or building specicaons ineect. Right now, as it is wrien, as long as people stay within the city’s building codes, they can build how they’dlike. If you look atthe warehouses, oce buildings and apartments being built, you’ll note that they are 2-3stories high and readily obstruct all views. What is currently stated in this EIR will not protect the scenic views. This project refers
to “biologically sensive areas,” yet provides no informaon on locaon or protecon. A 50- foot setback from the banks ofthe North Slough is required under current regulaons. There isno extra protecon for this property spelled out inthis EIR. And, there is no land set aside specically for wildlife or plant lifeto be allowed to thrive inanatural state. What this project does is takes away more foraging/ nesng land from the local wildlife and further restrict their habitats. Some will perish, and others will no longer be found in Napa County. Almost all the land in American Canyon and south Napa County is being built up, sothere is really noplace lefor wildlife to live. Infact, the Giovannoni Site Project eats up 7percent of birds foraging habitat just onits own. Start adding up all theother acres eaten upby projects and the cumulave eect is devastang to the natural world. What this project fails to recognize is that itis part of a larger growth eort that will basically kill all the animals currently living or using this land. One request Ihave is
for theproject torequire that any residence or build onthis land use only nave plants and landscaping. That wildlife is allowed to ourish and must bele alone. No animal traps or poisoning are permied. Because the animals will be surrounded by two major roads, wildlife crossing bridges or tunnels bebuilt sothey cantraverse tothe wetlands orupinto the hills. Right now, ifthey cross any street they are headed toberun over by acar or truck. Because there is aslough cung through the property, all poison traps must be strictly prohibited. Bait staons are not allowed. AES-4. Lighng, especially at night, will be unavoidable. Of course, it will impact the environment. Especially the birds. To make astatement otherwise doesn’tmake sense. American Canyon is notaLetterP.4P.4- 1 P.4-
2 P. 4-
3 P. 4-
4 P. 4-
5 2-55
812
dark” city Unlike places like Tucson, Az, it currently doesn’ t have ordinances in place to limit light polluon.

AG-1 I don’t understand the statement that no farmland will be aected. I see right inthe introducon that agricultural land will be converted. “The land currently designated for Agricultural will be changed to industrial.” I
am also very dubious onthe “promises” made to migate theconstrucon process. Having watched numerous construcon sites in Napa Valley, I am curious on who is going to monitor and enforce these migaons.

I know from my own experience, that unl aformal complaint is made to the right person, nothing is done. I stress theright person because it could beastate ocial, a county ocial or a city ocial who has jurisdicon. Itis oen days between phone calls, and follow- up is impossible because no reports are made back tothe complainer. So, knowing this, how
realisc isitto “require the use of newer equipment,” when the “ newer” isn’t dened? The lack of concreteness in many of the migaons makes enforcement impossible. Who will be standing at the gate to monitor and enforce that 10% of building materials are purchased locally, or 65% of construcon and demolion willberecycled or reused? Who will be measuring the migaon? Idling anonworking vehicle islimited to5 minutes inthis EIR. am requesng it be further reduced to three minutes, and that nonworking vehicles be clearly dened. Somemes the vehicle is running while someone is just sing init, or has le it for a few minutes. What is especially appalling will be theloss offoraging land and habitat tothe Swainson hawk and golden eagle. Iwould bevery interested inknowing how purchasing migaon credits isgoing to save these birds in American Canyon. Especially so since the Napa Valley Vine roundabout purchased the last migatable Swainson hawk nesng treeavailable in California atacost of $170, 000. Here’ s one more fact to consider, the California Dept. of Fish and Wildlife has wrien numerous leers over the years, on various projects in American Canyon, asking specically for grasslands tobepreserved forforaging birds, especially the Swainson Hawk. Their pleas have been ignored by the local planners and city council members.

American Canyon is blessed
with thebest bird habitat in Napa County. Wildlife diversity isabellwether of ecological health and the lossof wildlife is the harbinger forthe future of humans, as well. One more thing to consider, as American Canyon connues to grow industrial areas, it is solidly aiming for a future public health crisis forthefamilies ofthe region. Already, there are numerous complaints about diesel truck emissions, idling, congeson and air polluon. American Canyon residents suer more exposure topollutants than 73% ofthe state, with exposures from trac in the 83rdpercenle, according to data from the California Oceof Environmental Health. The city’s residents also facethe highest polluon burden in Napa County. This development, along with the many others
already onthebooks for American Canyon, will contribute greatly tothe decline ofthe natural beauty of the region. It will also translate to astaggering decline inthe quality of life for people who enjoy open space, vista views, clean air, and the abundance nature provides. P.4-5cont.P. 4-6
P.4-7P.
4-8 P.
4-9 P.
4-10 P.
4-11 2-
56 813
We need a new dialogue on how we are shaping the future of American Canyon. Backroom agreements made thirty years ago are no longer relevant. The truth is, no one looking for a quick and easy prot is going to be interested in preservaon. The cost of the cumulave damage caused by a selsh lack of concern is much greater than the economic benets to be obtained.

I am imploring you to do the least harm to the environment. If a buildout is inevitable, then make it the best for all. Not just the investors and the developers. Demonstrate sustainable possibilies.

This environmental review is simply inadequate and more work needs to be done.

Thank you for this consideraon,
Yvonne Baginski
P.4-11
cont.

P.4-12
2-57
814
City of American Canyon
Paoli/ Watson Lane Annexation Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR Final Environmental Impact Report
Letter P.4
COMMENTER: Yvonne Baginski
DATE: No date, received April 28, 2023
Response P.4-1
The commenter expresses an opinion that the environmental impact of this project has the potential to impact wildlife, increase GHG emissions, and destroy open space views. The commenter expresses an opinion that the DEIR is inadequate.

Impacts to wildlife, GHG emissions, and open space views are discussed in Sections 4.4, Biological Resources, 4.8, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, and 4.1, Aesthetics, respectively. As described in those sections of the DEIR, the proposed project would result in impacts to these environmental resources or topics. Impacts would be either less than significant without mitigation or reduced to less than significant with implementation of provided mitigation measures. Therefore, no additional revisions to the DEIR are required in response to this comment.

Response P.4-2
The commenter states an opinion that there is no evidence to support the claim that the project would not have an adverse impact on scenic vistas. The commenter states they believe there are no protections in the DEIR to ensure that scenic vistas will remain in public view and scenic views will not be protected.

As discussed under Impact AES-1 in Section 4.1, Aesthetics, there are no designated scenic vistas or viewpoints within American Canyon. Hills in the background of the project site may be visible on an intermittent and fleeting basis to motorists passing the project site on SR 29, but undeveloped hillside areas would remain visible in the background. Viewers in open space areas like Newell Open Space Preserve would be too distant from the project site for scenic views to be impacted.

Additionally, no specific development proposals on the project site were analyzed as part of the project because none are proposed at this time. Furthermore, Impact AES-1 determines that the project would have adverse impacts on scenic vistas but impacts would be less than significant ( DEIR page 4.1-12). Therefore, no additional revisions to the DEIR are required in response to this comment.

Response P.4-3
The commenter states that there is no information about the location or protection of biologically sensitive areas in the DEIR. The commenter states a 50-foot setback from the banks of the North Slough is required, but there is no extra protection for this property included in the DEIR. The commenter expresses concerns about the cumulative impacts to wildlife given the other development projects being proposed in the area.

Section 4.4, Biological Resources, of the DEIR describes various biologically sensitive areas that occur or may occur in the project area. For example, page 4.4-1 of the DEIR describes the presence of the North Slough in the project site. Pages 4.4-3 and 4.4-4 of the DEIR describe the potential for specialstatus species to occur in the project site based on suitable habitat in the area. Another example is found on page 4.4-6 of the DEIR, which describes the presence of a known wildlife movement corridor along the eastern border of the project site. The DEIR also provides mitigation measures, 2-58
815
City of American Canyon
Paoli/ Watson Lane Annexation Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR Final Environmental Impact Report
such as Mitigation Measure BIO-1 to reduce impacts to these biological resources. With implementation of mitigation measures identified in Section 4.4, Biological Resources, impacts to biological resources would be reduced to less than significant.

As discussed under Impact BIO-3 in Section 4.4, Biological Resources, the DEIR acknowledges that North Slough may potentially be jurisdictional. Mitigation Measure BIO-5 would require preparation of an aquatic resources delineation survey to determine the jurisdictional area around the North Slough. Follow up permitting would potentially be required from United States Army Corps of Engineers, California Regional Water Quality Control Board, and CDFW. Oversight from these State and federal agencies would ensure protection of the North Slough. Furthermore, Mitigation Measure BIO-6 would require a setback of at least 50 feet from the top of the bank of the North Slough. The setback may be greater pending the results of the aquatic resources delineation completed under Mitigation Measure BIO-5. Finally, Mitigation Measure BIO-7 would be required in the case that impacts to North Slough could not be avoided. Implementation of these three mitigation measures would reduce impacts to North Slough to less than significant. Additionally, as discussed under Impact BIO-1, Mitigation Measure BIO-1 would require site-specific biological resources assessments; if potential critical habitat is uncovered, then further technical studies and consultation with State and federal agencies may be required.

Cumulative impacts to biological resources, such as wildlife and habitat, is discussed on page 4.4-21 in Section 4.4, Biological Resources, of the DEIR. As discussed therein, the project’ s contribution to a cumulative impact would be less than considerable with implementation of mitigation measures.

Furthermore, nearby habitat would remain in the area unaffected by the project, including habitat at Newell Open Space Preserve, and other ongoing City projects include conservation easements to preserve habitat.

No additional revisions to the DEIR are required in response to this comment.

Response P.4-4
The commenter requests that a residence built as part of the proposed project be required to use only native plants and landscaping. The commenter also requests that no animal traps or poisoning be permitted and that bridges or tunnels be built so that animals can safely cross the two major roads surrounding development proposed by the project.

The DEIR is a programmatic document and does not analyze details and designs specific to individual development projects, such as landscaping, animal traps/ poisons, or the use of wildlife bridges/ tunnels. As noted in Impact BIO-4 in Section 4.4, Biological Resources, the project site is not a significant regional or local wildlife movement corridor. Impacts to wildlife movement in North Slough would be reduced to less than significant with implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-6.

No additional revisions to the DEIR are required in response to this comment.

Response P.4-5
The commenter states an opinion that there will be unavoidable light at night as a result of the project and that this will negatively impact birds. The commenter states that American Canyon does not currently have ordinances in place to limit light pollution.

As discussed on pages 4.1-14 and 4.1-15, impacts to light pollution would be less than significant with mitigation. While the project would increase nighttime light, implementation of Mitigation Measure AES-2 would reduce operational light spillage to the extent feasible. The City has adopted California Green Building Code into its municipal code, which includes requirements to reduce light 2-59
816
City of American Canyon
Paoli/ Watson Lane Annexation Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR Final Environmental Impact Report
pollution. Overall, implementation of Mitigation Measure AES-2 would ensure that lighting and glare is minimized during operation of future development facilitated by the project, and impacts would be less than significant. No additional revisions to the DEIR are required in response to this comment.

Response P.4-6
The commenter states that they don’t understand the statement that no farmland would be affected when the introduction states that agricultural land will be converted.

As discussed in Section 4.2, Agricultural and Forestry Resources, the project site does not contain farmland pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program, as there are no Important Farmlands located on the project site. CEQA is concerned with Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance. Prime Farmland is defined by the California Department of Conservation as “ Farmland with the best combination of physical and chemical features able to sustain long term agricultural production. This land has the soil quality, growing season, and moisture supply needed to produce sustained high yields. Land must have been used for irrigated agricultural production at some time during the four years prior to the mapping date”. Unique Farmland is defined as “ Farmland of lesser quality soils used for the production of the state' s leading agricultural crops. This land is usually irrigated, but may include non-irrigated orchards or vineyards as found in some climatic zones in California. Land must have been cropped at some time during the four years prior to the mapping date.” Farmland of Statewide Importance is defined as “ Farmland similar to Prime Farmland but with minor shortcomings, such as greater slopes or less ability to store soil moisture. Land must have been used for irrigated agricultural production at some time during the four years prior to the mapping date”. While some of the land proposed to be converted by the project is zoned as agricultural land, none of this land is classified as Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance. Therefore, there would be no impact to farmland as it pertains to CEQA. No additional revisions to the DEIR are required in response to this comment.

Response P.4-7
The commenter expresses concern over construction mitigation measures included in the DEIR.

Specifically, the commenter asks who will be monitoring and enforcing these measures. The commenter expresses concern over how “ newer” equipment is defined.

The DEIR is a programmatic document and does not analyze project-specific details including construction details because no specific construction project has been proposed or designed. The programmatic Mitigation and Monitoring and Reporting Program ( MMRP) of this project that would be required to be adopted pursuant to State Assembly Bill AB 3180 (1988) would provide mitigation for individual development projects. The use of the word “newer” in Mitigation Measure AQ-3 is used comparatively between equipment and/ or vehicles analyzed in an operational health risk assessment and potentially newer equipment and vehicles that may be available on the ground for actual use. No additional revisions to the DEIR are required in response to this comment. 2-60
817
City of American Canyon
Paoli/ Watson Lane Annexation Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR Final Environmental Impact Report
Response P.4-8
The commenter requests that nonworking vehicles be defined in the DEIR and that idling time requirements are further reduced to three minutes.

As stated in Section 4.8, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, the 5-minute idling time of nonworking vehicles would be consistent with the California Airborne Toxics Control Measure Title 13, Section 2485 of the California Code of Regulations requirements. Adherence to these requirements for nonworking vehicles would reduce GHG emissions associated with idling. No additional revisions to the DEIR are required in response to this comment.

Response P.4-9
The commenter states that the project would result in loss of foraging land and habitat for the Swainson’ s Hawk and Golden Eagle. The commenter expresses concern over the purchase of mitigation credits to save the Swainson Hawk and Golden Eagle in American Canyon because the Napa Valley Roundabout purchased the last mitigable Swainson Hawk nesting tree available in California. The commenter states that CDFW has written numerous letters on various American Canyon projects asking for grasslands to be preserved for foraging birds and that these please have been ignored by local planners and city council members.

As discussed in Section 4.4, Biological Resources, there are several records of Swainson’ s hawks nesting within five miles of the project site, with the last record from 2013. No Swainson’ s hawks were observed during the reconnaissance survey. There is suitable nesting and foraging habitat within the project site. The nesting habitat in the project site is limited to eucalyptus trees and ornamental trees within the low-density housing area. Swainson’ s hawk has a moderate potential to forage and nest within the project site. As stated in Response A.2-10, the City is revising Mitigation Measure BIO-2 to clarify the timing and requirements around Swainson’ s hawk surveys. Please refer to Section 3, Minor Revisions to the Draft EIR, to see the revisions to the DEIR, including revisions to Mitigation Measure BIO-2.

The commenter’ s submittals on other projects in American Canyon do not pertain to the DEIR for the proposed project. Therefore, no additional revisions to the DEIR are required in response to this comment.

Response P.4-10
The commenter expresses concern over air pollution and public health effects of the growth of industrial areas in American Canyon.

Air quality impacts were discussed in Section 4.3, Air Quality, of the DEIR, and operational impacts related to air quality were found to be less than significant with implementation of Mitigation Measure AQ-3, which would require an operational health risk assessment prior to project approval.

Development facilitated by the project would be subject to mitigation measures in the DEIR. No additional revisions to the Draft EIR are required in response to this comment. 2-61
818
City of American Canyon
Paoli/ Watson Lane Annexation Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR Final Environmental Impact Report
Response P.4-11
The commenter states an opinion that the project will contribute to a decline of natural beauty and quality of life in the area.

Environmental resources related to natural beauty, like scenic vistas and visual quality are discussed in Section 4.1, Aesthetics, of the DEIR. As described therein, the proposed project would have adverse impacts on aesthetics. However, impacts were determined to be less than significant either with or without mitigation, depending on the specific impact. Impacts to air quality, which can affect the visibility of scenic resources, were also determined to be less than significant, as concluded in Section 4.3, Air Quality. Therefore, no additional revisions to the DEIR are required in response to this comment.

Response P.4-12
The commenter requests that the project be conducted with the least harm to the environment. The commenter expresses the opinion that the environmental review is inadequate and more work needs to be done.

Pursuant to CEQA, the City has prepared the EIR to determine the potentially significant environmental impacts of the proposed project and to provide mitigations measures to reduce or avoid those impacts to the extent feasible. The DEIR contains mitigation measures, that when combined with the minor revisions contained in Section 3, Minor Revisions to the Draft EIR, would reduce potentially significant impacts to less than significant when implemented in accordance with the MMRP for the project.

The commenter’ s opinion that the environmental review conducted for the project is inadequate lacks substantial evidence. Responses to the other comments in the letter are provided above in Response P.4-1 through P.4-11. No additional revisions to the DEIR are required in response to this comment.
2-62
819
April 28, 2023
Sent via email
Brent Cooper
Community Development Director
City of American Canyon
4381 Broadway Street, Suite 201
American Canyon, California 94503
707) 647-4335
bcooper@cityofamericancanyon. org
Re: Paoli/ Watson Lane Annexation ( State Clearinghouse No 2022090097) Dear Mr. Cooper:

These comments are submitted on behalf of the Center for Biological Diversity (the Center”) regarding the Paoli/ Watson Lane Annexation ( State Clearinghouse No 2022090097).

The Center has reviewed the Draft Environmental Impact Report closely and is concerned about the fundamental and egregious failure to disclose the extent or significance of greenhouse gas emissions, serious impacts to special status species that have not been mitigated, and the incorrect water supply analysis, among other issues. The Center urges the City to correct these deficiencies and recirculate a revised EIR that conforms to the California Environmental Quality Act.

The Center is a non- profit, public interest environmental organization dedicated to the protection of native species and their habitats through science, policy, and environmental law.

The Center has over 1.7 million members and online activists throughout California and the United States. The Center has worked for many years to protect imperiled plants and wildlife, open space, air and water quality, and overall quality of life for people in the City of American Canyon and Napa County.

I. The DEIR’s Analysis of and Mitigation for Greenhouse Gas Impacts Is Inadequate.

Letter P.5
P.5-1
P.5-2
2-63
820
April 28, 2023

Lead agencies performing environmental review under CEQA must thoroughly evaluate a project’ s impacts on climate change. (See Communities for a Better Env’t v. City of Richmond 2010) 184 Cal.App.4th 70, 89-91.) The CEQA Guidelines require lead agencies to determine the significance of a proposed project’ s greenhouse gas (“ GHG”) emissions. ( CEQA Guidelines 15064. 4.) If an agency’ s analysis indicates that a proposed project will have a significant project- specific or cumulative impact on climate change, the agency must identify and adopt feasible mitigation measures to address this impact. ( CEQA Guidelines § 15126. 4(c).) Unfortunately, the DEIR’ s analysis of the Project’ s GHG emissions is flawed.

A. Climate Change is a Catastrophic and Pressing Threat to California.

A strong, international scientific consensus has established that human- caused climate change is causing widespread harms to human society and natural systems, and that climate change threats are becoming increasingly dangerous. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change ( IPCC), the leading international scientific body for the assessment of climate change, concluded in its 2014 Fifth Assessment Report that: “[ w]arming of the climate system is unequivocal, and since the 1950s, many of the observed changes are unprecedented over decades to millennia. The atmosphere and ocean have warmed, the amounts of snow and ice have diminished, and sea level has risen,” and further that “[ r]ecent climate changes have had widespread impacts on human and natural systems.” ( IPCC 2014.) These findings were echoed in the United States’ own 2014 Third National Climate Assessment and 2017 Climate Science Special Report, prepared by scientific experts and reviewed by the National Academy of Sciences and multiple federal agencies. The Third National Climate Assessment concluded that m] ultiple lines of independent evidence confirm that human activities are the primary cause of the global warming of the past 50 years” and “[ i]impacts related to climate change are already evident in many regions and are expected to become increasingly disruptive across the nation throughout this century and beyond.” ( Melillo 2014.) The 2017 Climate Science Special Report similarly concluded:

B]ased on extensive evidence, it is extremely likely that human activities, especially emissions of greenhouse gases, are the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century. For the warming over the last century, there is no convincing alternative explanation supported by the extent of the observational evidence.

The U.S. National Research Council concluded that “[ c]limate change is occurring, is caused largely by human activities, and poses significant risks for—and in many cases is already affecting— a broad range of human and natural systems.” ( NRC 2010.) Based on observed and expected harms from climate change, in 2009 the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency found that greenhouse gas pollution endangers the health and welfare of current and future generations.

P.5-2
cont.

P.5-3
2-64
821
April 28, 2023

74 Fed. Reg. 66496 (Dec. 15, 2009) [U.S. EPA, Endangerment and Cause or Contribute Findings for Greenhouse Gases Under Section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act; Final Rule].) These authoritative climate assessments decisively recognize the dominant role of greenhouse gases in driving climate change. As stated by the Third National Climate Assessment: “ observations unequivocally show that climate is changing and that the warming of the past 50 years is primarily due to human- induced emissions of heat- trapping gases.” ( Mellilo 2014.) The Assessment makes clear that “reduc[ing] the risks of some of the worst impacts of climate change” will require “aggressive and sustained greenhouse gas emission reductions” over the course of this century. (Melillo 2014 at 13, 14, and 649.) The impacts of climate change will be felt by humans and wildlife. Climate change is increasing stress on species and ecosystems— causing changes in distribution, phenology, physiology, vital rates, genetics, ecosystem structure and processes— in addition to increasing species extinction risk. (Warren 2008.) Climate- change- related local extinctions are already widespread and have occurred in hundreds of species. (Wiens 2016.) Catastrophic levels of species extinctions are projected during this century if climate change continues unabated.

Thomas 2004; Maclean 2011; Urban 2015.) In California, climate change will transform our climate, resulting in such impacts as increased temperatures and wildfires, and a reduction in snowpack and precipitation levels and water availability.

Therefore, immediate and aggressive greenhouse gas emissions reductions are necessary to keep warming well below 2°C above pre- industrial levels. The IPCC Fifth Assessment Report and other expert assessments have established global carbon budgets, or the total amount of carbon that can be burned while maintaining some probability of staying below a given temperature target. According to the IPCC, total cumulative anthropogenic emissions of CO2 must remain below about 1,000 GtCO2 from 2011 onward for a 66 percent probability of limiting warming to 2°C above pre-industrial levels, and to 400 GtCO2 from 2011 onward for a 66 percent probability of limiting warming to 1.5°C. (IPCC 2013 at 25; IPCC 2014 at 63-64 & Table 2.) These carbon budgets have been reduced to 850 GtCO2 and 240 GtCO2, respectively, from 2015 onward. ( Rogelj 2016 at Table 2.) As of 2022, climate policies by the world’ s countries would lead to an estimated 2.7°C of warming, and possibly up to 3.6°C of warming, well above the level needed to avoid the worst dangers of climate change. (Climate Action Tracker 2021.)
The United States has contributed more to climate change than any other country. The U.S. is the world’ s biggest cumulative emitter of greenhouse gas pollution, responsible for 27 percent of cumulative global CO2 emissions since 1850, and the U.S. is currently the world’ s second highest emitter on an annual and per capita basis. ( World Resources Institute 2020.) Nonetheless, U.S. climate policy is wholly inadequate to meet the international climate target to P.5-3
cont.
2-65
822
April 28, 2023

hold global average temperature rise to well below 2°C above pre-industrial levels to avoid the worst dangers of climate change. Current U.S. climate policy has been ranked as “ insufficient” by an international team of climate policy experts and climate scientists which concluded that the US’ climate policies and action in 2030 need substantial improvements.” ( Climate Action Tracker 2022.)
In its 2018 Special Report on Global Warming of 1.5°C, the IPCC— the leading international scientific body for the assessment of climate change— described the devastating harms that would occur at 2°C warming. The report highlights the necessity of limiting warming to 1.5°C to avoid catastrophic impacts to people and life on Earth. (IPCC 2018.) The report also provides overwhelming evidence that climate hazards are more urgent and more severe than previously thought, and that aggressive reductions in emissions within the next decade are essential to avoid the most devastating climate change harms.

In response to inadequate action on the national level, California has taken steps through legislation and regulation to fight climate change and reduce statewide GHG emissions.

Enforcement and compliance with these steps are essential to help stabilize the climate and avoid catastrophic impacts to our environment. California has a mandate under AB 32 to reach 1990 levels of GHG emissions by the year 2020, equivalent to approximately a 15 percent reduction from a business- as- usual projection. ( Health & Saf. Code, § 38550.) Based on the warning of the Intergovernmental panel on Climate Change and leading climate scientists, Governor Brown issued an executive order in April 2015 requiring GHG emission reduction 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030. ( Executive Order B-30-15 ( 2015).) The Executive Order is line with a previous Executive Order mandating the state reduce emission levels to 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050 in order to minimize significant climate change impacts. (Executive Order S-3-05 2005).) In enacting SB 375, the state has also recognized the critical role that land use planning plays in achieving greenhouse gas emission reductions in California. Most recently, the California Air Resources Board issued its 2022 Scoping Plan, which lays out a path to achieve carbon neutrality by 2045. ( CARB 2022.) 1
The state Legislature has found that failure to achieve greenhouse gas reduction would be detrimental” to the state’ s economy. ( Health & Saf. Code § 38501( b).) In his 2015 Inaugural Address, Governor Brown reiterated his commitment to reduce greenhouse gas emissions with three new goals for the next fifteen years:

Increase electricity derived from renewable sources to 50 percent; Reduce today’ s petroleum use in cars and trucks by 50 percent; Double the efficiency of existing buildings and make heating fuels cleaner. 1 https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2022-12/2022-sp.pdf P.5-3
cont.
2-66
823
April 28, 2023

Brown 2015 Address.)
Although some sources of GHG emissions may seem insignificant, climate change is a problem with cumulative impacts and effects. ( Ctr. for Biological Diversity v. Nat’ l Highway Traffic Safety Admin. ( 9th Cir. 2008) 538 F.3d 1172, 1217 (“ the impact of greenhouse gas emissions on climate change is precisely the kind of cumulative impacts analysis” that agencies must conduct).) One source or one small project may not appear to have a significant effect on climate change, but the combined impacts of many sources can drastically damage California’ s climate as a whole. Therefore, project-specific GHG emission disclosure, analysis and mitigation is vital to California meeting its climate goals and maintaining our climate.

The impacts of climate change are already being felt by humans and wildlife. Humaninduced climate change, including more frequent and intense extreme events, has caused widespread adverse impacts and related losses and damages to nature and people. ( IPCC 2022.) This rise in weather and climate extremes has led to some irreversible impacts, as natural and human systems are pushed beyond their ability to adapt. (IPCC 2022.) Thousands of studies conducted by researchers around the world have documented changes in surface, atmospheric, and oceanic temperatures; melting glaciers; diminishing snow cover; shrinking sea ice; rising sea levels; ocean acidification; and increasing atmospheric water vapor. ( USGCRP 2017.) In California, climate change will result in impacts including, but not limited to, increased temperatures and wildfires and a reduction in snowpack, precipitation levels, and water availability.

In the IPCC’ s most recent report, entitled Climate Change 2022: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability, it found that warming is proceeding even faster than anticipated, and the best-case scenario for climate change is slipping out of reach. (IPCC 2022.) The report now estimates that, over the next 20 years, the world will cross the global warming threshold of 1.5°C. And unless there are immediate, rapid and large- scale reductions in greenhouse gas emissions, limiting warming to close to 1.5°C—or even 2°C— will be beyond reach. The United Nations Secretary General described the forecasts in this report as an “ atlas of human suffering.” ( Borenstein 2022.)
Given the increasingly urgent need for drastic action to reduce GHG emissions, the FEIR’ s failure to fully disclose, analyze, mitigate, or consider alternatives to reduce the Project’s significant climate change effects is all the more alarming.

B. The DEIR’ s GHG Analysis Fails Because It Does Not Include an Inventory of GHG Emissions
P.5-3
cont.

P.5-4
2-67
824
April 28, 2023

As a preliminary matter, the DEIR fails to provide readers with information essential to understanding the Project’ s GHG emissions and therefore fails as an informational document. A DEIR must be an informational document from which the public can properly weigh any adverse effects presented by a project. Pub. Res. Code §§ 21061; 21005( a) (“ noncompliance with the information disclosure provisions of this division which precludes relevant information from being presented… may constitute a prejudicial abuse of discretion…”). “ CEQA requires full environmental disclosure…” ( Communities for a Better Environment v. City of Richmond 2010)184 Cal.App.4th 70, 88.) Guideline § 15144 states, “ an agency must use its best efforts to find out and disclose all that it reasonably can.” Failure to do so deprives the public of the ability to fulfill its proper role in the CEQA process. (Id.)
The City has not made a good faith effort at fully disclosing the GHG impacts of this Project because it claims to analyze GHG impacts without disclosing or quantifying the GHG emissions associated with the Project. This is a fundamental failure that renders the EIR inadequate as an informational document. A GHG inventory is a central part of the GHG analysis in an EIR, and that inventory makes the rest of the analysis possible. Readers of this EIR are given no sense of the scale of GHGs this Project will emit, so they are left unable to evaluate the impact of the emissions or what would be required to mitigate them. Far from being too difficult, a complete GHG inventory can be done with CalEEMod, and is standard in EIRs for mixed use developments. For just one example, the Otay Ranch Resort Village Project used CalEEMod to estimate GHG emissions from a project that included over 1,500 residences, a school, a park, and 40,000 square feet of retail uses. 2 ( Otay Ranch Resort Village Project DEIR, Appendix C-2.) A good faith effort at disclosure would necessarily include using the standard, easily available tools to estimate GHG emissions. The City’ s failure to disclose the inventory of emission associated with the Project is inexcusable.

C. The DEIR’s Threshold of Significance is Inappropriate and Not Supported by Substantial Evidence.

A lead agency’ s selection of a threshold of significance must be supported with substantial evidence. Moreover, a determination that an environmental impact complies with a particular threshold of significance does not relieve a lead agency of its obligation to consider evidence that indicates the impact may be significant despite compliance with the threshold.

CEQA Guidelines § 15064(b)(2).) If evidence shows that an environmental impact might be significant despite the significance standard used in the EIR, the agency must address that evidence. (Protect the Historic Amador Waterways v. Amador Water Agency (2004) 116 Cal.App.4th 1099, 1111.)
2 The Center does not here comment on the adequacy of the environmental review process for Otay Ranch Resort Village Project, beyond noting that it does include a GHG inventory.

P.5-4
cont.

P.5-5
2-68
825
April 28, 2023

BAAQMD’s thresholds for climate land use impacts require that projects meet a VMT target, depending on whether the project consists of office, retail, or residential uses. (BAAQMD 2022.) The thresholds were developed based on typical residential and office projects, and the BAAQMD warns that lead agencies “ should not use these thresholds” when faced with a project that is not a typical retail, residential or office project, because the analyses supporting the thresholds will not apply. ( BAAQMD 2022.)
This Project consists of almost 500,000 square feet of commercial uses, almost 700,000 square feet of industrial uses, and almost 200,000 square feet of visitor-serving/hotel uses. (DEIR 2-15.) The EIR chooses a significance threshold that treats these three categories—and all the specific land uses contained within each— as if they were all, exclusively, office space. The EIR claims that GHG impacts will not be significant if the Project achieves a 15% reduction in project- generated VMT per employee. ( 4.8-17.) That threshold is only appropriate for office spaces, and BAAQMD guidance specifically cautions against applying it indiscriminately to projects that are anything other than typical office projects. Far from being a typical office project, this project is instead 83 acres of diverse land uses, zoned for six different purposes.

DEIR 2-6; 2-9) No substantial evidence supports using the threshold that BAAQMD developed exclusively for office projects to capture the significance of the GHG impacts for this Project, and the threshold is thus unlawful under CEQA.

One specific impact that the EIR completely fails to disclose is GHG emissions from heavy trucks. Industrial uses account for the highest square footage of any land use type in the Project, and the EIR mentions “ serving local and regional demand for manufacturing, logistics warehouse, and other industrial uses” as one of the project objectives. ( DEIR 2-15, 6-20.) Industrial land uses involve heavy, diesel-powered trucks, which are serious emitters of GHGs.

For warehouse projects in particular, heavy-duty trucks are typically the largest source of GHG emissions. As just one example, at the recently approved Giovannoni warehouse, heavy trucks would emit 13,175 MT Co2/year—more than six times higher than the next highest source of GHGs. ( Giovannoni DEIR 3.6-53.) By omitting consideration of heavy trucks from the significance threshold and, further, failing to even estimate their emissions in an inventory, the EIR has completely neglected what might be the largest source of emissions from the largest land- use designation in the Project. Because substantial evidence shows that heavy truck emissions are likely to be a significant source of GHG impacts, the EIR is required to disclose and analyze them. (Protect the Historic Amador Waterways v. Amador Water Agency (2004) 116 Cal.App.4th 1099, 1111.)
P.5-5
cont.

P.5-6
2-69
826
April 28, 2023

II. The DEIR’s Analysis of Impacts to Biological Resources is Inadequate Because It Does Not Adequately Analyze Harms to Special-Status Species.

The DEIR acknowledges that the site is foraging habitat for the western burrowing owl ( a state species of special concern), Swainson’ s hawk ( a state- threatened species), and white- tailed hawk ( a fully- protected species.) ( DEIR 4.4-5.) However, it concludes that the loss of foraging habitat for these species is less than significant without any mitigation measures. That claim is not supported by substantial evidence.

The CEQA Guidelines indicate that a Project can be expected to have significant impacts to biological resources if the Project has a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. ( CEQA Guidelines, Appendix G, subd. IV(a).) Accordingly, the DEIR itself indicates that the Project’ s impacts will be significant if it will have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate . . . species . . . by the California Department of Fish and Game.” ( DEIR at 4.4-13; see also CEQA Guidelines § 15065(a)(1) [when performing an initial study, agencies shall make a mandatory finding of significance where a proposed project has the potential to substantially reduce the number or restrict the range of a listed species].) Consequently, the Project’ s impacts to western burrowing owl, Swainson’ s hawk, and whitetailed hawk must be considered significant and fully evaluated. The City has failed to do, disregarding the evidence, studies, and recommendations of the California Department of Fish and Wildlife ( CDFW).

III. The DEIR’s Water Supply Analysis Is Inadequate Because It Continues Mistaken Assumptions about American Canyon’ s Rights to Water from the City of Vallejo.

This EIR contains the same errors that the City of American Canyon has made repeatedly in other EIRs regarding its rights to water from the City of Vallejo. The EIR says that the Project will be supplied primarily from State Water Project Water and water from the City of Vallejo.

DEIR 4.17-1) The EIR assumes that 500-acre feet of water per year will be available for the Project from Vallejo Permit Water, without admitting that American Canyon does not have rights to that water, or even disclosing any uncertainty. This inadequate analysis ignores the Place of Use Restrictions associated with the water that Vallejo provides to American Canyon; relies on a contested interpretation of a water rights agreement between Vallejo and American Canyon that is the subject of current litigation; and does not consider Vallejo’ s concerns about American Canyon’ s 2020 Urban Water Management Plan.

P.5-7
P.5-8
2-70
827
April 28, 2023

This Project cannot be approved based on an EIR that relies on Vallejo water that American Canyon does not have the right to use. The EIR must be revised with a full and accurate analysis of what water will actually be available for the Project, and recirculated so the public, and particularly residents of American Canyon and Vallejo, can understand where the water will come from and evaluate the impacts of supplying that increasingly- scarce water to this development. ( Vineyard Area Citizens for Responsible Growth, Inc. v. City of Rancho Cordova 2007) 40 Cal.4th 412, 434 [“ The ultimate question under CEQA, moreover, is not whether an EIR establishes a likely source of water, but whether it adequately addresses the reasonably foreseeable impacts of supplying water to the project.”].) IV. CONCLUSION
Thank you for the opportunity to submit comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Paoli/ Watson Lane Annexation. We urge the City to correct the deficiencies in the DEIR to protect the residents of American Canyon from serious environmental impacts.

Given the possibility that the Center will be required to pursue legal remedies in order to ensure that the City complies with its legal obligations including those arising under CEQA, we would like to remind the City of its statutory duty to maintain and preserve all documents and communications that may constitute part of the “ administrative record” of this proceeding. 21167. 6(e); Golden Door Properties, LLC v. Superior Court ( 2020) 53 Cal.App.5th 733. The administrative record encompasses any and all documents and communications that relate to any and all actions taken by the City with respect to the Project, and includes “ pretty much everything that ever came near a proposed [ project] or [] the agency’ s compliance with CEQA . . . .” (County of Orange v. Superior Court (2003) 113 Cal.App.4th 1, 8.) The administrative record further includes all correspondence, emails, and text messages sent to or received by the City’s representatives or employees, that relate to the Project, including any correspondence, emails, and text messages sent between the City’s representatives or employees and the Applicant’ s representatives or employees. Maintenance and preservation of the administrative record requires that, inter alia, the City (1) suspend all data destruction policies; and ( 2) preserve all relevant hardware unless an exact replica of each file is made.

P.5-8
cont.

P.5-9
2-71
828
April 28, 2023

Please add the Center to your notice list for all future updates to the Project and do not hesitate to contact the Center with any questions at the number or email listed below.

Sincerely,
Frances Tinney
Legal Fellow
1212 Broadway, Suite #800
Oakland, CA 94612
Tel: (509) 432-9256
ftinney@biologicaldiversity. org
P.5-9
2-72
829
April 28, 2023

References
Bay Area Air Quality Management District (“ BAAQMD”). ( April 2022). CEQA Thresholds for Evaluating the Significance of Climate Impacts From Land Use Projects and Plans . Available at: https:// www.baaqmd. gov/~/ media/files/planning- and-research/ ceqa/ ceqa- thresholds2022/justification- report- pdf.pdf?la=en.

Borenstein, S. (2022, February 28). UN climate report: ‘Atlas of human suffering’ worse, bigger.

AP News. Available at: https:// apnews. com/ article/ climate- science- europe- unitednations-weather 8d5e277660f7125ffdab7a833d9856a Climate Action Tracker, Public data – emissions pathways (November 2021). Available at:
https:// climateactiontracker. org/ global/ temperatures/.

Climate Action Tracker, USA (last updated 16 August 2022), http:// climateactiontracker. org/ countries/ usa.

Giovannoni Logistics Center Project. (May 20, 2022.) Draft Environmental Impact Report.

IPCC, 2013: Summary for Policymakers. In: Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis, Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [ Stocker, T.F. et al. (eds.)], Cambridge University Press (2013).

IPCC, Climate Change 2014: Synthesis Report. Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, [Core Writing Team, R.K. Pachauri & L.A. Meyer ( eds.)], IPCC, Geneva, Switzerland ( 2014), http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/syr/SYR_AR5_FINAL_full_wcover.pdf IPCC, Hicke, J.A., S. Lucatello, L.D., Mortsch, J. Dawson, M. Domínguez Aguilar, C.A.F.

Enquist, E.A. Gilmore, D.S. Gutzler, S. Harper, K. Holsman, E.B. Jewett, T.A. Kohler, and KA. Miller. ( 2022). North America. In: Climate Change 2022: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [ H.-O. Pörtner, D.C. Roberts, M. Tignor, E.S. Poloczanska, K. Mintenbeck, A. Alegría, M. Craig, S. Langsdorf, S. Löschke, V.

Möller, A. Okem, B. Rama ( eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK and New York, NY, USA, pp. 1929–2042, doi:10.1017/9781009325844.016.

IPCC, Special Report on Global Warming of 1.5°C, IPCC, Geneva, Switzerland ( 2018), https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/sites/2/2019/06/SR15_Full_Report_High_Res.pd f.

Maclean, Ilya M. D. & Robert J. Wilson, Recent ecological responses to climate change support predictions of high extinction risk, 108 PNAS 12337 ( 2011).

Melillo, Jerry M, Terese (T.C.) Richmond & Gary W. Yohe (eds.), Climate Change Impacts in the United States: The Third National Climate Assessment, U.S. Global Change Research Program (2014), http://nca2014.globalchange.gov/downloads at 7. 2-73
830
April 28, 2023

NRC [National Research Council], Advancing the Science of Climate Change, National Research Council ( 2010), www. nap.edu at 2.

Otay Ranch Resort Village Specific Plan. (March 29, 2015.) “ Global Climate Change Evaluation.” Draft Environmental Impact Report, Appendix C-2 (March 29, 2015.) Rogelj, Joeri et al., Differences between carbon budget estimates unraveled, 6 Nature Climate Change 245 ( 2016).

Thomas, Chris. D. et al., Extinction risk from climate change, 427 Nature 145 (2004).

Urban, Mark C., Accelerating extinction risk from climate change, 348 Science 571 ( 2015).

USGCRP [U.S. Global Change Research Program], Climate Science Special Report: Fourth National Climate Assessment, Volume I [Wuebbles, D.J. et al. (eds.)], U.S. Global Change Research Program, Washington, DC (2017),
https:// science2017. globalchange. gov/ at 10.

Warren, Rachel et al. (2008). Increasing impacts of climate change upon ecosystems with increasing global mean temperature rise, 106 Climatic Change 141.

Wiens, J. J. (2016). Climate-related local extinctions are already widespread among plant and animal species. PLoS Biology, 14(12), 1–18.

World Resources Institute, This Interactive Chart Shows Changes in the World's Top 10 Emitters December 10, 2020). Available at: https:// www.wri.org/insights/ interactive- chart- showschanges-worlds-top-10-emitters/. 2-74
831
City of American Canyon
Paoli/ Watson Lane Annexation Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR Final Environmental Impact Report
Letter P.5
COMMENTER: The Center for Biological Diversity
DATE: April 28, 2023
Response P.5-1
The commenter states that the Center for Biological Diversity is a non-profit public interest environmental organization with over 1.7 million members throughout the country. The commenter states their concerns over the lack of disclosure of greenhouse gas emissions, impacts to special status species, and incorrect water supply analysis.

The City thanks the commenter for their interest in the project. Please refer to responses below for specific information regarding various concerns to issues addressed in the DEIR. No additional revisions to the DEIR are required in response to this comment.

Response P.5-2
The commenter states that lead agencies must thoroughly evaluate a project’ s impact on climate change and if an agency’ s analysis indicates that a proposed project will have a significant projectspecific or cumulative impact on climate change, the agency must identify and adopt feasible mitigation measures to address this impact. The commenter states an opinion that the DEIR’ s analysis of the project’ s GHG emissions is flawed.

The City acknowledges the commenter’ s explanation of a lead agency role for identifying potentially significant impacts and reducing those impacts with mitigation measures to the extent feasible. This comment is not related to the adequacy of the DEIR.

Greenhouse gas emissions were analyzed in Section 4.8, Greenhouse Gas Emissions. Impacts were found to be less than significant with implementation of identified mitigation measures.

This commenter provides no substantial evidence in this comment why they believe the DEIR GHG emissions and impacts analysis is flawed. No additional revisions to the DEIR are required in response to this comment.

Response P.5-3
The commenter cites numerous reports and publications emphasizing the threat of climate change to humans and wildlife and the need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

The City acknowledges receipt of climate change reports and publications . This comment does not pertain to the DEIR. Therefore, no additional revisions to the DEIR are required in response to this comment.
2-75
832
City of American Canyon
Paoli/ Watson Lane Annexation Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR Final Environmental Impact Report
Response P.5-4
The commenter states the opinion that the DEIR fails as an informational document because it does not provide readers with information that is essential to understanding the project’ s GHG emissions.

The commenter states that the City claims to analyze GHG impacts of the project without disclosing or quantifying the GHG emissions associated with the project. The commenter states that a GHG inventory could be done using CalEEMod and cites other projects for which CalEEMod was used to create a full GHG inventory.

As discussed on Page 4.8-16 of the DEIR, the latest guidance from the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD), the local air district, is to assess project impacts qualitatively BAAQMD 2022). The BAAQMD no longer recommends a brightline or service population approach to assessing GHG impacts under CEQA. The thresholds are based on the evaluation of whether a project would contribute its “fair share” towards achieving long-term climate goals. Applying the fair share approach to the determination of an individual project’ s contribution to climate change, BAAQMD developed qualitative thresholds for new land use development projects and how they would need to be designed and built to ensure they are consistent with the long-term goal of carbon neutrality by 2045 in California. Section 15064.4(a) of the CEQA Guidelines states that a lead agency shall have discretion to determine whether to quantify GHG emissions or rely on a qualitative analysis or performance- based standards. Among other factors, a lead agency should consider the extent to which a project complies with regulations or requirements adopted to implement a statewide plan for GHG reduction. In the Center for Biological Diversity v. Department of Fish & Wildlife, (62 Cal.4th 204, 2015), the California Supreme Court had “ expressed approval for a methodology that uses consistency with greenhouse gas reduction plans as a significance criterion for project emissions under CEQA.” The City determined that a qualitative and performance- based approach is appropriate and, therefore, quantification of project GHG emissions is not necessary to make a significance determination. The commenter states that “readers of this EIR are given no sense of the scale of GHGs this Project will emit, so they are left unable to evaluate the impact of the emissions.” However, since the City has taken a qualitative approach supported by the BAAQMD and the outcome of the Mission Bay Alliance v. Office of Community Investment and Infrastructure case (6 Cal.App.5th 160, 2016), it is not necessary to quantify project GHG emissions. Therefore, no additional revisions to the DEIR are required in response to this comment.

Response P.5-5
The commenter states that a lead agency’ s selection of a threshold of significance must be supported with substantial evidence. The commenter states that it is not appropriate to use BAAQMD’ s thresholds for climate land use impacts because the project contains commercial, industrial and hotel uses which do not fit into the office space category for which these thresholds were created.

As the CEQA lead agency, the City exercises its discretion to use the BAAQMD approach and GHG thresholds. The 2022 BAAQMD guidance states that “a lead agency should not use these thresholds if it is faced with a unique or unusual project.” The BAAQMD guidance is applicable to the proposed project, as it is not atypical. The BAAQMD thresholds are consistent with the three GHG reduction areas outlined by the California Air Resources Board (CARB) 2022 Scoping Plan Appendix D, Local Actions, for land use development projects: 1) transportation electrification, 2) VMT reduction, and 3) building decarbonization. All three of these priority GHG reduction areas are applicable to the 2-76
833
City of American Canyon
Paoli/ Watson Lane Annexation Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR Final Environmental Impact Report
proposed project and are covered by the BAAQMD thresholds, which were applied to the proposed project. Therefore, no additional revisions to the DEIR are required in response to this comment.

Response P.5-6
The commenter expresses concern over the lack of disclosure of GHG emissions associated with heavy trucks. The commenter states that industrial land use which is included in the proposed project involves the use of heavy diesel-powered trucks. The commenter expresses the opinion that the lack of inclusion of heavy truck emissions means the DEIR has neglected what might be the largest source of emissions associated with the project. The commenter states that the DEIR is required to disclose and analyze emissions from heavy trucks.

Emissions associated with heavy-duty trucks involved in goods movements are controlled and through fleet turnover of older trucks and engines to newer and cleaner trucks and engines. As discussed in the DEIR, in June 2020, CARB approved the Advanced Clean Trucks (ACT) regulation, which requires manufacturers who certify Class 2b-8 chassis or complete vehicles with combustion engines to sell zero-emission trucks as an increasing percentage of their annual California sales from 2024 to 2035. In addition, the regulation requires company and fleet reporting for large employers and fleet owners with 50 or more trucks. By 2045, all new trucks sold in California must be zeroemission. Implementation of this Statewide regulation would reduce consumption of nonrenewable transportation fuels as trucks transition to alternative fuel sources. Therefore, the GHG emissions of trips associated with heavy vehicles serving industrial uses are addressed through the implementation of Statewide programs such as the ACT regulation.

To further address GHG emissions associated with future heavy truck trips associated with the project, provisions have been added to Mitigation Measure GHG-2 to reduce GHG emissions from trucks to ensure that the project is contributing its “fair share” towards achieving long-term climate goals, as included in Section 3, Minor Revisions to the Draft EIR ( see pages 3-3 to 3-5, which shows the revisions to Mitigation Measure GHG-2). Therefore, no additional revisions to the DEIR are required in response to this comment beyond those identified in Section 3.

Response P.5-7
The commenter states that the claim in the DEIR that the project would have less than significant impacts without mitigation to Swainson’ s hawk and white-tailed hawk is not substantiated with evidence. The commenter cites CEQA Guidelines that indicate that a project can have significant impacts to a species either directly or through habitat modifications. The commenter states that the project’ s impacts to Western burrowing owl, Swainson’ s hawk, and white-tailed hawk must be considered significant and be fully evaluated.

As discussed on page 4.4-4 in Section 4.4, Biological Resources, of the DEIR, Western burrowing owls are known to occur throughout the region and are determined to have a moderate potential to occur within the project site. Suitable Western Burrowing Owl habitat is present throughout the project site within the nonnative annual grassland.

As discussed on page 4.4-4 in Section 4.4, Biological Resources, of the DEIR, there are several records of Swainson’ s hawks nesting within five miles of the project site, with the last record from 2013. No Swainson’ s hawks were observed during the reconnaissance survey. There is suitable nesting and foraging habitat within the project site. The nesting habitat in the project site is limited to eucalyptus trees and ornamental trees within the low-density housing area. Swainson’ s hawk has a moderate potential to forage and nest within the project site. As stated in Response A2-10, 2-77
834
City of American Canyon
Paoli/ Watson Lane Annexation Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR Final Environmental Impact Report
Mitigation Measure BIO-2 has been revised to include the Swainson’ s Hawk Technical Advisory Committee’ s Recommended Timing and Methodology for Swainson’ s Hawk Nesting Surveys in California’ s Central Valley. Mitigation Measure BIO-2 has also been revised to ensure clarity on the timing and requirements around Swainson’ s hawk surveys. Please refer to Section 3, Minor Revisions to the Draft EIR, for the revisions to the DEIR, including to Mitigation Measure BIO-2.

As discussed on page 4.4-5 in Section 4.4, Biological Resources, of the DEIR, there are several records for white-tailed kite within five miles of the project site and the project site provides foraging habitat and suitable nesting habitat. White-tailed kite would be protected with Mitigation Measure BIO-2.

As discussed in Section 4.4, Biological Resources, the grassland areas within the project site provide foraging habitat and suitable nesting habitat for Swainson’ s hawk, Western burrowing owls, and white-tailed kite on the project site. Development facilitated by the project would be subject to mitigation measures in the DEIR, with applicable revisions contained in Section 3, Minor Revisions to the Draft EIR. No additional revisions to the Draft EIR are required in response to this comment.

Response P.5-8
The commenter expresses concern over the assumption included in the DEIR that the project would be served by water from the City of Vallejo. The commenter states this assumption ignores the Place of Use Restrictions associated with this water, relies on a contested interpretation of the water rights agreement between Vallejo and American Canyon that is subject to current litigation, and does not consider Vallejo’ s concerns about American Canyons 2020 Urban Water Management Plan. The commenter states the opinion that the EIR must be revised with a full analysis of what water would be available for the project and recirculated to the public.

Please refer to Response A.3-2. No revisions to the DEIR are necessary.

Response P.5-9
The commenter thanks the City for the opportunity to comment on the DEIR and urges the City to correct the DEIR. The commenter reminds the City to retain the administrative record associated with the project. The commenter also requests to be added to the notice list for all future updates to the project.

The City will add the commenter to the project mailing/ notification list. Please refer to Section 3, Minor Revisions to the Draft EIR, of this FEIR for all revisions made to the DEIR. The City has maintained a complete administrative record of all documents and communications that relate to this project. No additional revisions to the DEIR are required in response to this comment. 2-78
835
Minor Revisions to the Draft EIR
Final Environmental Impact Report 3-1
Minor Revisions to the Draft EIR
This chapter presents specific text changes made to the DEIR since its publication and public review.

The changes are presented in the order in which they appear in the original Draft EIR and are identified by the Draft EIR page number. Text deletions are shown in strikethrough, and text additions are shown in underline. The information contained within this chapter clarifies and expands on information in the Draft EIR and does not constitute “ significant new information” requiring recirculation, as described in Section 4, Recirculation Not Warranted.

3.1 Revisions to the Draft EIR
Executive Summary
On page ES-11 (Section 0, Executive Summary) in Table ES-1 in the “Residual Impact” column, the text was changed to read No Impact in relation to Impact BIO-2. This change corrects an typographical error and does not reflect changes to the analysis found in Section 4.4, Biological Resources.

Project Description
The following text has been added to page 2-16 (Section 2.8, Required Approvals).

In addition, a Settlement Agreement between Napa County, the Napa County Airport Land Use Commission, and the City of American Canyon was executed on May 3, 2022. The Settlement Agreement provides that the City will not approve any residential use application in Zone D until an amendment to the Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan has been approved or December 31, 2023, whichever occurs first. Napa County has initiated an update to the ALUCP, which is anticipated to be completed by Summer 2024. The Settlement Agreement does not prohibit the City from processing an application for a residential proposal within Zone D. Nonetheless, as described in Section 2.5.7, Project Buildout, the proposed project would not induce additional residential development beyond existing conditions.

Biological Resources
The following text has been revised on pages 4.4-14 and 4.4-15 (Section 4.4, Biological Resources).

BIO-1 Site-Specific Biological Resources Assessment
The City shall implement the following measures during environmental review of future development within the project site. For all projects facilitated by the annexation, a preliminary review and reconnaissance survey shall be conducted by a qualified biologist prior to project approval. A review of project plans, aerial imagery and agency databases as well as other relevant background information will be conducted prior to a reconnaissance survey for context and understanding of the biological concerns of the project. The reconnaissance survey shall include documentation of existing biological conditions, the habitat condition and characteristics, mapping of vegetation communities including aquatic features, and assessment of the site’ s potential to support special- status species. On a project-by-project basis, a preliminary biological resource screening shall be performed to determine whether a specific 836
City of American Canyon
Paoli/ Watson Lane Annexation
3-2
project has the potential to impact biological resources. If it is determined that the project has no potential to impact biological resources, no further action is required. If the project would have the potential to impact biological resources, prior to construction, a qualified biologist shall complete a biological resources assessment ( BRA) or similar type of study to document the existing biological resources within the project footprint plus an appropriate buffer determined by a qualified biologist and to determine the potential impacts to those resources. The BRA shall evaluate the potential for impacts to all sensitive biological resources including, but not limited to special- status species, American badgers, nesting birds, bats, wildlife movement, sensitive plant communities/ critical habitat and other resources judged to be sensitive by local, state, and/ or federal agencies. Pending the results of the BRA, design alterations, further technical studies (i.e., protocol surveys) and/ or consultations with the USFWS, CDFW and/ or other local, state, and federal agencies may be necessary. Consultation with CDFW would be required in the instance of discovery of roosting bats during the BRA reconnaissance survey or further technical studies. The City shall review and approve the BRA prior to project approval.

Habitat assessments for special- status plants shall specifically be included for the BRA. If habitat is present, a botanical survey shall be conducted following CDFW’ s Protocol for Surveying and Evaluating Impacts to Special-Status Native Plant Populations and Sensitive Natural Communities and results submitted to CDFW. If the botanical survey indicates special- status plant species on the project site, the project applicant shall fully avoid direct and indirect impacts to all individuals and prepare and implement a CDFW- approved avoidance plan prior to construction activities. If impacts cannot be avoided, the project shall provide compensatory habitat at a minimum 3:1 ratio including preparing, implementing, and funding in perpetuity a long-term management plan, unless otherwise approved in writing by CDFW.

BIO-2 Pre-construction Surveys for Swainson’ s Hawk, Other Raptors and Nesting Birds
Ground disturbance and vegetation removal activities shall be restricted to the non-breeding season (September 16 to January 31), when feasible. If construction activities occur during the nesting bird season (February 1 to September 15), the following mitigation measures are recommended to reduce impacts to Swainson’ s hawk, protected raptor species, and other nesting birds protected by the MBTA and CFGC.

A qualified biologist shall conduct surveys for Swainson’ s hawk during Swainson’ s hawk nesting season (March 1 to August 31) prior to construction activities between January 1 and March 20.

A preconstruction survey for other raptors and nesting birds shall be conducted no more than seven days prior to initiation of ground disturbance and vegetation removal. The survey shall be conducted within the project site and include a 150-foot buffer for passerines, with the exception of tricolored blackbirds which require a 500-foot buffer, 500-foot buffer for other raptors, and 0.5 mile buffer for active Swainson’ s hawk nests. The surveys shall be conducted by a biologist familiar with the identification of avian species known to occur in the region. It is recommended required that surveys follow the Swainson’ s Hawk Technical Advisory Committee’ s Recommended Timing and Methodology for Swainson’ s Hawk Nesting Surveys in California’ s Central Valley. If a Swainson’ s hawk or white-tailed kite nest is found, the biologist shall set up appropriate buffers in consultation with CDFW.

If the nesting bird survey results are negative, no further action is required. If nests are found, the biologist shall determine and demarcate an appropriate avoidance buffer with high visibility material. For Swainson’ s hawk nests, the biologist shall establish an avoidance buffer of up to 837
Minor Revisions to the Draft EIR
Final Environmental Impact Report 3-3

0.5 mile based on the nest location in relation to the construction activity, the line-of-sight from the nest to the construction activity, and observed hawk behavior at the nest.

The qualified biologist shall notify all construction personnel of the buffer zones and to avoid entering buffer zones during the nesting season. No ground disturbing activities shall occur within the buffer until the biologist has confirmed that breeding/ nesting is complete, and the young have fledged the nest. Encroachment into the buffer shall occur only at the discretion of the biologist. If take of Swainson’ s hawk or tricolored blackbird cannot be avoided, the project applicant or City shall consult with CDFW pursuant to CESA and obtain an ITP.

Results of the preconstruction nesting bird survey shall be submitted to the City in a brief letter report no more than 30 days after completion of the survey.

BIO- 3 Pre- construction Surveys for Western Burrowing Owl Prior to ground disturbance activities, a qualified biologist shall conduct pre-construction clearance breeding season (February 1 to August 31) surveys within suitable natural habitats and ruderal areas throughout the project site, to confirm the presence/ absence of active western burrowing owl burrows unless otherwise approved by CDFW. It is recommended that The surveys shall be are also conducted during the non-breeding wintering season (September 1 to January 31). All surveys shall be consistent with the recommended survey methodology provided by CDFW’ s Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation. Clearance Additionally, take avoidance surveys shall be conducted within 14 days prior to construction and ground disturbance activities, whether or not owls were discovered during the detection surveys. If no western burrowing owls are observed, no further actions are required. If western burrowing owls are detected during the pre-construction detection or clearance take avoidance surveys, CDFW shall be notified and the following measures shall apply:

Avoidance buffers of a minimum of 500 meters (1,640 feet) during the breeding and nonbreeding season shall be implemented by a qualified biologist in accordance with the CDFW’ s Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation minimization mitigation measures, unless otherwise approved by CDFW. To prevent encroachment, the established buffers shall be clearly marked by high visibility material. Detected burrowing owls shall be avoided pursuant to the buffer zone prescribed in the Department of Fish and Game Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation (2012), unless otherwise approved in writing by CDFW, and any eviction plan shall be subject to CDFW review.

If avoidance of western burrowing owls is not feasible, then additional measures such as offsite habitat compensation ( habitat compensation acreages shall be approved by CDFW), placement of a conservation easement and preparation, implementation, and funding of a long-term management plan, passive relocation during the nonbreeding season and construction buffers of 200500 feet during the breeding season shall be implemented, in consultation with CDFW. In addition, a Western Burrowing Owl Exclusion Plan and Mitigation and Monitoring Plan shall be developed by a qualified biologist in accordance with the CDFW ( 2012) and Burrowing Owl Consortium ( 1993). 838
City of American Canyon
Paoli/ Watson Lane Annexation
3-4
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
The following text has been revised on pages 4.8-20 through 4.8-23 (Section 4.8, Greenhouse Gas Emissions).

However, without requirements for electric vehicles and electric vehicle parking, the project would conflict with the BAAQMD threshold to meet CALGreen Tier 2 EV parking and this impact would be significant. Implementation of Mitigation Measure GHG-2 would ensure that CALGreen Tier 2 EV parking levels are provided, and that heavy-duty vehicles and off-road equipment associated with the industrial uses are electric.

Pursuant to the BAAQMD thresholds, projects that include natural gas appliances or natural gas plumbing (in both residential and nonresidential development) would result in a potentially significant GHG impact. Without a provision prohibiting the use of natural gas in future project buildings, this impact would be significant. Implementation of Mitigation Measure GHG-3 would require that all new buildings include all-electric appliances and water heaters. In addition, Mitigation Measure GHG-4 would require that buildings be designed to meet the Tier 2 advanced energy efficiency requirements in the California Green Building Standards Code.

Furthermore, Mitigation Measure GHG-5 would require that electricity for future buildings be supplied with 100 percent carbon-free electricity sources through the year 2045 with on-site photovoltaic solar.

GHG-2 Electric Vehicle Charging Stations and Electric Vehicle and Electric OffRoad Equipment Usage Requirements Prior to issuance of any building permits, the project applicant shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the City (e.g., shown on-site plans), that the proposed parking areas for passenger automobiles and trucks are designed and will be built to accommodate electric vehicle (EV) charging stations. At a minimum, the parking shall be designed to accommodate EV charging stations equal to the Tier 2 Nonresidential Voluntary Measures of the California Green Building Standards Code, Section A5.106.5.3.2.

Prior to the issuance of any building permits, the project applicant shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the City (e.g., shown on-site plans), that each loading dock is outfitted with at least one 240-volt outlet to accommodate truck and Transport Refrigeration Unit (TRU) charging and/ or electrical power connection while trucks are loading and unloading goods.

In addition, the City shall require the following:

At least 25 percent of heavy- duty vehicles entering or operated on the industrial sites shall be zero emission by 2030.

All on-site equipment such as forklifts and yard trucks shall be electric with the necessary electrical charging stations provided.

Industrial and commercial tenants shall use zero emission light- and medium- duty vehicles as part of business operations.

Cumulatively considerable” means that the incremental effects of an individual project are significant when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, other current projects, and probable future projects ( CEQA Guidelines Section 15355). Most projects do not generate sufficient GHG emissions to create a project-specific impact through a direct influence on climate change. Therefore, climate change analysis for the project involved an analysis of 839
Minor Revisions to the Draft EIR
Final Environmental Impact Report 3-5
whether the project’ s contribution toward an impact would be cumulatively considerable. In addition, the project is cumulative in nature as it represents growth through the annexed area because of future development. The project is not one individual project. A number of as yet undefined future projects may occur due to the annexation associated with the project.

Therefore, cumulative impacts with respect to GHG emissions represents emissions associated with buildout of individual projects and thus cumulative emissions. Because emissions facilitated by the project would not be consistent with BAAQMD GHG thresholds, the project would not be consistent with State GHG reduction plans without mitigation and this impact would be significant. Mitigation measures GHG-1 through GHG-5 would be implemented for development facilitated by the project to reduce impacts. Therefore, the project’ s contribution to cumulative impacts with respect to GHG emissions would be less than cumulatively considerable with mitigation.

Transportation
The following text has been revised on pages 4.11-4, 4.11-5, 4.11-7, and 4.11-9 (Section 4.11, Transportation).

Senate Bill 375 and California Air Resources Board
Senate Bill 375 (SB 375), passed in 2009, focuses on reducing vehicle miles traveled (VMT) and urban sprawl. SB 375 was enacted specifically address the transportation and land use components of greenhouse gas emissions. The California Air Resources Board (CARB) published the 2016 Mobile Source Strategy and 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan, which aim to reduce light-duty vehicle VMT statewide by 15 percent by 2050 compared to business as usual. In September 2021, CARB published the 2020 Mobile Source Strategy that uses the same targets for reducing VMT as the 2016 Mobile Source Strategy and 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan.

SB 375 requires CARB to develop and set regional targets for greenhouse gas (GHG) emission reductions from passenger vehicles. CARB has set regional targets to help achieve significant additional GHG emission reductions from changed land use patterns and improved transportation in support of the State' s climate goals, as well as in support of statewide public health and air quality objectives. Metropolitan planning organizations ( MPOs) must prepare a sustainable community strategy (SCS) that will reduce GHG emissions to achieve these regional targets, if feasible to do so. CARB is tasked to update the regional targets every eight years, with the option of revising them every four years. Targets are expressed as a percent change in per capita passenger vehicle greenhouse gas emissions relative to 2005. Effective October 1, 2018, the CARB target for the nine-county San Francisco Bay Area region is a 19 percent reduction in per capita greenhouse gas emissions from passenger vehicles by 2035, when compared to 2005.

VMT impacts would be considered potentially significant if the forecasted rate of residential VMT per capita or VMT per employee for the project were to exceed 8581 percent of the existing rate of VMT in each category for American Canyon, based on the American Canyon travel demand model. This significance threshold is based on the CARB target for the ninecounty San Francisco Bay Area region that aims to achieve a 19 percent reduction in per capita greenhouse gas emissions from passenger vehicles by 2035, relative to 2005. 840
City of American Canyon
Paoli/ Watson Lane Annexation
3-6
Table 3.1-1 summarizes the existing weekday daily rates of VMT and corresponding significance thresholds. There are an estimated 22,959 residents1 and 4,442 jobs in American Canyon under existing conditions according to the City’ s Traffic Model (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 residential VMT per capita is estimated to be 16.6 miles and the existing daily rate of VMT per employee is estimated to be 34.1 miles per employee. VMT impacts resulting from the proposed 2040 General Plan would therefore be considered significant if the forecasted year 2040 rate of residential VMT per capita under the proposed General Plan were to exceed 14.113.4 miles, or if the forecasted year 2040 rate of VMT per employee were to exceed 29.027.6 miles.

Table 3.1-1 VMT Impact Thresholds
Scenario Residential VMT per Capita VMT per Employee
Existing Conditions 16.6 34.1
Significant Impact Threshold
8581 percent of Existing rate)

14.113.4 29.027.6
Source: American Canyon Travel Demand Model, GHD, December 2022 As described in the Methodology subsection of Section 4.15.3, Impact Analysis, VMT impacts from 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 29.027.6 miles or the rate of residential VMT per capita of the project exceeded 14.113.4 miles.

Table 3.1-2 Project VMT
Scenario VMT per Resident VMT per Employee
Existing/ Baseline Conditions 16.6 34.1
Future (2040) Conditions 12.0 17.9
Significance Threshold 14.113.4 29.027.6
Impact Finding Less than Significant Less than Significant Source: American Canyon Travel Demand Model, GHD, December 2022 1 These estimates are based on the City’ s Traffic Model, which included some properties outside the City limits. For this reason, this population number does not match the population number identified in other sections of this environmental impact report. Nonetheless, both estimates are similar.
841
Recirculation Not Warranted
Final Environmental Impact Report 4-1
Recirculation Not Warranted
As presented in Chapter 3, Minor Revisions to the Draft EIR, minor revisions to the Draft EIR would not result in new significant impacts or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant impacts. The Minor Revisions ( Chapter 3) identifies textual modifications to the Final EIR.

The revised text serves to amplify, correct, supplement or clarify, information in the public review Draft EIR. It does not substantively affect the level of impact nor the conclusions presented.

Therefore, recirculation of the Draft EIR is not warranted.

CEQA requires recirculation of a Draft EIR only when “ significant new information” is added to a Draft EIR after public notice of the availability of the Draft EIR has occurred but before the EIR is certified (Public Resources Code Section 21092.1; CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5). Recirculation is not required where the new information added to the EIR merely clarifies or amplifies or makes insignificant modifications in an adequate EIR (CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5(b)).

The relevant portions of CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5 (items a, b and e) read as follows:
a) A lead agency is required to recirculate an EIR when significant new information is added to the EIR after public notice is given of the availability of the draft EIR for public review under Section 15087 but before certification. As used in this section, the term “information” can include changes in the project or environmental setting as well as additional data or other information. New information added to an EIR is not “ significant” unless the EIR is changed in a way that deprives the public of a meaningful opportunity to comment upon a substantial adverse environmental effect of the project or a feasible way to mitigate or avoid such an effect (including a feasible project alternative) that the project’ s proponents have declined to implement. “ Significant new information” requiring recirculation include, for example, a disclosure showing that:
1) A new significant environmental impact would result from the project or from a new mitigation measure proposed to be implemented.
2) A substantial increase in the severity of an environmental impact would result unless mitigation measures are adopted that reduce the impact to a level of insignificance. 3) A feasible project alternative or mitigation measure considerably different from others previously analyzed would clearly lessen the environmental impacts of the project, but the project’ s proponents decline to adopt it.
4) The draft EIR was so fundamentally and basically inadequate and conclusory in nature that meaningful public review and comment were precluded. b) Recirculation is not required where the new information added to the EIR merely clarifies or amplifies or makes insignificant modifications in an adequate EIR. e) A decision not to recirculate an EIR must be supported by substantial evidence in the administrative record.

The revision to the Draft EIR in Section 0, Executive Summary, in Table ES-1 reconciles a typographical error. This does change the analysis within the Draft EIR.

The revisions to the Draft EIR in Section 2, Project Description, provides additional information regarding the Napa County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan. This informational revision provides context to support the text included in the Draft EIR. Recirculation is not required where new 842
City of American Canyon
Paoli/ Watson Lane Annexation
4-2
information added to the EIR merely clarifies or amplifies or makes minor modifications in an EIR CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5(b)). Revisions to Section 2, Project Description, makes minor modifications to project context and they would not result in any secondary or otherwise undisclosed effect.

The revisions to Section 4.4, Biological Resources, refine and clarify mitigation measures BIO-1 through BIO-3. These revisions would strengthen the mitigation measures themselves and the ability of the City to implement and enforce measures BIO-1 through BIO-3. Recirculation is not required where new information added to the EIR merely clarifies or amplifies or makes minor modifications in an EIR (CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5(b)). Revisions to Section 4.4, Biological Resources, clarify and amplify the standards established by these measures and they would not result in any secondary or otherwise undisclosed effect.

The revisions to Section 4.8, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, refine and clarify which impacts are potentially significant, strengthen Mitigation Measure GHG-2, and clarify cumulative impacts. The revisions to Mitigation Measure GHG-2 would reduce GHG emissions from trucks to ensure that the project is contributing its “fair share” towards achieving long-term climate goals. Recirculation is not required where new information added to the EIR merely clarifies or amplifies or makes minor modifications in an EIR (CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5(b)). Revisions to Section 4.8, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, amplify the standards established by mitigation and they would not result in any secondary or otherwise undisclosed effect.

The information and revised wording of mitigation measures BIO-1 through BIO-3 and GHG-2 added to this Final EIR would not result in a substantial increase in the severity of an environmental impact, nor a new significant environmental impact that would result from the revised mitigation.

Finally, additional information provided in this Final EIR does not present a feasible project alternative or mitigation measure considerably different from others previously analyzed in the EIR that the City has declined to adopt and that would lessen an environmental impact.

The information added to this Final EIR supplements, clarifies, amplifies, and corrects information in the Draft EIR. The City has reviewed the information in the Minor Revisions and has determined that it does not change any of the basic findings or conclusions of the EIR, does not constitute significant new information” pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5, and does not require recirculation of the Draft EIR. This decision is supported by substantial evidence provided in this EIR. 843
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Final Environmental Impact Report 1
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires that a reporting or monitoring program be adopted for the conditions of project approval that are necessary to mitigate or avoid significant effects on the environment (Public Resources Code 21081.6). This mitigation monitoring and reporting program (MMRP) is intended to track and ensure compliance with adopted mitigation measures during the project implementation phase. For each mitigation measure recommended in the Final Environmental Impact Report (Final EIR), specifications are made herein that identify the action required, the monitoring that must occur, and the agency or department responsible for oversight.

ATTACHMENT 1.D
844
City of American Canyon
Paoli/Watson Lane Annexation
2 Mitigation Measure/
Implementation Program Action Required Timing
Monitoring
Frequency
Responsible
Agency
Compliance
Verification
Initial
Compliance
Verification
Date
Compliance
Verification
Comments
Aesthetics
AES-1: Construction Lighting Plan
Prior to nighttime construction, if needed for a particular project, project applicants shall submit a construction lighting plan to the City for review and approval. The
construction lighting plan shall ensure that the minimum amount of lighting is used to meet safety requirements and ensure no spillover occurs to nearby sensitive uses. All lighting shall be directed downward and away from
surrounding land uses.

The City shall review and approve the
construction lighting plan submitted
by the project applicant.

Prior to construction Once during
plan review
and then
periodically
during
construction
to ensure
lighting is
properly
operated
City of
American
Canyon
Community
Development
Department
AES-2: Operational Lighting Plan
Prior to discretionary project approval, the project applicant shall prepare and submit a photometric plan to the City for review and approval which demonstrates that all exterior light fixtures will be directed downward or employ full cutoff fixtures to prevent light spillage. The approved plan shall be incorporated into the project design plans.

The City shall review and approve the
photometric plan submitted by the
project applicant before issuance of
an occupancy permit.

Prior to construction Once City of
American
Canyon
Community
Development
Department
Air Quality
AQ-1: Implement BAAQMD Basic Construction Mitigation Measures To reduce fugitive dust emissions from the construction of individual projects, the applicant shall implement the
BAAQMD Basic Construction Mitigation Measures. The
BAAQMD Basic Construction Mitigation Measures are listed below:

All exposed surfaces (e.g., parking areas, staging areas, soil piles, graded areas, and unpaved access roads) shall be watered two times a day.

All haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose material off-site shall be covered.

All visible mud or dirt track-out onto adjacent public
roads shall be removed using wet power vacuum street
sweepers at least once per day. The use of dry power
sweeping is prohibited.

All vehicle speeds on unpaved roads shall be limited to 15 miles per hour.

All roadways, driveways, and sidewalks to be paved shall be completed as soon as possible. Building pads shall be The City shall verify that the applicant
has implemented the BAAQMD Basic
Construction Mitigation Measures for
the duration of project construction.

During construction Ongoing
throughout
construction
City of
American
Canyon
Community
Development
and Public
Works
Department
845
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Final Environmental Impact Report 3
Mitigation Measure/
Implementation Program Action Required Timing
Monitoring
Frequency
Responsible
Agency
Compliance
Verification
Initial
Compliance
Verification
Date
Compliance
Verification
Comments
laid as soon as possible after grading unless seeding or soil binders are used.

Idling times shall be minimized either by shutting
equipment off when not in use or reducing the
maximum idling time to five minutes (as required by the California Airborne Toxics Control Measure Title 13,
Section 2485 of California Code of Regulations). Clear
signage shall be provided for construction workers at all access points.

All construction equipment shall be maintained and
properly tuned in accordance with the manufacturer’s
specifications. All equipment shall be checked by a
certified mechanic and determined to be running in
proper conditions prior to operation.

Post a publicly visible sign with the telephone number
and person to contact at the City of American Canyon
regarding dust complaints. This person shall respond and take corrective action within 48 hours. The Air District’s number shall also be visible to ensure compliance with
applicable regulations.

AQ-2: Conduct Construction Health Risk Assessment
Prior to issuance of a grading or building permit, whichever occurs first, the applicant shall submit to the City a
construction health risk assessment (HRA) in accordance with BAAQMD recommendations for any development
project (including the proposed Newell Drive extension) that has at least one the following characteristics:
▪ The project is located within 1,000 feet of sensitive receptors.
▪ Project construction would last longer than two months. ▪ Project construction would not utilize equipment rated USEPA Tier 4 (for equipment of 50 horsepower or more);
construction equipment fitted with Level 3 Diesel
Particulate Filters (for all equipment of 50 horsepower or more); or alternative fuel construction equipment.
▪ If the HRA determines that construction will exceed
BAAQMD significance thresholds, the HRA shall provide
mitigation measures to reduce the impact to less than
significant, including but not limited to requiring the use of Tier 4 engines, Level 3 Diesel Particulate Filters,
and/or alternative fuel construction equipment.

The City shall review the construction
health risk assessment submitted by
the project applicant for any project
that includes one of the listed
characteristics. The City shall verify
that mitigation measures described in
the project HRA are implemented at
the project site.

Prior to issuance of a
grading or building
permit, whichever
occurs first; then
periodically
throughout
construction.

Once City of
American
Canyon
Community
Development
Department
846
City of American Canyon
Paoli/Watson Lane Annexation
4 Mitigation Measure/
Implementation Program Action Required Timing
Monitoring
Frequency
Responsible
Agency
Compliance
Verification
Initial
Compliance
Verification
Date
Compliance
Verification
Comments
AQ-3: Conduct Operational Health Risk Assessment
Prior to submittal of a subsequent discretionary
development permit application for industrial, warehousing, or commercial land uses that would generate at least 100 diesel trucks per day or 40 or more trucks with dieselpowered transport refrigeration units per day, the applicant shall submit an operational health risk assessment (HRA) or submit proof that an HRA is not required in accordance with BAAQMD thresholds. If required, the operational HRA shall be prepared in accordance with the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment and BAAQMD requirements and
mitigated to an acceptable level. Typical measures to reduce risk impacts may include, but are not limited to:
▪ Restricting idling on-site beyond Air Toxic Control
Measures idling restrictions, as feasible.
▪ Electrifying warehousing docks.
▪ Truck Electric Vehicle (EV) Capable trailer spaces.
▪ Requiring use of newer equipment and/or vehicles.
▪ Restricting off-site truck travel through the creation of truck routes.

The operational HRA shall be provided to the City for review and concurrence prior to project approval.

The City shall review the operational
health risk assessment submitted by
the project applicant, when required,
or verify that that an HRA is not
required in accordance with
BAAQMD thresholds.

Prior to submittal of a
subsequent
discretionary
development permit
application; once
before issuance of an
occupancy permit
Once City of
American
Canyon
Community
Development
Department
Biological Resources
BIO-1 : Site-Specific Biological Resources Assessment
The City shall implement the following measures during
environmental review of future development within the
project site. For all projects facilitated by the annexation, a preliminary review and reconnaissance survey shall be
conducted by a qualified biologist prior to project approval. A review of project plans, aerial imagery and agency databases as well as other relevant background information will be conducted prior to a reconnaissance survey for context and understanding of the biological concerns of the project. The reconnaissance survey shall include documentation of
existing biological conditions, the habitat condition and characteristics, mapping of vegetation communities including aquatic features, and assessment of the site’s potential to support special-status species. If it is determined that the project has no potential to impact biological resources, no further action is required. If the project would have the potential to impact biological resources, prior to
construction, a qualified biologist shall complete a biological The City shall verify that a preliminary
review and reconnaissance survey
has been conducted, if it is
determined that the project has no
potential to impact biological
resources, no further action is
required. If the project has the
potential to impact biological
resources, the City shall verify that a
qualified biologist has completed a
biological resources assessment
(BRA) or similar type of study to
document the existing biological
resources as specified in mitigation
measure BIO-1. The City shall review
and approve the biological resources
assessment.

Prior to project
approval
Once City of
American
Canyon
Community
Development
Department
847
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Final Environmental Impact Report 5
Mitigation Measure/
Implementation Program Action Required Timing
Monitoring
Frequency
Responsible
Agency
Compliance
Verification
Initial
Compliance
Verification
Date
Compliance
Verification
Comments
resources assessment (BRA) or similar type of study to
document the existing biological resources within the project footprint plus an appropriate buffer determined by a
qualified biologist and to determine the potential impacts to those resources. The BRA shall evaluate the potential for impacts to all sensitive biological resources including, but not limited to special-status species, American badgers, nesting birds, bats, wildlife movement, sensitive plant
communities/critical habitat and other resources judged to be sensitive by local, state, and/or federal agencies. Pending the results of the BRA, design alterations, further technical studies (i.e., protocol surveys) and/or consultations with the USFWS, CDFW and/or other local, state, and federal agencies may be necessary. Consultation with CDFW would be
required in the instance of discovery of roosting bats during the BRA reconnaissance survey or further technical studies.

The City shall review and approve the BRA prior to project approval.

Habitat assessments for special-status plants shall specifically be included for the BRA. If habitat is present, a botanical survey shall be conducted following CDFW’s Protocol for Surveying and Evaluating Impacts to Special-Status Native Plant Populations and Sensitive Natural Communities and results submitted to CDFW. If the botanical survey indicates special-status plant species on the project site, the project applicant shall fully avoid direct and indirect impacts to all individuals and prepare and implement a CDFW-approved
avoidance plan prior to construction activities. If impacts cannot be avoided, the project shall provide compensatory habitat at a minimum 3:1 ratio including preparing,
implementing, and funding in perpetuity a long-term
management plan, unless otherwise approved in writing by CDFW.
848
City of American Canyon
Paoli/Watson Lane Annexation
6 Mitigation Measure/
Implementation Program Action Required Timing
Monitoring
Frequency
Responsible
Agency
Compliance
Verification
Initial
Compliance
Verification
Date
Compliance
Verification
Comments
BIO-2 Pre-construction Surveys for Swainson’s Hawk, Other Raptors and Nesting Birds Ground disturbance and vegetation removal activities shall be restricted to the non-breeding season (September 16 to January 31), when feasible. If construction activities occur during the nesting bird season (February 1 to September 15), the following mitigation measures are recommended to
reduce impacts to Swainson’s hawk, protected raptor
species, and other nesting birds protected by the MBTA and CFGC.

A qualified biologist shall conduct surveys for Swainson’s hawk during Swainson’s hawk nesting season (March 1 to
August 31) prior to construction activities between January 1 and March 20. A preconstruction survey for other raptors and nesting birds shall be conducted no more than seven days prior to initiation of ground disturbance and vegetation removal. The survey shall be conducted within the project site and include a 150-foot buffer for passerines, with the exception of tricolored blackbirds which require a 500-foot buffer, 500-foot buffer for other raptors, and 0.5 mile buffer for active Swainson’s hawk nests. The surveys shall be
conducted by a biologist familiar with the identification of avian species known to occur in the region. It is required that surveys follow the Swainson’s Hawk Technical Advisory
Committee’s Recommended Timing and Methodology for
Swainson’s Hawk Nesting Surveys in California’s Central Valley. If a Swainson’s hawk or white-tailed kite nest is found, the biologist shall set up appropriate buffers in consultation with CDFW.

If the nesting bird survey results are negative, no further action is required. If nests are found, the biologist shall determine and demarcate an appropriate avoidance buffer with high visibility material. For Swainson’s hawk nests, the biologist shall establish an avoidance buffer of up to 0.5 mile based on the nest location in relation to the construction activity, the line-of-sight from the nest to the construction activity, and observed hawk behavior at the nest.

The qualified biologist shall notify all construction personnel of the buffer zones and to avoid entering buffer zones during the nesting season. No ground disturbing activities shall occur within the buffer until the biologist has confirmed that breeding/nesting is complete, and the young have fledged the nest. Encroachment into the buffer shall occur only at the discretion of the biologist. If take of Swainson’s hawk or tricolored blackbird cannot be avoided, the project applicant The City shall verify that a qualified
biologist has conducted
preconstruction surveys for
Swainson’s hawk, other raptors, and
nesting birds prior to the start of
construction during the nesting
season between February 1 and
August 31. The city shall review the
results of the Swainson’s hawk, other
raptors, and nesting bird surveys. If
active nests are discovered, the City
shall verify that buffers have been
established and work is avoided in in
the buffer as appropriate. The City
shall also verify that USFWS and
CDFW are consulted if California least
tern, western snowy plover, or black
skimmer are found and that
recommendations of the agencies are
implemented.

Prior to construction; Once City of
American
Canyon
Community
Development
Department
849
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Final Environmental Impact Report 7
Mitigation Measure/
Implementation Program Action Required Timing
Monitoring
Frequency
Responsible
Agency
Compliance
Verification
Initial
Compliance
Verification
Date
Compliance
Verification
Comments
or City shall consult with CDFW pursuant to CESA and obtain an ITP.

Results of the preconstruction nesting bird survey shall be submitted to the City in a brief letter report no more than 30 days after completion of the survey.

BIO-3 : Pre-construction Surveys for Western Burrowing Owl Prior to ground disturbance activities, a qualified biologist shall conduct pre-construction breeding season (February 1 to August 31) surveys within suitable natural habitats and ruderal areas throughout the project site, to confirm the presence/absence of active western burrowing owl burrows unless otherwise approved by CDFW. It is recommended that surveys are also conducted during the non-breeding
wintering season (September 1 to January 31). All surveys shall be consistent with the recommended survey
methodology provided by CDFW’s Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation. Additionally, take avoidance surveys shall be conducted within 14 days prior to construction and ground disturbance activities, whether or not owls were discovered during the detection surveys. If no western burrowing owls are observed, no further actions are required. If western burrowing owls are detected during the pre-construction detection or take avoidance surveys, CDFW shall be notified and the following measures shall apply:
▪ Avoidance buffers of a minimum of 500 meters (1,640
feet) during the breeding and non-breeding season
shall be implemented by a qualified biologist in
accordance with the CDFW’s Staff Report on
Burrowing Owl Mitigation minimization mitigation
measures, unless otherwise approved by CDFW. To
prevent encroachment, the established buffers shall
be clearly marked by high visibility material. Detected burrowing owls shall be avoided pursuant to the
buffer zone prescribed in the Department of Fish and
Game Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation
(2012), unless otherwise approved in writing by
CDFW, and any eviction plan shall be subject to CDFW
review.
▪ If avoidance of western burrowing owls is not
feasible, then additional measures such as off-site
habitat compensation (habitat compensation
acreages shall be approved by CDFW), placement of a
conservation easement and preparation,
implementation, and funding of a long-term
The City shall verify that a qualified
biologist has conducted preconstruction clearance surveys for western burrowing owls. The City
shall review the results of the
clearance surveys and ensure
avoidance buffers and/or additional
measures prescribed by mitigation
measure BIO-3 are implemented.

Fourteen days prior to
ground disturbance
activities and then as
needed during
construction to verify
avoidance buffers are
maintained.

Periodically
during
construction
City of
American
Canyon
Community
Development
Department
850
City of American Canyon
Paoli/Watson Lane Annexation
8 Mitigation Measure/
Implementation Program Action Required Timing
Monitoring
Frequency
Responsible
Agency
Compliance
Verification
Initial
Compliance
Verification
Date
Compliance
Verification
Comments
management plan, and construction buffers of 500
feet during the breeding season shall be
implemented, in consultation with CDFW. In addition,
a Western Burrowing Owl Exclusion Plan and
Mitigation and Monitoring Plan shall be developed by
a qualified biologist in accordance with the CDFW
(2012) and Burrowing Owl Consortium (1993).

BIO-4: Worker Environmental Awareness Program
Prior to initiation of construction activities (including staging and mobilization), all personnel associated with project construction shall attend Worker Environmental Awareness Program training, conducted by a qualified biologist, to aid workers in recognizing special status resources that may occur in the project site. The program shall include
identification of the sensitive species and habitats, a description of the regulatory status and general ecological characteristics of sensitive resources, and review of the limits of construction and mitigation measures required to reduce impacts to biological resources within the work area. A fact sheet conveying this information shall also be prepared for distribution to all contractors, their employers, and other personnel involved with construction. All employees shall sign a form documenting attendance at the Worker
Environmental Awareness Program and that they understand the information presented to them. The form shall be
submitted to the City to document compliance.

The City shall review documentation
of WEAP employee attendance to
verify that all personnel involved in
project construction undergo WEAP
training.

Prior to initiation of
construction activities
then as needed as
personnel are hired.

Once City of
American
Canyon
Community
Development
Department
BIO-5: Aquatic Resources Delineation
A qualified biologist shall complete an aquatic resources delineation survey that establishes the extent of the waters of the U.S. and State and identify the potential jurisdictional limits of USACE, RWQCB, and CDFW. The delineation shall be conducted in accordance with the requirement set forth by each agency and the results presented in a report that shall be submitted to the City, USACE, RWQCB, and CDFW, as
appropriate, for review and approval. If the USACE asserts its authority, then a permit pursuant to Section 404 of the CWA would be required. If jurisdictional areas are expected to be impacted, then the RWQCB would require a Section 401
Water Quality Certification and/or Waste Discharge
Requirement permit (depending upon whether the feature
falls under federal jurisdiction or not). If CDFW asserts its jurisdictional authority, then a Lake or Streambed Alteration Agreement pursuant to Section 1600 et seq. of the CFGC
The City shall verify that a qualified
biologist has completed an aquatic
resources delineation survey. The
City shall review the results of the
aquatic resources delineation survey
and ensure that this report is
submitted to USACE, RWQCB, an the
CDFW. IF RQQCB asserts their
authority the City shall verify that a
Section 401 Water Quality
Certification and/or Waste Discharge
Requirement permit has been
prepared. IF CDFW asserts their
authority, the City shall verify that a
Lake or Streambed Alteration
Agreement pursuant to Section 1600
Prior to construction Once City of
American
Canyon
Community
Development
Department
851
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Final Environmental Impact Report 9
Mitigation Measure/
Implementation Program Action Required Timing
Monitoring
Frequency
Responsible
Agency
Compliance
Verification
Initial
Compliance
Verification
Date
Compliance
Verification
Comments
would also be required prior to construction within the areas of CDFW jurisdiction.
et seq. of the CFGC has been
prepared.

BIO-6: General Avoidance and Minimization
Development shall be designed to avoid potentially
jurisdictional features identified in aquatic resources delineation reports (Mitigation Measure BIO-4), to the extent feasible. No development shall occur within 50 feet of the top of bank for North Slough. Projects with potentially jurisdictional features shall provide the City with a report detailing how all identified aquatic features will be avoided, including groundwater draw down, prior to project approval.

The City shall review documentation
detailing how all identified aquatic
features will be avoided.

Prior to project
approval
Once City of
American
Canyon
Community
Development
Department
BIO-7: Restoration for Impacts to Waters and Wetlands
If the project cannot be designed to avoid impacts to waters and wetlands (as described in Mitigation Measure BIO-6), then impacts shall be fully mitigated at an appropriate ratio, as determined by a qualified biologist and in accordance with regulatory agency requirements. Mitigation can be achieved through the setting aside or acquisition and in-perpetuity management of similar habitat on-site (this can include restoration of jurisdictional features within the project site) or as close to the impact habitat as possible. Mitigation lands must be placed into a conservation easement or other
covenant restricting future development. A mitigation and monitoring plan consistent with regulatory agency
requirements shall be developed by a qualified biologist and submittal to the regulatory agency overseeing the project for approval. Alternatively, mitigation shall be accomplished through purchase of credits from an approved mitigation bank. Mitigation lands or in lieu funding sufficient to acquire lands should provide habitat at a minimum 1:1 ratio for impacted lands, comparable to habitat to be impacted by individual project activity. The City shall review and approve the plan before submittal to the agencies.

The project applicant shall mitigate
impacts to waters and wetlands at an
appropriate ratio as prescribed by
mitigation measure BIO-7 The City
shall review and approve the
mitigation and monitoring plan for
projects that cannot be designed to
avoid impacts to waters and
wetlands.

Prior to submittal to
regulatory agencies
Once City of
American
Canyon
Community
Development
Department
852
City of American Canyon
Paoli/Watson Lane Annexation
10 Mitigation Measure/
Implementation Program Action Required Timing
Monitoring
Frequency
Responsible
Agency
Compliance
Verification
Initial
Compliance
Verification
Date
Compliance
Verification
Comments
Cultural Resources
CUL-1: Historical Built Environment
Prior to project approval, the applicant shall submit a report to the City that identifies any historic-age features (i.e., structures over 45 years of age) proposed to be altered or demolished. If historical-age features are present, the applicant shall submit a historical resources evaluation to the City prepared in areas that contains buildings, structures, objects, sites, landscape/site plans, or other features that are 45 years of age or older, by a qualified architectural historian or historian who meets the Secretary of the Interior’s
Professional Qualifications Standards (PQS) in architectural history or history (36 CFR Part 61). The evaluation shall include an intensive-level evaluation, in accordance with the guidelines and best practices meeting the State Office of Historic Preservation guidelines. All evaluated properties shall be documented on Department of Parks and Recreation Series 523 Forms. The report shall be submitted to the City for review and approval.

If historical resources are identified through the survey and evaluation, efforts shall be made by the applicant to ensure that the relocation, rehabilitation, or alteration of the resource is consistent with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatments of Historic Properties
(Standards). The applicant shall submit a report to the City that identifies and specifies the treatment of characterdefining features and construction activities, and demonstrates how the project complies with the Standards and avoids the substantial adverse change in the significance of the historical resource as defined by CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(b). The report shall be prepared by an
architectural historian or historical architect meeting the PQS as defined by 36 CFR Part 61 and provided to the City for review and concurrence prior to project approval.

The City shall review a report
identifying historic age features
proposed to be altered or
demolished on a proposed project
site. The City shall review the
historical resources evaluation report
prepared by a qualified historian and
submitted by the project applicant,
when applicable.

If historical resources are identified,
the City shall ensure that the
applicant appropriately relocates,
rehabilitates, or alters the resources.

Prior to project
approval
Once City of
American
Canyon
Community
Development
Department
853
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Final Environmental Impact Report 11
Mitigation Measure/
Implementation Program Action Required Timing
Monitoring
Frequency
Responsible
Agency
Compliance
Verification
Initial
Compliance
Verification
Date
Compliance
Verification
Comments
CUL-2: Archaeological Resources Assessment
Prior to submittal of any discretionary development
application that involves ground disturbance activities (that may include but are not limited to, pavement removal,
potholing, grubbing, tree removal, and grading), the
applicant shall submit an archaeological resources
assessment prepared by a qualified archaeologist who meets the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualifications Standards in either prehistoric or historic archaeology.

Assessments shall include a CHRIS records search at the NWIC and a SLF Search from the NAHC. The records searches shall characterize the results of previous cultural resource surveys and disclose any cultural resources that have been recorded and/or evaluated in and around the development site. If the assessment begins on or before 2027, the results of the NWIC and SLF search for this EIR can be summarized as part of the assessment. A Phase I pedestrian survey shall be undertaken in future project areas that are undeveloped to locate any surface cultural materials. By performing a records search, a SLF search, and a Phase I survey, a qualified archaeologist shall be able to classify the future project area as having high, medium, or low sensitivity for archaeological resources.

If the Phase I archaeological survey identifies resources that may be affected by the future project, the archaeological resources assessment shall also include Phase II testing and evaluation. If resources are determined significant or unique through Phase II testing and site avoidance is not possible, appropriate site-specific mitigation measures shall be
identified in the Phase II evaluation. These measures may include, but would not be limited to, a Phase III data
recovery program, avoidance, or other appropriate actions to be determined by a qualified archaeologist. If significant archaeological resources cannot be avoided, impacts may be reduced to less than significant level by filling on top of the sites rather than cutting into the cultural deposits.

Alternatively, and/or in addition, a data collection program may be warranted, including mapping the location of
artifacts, surface collection of artifacts, or excavation of the cultural deposit, to characterize the nature of the buried portions of sites. Curation of the excavated artifacts or samples would occur as specified by the archaeologist. The archaeological resources assessment shall be reviewed and approved by the City prior to project approval.

The City shall review and approve the
archeological resources assessment
submitted by the applicant and
prepared by a qualified archaeologist.

If site-specific archaeological
mitigation is identified, the City shall
ensure that such measures are
implemented or archaeological
resources are avoided to the extend
feasible.

Prior to submittal of
any discretionary
development
application that
involves ground
disturbance activities
Once City of
American
Canyon
Community
Development
Department
854
City of American Canyon
Paoli/Watson Lane Annexation
12 Mitigation Measure/
Implementation Program Action Required Timing
Monitoring
Frequency
Responsible
Agency
Compliance
Verification
Initial
Compliance
Verification
Date
Compliance
Verification
Comments
CUL-3: Unanticipated Discoveries
An Archaeologist who meets the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualification Standards for archaeology shall be present on-site during all earth disturbing activities. If cultural resources are encountered during ground-disturbing activities, work within 100 feet of the area shall be halted and the contractor shall contact an archaeologist meeting the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualification Standards for archaeology in either prehistoric or historic archaeology immediately to evaluate the find. If necessary, the evaluation may require preparation of a treatment plan and archaeological testing for CRHR eligibility. If the discovery proves to be significant under CEQA and cannot be avoided by the project, additional work, such as excavating the cultural deposit to fully characterize its extent and collecting and curating artifacts may be warranted to
mitigate any significant impacts to cultural resources. If archaeological resources of Native American origin are
identified during construction, a qualified archaeologist will consult with the City to begin Native American consultation procedures. Periodic reports of the find and subsequent evaluations shall be submitted to the City during
construction.

The City shall review reports of any
unanticipated findings and
subsequent evaluations, and ensure
that work is stopped and consultation
commences if resources are
discovered.

During construction As needed
during
construction
City of
American
Canyon
Community
Development
Department
CUL-4:

In the event of an accidental discovery or recognition of any human remains, CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5, Health
and Safety Code Section 7050.5, and Public Resources Code Sections 5097.94 and Section 5097.98 shall be followed. If during project construction, there is accidental discovery or recognition of any human remains, the following steps shall be taken:

There shall be no further excavation or disturbance
within 100 feet of the remains until the County Coroner is contacted to determine whether the remains are
Native American and if an investigation of the cause of death is required. If the Coroner determines the remains to be Native American, the Coroner shall contact the
Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) within 24
hours, and the NAHC shall identify the person or persons it believes to be the Most Likely Descendant (MLD) of
the deceased Native American. The MLD may make
recommendations to the landowner or the person
responsible for the excavation work within 48 hours, for The City shall verify that CEQA
Guidelines Section 15064.5, Health
and Safety Code Section 7050.5, and
Public Resources Code Sections
5097.94 and Section 5097.98 are
followed in the event of an accidental
discovery or recognition of any
human remains.

During construction As needed
during
construction
City of
American
Canyon
Community
Development
Department
855
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Final Environmental Impact Report 13
Mitigation Measure/
Implementation Program Action Required Timing
Monitoring
Frequency
Responsible
Agency
Compliance
Verification
Initial
Compliance
Verification
Date
Compliance
Verification
Comments
means of treating or disposing of, with appropriate
dignity, the human remains, and any associated grave
goods as provided in Public Resource Code Section
5097.98.

Where the following conditions occur, the landowner or
authorized representative shall rebury the Native
American human remains and associated grave goods
with appropriate dignity either in accordance with the
recommendations of the MLD or on the project site in a
location not subject to further subsurface disturbance:
▪ The NAHC is unable to identify an MLD or the MLD
failed to make a recommendation within 48 hours
after being notified by the commission.
▪ The descendant identified fails to make a
recommendation.
▪ The landowner or authorized representative rejects
the recommendation of the descendant, and
mediation by the NAHC fails to provide measures
acceptable to the landowner.

Additionally, California Public Resources Code Section
15064.5 requires the following relative to Native American Remains:
▪ When an initial study identifies the existence of, or the probable likelihood of, Native American Remains within
a project, a lead agency shall work with the appropriate Native Americans as identified by the NAHC as provided
in Public Resources Code Section 5097.98. The applicant may each develop a plan with respect to their respective individual development proposals for treating or
disposing of, with appropriate dignity, the human
remains, and any items associated with Native American
Burials with the appropriate Native Americans as
identified by the NAHC.

CUL-5: Tribal Monitoring
A Tribal Monitor representing the Yocha Dehe Wintun Nation shall be present during all project-related ground
disturbance. Additionally, the Yocha Dehe Wintun Nation’s Treatment Protocol (Protocol) shall be followed with respect to Tribal Cultural Resources (TCRs). The purpose of the protocol is to formalize procedures for the treatment of Native American human remains, grave goods, ceremonial
items, and items of cultural patrimony, if any are found in conjunction with development, including archaeological
The City shall verify that a Tribal
Monitor representing the Yocha Dehe
Wintun Nation shall be present
during all project-related ground
disturbance and that all tribal
monitoring protocols are followed.

Prior to any projectrelated ground
disturbance
Once City of
American
Canyon
Community
Development
Department
856
City of American Canyon
Paoli/Watson Lane Annexation
14 Mitigation Measure/
Implementation Program Action Required Timing
Monitoring
Frequency
Responsible
Agency
Compliance
Verification
Initial
Compliance
Verification
Date
Compliance
Verification
Comments
studies, excavation, geotechnical investigations, grading, and any ground-disturbing activity. This Protocol also formalizes procedures for Tribal Monitoring during archaeological
studies, grading, and ground-disturbing activities.

1. Cultural Affiliation: The Yocha Dehe Wintun Nation
(Tribe) traditionally occupied lands in Yolo, Solano, Lake, Colusa, and Napa Counties. The Tribe has designated its Cultural Resources Committee (Committee) to act on the
Tribe's behalf with respect to the provisions of this
Protocol. Any human remains which are found in
conjunction with projects on lands culturally affiliated with the Tribe shall be treated in accordance with
Section III of this Protocol. Any other cultural resources shall be treated in accordance with Section IV of this
Protocol.

2. Inadvertent Discovery of Native American Human
Remains: Whenever Native American human remains
are found during the course of a project, the
determination of Most Likely Descendant (MLD) under
California Public Resources Code Section 5097.98 will be made by the Native American Heritage Commission
(NAHC) upon notification to the NAHC of the discovery
of said remains at a project site. If the location of the site and the history and prehistory of the area is culturally affiliated with the Tribe, the NAHC contacts the Tribe; a Tribal member will be designated by the Tribe to consult with the landowner and/or project proponents. Should
the NAHC determine that a member of an Indian tribe
other than Yocha Dehe Wintun Nation is the MLD, and
the Tribe agrees with this determination, the terms of
this Protocol relating to the treatment of such Native
American human remains shall not be applicable;
however, that situation is very unlikely.

3. Treatment of Native American Remains: In the event
that Native American human remains are found during
development of a project and the Tribe or a member of
the Tribe is determined to be MLD pursuant to Section II of this Protocol, the following provisions shall apply. The Medical Examiner shall immediately be notified, grounddisturbing activities in that location shall cease and the Tribe shall be allowed, pursuant to California Public
Resources Code Section 5097.98(a), to (1) inspect the
site of the discovery and (2) make determinations as to how the human remains and grave goods shall be
treated and disposed of with appropriate dignity. The
857
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Final Environmental Impact Report 15
Mitigation Measure/
Implementation Program Action Required Timing
Monitoring
Frequency
Responsible
Agency
Compliance
Verification
Initial
Compliance
Verification
Date
Compliance
Verification
Comments
Tribe shall complete its inspection and make its MLD
recommendation within 48 hours of getting access to
the site. The Tribe shall have the final determination as to the disposition and treatment of human remains and
grave goods. Said determination may include avoidance
of the human remains, reburial on-site, or reburial on
tribal or other lands that will not be disturbed in the future. The Tribe may wish to rebury said human
remains and grave goods or ceremonial and cultural
items on or near the site of their discovery, in an area which will not be subject to future disturbances over a prolonged period of time. Reburial of human remains
shall be accomplished in compliance with the California Public Resources Code Sections 5097.98(a) and (b). The
term "human remains" encompasses more than human
bones because the Tribe’s traditions call for the burial of associated cultural items with the deceased (funerary
objects), and/or the ceremonial burning of Native
American human remains, funerary objects, grave goods,
and animals. Ashes, soils, and other remnants of these
burning ceremonies, as well as associated funerary
objects and unassociated funerary objects buried with or found near the Native American remains are to be
treated in the same manner as bones or bone fragments
that remain intact.

4. Non-Disclosure of Location of Reburials: Unless
otherwise required by law, the site of any reburial of
Native American human remains shall not be disclosed
and will not be governed by public disclosure
requirements of the California Public Records Act,
California Government Code Section 6250 et seq. The
Medical Examiner shall withhold public disclosure of
information related to such reburial pursuant to the
specific exemption set forth in California Government
Code Section 6254(r). The Tribe will require that the
location for reburial is recorded with the California
Historic Resources Inventory System (CHRIS) on a form
acceptable to the CHRIS center. The Tribe may also
suggest the landowner enter into an agreement
regarding the confidentiality of site information that will run with title on the property.

5. Treatment of Cultural Resources: Treatment of all
cultural items, including ceremonial items and
archaeological items will reflect the religious beliefs, customs, and practices of the Tribe. All cultural items, 858
City of American Canyon
Paoli/Watson Lane Annexation
16 Mitigation Measure/
Implementation Program Action Required Timing
Monitoring
Frequency
Responsible
Agency
Compliance
Verification
Initial
Compliance
Verification
Date
Compliance
Verification
Comments
including ceremonial items and archaeological items,
which may be found at a project site shall be turned over to the Tribe for appropriate treatment, unless ordered
by a court or agency of competent jurisdiction. The
project proponent shall waive any and all claims to
ownership of Tribal ceremonial and cultural items,
including archaeological items, which may be found on a project site in favor of the Tribe. If any intermediary, (for example, an Archaeologist retained by the project
proponent) is necessary, said entity or individual shall not possess those items for longer than is reasonably
necessary, as determined solely by the Tribe.

6. Inadvertent Discoveries: If additional significant sites or sites not identified as significant in a project
environmental review process, but later determined to
be significant, are located within a project impact area, such sites will be subjected to further archaeological and cultural significance evaluation by the project
proponent, the Lead Agency, and the Tribe to determine
whether additional mitigation measures are necessary to treat sites in a culturally appropriate manner consistent with CEQA requirements for mitigation of impacts to
cultural resources. If there are human remains present
that have been identified as Native American, all work
will cease for a period of up to 30 days in accordance
with Federal Law.

Geology and Soils
GEO-1: Geotechnical Investigation
Prior to the issuance of improvement plans and building permits, the project applicant shall submit a design-level Geotechnical Investigation to the City of American Canyon for review and approval. The investigation shall be prepared by a qualified engineer and identify grading and building practices necessary to achieve compliance with the latest adopted edition of the California Building Standards Code (CBC) geologic, soils, and seismic requirements, including abatement of expansive soil conditions. The report shall also determine the final design parameters for walls, foundations, foundation slabs, and surrounding related improvements
(e.g., utilities roadways, parking lots, and sidewalks). The measures identified in the approved report shall be
incorporated into the project plans and all applicable
construction related permits.

The City shall review and approve the
design-level Geotechnical
Investigation submitted by the
project applicant. The City shall
confirm that measures and design
parameters specified in the
Geotechnical Investigation are
incorporated into the applicable
development plans, such as grading
plans, building plans, and
architectural plans.

Prior to the issuance of
improvement plans
and building permits
Once City of
American
Canyon
Community
Development
Department
859
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Final Environmental Impact Report 17
Mitigation Measure/
Implementation Program Action Required Timing
Monitoring
Frequency
Responsible
Agency
Compliance
Verification
Initial
Compliance
Verification
Date
Compliance
Verification
Comments
GEO-2: Retention of Qualified Professional Paleontologist Prior to submittal of a discretionary development
application, the project applicant shall retain a Qualified Professional Paleontologist, as defined by SVP (2010), to determine the project’s potential to significantly impact paleontological resources according to SVP (2010) standards.

If necessary, the Qualified Professional Paleontologist shall direct mitigation measures to reduce potential impacts to paleontological resources to a less than significant level. The City shall review and approve the Qualified Professional Paleontologist’s findings and recommendation. All
recommendations shall be incorporated into the project
plans prior to issuance of a grading permit.

The applicant shall have a Qualified
Professional Paleontologist assess
potential paleontological impacts and
report that assessment to the City.

The City shall verify that all
recommendations of the
Paleontologist are incorporated into
the project plans prior to issuance of
a grading permit.

Prior to issuance of a
grading permit
Once City of
American
Canyon
Community
Development
Department
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
GHG-1: Construction BMPs
Prior to the issuance of any grading permits, the project applicant shall provide the City of American Canyon with documentation (e.g., site plans) demonstrating project
construction will include the following construction Best Management Practices (BMPs):
▪ At least 15 percent of the construction fleet for each project phase shall be alternatively fueled or electric. ▪ At least 10 percent of building materials used for project construction shall be sourced from local suppliers.
▪ At least 65 percent of construction and demolition waste materials shall be recycled or reused.
▪ At least one contractor that has a business location in American Canyon shall be contracted for project
construction.
▪ All construction contracts shall include language that requires all off-road equipment with a power rating
below 19 kilowatts (e.g., plate compactors, pressure
washers) using during construction be electrically
powered.
▪ Architectural coatings used for project construction shall be “Low-VOC,” containing no greater than 50 grams of
volatile organic compounds (VOC) per liter of product.
▪ Project construction shall prohibit the use of generators and shall establish grid power connection to electrical equipment needs.

The City shall review documentation
demonstrating that project
construction includes construction
BMPs. City shall incorporate
applicable BMPs as conditions or
approval, permit conditions, or other
enforceable actions.

Prior to the issuance of
any grading permits
Periodically
during
construction
City of
American
Canyon
Community
Development
Department
860
City of American Canyon
Paoli/Watson Lane Annexation
18 Mitigation Measure/
Implementation Program Action Required Timing
Monitoring
Frequency
Responsible
Agency
Compliance
Verification
Initial
Compliance
Verification
Date
Compliance
Verification
Comments
▪ Idling times shall be minimized either by shutting
equipment off when not in use or reducing the
maximum idling time to 5 minutes (as required by the
California Airborne Toxics Control Measure [ATCM] Title 13, Section 2485 of California Code of Regulations). Clear signage regarding idling restrictions shall be provided for construction workers at all access points.
▪ All construction equipment shall be maintained and
properly tuned in accordance with the manufacturer’s
specifications. All equipment shall be checked by a
certified mechanic and determined to be running in
proper condition prior to operation.
▪ The prime construction contractor shall post a publicly visible sign with their telephone number and contractor to contact. The construction contractor shall take
corrective action within 48 hours. The BAAQMD’s phone
number shall also be identified and visible to ensure
compliance with applicable regulations.

GHG-2 Electric Vehicle Charging Stations:

Prior to issuance of any building permits, the project
applicant shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the City (e.g., shown on-site plans), that the proposed parking areas for passenger automobiles and trucks are designed and will be built to accommodate electric vehicle (EV) charging
stations. At a minimum, the parking shall be designed to accommodate EV charging stations equal to the Tier 2
Nonresidential Voluntary Measures of the California Green Building Standards Code, Section A5.106.5.3.2.

Prior to the issuance of any building permits, the project applicant shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the City (e.g., shown on-site plans), that each loading dock is
outfitted with at least one 240-volt outlet to accommodate truck and Transport Refrigeration Unit (TRU) charging and/or electrical power connection while trucks are loading and unloading goods.

In addition, the City shall require the following:
▪ At least 25 percent of heavy-duty vehicles entering or operated on the industrial sites shall be zero emission by 2030.
▪ All on-site equipment such as forklifts and yard trucks shall be electric with the necessary electrical charging stations provided.

The City shall review project plans to
ensure that the proposed parking
areas for passenger automobiles and
trucks are designed and will be built
to accommodate electric vehicle
charging stations.

The City shall review project plans to
ensure that each loading dock is
outfitted with at least one 240-volt
outlet to accommodate truck and
Transport Refrigeration Unit (TRU)
charging and/or electrical power
connection while trucks are loading
and unloading goods.

Prior to issuance of
any building permits
Once to
review plans
and once
again to
confirm
project was
constructed
consistent
with plans.

City of
American
Canyon
Community
Development
Department
861
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Final Environmental Impact Report 19
Mitigation Measure/
Implementation Program Action Required Timing
Monitoring
Frequency
Responsible
Agency
Compliance
Verification
Initial
Compliance
Verification
Date
Compliance
Verification
Comments
▪ Industrial and commercial tenants shall use zero
emission light- and medium-duty vehicles as part of
business operations.

GHG-3: All Electric Buildings
Prior to the issuance of any building permits, the project applicant shall provide the City with documentation (e.g., site plans) demonstrating the project is designed without the use of any natural gas-fueled appliances or natural gas plumbing.

The City shall review project plans to
ensure that the project is designed
without the use of any natural gas
Prior to the issuance of
any building permits
Once City of
American
Canyon
Community
Development
Department
GHG-4: Tier 2 Advanced Energy Efficiency Requirements
Prior to issuance of any building permits, the project
applicant shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the City (e.g., shown on-site plans), that the proposed buildings are designed and will be built to, at a minimum, the Tier 2 advanced energy efficiency requirements of the
Nonresidential Voluntary Measures of the California Green Building Standards Code, Division A5.2, Energy Efficiency, as outlined under Section A5.203.1.2.2.

The City shall review project plans to
ensure that the proposed buildings
are designed to, at a minimum, the
Tier 2 advanced energy efficiency
requirements described in the
mitigation measure.

Prior to issuance of
any building permits
Once City of
American
Canyon
Community
Development
Department
GHG-5: Carbon-Free Electricity Sources
Prior to the issuance of any building permit for the project, the project applicant shall provide the City with
documentation (e.g., site plans) demonstrating to the City’s satisfaction that electricity demand will be supplied with 100 percent carbon-free electricity sources through the year 2045 with on-site photovoltaic solar.

The City shall review project plans to
ensure that electricity demand will be
supplied with 100 percent carbonfree electricity sources through the year 2045 with on-site photovoltaic
solar.

Prior to issuance of
any building permits
Once City of
American
Canyon
Community
Development
Department
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
HAZ-1: Property Assessment – Phase I and II Environmental Site Assessments Prior to submittal of a discretionary development application or engineering plans for the Newell Drive Extension, the project applicant shall retain a qualified environmental professional, as defined by ASTM E-1527 to prepare a project area Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) in
accordance with standard ASTM methodologies, to assess
the land use history of the project site that will be affected.

After the site-specific Phase I ESA has been completed, the determination of specific areas that require a Phase II ESA (i.e., soil, groundwater, soil vapor subsurface investigations) shall be evaluated by the project applicant. The Phase II ESA shall be completed prior to construction and shall be based on the results of the Phase I ESA. Specifically, if the Phase I The City shall verify that the project
applicant has retained a qualified
environmental professional, as
defined by ASTM E-1527, and that
profession prepares a project area
Phase I Environmental Site
Assessment (ESA)and, as applicable, a
Phase II ESA.

The City shall review and approve the
Phase I ESA and Phase II ESA, as well
a soil management plan or
remediation, if necessary.

Prior to submittal of a
discretionary
development
application or
engineering plans for
the Newell Drive
Extension; then again
prior to construction if
the ESA identifies
remediation or
management.

Once City of
American
Canyon Public
Works
Department
862
City of American Canyon
Paoli/Watson Lane Annexation
20 Mitigation Measure/
Implementation Program Action Required Timing
Monitoring
Frequency
Responsible
Agency
Compliance
Verification
Initial
Compliance
Verification
Date
Compliance
Verification
Comments
ESA identifies recognized environmental conditions or
potential concern areas, the project applicant shall retain a qualified environmental consultant, California Professional Geologist or California Professional Engineer, to prepare a Phase II ESA of the project site to determine whether the soil, groundwater, and/or soil vapor has been impacted at concentrations exceeding regulatory screening levels for commercial/industrial land uses.

As part of the Phase II ESA, the qualified environmental consultant shall screen the analytical results against the San Francisco Regional Water Quality Control Board
environmental screening levels (ESL). These ESLs are riskbased screening levels for direct exposure of a construction worker under various depth and land use scenarios.

If the Phase II ESA for the development site indicates that contaminants are detected in the subsurface at the project site, the project applicant shall take appropriate steps to protect site workers and the public. This may include the preparation of a Soil Management Plan for Impacted Soils prior to project construction.

If the Phase II ESA for the contaminant site indicates that contaminants are present at concentrations exceeding
hazardous waste screening thresholds for contaminants in soil and/or groundwater (CCR Title 22, Section 66261.24 Characteristics of Toxicity), the project applicant shall take appropriate steps to protect site workers and the public. This may include the completion of remediation at the project prior to onsite construction. The City shall review and approve the Phase I ESA and Phase II ESA prior to
construction (i.e., demolition and grading).

Hydrology and Water Quality
HYD-1: Water Pollution Prevention Plan
Prior to issuance of grading permits for the project, the applicant shall submit to the City of American Canyon for review and approval a Storm Water Pollution Prevention
Plan (SWPPP) in accordance with the requirements of the statewide Construction General Permit. The SWPPP shall be designed to address the following objectives: (1) all
pollutants and their sources (e.g., runoff), including sources of sediment associated with construction, construction site erosion, and all other activities associated with construction activity, are controlled; (2) where not otherwise required to be under a Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) The City shall review and approve the
project-specific in accordance with
the requirements of the statewide
Construction General Permit. The City
shall ensure that the provisions of the
SWPPP are implemented during
construction
Prior to issuance of
grading permits and
during construction
Once and
periodically
during
construction
City of
American
Canyon Public
Works
Department
863
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Final Environmental Impact Report 21
Mitigation Measure/
Implementation Program Action Required Timing
Monitoring
Frequency
Responsible
Agency
Compliance
Verification
Initial
Compliance
Verification
Date
Compliance
Verification
Comments
permit, all non-stormwater discharges are identified and either eliminated, controlled, or treated; (3) site Best Management Practices (BMPs) (e.g., silt fencing, street sweeping, routine inspection, etc.) are effective and result in the reduction or elimination of pollutants in stormwater discharges and authorized non-stormwater discharges from construction activity; and (4) stabilization BMPs are installed to reduce or eliminate pollutants after construction are completed. The SWPPP shall be prepared by a qualified
SWPPP developer. The SWPPP shall include the minimum
BMPs required for the identified Risk Level. BMP
implementation shall be consistent with the BMP
requirements in the most recent version of the California Stormwater Quality Association (CASQA) Stormwater Best
Management Handbook–Construction or the California
Department of Transportation (Caltrans) Stormwater Quality Handbook Construction Site BMPs Manual. The SWPPP shall be implemented during construction to the satisfaction of the City.

HYD-2: Stormwater Control Plan
Prior to the issuance of building permits, the project
applicant shall submit a Stormwater Control Plan to the City of American Canyon for review and approval. The plan shall be developed using the California Stormwater Quality
Association (CASQA) “New Development and Redevelopment
Handbook” and include the applicable provisions of Section C.3 of the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) Municipal Regional Permit (Order No. R2-
2015-0049, NPDES Permit No. CAS612008 (or more recent
permit). The Stormwater Control Plan shall identify pollution prevention measures and Best Management Practices
(BMPs) to control stormwater pollution from operational activities and facilities and provide maintenance in
perpetuity. The Stormwater Control Plan shall include Low Impact Development (LID) design concepts, as well as
concepts that accomplish a “first flush” objective that would remove contaminants from the first 2 inches of stormwater before it enters area waterways. The project applicant shall also prepare and submit an Operations and Maintenance
Agreement to the City, identifying procedures to ensure stormwater quality control measures work properly during operations.

The City shall review and approve the
project-specific Stormwater Control
Plan and Operations and
Maintenance Agreement.

Prior to the issuance of
building permits
Once prior to
construction,
and then
periodically
during
operation to
ensure
stormwater
control
measures are
maintained
and function
properly.

City of
American
Canyon
Community
Development
Department
864
City of American Canyon
Paoli/Watson Lane Annexation
22 Mitigation Measure/
Implementation Program Action Required Timing
Monitoring
Frequency
Responsible
Agency
Compliance
Verification
Initial
Compliance
Verification
Date
Compliance
Verification
Comments
Noise
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 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 noise-sensitive 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.

Applicant shall provide the City with
project plans indicating compliance
with applicable noise reduction
measures. City shall confirm
applicable measures are
implemented during project
construction.

Prior to project
approval
Once before
construction
and then
periodically
during
construction
City of
American
Canyon
Community
Development
Department
865
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Final Environmental Impact Report 23
Mitigation Measure/
Implementation Program Action Required Timing
Monitoring
Frequency
Responsible
Agency
Compliance
Verification
Initial
Compliance
Verification
Date
Compliance
Verification
Comments
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.
866
City of American Canyon
Paoli/Watson Lane Annexation
24 Mitigation Measure/
Implementation Program Action Required Timing
Monitoring
Frequency
Responsible
Agency
Compliance
Verification
Initial
Compliance
Verification
Date
Compliance
Verification
Comments
NOI-2: Construction Noise Reduction Measures During Pile Driving The following measures shall be implemented during pile driving:

1. 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.

2. Scheduling. Pile driving will be scheduled to have the least impact on nearby sensitive receivers.

3. 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.

Applicant shall provide the City with
project plans indicating compliance
with applicable pile-driving measures.

City shall confirm applicable
measures are implemented during
project construction.

Prior to project
approval
Once before
construction
and then
periodically
during
construction
City of
American
Canyon
Community
Development
Department
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 noise-sensitive 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.

Project applicant shall provide the
city with a noise analysis, in
accordance with the mitigation
measure. The city recommended
measures from the analysis are
incorporated into the project design.

Prior to project
approval
Once during
plan review
and again
following
completion
of
construction
City of
American
Canyon
Community
Development
Department
867
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Final Environmental Impact Report 25
Mitigation Measure/
Implementation Program Action Required Timing
Monitoring
Frequency
Responsible
Agency
Compliance
Verification
Initial
Compliance
Verification
Date
Compliance
Verification
Comments
Public Services and Recreation
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.

The City shall forward development
applications within the project area
to the ACFPD. The City shall
cooperate with the ACFPD to update
Fire Service Mitigation fee(s).

Prior to project
approval
Once City of
American
Canyon
Community
Development
Department &
City
Manager’s
Office
Wildfire
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:

1. 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.

2. 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.

3. 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.

The applicant shall provide the City
with their applicable wildfire
reduction measures, in accordance
with the mitigation measure. The City
shall confirm that the measures are
properly implemented at the
construction site.

Prior to issuance of a
grading or building
permit, whichever
occurs first
Periodically
during
construction
City of
American
Canyon
Community
Development
Department
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.

The City shall review project plans to
ensure that all fire hydrants on the
project site satisfy the Fire District’s
minimum fire flow requirements.

Prior to issuance of
improvement plans
Once City of
American
Canyon Public
Works
Department
868
City of American Canyon
Paoli/Watson Lane Annexation
26 Mitigation Measure/
Implementation Program Action Required Timing
Monitoring
Frequency
Responsible
Agency
Compliance
Verification
Initial
Compliance
Verification
Date
Compliance
Verification
Comments
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.

The City shall review project plans to
ensure compliance with Chapter 7A
of the California Building Code.

Prior to issuance of a
building permit
Once City of
American
Canyon
Community
Development
Department
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.

The City shall review landscape plans
prepared by a registered Landscape
Architect to ensure consistency with
applicable Building and Fire Codes.

Prior to issuance of a
building permit
Once prior to
building
permit, then
again to
confirm
landscaping
was properly
installed
City of
American
Canyon
Community
Development
Department &
AC Fire
District
869
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Final Environmental Impact Report 27
870
CEQA Findings of Fact
for the
Paoli/Watson Lane Annexation Project
Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Sections 15091 and 15093
and Public Resources Code Section 21081
The Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) prepared by the City of American Canyon for the Paoli/Watson Lane Annexation Project (“the project”) consists of the Draft EIR and Response to Comments on the Draft EIR. The Final EIR identifies significant environmental impacts that will result from implementation of the project. The City finds that the inclusion of certain mitigation measures as part of project approval will reduce all significant impacts to levels that are less than significant.

Feasible mitigation measures have been identified to reduce these impacts to a less-than-significant level.

As required by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the City, in adopting these CEQA Findings of Fact, also adopts a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) for the project. The City finds that the MMRP, which is incorporated by reference, meets the requirements of Public Resources Code Section 21081.6 by providing for the implementation and monitoring of measures intended to mitigate potentially significant effects of the project. In accordance with CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines, the City adopts these Findings of Fact as part of the project approval. Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21082.1(c)(3), the City also finds that the Final EIR reflects the City’s independent judgment as the lead agency for the project.

ATTACHMENT 1.E
871
872
Table of Contents
Findings of Fact/Statement of Overriding Considerations i Table of Contents
1 Introduction....................................................................................................................................1

1.1 Statutory Requirements for Findings..................................................................................1

1.2 Procedural Findings.............................................................................................................1

1.3 Findings Required Under CEQA...........................................................................................3

1.4 Record of Proceedings........................................................................................................4

1.5 Findings...............................................................................................................................4 2 Paoli/Watson Lane Annexation Project..........................................................................................5

2.1 Project Objectives...............................................................................................................5

2.2 Project Description..............................................................................................................5

2.3 Alternatives.........................................................................................................................6

2.3.1 Environmentally Superior Alternative ................................................................9 3 Topical Areas Determined to have Less than Significant or No Impacts......................................10 4 Topical Areas Determined to Have Potentially Significant Impacts Mitigated to a Less Than Significant Level............................................................................................................14

4.1 Cumulative Impacts ..........................................................................................................37 873
City of American Canyon
Paoli/Watson Lane Annexation
ii
This page intentionally left blank.
874
Introduction
Findings of Fact/Statement of Overriding Considerations 1 1 Introduction

1.1 Statutory Requirements for Findings
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15091 states that:
(a) No public agency shall approve or carry out a project for which an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) has been certified which identifies one or more significant environmental effects of the project unless the public agency makes one or more written findings for each of those significant effects, accompanied by a brief explanation of the rationale for each finding. The possible findings are:
(1) Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the final EIR.
(2) Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and not the agency making the finding. Such changes have been adopted by such other agency or can and should be adopted by such other agency. (3) Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the final EIR.

In short, CEQA requires that the lead agency adopt mitigation measures or alternatives, where feasible, to avoid or mitigate significant environmental impacts that will otherwise occur with implementation of the project. Project mitigation or alternatives are not required, however, where they are infeasible or where the responsibility for modifying the project lies with another agency.1 For those significant effects that cannot be mitigated to a less-than-significant level, the public agency is required to find that specific overriding economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits of the project outweigh the significant effects on the environment.2 The CEQA Guidelines state in Section 15093 that:
“If the specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits of a propos[ed] project outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental effects, the adverse environmental effects may be considered ‘acceptable.”

1.2 Procedural Findings
The City Council of the City of American Canyon finds as follows:

Based on the nature and scope of the Paoli/Watson Lane Annexation project, State Clearinghouse No. 2022090097, the City Council of American Canyon determined, based on substantial evidence, that the project may have a significant effect on the environment and prepared an Environmental Impact Report (EIR). The EIR was prepared, noticed, published, circulated, reviewed and completed 1 CEQA Guidelines Section 15091 (a), (b).
2 Public Ressources Code Section 21081(b).
875
City of American Canyon
Paoli/Watson Lane Annexation
2 in full compliance with the CEQA Public Resources Code Sections 21000 et seq. CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines (14 California Code of Regulations Sections 15000 et. Seq.), as follows:
▪ Notice of Preparation and Initial Study. After deciding that an EIR is required, the lead agency (the City) must file a Notice of Preparation soliciting input on the EIR scope to the State Clearinghouse, other concerned agencies, and parties previously requesting notice in writing (CEQA Guidelines Section 15082; Public Resources Code [PRC] Section 21092.2). The NOP must be posted in the County Clerk’s office for 30 days. The NOP may be accompanied by an Initial Study that identifies the issue areas for which the project could create significant environmental impacts. The City prepared an NOP of the Draft EIR for a 30-day agency and public review period that began on September 7, 2022 and ended on October 7, 2022. ▪ Draft EIR Prepared. The Draft EIR must contain a) table of contents or index; b) summary; c) project description; d) environmental setting; e) discussion of significant impacts (direct, indirect, cumulative, growth-inducing, and unavoidable impacts); f) a discussion of alternatives; g) mitigation measures; h) discussion of irreversible changes, and i) any identified areas of controversy. The City prepared a Draft EIR and circulated the Draft EIR for a 45-day public review period that began on March 14, 2023 and ended on April 28,2023. A corresponding Notice of Availability (NOA) was published to provide notification when the Draft EIR became available for public review.
▪ Notice of Completion (NOC). The lead agency must file a notice of completion with the State Clearinghouse when it completes a Draft EIR and prepare an NOA. The lead agency must place the notice of completion in the County Clerk’s office for 30 days (PRC Section 21092) and send a copy of the notice of completion to anyone requesting it (CEQA Guidelines Section 15087).

Additionally, public notice of Draft EIR availability must be given through at least one of the following methods: a) publication in a newspaper of general circulation; b) physical signage posting on and off the project site; and c) direct mailing to owners and occupants of contiguous properties. The lead agency must solicit input from other agencies and the public and respond in writing to all comments received (PRC Sections 21104 and 21253). An NOC was prepared and submitted to the State Clearinghouse with the Draft EIR on March 14, 2023. ▪ Final EIR. A Final EIR must include a) the Draft EIR; b) copies of comments received during public review; c) list of persons and entities commenting; and d) responses to comments. The City prepared a Final EIR, which was published and submitted to the State Clearinghouse on October 13, 2023.
▪ Certification of Final EIR. Prior to making a decision on a proposed project, the lead agency must certify that a) the Final EIR has been completed in compliance with CEQA; b) the Final EIR was presented to the decision-making body of the lead agency; and c) the decision-making body reviewed and considered the information in the Final EIR prior to approving a project (CEQA Guidelines Section 15090).
▪ Lead Agency Project Decision. The lead agency may a) disapprove the project because of its significant environmental effects; b) require changes to the project to reduce or avoid significant environmental effects; or c) approve the project despite its significant environmental effects, if the proper findings and statement of overriding considerations are adopted (CEQA Guidelines sections 15042 and 15043).
876
Introduction
Findings of Fact/Statement of Overriding Considerations 3 ▪ Findings/Statement of Overriding Considerations. For each significant impact of the project identified in the EIR, the lead agency must find, based on substantial evidence, that a) the project has been changed to avoid or substantially reduce the magnitude of the impact; b) changes to the project are within another agency's jurisdiction and such changes have or should be adopted; or c) specific economic, social, or other considerations make the mitigation measures or project alternatives infeasible (CEQA Guidelines Section 15091). If an agency approves a project with unavoidable significant environmental effects, it must prepare a written Statement of Overriding Considerations that sets forth the specific social, economic, or other reasons supporting the agency’s decision. Since the project does not include unavoidable significant environmental effects, no Statement of Overriding Considerations was prepared. ▪ Mitigation Monitoring Reporting Program. When the lead agency makes findings on significant effects identified in the EIR, it must adopt a reporting or monitoring program for mitigation measures adopted or made conditions of project approval to mitigate significant effects. ▪ Notice of Determination (NOD). The lead agency must file a NOD after deciding to approve a project for which an EIR is prepared (CEQA Guidelines Section 15094). A local agency must file the NOD with the county clerk. The NOD must be posted for 30 days and sent to anyone requesting notice previously. Posting of the NOD starts a 30-day statute of limitations on CEQA legal challenges (PRC Section 21167[c]).

1.3 Findings Required Under CEQA
The City Council (the final decision-making body) of the City of American Canyon (the CEQA Lead Agency) will determine whether to certify the EIR for the project. Because the Draft EIR identified a potentially significant environmental impact, the City Council must also make certain “findings” as part of its action to certify that the EIR has been completed in compliance with CEQA and to approve the project. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15091 and CEQA Section 21081, no public agency shall approve or carry out a project for which an environmental impact report has been certified, which identifies one or more significant effects on the environment that would occur if the project is approved or carried out, unless the public agency makes one or more findings for each of those significant effects, accompanied by a brief explanation of the rationale of each finding. The possible findings, which must be supported by substantial evidence in the record, are:
▪ Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. ▪ Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and not the agency making the finding. Such changes have been adopted by such other agency or can and should be adopted by such other agency. ▪ Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the Final EIR.
877
City of American Canyon
Paoli/Watson Lane Annexation
4 1.4 Record of Proceedings
For purposes of CEQA and these findings, the record before the City Council includes the following:
▪ The Draft EIR and all appendices to the Draft EIR.
▪ The Final EIR including an errata, comments on the Draft EIR and responses to comments, and all appendices to the Final EIR.
▪ Public notices required by CEQA.
▪ Studies conducted for project and contained in, or referenced by, the Draft EIR or the Final EIR. ▪ Documentary and oral evidence received and reviewed at public hearings, study sessions, and workshops and transcripts and minutes of those hearings related to the project, the Draft EIR, and the Final EIR.
▪ For documentary and informational purposes, the Findings, MMRP, and other documentation relevant to planned growth in the area.
▪ Additional items not listed above if otherwise required by law.

1.5 Findings
The Final EIR is incorporated into these findings in its entirety. Without limitation, this incorporation is intended to elaborate on the scope and nature of mitigation measures, the basis for determining the significance of impacts, the comparative analysis of alternatives, and the reasons for approving project despite the potential for associated potentially significant adverse impacts.

For the purposes of these findings, the impact discussions include the relevant regulations and actions, as well as the separate mitigation measures imposed to reduce the impacts where the regulations and actions did not result in a less than significant impact. In the findings that follow, impact numbers are provided. The impact numbers correspond to sections of the Draft EIR that contain an expanded discussion of impacts. Please refer to the referenced impact sections of the EIR for more detail.
878
Paoli/Watson Lane Annexation Project
Findings of Fact/Statement of Overriding Considerations 5 2 Paoli/Watson Lane Annexation Project

2.1 Project Objectives
Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15124(b), the EIR project description must include “[a] statement of objectives sought by the proposed project. The statement of objectives should include the underlying purpose of the project.” As stated in the EIR, the objectives of the project 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.

2.2 Project Description
The project would annex the entire 83-acre sphere of influence area into the City of American Canyon, pending amendments to the City’s General Plan and zoning ordinance, and approval from the Napa County Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCo).

The project would involve the extension of Newell Drive, which is a planned roadway in the City of American Canyon General Plan Circulation Element. The City intends to extend Newell Drive as a parallel roadway to State Route (SR) 29 to relieve traffic congestion. The approximately one mile 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 Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) right-of-way. The Newell Drive extension would cross the UPRR tracks via an overcrossing. In addition, Newell Drive would cross the North Slough with a span designed to avoid the slough.

The annexation area would ultimately be developed for commercial, industrial, and visitorserving/hotel use. For purposes of analysis in this EIR, it is conservatively assumed that 80 percent of parcels pre-zoned for Paoli Light Industrial, Paoli Light Industrial with Paoli Commercial Overlay, and Town Center would be developed for commercial, industrial, and visitor-serving/hotel uses. The remaining 20 percent accounts for building setbacks, proposed Newell Drive extension right-of-way, including an overcrossing at the railroad, and a biological resources buffer around North Slough. 879
City of American Canyon
Paoli/Watson Lane Annexation
6 Parcels pre-zoned Residential Estate have existing residential uses and the Residential Estate prezoning acknowledges these existing uses. The Residential Estate pre-zoning would not induce additional residential development beyond existing conditions.

2.3 Alternatives
CEQA requires an EIR to consider and analyze a range of reasonable project alternatives that would feasibly attain most of the basic objectives but would avoid or substantially lessen significant impacts of the project. (Ocean Street Extension Neighborhood Assn. v. City of Santa Cruz (2021) 73 Cal.App.5th 985, 1013.) In assessing alternatives, the EIR must meaningfully discuss alternatives to meet the goal of fostering informed decision-making. (Laurel Heights Improvement Assn. v. Regents of University of California (1988) 47 Cal.3d 376, 402–403.) An EIR's discussion of alternatives must contain analysis sufficient to allow informed decision making. (San Bernardino Valley Audubon Society, Inc. v. County of San Bernardino (1984) 155 Cal.App.3d 738, 751, 202 Cal.Rptr. 423; Laurel Heights Improvement Assn. v. Regents of University of California (1988) 47 Cal.3d 376, 404).

CEQA then requires the decision-makers to consider environmentally superior alternatives and consider the benefits and potential environmental harm of those alternatives against those of the Project. (California Native Plant Society v. City of Santa Cruz (2009) 177 Cal.App.4th 957, 1005– 1006.) The findings of whether to reject or approve any of the alternatives is then a decision only for the decision makers. “They may reject alternatives that are undesirable from a policy standpoint as well as alternatives that fail to meet project objectives.” (Ocean Street Extension Neighborhood Assn. v. City of Santa Cruz (2021) 73 Cal.App.5th 985, 1016 (citations omitted).) “While it is up to the EIR preparer to identify alternatives as potentially feasible, the decision-making body “may or may not reject those alternatives as being infeasible” when it comes to project approval.

Rejection by the decision-makers does not undermine the validity of the EIR's alternatives analysis.” (California Native Plant Society v. City of Santa Cruz (2009) 177 Cal.App.4th 957, 999 [99 Cal.Rptr.3d 572, 602 (citations omitted).)
Based on the project objectives and anticipated environmental consequences, and pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6, the following project alternatives were analyzed in the EIR and the following findings made herein:

Alternative 1: No Project. 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 project site 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.

Finding: 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, extending Newell Drive, and other project objectives. For these reasons, this alternative is rejected as infeasible.

Alternative 2: At-Grade Newell Drive Crossing. Alternative 2 assumes that the Newell Drive extension would utilize an at-grade crossing instead of an overcrossing at the UPRR in the northeastern corner of the project site. An at-grade crossing would require approval from the 880
Paoli/Watson Lane Annexation Project
Findings of Fact/Statement of Overriding Considerations 7 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 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.

Finding: Alternative 2 would generally result in similar or decreased environmental impacts compared to the proposed project. By reducing construction intensity, this alternative would reduce impacts related to aesthetics, air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, energy, geology and soils, greenhouse gas emissions, noise, and tribal cultural resources. Alternative 2 would meet all the project objectives, however it would result in more severe impacts to hazards and hazardous materials and transportation. In addition, because this alternative would require additional review and approval by the California Public Utilities Commission, an agency outside of the control of the City, it is less certain of ultimately obtaining the Project objectives. While this alternative is technically feasible, for these reasons it is less preferred than the proposed project.

Alternative 3: Reduced Buildout. Alternative 3 assumes that buildout would decrease from 80 percent of the project site area to 40 percent. Alternative 3 estimated maximum buildout is 247,471 square feet of commercial space, 348,444 square feet of industrial space, and 94,849 square feet of hotel space. Alternative 3 would reduce environmental impacts due to reduced construction.

Alternative 3 would configure Newell Drive the same as the project (i.e., an overcrossing over the UPRR). This alternative would generate fewer employment opportunities and have less of an economic growth impact than the proposed project, two of the key objectives to the project.

Alternative 3 would accomplish all the project objectives but to a lesser extent than the project. 881
City of American Canyon
Paoli/Watson Lane Annexation
8 Finding: Alternative 3 would generally result in similar or decreased environmental impacts compared to the proposed project. By reducing construction and the number of employees generated by the project, this alternative would reduce impacts related to aesthetics, air quality, biological resources, energy, greenhouse gas emissions, hydrology and water quality, noise, public services and recreation, tribal cultural resources, and utilities and service systems. Alternative 3 would meet the project objectives, but to a lesser extent than the proposed project. This alternative is rejected because when its potential environmental benefits are weighed against the limited economic growth and employment opportunities of the reduced alternative it is not economically feasible, and it fails to meet objectives to the extent necessary for the benefits of the alternative to outweigh its costs when compared with the proposed project.

Alternative 4: Watson Lane Reconfiguration 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 atgrade 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.

Development would occur with the same intensity and land uses as described in Section 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. 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 in the Draft EIR) but would decrease construction intensity related to the Watson Lane roadway reconfiguration.

Finding: Alternative 4 would generally decrease some environmental impacts compared to the proposed project. By reducing the intensity of construction, this alternative would reduce impacts related to aesthetics, air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, energy, geology and soils, greenhouse gas emissions, and tribal cultural resources. However, this alternative would have more severe impacts compared to the proposed project related to hazards and hazardous materials, land use and planning, public services and recreation, transportation, and wildfire. While this alternative would meet most project objectives, it would not meet all project objectives. In July 2023, the engineering firm GHD developed a Technical Memorandum, which summarized some of the key constraints associated with Alternative 4. This Technical Memorandum is included as Attachment A to these Findings. As described in detail in Attachment A, this alternative would provide a less-direct route between SR 29 and land uses east of the railroad tracks compared to the Project; would require an expanded footprint and substantial fill to reduce the slope due to the existing grade changes near the railroad tracks, affecting existing residences located on Watson Lane; and would conflict with the City of American Canyon General Plan and Watson Ranch Specific Plan. In addition, this alternative is also rejected for the following reason: the potential social and logistical consequences associated with this alternative far outweigh the potential environmental benefits of this alternative. The environmental benefits of this alternative are temporary in nature, meaning 882
Paoli/Watson Lane Annexation Project
Findings of Fact/Statement of Overriding Considerations 9 that this alternative would reduce certain impacts associated with construction, which would cease after construction is completed. However, the potential social and logistical costs associated with this alternative would be permanent in nature, meaning that this alternative would result in the permanent loss of portions of properties, as well as a less efficient roadway system. For these reasons, this alternative is rejected as infeasible.

2.3.1 Environmentally Superior Alternative
Based on the analysis of alternatives in this EIR, 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 project. Alternative 3 would meet the project objectives identified in Section 2, Project Description, of the Draft EIR as it would provide additional acreage for industrial uses and facilitate development of the Newell Drive extension. However, it should be noted that the ability of Alternative 3 to meet the project objectives would be substantially reduced because it would provide lower buildout and employment opportunities.
883
City of American Canyon
Paoli/Watson Lane Annexation
10 3 Topical Areas Determined to have Less
than Significant or No Impacts
The City finds that, based upon substantial evidence in the record, as discussed below, the project’s impacts associated with the following topical areas would have no impact or be less than significant without mitigation.

Aesthetics
Impacts AES-1 – AES-3
The project would not have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista, including views of hills, and impacts would be less than significant.

The City of American Canyon does not have a designated state scenic highway and the project would not damage scenic resources within a state scenic highway. No impact would occur.

The project is in an urbanized area and would not conflict with applicable zoning or General Plan policies governing scenic quality. Impacts would be less than significant.

Agriculture and Forestry Resources
Impacts AG-1 – AG-4
The project would not convert Farmland, as shown on maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program, to non-agricultural use. No impact would occur.

The project would not conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or a Williamson Act contract.

No impact would occur.

The project would not conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of forest land, timberland, or timberland zoned Timberland Production, or result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use. No impact would occur.

The project would not involve other changes in the existing environment and would not result in the conversion of farmland or forestland to non-agricultural use or non-forest use. No impact would occur.

Air Quality
Impacts AQ-1 and AQ-4
The project would be consistent with the Bay Air Area Quality Management District’s 2017 Clean Air Plan. Impacts would be less than significant.

The project would not create objectionable odors that could adversely affect a substantial number of people. Impacts related to odors would be less than significant. 884
Topical Areas Determined to have Less than Significant or No Impacts Findings of Fact/Statement of Overriding Considerations 11 Biological Resources
Impacts BIO-2 and BIO-6
No riparian habitat or sensitive natural communities are present in the project site. No impact would occur.

Implementation of the project would not conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or State habitat conservation plan. No impact would occur.

Energy
Impact E-1
The project would not result in the wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy and impacts would be less than significant.

Geology and Soils
Impacts GEO-1 and GEO-5
The project would not be subject to rupture of a known earthquake fault. There would be no impact.

The project would be served by sanitation infrastructure. No septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems would be used; therefore, there would be no impact.

Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Impacts HAZ-2, HAZ-4, and HAZ-5
Development facilitated by the project would not result in the release of potentially hazardous materials within 0.25 mile of a school. There would be no impact.

Development facilitated by the project would occur in the Napa County Airport Land Use Compatibility Zone D. Development would occur in compliance with the Napa County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan and impacts would be further reduced through adherence to General Plan policies. Impacts would be less than significant.

Development facilitated by the project would not impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. Impacts would be less than significant.

Hydrology and Water Quality
Impacts HWQ-2, HWQ-5, and HWQ-6
The project would not interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that sustainable groundwater management of the basin would be impeded. Impacts would be less than significant.

The project site is not within an area at risk from inundation by flood hazard, seiche, or tsunami and would not risk the release of pollutants due to project inundation. The project is not in a flood hazard zone and would not impede or redirect flood flows. There would be no impact. 885
City of American Canyon
Paoli/Watson Lane Annexation
12 The project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan. Impacts would be less than significant.

Land Use and Planning
Impact LU-1
The project would not physically divide an established community and there would be no impact.

Noise
Impacts NOI-3 and NOI-4
Project construction would generate temporary vibration in the project area. However, construction-related vibration impacts would be less than significant.

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.

Population and Housing
Impacts POP-1 and POP-2
The project would not directly or indirectly induce substantial unplanned population growth.

Impacts would be less than significant.

The project would not displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing and impacts would be less than significant.

Public Services and Recreation
Impacts PSR-2 – PSR-4
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 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 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.

Transportation
Impacts TRA-1 – TRA-4
The project would not conflict with a program, plan, ordinance, or policy addressing the circulation system and impacts would be less than significant.
886
Topical Areas Determined to have Less than Significant or No Impacts Findings of Fact/Statement of Overriding Considerations 13 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.

The project would not substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature and impacts would be less than significant.

The project would not substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature and impacts would be less than significant.

Utilities and Service Systems
Impacts UTL-1 – UTL-4
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.

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.

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 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.

Wildfire
Impact WF-1
The project would not impair an emergency response plan and impacts would be less than significant.
887
City of American Canyon
Paoli/Watson Lane Annexation
14 4 Topical Areas Determined to Have
Potentially Significant Impacts Mitigated
to a Less Than Significant Level
These topical areas contain impacts of the project that are reduced to a less-than-significant level through the implementation of mitigation measures. Pursuant to California Public Resources Code Section 21081(a)(1) and CEQA Section 15091(a)(1), as to each impact, the City, based on the evidence in the record before it, finds that changes or alterations incorporated into the project mitigate, avoid, or substantially lessen to a level of insignificance these environmental impacts of the project. The basis for the finding for each impact is set forth below.

Aesthetics
Impact AES-4
Construction and operation of future development facilitated by the project could create new sources of light or glare that could adversely affect the visual environment. Impacts would be less than significant with mitigation measures incorporated.

MITIGATION MEASURE AES-1 CONSTRUCTION LIGHTING PLAN
Prior to nighttime construction, if needed for a particular project, project applicants shall submit a construction lighting plan to the City for review and approval. The construction lighting plan shall ensure that the minimum amount of lighting is used to meet safety requirements and ensure no spillover occurs to nearby sensitive uses. All lighting shall be directed downward and away from surrounding land uses.

MITIGATION MEASURE AES-2 OPERATIONAL LIGHTING PLAN
Prior to discretionary project approval, the project applicant shall prepare and submit a photometric plan to the City for review and approval which demonstrates that all exterior light fixtures will be directed downward or employ full cut-off fixtures to prevent light spillage. The approved plan shall be incorporated into the project design plans.

Finding
The City finds that with incorporation of mitigation measures AES-1 and AES-2, which would require approval of construction and/or operational lighting plans, would reduce new sources of light or glare to a less than significant level. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15091 (a)(1), changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the proposed project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect to the extent feasible. 888
Topical Areas Determined to Have
Potentially Significant Impacts Mitigated to a Less Than Significant Level Findings of Fact/Statement of Overriding Considerations 15 Air Quality
Impact AQ-2
The project would not result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of operational criteria pollutants. Impacts from construction would be less than significant with mitigation. Impacts from operation would be less than significant.

MITIGATION MEASURE AQ-1 IMPLEMENT BAAQMD BASIC CONSTRUCTION MITIGATION

MEASURES
To reduce fugitive dust emissions from the construction of individual projects, the applicant shall implement the BAAQMD Basic Construction Mitigation Measures. The BAAQMD Basic Construction Mitigation Measures are listed below:

All exposed surfaces (e.g., parking areas, staging areas, soil piles, graded areas, and unpaved access roads) shall be watered two times a day.

All haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose material off-site shall be covered.

All visible mud or dirt track-out onto adjacent public roads shall be removed using wet power vacuum street sweepers at least once per day. The use of dry power sweeping is prohibited.

All vehicle speeds on unpaved roads shall be limited to 15 miles per hour.

All roadways, driveways, and sidewalks to be paved shall be completed as soon as possible.

Building pads shall be laid as soon as possible after grading unless seeding or soil binders are used.

Idling times shall be minimized either by shutting equipment off when not in use or reducing the maximum idling time to five minutes (as required by the California Airborne Toxics Control Measure Title 13, Section 2485 of California Code of Regulations). Clear signage shall be provided for construction workers at all access points.

All construction equipment shall be maintained and properly tuned in accordance with manufacture’s specifications. All equipment shall be checked by a certified mechanic and determined to be running in proper conditions prior to operation.

Post a publicly visible sign with the telephone number and person to contact at the City of American Canyon regarding dust complaints. This person shall respond and take corrective action within 48 hours. The Air District’s number shall also be visible to ensure compliance with applicable regulations.

Finding
The City finds that with incorporation of mitigation measure AQ-1, which would require the incorporation of BAAQMD’s Basic Construction mitigation measures such as reducing vehicle speeds on unpaved roads and reducing idling times, criteria air pollutant impacts related to construction would be reduced to a less than significant level. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15091 (a)(1), changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the proposed project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect to the extent feasible. 889
City of American Canyon
Paoli/Watson Lane Annexation
16 Impact AQ-3
Construction activities for future individual projects lasting longer than two months or located within 1,000 feet of sensitive receptors could expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. Implementation of the project may also expose sensitive receptors to operational sources of toxic air contaminants. Impacts would be less than significant with mitigation.

MITIGATION MEASURE AQ-2 CONDUCT CONSTRUCTION HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT Prior to issuance of a grading or building permit, whichever occurs first, the applicant shall submit to the City a construction health risk assessment (HRA) in accordance with BAAQMD recommendations for any development project (including the proposed Newell Drive extension) that has at least one the following characteristics:
▪ The project is located within 1,000 feet of sensitive receptors. ▪ Project construction would last longer than two months. ▪ Project construction would not utilize equipment rated USEPA Tier 4 (for equipment of 50 horsepower or more); construction equipment fitted with Level 3 Diesel Particulate Filters (for all equipment of 50 horsepower or more); or alternative fuel construction equipment.

If the HRA determines that construction will exceed BAAQMD significance thresholds, the HRA shall provide mitigation measures to reduce the impact to less than significant, including but not limited to requiring the use of Tier 4 engines, Level 3 Diesel Particulate Filters, and/or alternative fuel construction equipment.

MITIGATION MEASURE AQ-3 CONDUCT OPERATIONAL HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT Prior to submittal of a subsequent discretionary development permit application for industrial, warehousing, or commercial land uses that would generate at least 100 diesel trucks per day or 40 or more trucks with diesel-powered transport refrigeration units per day, the applicant shall submit an operational health risk assessment (HRA) or submit proof that an HRA is not required in accordance with BAAQMD thresholds. If required, the operational HRA shall be prepared in accordance with the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment and BAAQMD requirements, and mitigated to an acceptable level. Typical measures to reduce risk impacts may include, but are not limited to:
▪ Restricting idling on-site beyond Air Toxic Control Measures idling restrictions, as feasible. ▪ Electrifying warehousing docks.
▪ Truck Electric Vehicle (EV) Capable trailer spaces.
▪ Requiring use of newer equipment and/or vehicles.
▪ Restricting off-site truck travel through the creation of truck routes.

The operational HRA shall be provided to the City for review and concurrence prior to project approval.

Finding
The City finds that with incorporation of mitigation measure AQ-2 and AQ-3, which would require a construction and operational health risk assessment to be conducted, impacts to sensitive receptors would be mitigated to a less than significant level. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15091 890
Topical Areas Determined to Have
Potentially Significant Impacts Mitigated to a Less Than Significant Level Findings of Fact/Statement of Overriding Considerations 17 (a)(1), changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the proposed project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect to the extent feasible.

Biological Resources
Impact BIO-1
The project may result in direct or indirect impacts to special-status species, their associated habitats, and nesting birds. This impact would be less than significant with mitigation.

MITIGATION MEASURE BIO-1 SITE SPECIFIC BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT The City shall implement the following measures during environmental review of future development within the project site. For all projects facilitated by the annexation, a preliminary review and reconnaissance survey shall be conducted by a qualified biologist prior to project approval. A review of project plans, aerial imagery and agency databases as well as other relevant background information will be conducted prior to a reconnaissance survey for context and understanding of the biological concerns of the project. The reconnaissance survey shall include documentation of existing biological conditions, the habitat condition and characteristics, mapping of vegetation communities including aquatic features, and assessment of the site’s potential to support special-status species. If it is determined that the project has no potential to impact biological resources, no further action is required. If the project would have the potential to impact biological resources, prior to construction, a qualified biologist shall complete a biological resources assessment (BRA) or similar type of study to document the existing biological resources within the project footprint plus an appropriate buffer determined by a qualified biologist and to determine the potential impacts to those resources. The BRA shall evaluate the potential for impacts to all sensitive biological resources including, but not limited to special-status species, American badgers, nesting birds, bats, wildlife movement, sensitive plant communities/critical habitat and other resources judged to be sensitive by local, state, and/or federal agencies. Pending the results of the BRA, design alterations, further technical studies (i.e., protocol surveys) and/or consultations with the USFWS, CDFW and/or other local, state, and federal agencies may be necessary. Consultation with CDFW would be required in the instance of discovery of roosting bats during the BRA reconnaissance survey or further technical studies. The City shall review and approve the BRA prior to project approval.

Habitat assessments for special-status plants shall specifically be included for the BRA. If habitat is present, a botanical survey shall be conducted following CDFW’s Protocol for Surveying and Evaluating Impacts to Special-Status Native Plant Populations and Sensitive Natural Communities and results submitted to CDFW. If the botanical survey indicates special-status plant species on the project site, the project applicant shall fully avoid direct and indirect impacts to all individuals and prepare and implement a CDFW-approved avoidance plan prior to construction activities. If impacts cannot be avoided, the project shall provide compensatory habitat at a minimum 3:1 ratio including preparing, implementing, and funding in perpetuity a long-term management plan, unless otherwise approved in writing by CDFW.

MITIGATION MEASURE BIO-2 PRE-CONSTRUCTION SURVEYS FOR SWAINSON’S HAWK, OTHER

RAPTORS AND NESTING BIRDS
Ground disturbance and vegetation removal activities shall be restricted to the non-breeding season (September 16 to January 31), when feasible. If construction activities occur during the nesting bird 891
City of American Canyon
Paoli/Watson Lane Annexation
18 season (February 1 to September 15), the following mitigation measures are recommended to reduce impacts to Swainson’s hawk, protected raptor species, and other nesting birds protected by the MBTA and CFGC.

A qualified biologist shall conduct surveys for Swainson’s hawk during Swainson’s hawk nesting season (March 1 to August 31) prior to construction activities between January 1 and March 20. A preconstruction survey for other raptors and nesting birds shall be conducted no more than seven days prior to initiation of ground disturbance and vegetation removal. The survey shall be conducted within the project site and include a 150-foot buffer for passerines, with the exception of tricolored blackbirds which require a 500-foot buffer, 500-foot buffer for other raptors, and 0.5-mile buffer for active Swainson’s hawk nests. The surveys shall be conducted by a biologist familiar with the identification of avian species known to occur in the region. It is required that surveys follow the Swainson’s Hawk Technical Advisory Committee’s Recommended Timing and Methodology for Swainson’s Hawk Nesting Surveys in California’s Central Valley. If a Swainson’s hawk or white-tailed kite nest is found, the biologist shall set up appropriate buffers in consultation with CDFW.

If the nesting bird survey results are negative, no further action is required. If nests are found, the biologist shall determine and demarcate an appropriate avoidance buffer with high visibility material. For Swainson’s hawk nests, the biologist shall establish an avoidance buffer of up to 0.5 mile based on the nest location in relation to the construction activity, the line-of-sight from the nest to the construction activity, and observed hawk behavior at the nest.

The qualified biologist shall notify all construction personnel of the buffer zones and to avoid entering buffer zones during the nesting season. No ground disturbing activities shall occur within the buffer until the biologist has confirmed that breeding/nesting is complete, and the young have fledged the nest. Encroachment into the buffer shall occur only at the discretion of the biologist. If take of Swainson’s hawk or tricolored blackbird cannot be avoided, the project applicant or City shall consult with CDFW pursuant to CESA and obtain an ITP.

Results of the preconstruction nesting bird survey shall be submitted to the City in a brief letter report no more than 30 days after completion of the survey.

MITIGATION MEASURE BIO-3 PRE-CONSTRUCTION SURVEYS FOR WESTERN BURROWING OWL Prior to ground disturbance activities, a qualified biologist shall conduct pre-construction clearance breeding season (February 1 to August 31) surveys within suitable natural habitats and ruderal areas throughout the project site, to confirm the presence/absence of active western burrowing owl burrows unless otherwise approved by CDFW. It is recommended that surveys are also conducted during the non-breeding wintering season (September 1 to January 31). All surveys shall be consistent with the recommended survey methodology provided by CDFW’s Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation. Additionally, take avoidance surveys shall be conducted within 14 days prior to construction and ground disturbance activities, whether or not owls were discovered during the detection surveys. If no western burrowing owls are observed, no further actions are required. If western burrowing owls are detected during the pre-construction detection or clearance take avoidance surveys, CDFW shall be notified and the following measures shall apply:
▪ Avoidance buffers of a minimum of 500 meters (1,640 feet) during the breeding and nonbreeding season shall be implemented by a qualified biologist in accordance with the CDFW’s Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation minimization mitigation measures, unless otherwise approved by CDFW. To prevent encroachment, the established buffers shall be clearly marked by high visibility material. Detected burrowing owls shall be avoided pursuant to the buffer zone 892
Topical Areas Determined to Have
Potentially Significant Impacts Mitigated to a Less Than Significant Level Findings of Fact/Statement of Overriding Considerations 19 prescribed in the Department of Fish and Game Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation (2012), unless otherwise approved in writing by CDFW, and any eviction plan shall be subject to CDFW review.
▪ If avoidance of western burrowing owls is not feasible, then additional measures such as off-site habitat compensation (habitat compensation acreages shall be approved by CDFW), placement of a conservation easement and preparation, implementation, and funding of a long-term management plan, and construction buffers of 500 feet during the breeding season shall be implemented, in consultation with CDFW. In addition, a Western Burrowing Owl Exclusion Plan and Mitigation and Monitoring Plan shall be developed by a qualified biologist in accordance with the CDFW (2012) and Burrowing Owl Consortium (1993).

Project applicants shall submit evidence of clearance surveys, avoidance buffers or additional measures to the City as required.

MITIGATION MEASURE BIO-4 WORKER ENVIRONMENTAL AWARENESS PROGRAM Prior to initiation of construction activities (including staging and mobilization), all personnel associated with project construction shall attend Worker Environmental Awareness Program training, conducted by a qualified biologist, to aid workers in recognizing special status resources that may occur in the project site. The program shall include identification of the sensitive species and habitats, a description of the regulatory status and general ecological characteristics of sensitive resources, and review of the limits of construction and mitigation measures required to reduce impacts to biological resources within the work area. A fact sheet conveying this information shall also be prepared for distribution to all contractors, their employers, and other personnel involved with construction. All employees shall sign a form documenting attendance at the Worker Environmental Awareness Program and that they understand the information presented to them.

The form shall be submitted to the City to document compliance.

Finding
The City finds that with incorporation of mitigation measure BIO-1 – BIO-4, which would require biological resource assessments, Swainson’s hawk and burrowing owl surveys, and a worker environmental awareness program, impacts to special-status species would be reduced to a less than significant level. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15091 (a)(1), changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the proposed project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect to the extent feasible.

Impact BIO-3
Implementation of the project may result in impacts to state or federally protected waters. This impact would be less than significant with mitigation.

MITIGATION MEASURE BIO-5 AQUATIC RESOURCES DELINEATION
A qualified biologist shall complete an aquatic resources delineation survey that establishes the extent of the waters of the U.S. and State and identify the potential jurisdictional limits of USACE, RWQCB, and CDFW. The delineation shall be conducted in accordance with the requirement set forth by each agency and the results presented in a report that shall be submitted to the City, USACE, RWQCB, and CDFW, as appropriate, for review and approval. If the USACE asserts its authority, then a permit pursuant to Section 404 of the CWA would be required. If jurisdictional 893
City of American Canyon
Paoli/Watson Lane Annexation
20 areas are expected to be impacted, then the RWQCB would require a Section 401 Water Quality Certification and/or Waste Discharge Requirement permit (depending upon whether the feature falls under federal jurisdiction or not). If CDFW asserts its jurisdictional authority, then a Lake or Streambed Alteration Agreement pursuant to Section 1600 et seq. of the CFGC would also be required prior to construction within the areas of CDFW jurisdiction.

MITIGATION MEASURE BIO-6 GENERAL AVOIDANCE AND MINIMIZATION Development shall be designed to avoid potentially jurisdictional features identified in aquatic resources delineation reports (mitigation measure BIO-4), to the extent feasible. No development shall occur within 50 feet of the top of bank for North Slough. Projects with potentially jurisdictional features shall provide the City with a report detailing how all identified aquatic features will be avoided, including groundwater draw down, prior to project approval.

MITIGATION MEASURE BIO-7 RESTORATION FOR IMPACTS TO WATERS AND WETLANDS If the project cannot be designed to avoid impacts to waters and wetlands (as described in mitigation measure BIO-6), then impacts shall be fully mitigated at an appropriate ratio, as determined by a qualified biologist and in accordance with regulatory agency requirements.

Mitigation can be achieved through the setting aside or acquisition and in-perpetuity management of similar habitat on-site (this can include restoration of jurisdictional features within the project site) or as close to the impact habitat as possible. Mitigation lands must be placed into a conservation easement or other covenant restricting future development. A mitigation and monitoring plan consistent with regulatory agency requirements shall be developed by a qualified biologist and submittal to the regulatory agency overseeing the project for approval. Alternatively, mitigation shall be accomplished through purchase of credits from an approved mitigation bank.

Mitigation lands or in lieu funding sufficient to acquire lands should provide habitat at a minimum 1:1 ratio for impacted lands, comparable to habitat to be impacted by individual project activity. The City shall review and approve the plan before submittal to the agencies.

Finding
The City finds that with incorporation of mitigation measure BIO-5 – BIO-7, which would require aquatic resource delineation, avoidance of potentially jurisdictional features, and restoration for waters and wetlands impacted by development, impacts to state or federally protected waters would be mitigated to a less than significant level. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15091 (a)(1), changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the proposed project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect to the extent feasible.

Impact BIO-4
Implementation of the project would not substantially impede the movement of native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors after the implementation of mitigation measure BIO-6. This impact would be less than significant with mitigation.

Mitigation measure BIO-6 would apply.

Finding
The City finds that with incorporation of mitigation measure BIO-6, which would require development to be designed to avoid potentially jurisdictional features, impacts to native or 894
Topical Areas Determined to Have
Potentially Significant Impacts Mitigated to a Less Than Significant Level Findings of Fact/Statement of Overriding Considerations 21 migratory fish or migratory wildlife corridors would be mitigated to a less than significant level.

Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15091 (a)(1), changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the proposed project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect to the extent feasible.

Impact BIO-5
Implementation of the project could conflict with local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance. However, this impact would be less than significant with mitigation.

Mitigation measure BIO-5, BIO-6, and BIO-7 would apply.

Finding
The City finds that with incorporation of mitigation measure BIO-5 – BIO-7, which would require aquatic resource delineation, avoidance of potentially jurisdictional features, and restoration for waters and wetlands impacted by development, impacts related to conflicts with local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources would be mitigated to a less than significant level.

Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15091 (a)(1), changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the proposed project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect to the extent feasible.

Cultural Resources
Impact CUL-1
The project could adversely affect previously unidentified historic-period resources. Impacts to historic-period resources would be less than significant with mitigation.

MITIGATION MEASURE CUL-1 HISTORICAL BUILT ENVIRONMENT
Prior to project approval, the applicant shall submit a report to the City that identifies any historicage features (i.e., structures over 45 years of age) proposed to be altered or demolished. If historical-age features are present, the applicant shall submit a historical resources evaluation to the City prepared in areas that contains buildings, structures, objects, sites, landscape/site plans, or other features that are 45 years of age or older, by a qualified architectural historian or historian who meets the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualifications Standards (PQS) in architectural history or history (36 CFR Part 61). The evaluation shall include an intensive-level evaluation, in accordance with the guidelines and best practices meeting the State Office of Historic Preservation guidelines. All evaluated properties shall be documented on Department of Parks and Recreation Series 523 Forms. The report shall be submitted to the City for review and approval.

If historical resources are identified through the survey and evaluation, efforts shall be made by the applicant to ensure that the relocation, rehabilitation, or alteration of the resource is consistent with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatments of Historic Properties (Standards).

The applicant shall submit a report to the City that identifies and specifies the treatment of character-defining features and construction activities, and demonstrates how the project complies with the Standards and avoids the substantial adverse change in the significance of the historical resource as defined by CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(b). The report shall be prepared by an architectural historian or historical architect meeting the PQS as defined by 36 CFR Part 61 and provided to the City for review and concurrence prior to project approval. 895
City of American Canyon
Paoli/Watson Lane Annexation
22 Finding
The City finds that with incorporation of mitigation measure CUL-1, which would require the submittal of a report that identifies any historic age features on a proposed development site that would be altered or demolished and appropriate measures to be taken in these instances, impacts to historic period resources would be mitigated to a less than significant level. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15091 (a)(1), changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the proposed project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect to the extent feasible.

Impact CUL-2
The project could adversely affect previously unidentified archaeological resources. Impacts would be less than significant with mitigation.

MITIGATION MEASURE CUL-2 ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT Prior to submittal of any discretionary development application that involves ground disturbance activities (that may include but are not limited to, pavement removal, potholing, grubbing, tree removal, and grading), the applicant shall submit an archaeological resources assessment prepared by a qualified archaeologist who meets the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualifications Standards in either prehistoric or historic archaeology. Assessments shall include a CHRIS records search at the NWIC and a SLF Search from the NAHC. The records searches shall characterize the results of previous cultural resource surveys and disclose any cultural resources that have been recorded and/or evaluated in and around the development site. If the assessment begins on or before 2027, the results of the NWIC and SLF search for this EIR can be summarized as part of the assessment. A Phase I pedestrian survey shall be undertaken in future project areas that are undeveloped to locate any surface cultural materials. By performing a records search, a SLF search, and a Phase I survey, a qualified archaeologist shall be able to classify the future project area as having high, medium, or low sensitivity for archaeological resources.

If the Phase I archaeological survey identifies resources that may be affected by the future project, the archaeological resources assessment shall also include Phase II testing and evaluation. If resources are determined significant or unique through Phase II testing and site avoidance is not possible, appropriate site-specific mitigation measures shall be identified in the Phase II evaluation.

These measures may include, but would not be limited to, a Phase III data recovery program, avoidance, or other appropriate actions to be determined by a qualified archaeologist. If significant archaeological resources cannot be avoided, impacts may be reduced to less than significant level by filling on top of the sites rather than cutting into the cultural deposits. Alternatively, and/or in addition, a data collection program may be warranted, including mapping the location of artifacts, surface collection of artifacts, or excavation of the cultural deposit, to characterize the nature of the buried portions of sites. Curation of the excavated artifacts or samples would occur as specified by the archaeologist. The archaeological resources assessment shall be reviewed and approved by the City prior to project approval.

MITIGATION MEASURE CUL-3 UNANTICIPATED DISCOVERIES
An Archaeologist who meets the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualification Standards for archaeology shall be present on-site during all earth disturbing activities. If cultural resources are encountered during ground-disturbing activities, work within 100 feet of the area shall be halted and the contractor shall contact an archaeologist meeting the Secretary of the Interior’s 896
Topical Areas Determined to Have
Potentially Significant Impacts Mitigated to a Less Than Significant Level Findings of Fact/Statement of Overriding Considerations 23 Professional Qualification Standards for archaeology in either prehistoric or historic archaeology immediately to evaluate the find. If necessary, the evaluation may require preparation of a treatment plan and archaeological testing for CRHR eligibility. If the discovery proves to be significant under CEQA and cannot be avoided by the project, additional work, such as excavating the cultural deposit to fully characterize its extent and collecting and curating artifacts may be warranted to mitigate any significant impacts to cultural resources. If archaeological resources of Native American origin are identified during construction, a qualified archaeologist will consult with the City to begin Native American consultation procedures. Periodic reports of the find and subsequent evaluations shall be submitted to the City during construction.

Finding
The City finds that with incorporation of mitigation measure CUL-2 and CUL-3, which would require and archeological resources assessment and the evaluation and characterization of any unanticipated discoveries, impacts to archeological resources would be mitigated to a less than significant level. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15091 (a)(1), changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the proposed project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect to the extent feasible.

Impact CUL-3
The project could result in damage to or destruction of human burials. Impacts would be less than significant through adherence to existing regulations and with mitigation.

MITIGATION MEASURE CUL-4 HUMAN REMAINS
In the event of an accidental discovery or recognition of any human remains, CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5, Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5, and Public Resources Code Sections 5097.94 and Section 5097.98 shall be followed. If during project construction, there is accidental discovery or recognition of any human remains, the following steps shall be taken:

1. There shall be no further excavation or disturbance within 100 feet of the remains until the County Coroner is contacted to determine whether the remains are Native American and if an investigation of the cause of death is required. If the Coroner determines the remains to be Native American, the Coroner shall contact the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) within 24 hours, and the NAHC shall identify the person or persons it believes to be the Most Likely Descendant (MLD) of the deceased Native American. The MLD may make recommendations to the landowner or the person responsible for the excavation work within 48 hours, for means of treating or disposing of, with appropriate dignity, the human remains, and any associated grave goods as provided in Public Resource Code Section 5097.98.

2. Where the following conditions occur, the landowner or authorized representative shall rebury the Native American human remains and associated grave goods with appropriate dignity either in accordance with the recommendations of the MLD or on the project site in a location not subject to further subsurface disturbance:
▪ The NAHC is unable to identify an MLD or the MLD failed to make a recommendation within 48 hours after being notified by the commission.
▪ The descendant identified fails to make a recommendation. 897
City of American Canyon
Paoli/Watson Lane Annexation
24 ▪ The landowner or authorized representative rejects the recommendation of the descendant, and mediation by the NAHC fails to provide measures acceptable to the landowner.

Additionally, California Public Resources Code Section 15064.5 requires the following relative to Native American Remains:
▪ When an initial study identifies the existence of, or the probable likelihood of, Native American Remains within a project, a lead agency shall work with the appropriate Native Americans as identified by the NAHC as provided in Public Resources Code Section 5097.98. The applicant may each develop a plan with respect to their respective individual development proposals for treating or disposing of, with appropriate dignity, the human remains, and any items associated with Native American Burials with the appropriate Native Americans as identified by the NAHC.

MITIGATION MEASURE CUL-5 TRIBAL MONITORING
A Tribal Monitor representing the Yocha Dehe Wintun Nation shall be present during all projectrelated ground disturbance. Additionally, the Yocha Dehe Wintun Nation’s Treatment Protocol (Protocol) shall be followed with respect to Tribal Cultural Resources (TCRs). The purpose of the protocol is to formalize procedures for the treatment of Native American human remains, grave goods, ceremonial items, and items of cultural patrimony, if any are found in conjunction with development, including archaeological studies, excavation, geotechnical investigations, grading, and any ground-disturbing activity. This Protocol also formalizes procedures for Tribal Monitoring during archaeological studies, grading, and ground-disturbing activities.

1. Cultural Affiliation: The Yocha Dehe Wintun Nation (Tribe) traditionally occupied lands in Yolo, Solano, Lake, Colusa, and Napa Counties. The Tribe has designated its Cultural Resources Committee (Committee) to act on the Tribe's behalf with respect to the provisions of this Protocol. Any human remains which are found in conjunction with projects on lands culturally affiliated with the Tribe shall be treated in accordance with Section III of this Protocol. Any other cultural resources shall be treated in accordance with Section IV of this Protocol.

2. Inadvertent Discovery of Native American Human Remains: Whenever Native American human remains are found during the course of a project, the determination of Most Likely Descendant (MLD) under California Public Resources Code Section 5097.98 will be made by the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) upon notification to the NAHC of the discovery of said remains at a project site. If the location of the site and the history and prehistory of the area is culturally affiliated with the Tribe, the NAHC contacts the Tribe; a Tribal member will be designated by the Tribe to consult with the landowner and/or project proponents. Should the NAHC determine that a member of an Indian tribe other than Yocha Dehe Wintun Nation is the MLD, and the Tribe agrees with this determination, the terms of this Protocol relating to the treatment of such Native American human remains shall not be applicable; however, that situation is very unlikely.

3. Treatment of Native American Remains: In the event that Native American human remains are found during development of a project and the Tribe or a member of the Tribe is determined to be MLD immediately be notified, ground-disturbing activities in that location shall cease and the Tribe shall be allowed, pursuant to California Public Resources Code Section 5097.98(a), to (1) inspect the site of the discovery and (2) make determinations as to how the human remains and grave goods shall be treated and disposed of with appropriate dignity. The Tribe shall complete its inspection and make its MLD recommendation within 48 hours of getting access to the site. 898
Topical Areas Determined to Have
Potentially Significant Impacts Mitigated to a Less Than Significant Level Findings of Fact/Statement of Overriding Considerations 25 The Tribe shall have the final determination as to the disposition and treatment of human remains and grave goods. Said determination may include avoidance of the human remains, reburial on-site, or reburial on tribal or other lands that will not be disturbed in the future. The Tribe may wish to rebury said human remains and grave goods or ceremonial and cultural items on or near the site of their discovery, in an area which will not be subject to future disturbances over a prolonged period of time. Reburial of human remains shall be accomplished in compliance with the California Public Resources Code Sections 5097.98(a) and (b). The term "human remains" encompasses more than human bones because the Tribe’s traditions call for the burial of associated cultural items with the deceased (funerary objects), and/or the ceremonial burning of Native American human remains, funerary objects, grave goods, and animals. Ashes, soils, and other remnants of these burning ceremonies, as well as associated funerary objects and unassociated funerary objects buried with or found near the Native American remains are to be treated in the same manner as bones or bone fragments that remain intact.

4. Non-Disclosure of Location of Reburials: Unless otherwise required by law, the site of any reburial of Native American human remains shall not be disclosed and will not be governed by public disclosure requirements of the California Public Records Act, California Government Code Section 6250 et seq. The Medical Examiner shall withhold public disclosure of information related to such reburial pursuant to the specific exemption set forth in California Government Code Section 6254(r). The Tribe will require that the location for reburial is recorded with the California Historic Resources Inventory System (CHRIS) on a form acceptable to the CHRIS center. The Tribe may also suggest the landowner enter into an agreement regarding the confidentiality of site information that will run with title on the property.

5. Treatment of Cultural Resources: Treatment of all cultural items, including ceremonial items and archaeological items will reflect the religious beliefs, customs, and practices of the Tribe. All cultural items, including ceremonial items and archaeological items, which may be found at a project site shall be turned over to the Tribe for appropriate treatment, unless ordered by a court or agency of competent jurisdiction. The project proponent shall waive any and all claims to ownership of Tribal ceremonial and cultural items, including archaeological items, which may be found on a project site in favor of the Tribe. If any intermediary, (for example, an Archaeologist retained by the project proponent) is necessary, said entity or individual shall not possess those items for longer than is reasonably necessary, as determined solely by the Tribe.

6. Inadvertent Discoveries: If additional significant sites or sites not identified as significant in a project environmental review process, but later determined to be significant, are located within a project impact area, such sites will be subjected to further archaeological and cultural significance evaluation by the project proponent, the Lead Agency, and the Tribe to determine whether additional mitigation measures are necessary to treat sites in a culturally appropriate manner consistent with CEQA requirements for mitigation of impacts to cultural resources. If there are human remains present that have been identified as Native American, all work will cease for a period of up to 30 days in accordance with Federal Law.

Finding
The City finds that with incorporation of mitigation measure CUL-4 and CUL-5, which describe the procedure to be followed in the event that there is an unanticipated discovery of human remains and which require tribal cultural monitoring during project-related ground disturbance, impacts to human burials would be mitigated to a less than significant level. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15091 (a)(1), changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the 899
City of American Canyon
Paoli/Watson Lane Annexation
26 proposed project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect to the extent feasible.

Energy
Impact E-2
The project would not conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency because the project would require mitigation measures that require advanced energy efficiency and the use of carbon-free electricity sources. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant with mitigation.

Mitigation measures GHG-4 and GHG-5 would apply.

Finding
The City finds that with incorporation of mitigation measure GHG-4 and GHG-5, which would require the satisfaction of tier 2 advanced energy efficiency requirements and documentation of carbon-free electricity sources for new development, impacts related to renewable energy and energy efficiency would be mitigated to a less than significant level. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15091 (a)(1), changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the proposed project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect to the extent feasible.

Geology and Soils
Impact GEO-2
Following project implementation, future structures, roadways, and occupants could be located in areas that would be exposed to seismic events, including ground shaking, liquefaction, and landslides, creating the risk for damage or injury. Compliance with the CBC, the City’s Municipal Code, and mitigation measure GEO-1 would minimize ground shaking, liquefaction, and landslide hazards. Impacts would be less than significant with mitigation.

MITIGATION MEASURE GEO-1 GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION
Prior to the issuance of improvement plans and building permits, the project applicant shall submit a design-level Geotechnical Investigation to the City of American Canyon for review and approval.

The investigation shall be prepared by a qualified engineer and identify grading and building practices necessary to achieve compliance with the latest adopted edition of the California Building Standards Code (CBC) geologic, soils, and seismic requirements, including abatement of expansive soil conditions. The report shall also determine the final design parameters for walls, foundations, foundation slabs, and surrounding related improvements (e.g., utilities roadways, parking lots, and sidewalks). The measures identified in the approved report shall be incorporated into the project plans and all applicable construction related permits.

Finding
The City finds that with incorporation of mitigation measure GEO-1, which would require a geotechnical investigation and incorporation of its recommendations into the project design, impacts related to seismic events would be mitigated to a less than significant level. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15091 (a)(1), changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated 900
Topical Areas Determined to Have
Potentially Significant Impacts Mitigated to a Less Than Significant Level Findings of Fact/Statement of Overriding Considerations 27 into, the proposed project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect to the extent feasible.

Impact GEO-3
The project could result in soil erosion or the loss of topsoil. Adherence to permit requirements and mitigation measure HYD-1 would reduce this impact to a less than significant level. Impacts would be less than significant with mitigation.

Mitigation measure HYD-1 would apply.

Finding
The City finds that with incorporation of mitigation measure HYD-1, which would require implementation of a water pollution prevention plan, impacts related to soil erosion would be mitigated to a less than significant level. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15091 (a)(1), changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the proposed project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect to the extent feasible.

Impact GEO-4
The project could result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse. Compliance with CBC requirements would reduce hazards resulting from expansive soils and impacts would be less than significant.

Mitigation measure GEO-1 would apply.

Finding
The City finds that with incorporation of mitigation measure GEO-1, which would require a geotechnical investigation and incorporation of its recommendations into the project design, impacts related to landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse would be mitigated to a less than significant level. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15091 (a)(1), changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the proposed project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect to the extent feasible.

Impact GEO-6
Development facilitated by the project has the potential to impact paleontological resources.

Impacts would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated.

MITIGATION MEASURE GEO-2 RETENTION OF QUALIFIED PROFESSIONAL PALEONTOLOGIST Prior to submittal of a discretionary development application, the project applicant shall retain a Qualified Professional Paleontologist, as defined by SVP (2010), to determine the project’s potential to significantly impact paleontological resources according to SVP (2010) standards. If necessary, the Qualified Professional Paleontologist shall direct mitigation measures to reduce potential impacts to paleontological resources to a less than significant level. The City shall review and approve the Qualified Professional Paleontologist’s findings and recommendation. All recommendations shall be incorporated into the project plans prior to issuance of a grading permit. 901
City of American Canyon
Paoli/Watson Lane Annexation
28 Finding
The City finds that with incorporation of mitigation measure GEO-2, which would require the retention of a qualified professional paleontologist and implementation of recommendations of the paleontologist, impacts to paleontological resources would be mitigated to a less than significant level. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15091 (a)(1), changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the proposed project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect to the extent feasible.

Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Impact GHG-1
The project would be consistent with BAAQMD thresholds after implementation of mitigation measures GHG-1 through GHG-5. This impact would be less than significant with mitigation.

MITIGATION MEASURE GHG-1 CONSTRUCTION BMPS
Prior to the issuance of any grading permits, the project applicant shall provide the City of American Canyon with documentation (e.g., site plans) demonstrating project construction will include the following construction Best Management Practices (BMPs):
▪ At least 15 percent of the construction fleet for each project phase shall be alternatively fueled or electric.
▪ At least 10 percent of building materials used for project construction shall be sourced from local suppliers.
▪ At least 65 percent of construction and demolition waste materials shall be recycled or reused. ▪ At least one contractor that has a business location in American Canyon shall be contracted for project construction.
▪ All construction contracts shall include language that requires all off-road equipment with a power rating below 19 kilowatts (e.g., plate compactors, pressure washers) using during construction be electrically powered.
▪ Architectural coatings used for project construction shall be “Low-VOC,” containing no greater than 50 grams of volatile organic compounds (VOC) per liter of product. ▪ Project construction shall prohibit the use of generators and shall establish grid power connection to electrical equipment needs.
▪ Idling times shall be minimized either by shutting equipment off when not in use or reducing the maximum idling time to 5 minutes (as required by the California Airborne Toxics Control Measure [ATCM] Title 13, Section 2485 of California Code of Regulations). Clear signage regarding idling restrictions shall be provided for construction workers at all access points. ▪ All construction equipment shall be maintained and properly tuned in accordance with manufacturer’s specifications. All equipment shall be checked by a certified mechanic and determined to be running in proper condition prior to operation. ▪ The prime construction contractor shall post a publicly visible sign with their telephone number and contractor to contact. The construction contractor shall take corrective action within 48 hours. The BAAQMD’s phone number shall also be identified and visible to ensure compliance with applicable regulations.
902
Topical Areas Determined to Have
Potentially Significant Impacts Mitigated to a Less Than Significant Level Findings of Fact/Statement of Overriding Considerations 29 MITIGATION MEASURE GHG-2 ELECTRIC VEHICLE CHARGING STATIONS Prior to issuance of any building permits, the project applicant shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the City (e.g., shown on-site plans), that the proposed parking areas for passenger automobiles and trucks are designed and will be built to accommodate electric vehicle (EV) charging stations. At a minimum, the parking shall be designed to accommodate EV charging stations equal to the Tier 2 Nonresidential Voluntary Measures of the California Green Building Standards Code, Section A5.106.5.3.2.

Prior to the issuance of any building permits, the project applicant shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the City (e.g., shown on-site plans), that each loading dock is outfitted with at least one 240-volt outlet to accommodate truck and Transport Refrigeration Unit (TRU) charging and/or electrical power connection while trucks are loading and unloading goods.

In addition, the City shall require the following:
▪ At least 25 percent of heavy-duty vehicles entering or operated on the industrial sites shall be zero emission by 2030.
▪ All on-site equipment such as forklifts and yard trucks shall be electric with the necessary electrical charging stations provided.
▪ Industrial and commercial tenants shall use zero emission light- and medium-duty vehicles as part of business operations.

MITIGATION MEASURE GHG-3 ALL ELECTRIC BUILDINGS
Prior to the issuance of any building permits, the project applicant shall provide the City with documentation (e.g., site plans) demonstrating the project is designed without the use of any natural gas-fueled appliances or natural gas plumbing.

MITIGATION MEASURE GHG-4 TIER 2 ADVANCED ENERGY EFFICIENCY REQUIREMENTS Prior to issuance of any building permits, the project applicant shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the City (e.g., shown on-site plans), that the proposed buildings are designed and will be built to, at a minimum, the Tier 2 advanced energy efficiency requirements of the Nonresidential Voluntary Measures of the California Green Building Standards Code, Division A5.2, Energy Efficiency, as outlined under Section A5.203.1.2.2.

MITIGATION MEASURE GHG-5 CARBON-FREE ELECTRICITY SOURCES Prior to the issuance of any building permit for the project, the project applicant shall provide the City with documentation (e.g., site plans) demonstrating to the City’s satisfaction that electricity demand will be supplied with 100 percent carbon-free electricity sources through the year 2045 with on-site photovoltaic solar.

Finding
The City finds that with incorporation of mitigation measure GHG-1 – GHG-5, which would require implementation of construction BMPs, incorporation of electric vehicle charging stations on development sites, all electric buildings, the satisfaction of Tier 2 advanced energy efficiency requirements, and documentation of carbon free electricity sources to be used for new development, impacts related to greenhouse gas emissions would be mitigated to a less than significant level. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15091 (a)(1), changes or alterations have 903
City of American Canyon
Paoli/Watson Lane Annexation
30 been required in, or incorporated into, the proposed project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect to the extent feasible.

Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Impact HAZ-1
Development facilitated by the project could involve the use, storage, disposal, or transportation of hazardous materials. Upset or accident conditions in the project site could involve the release of hazardous materials into the environment. However, implementation of mitigation measure HAZ-1 would ensure that impacts would be less than significant.

MITIGATION MEASURE HAZ-1 PROPERTY ASSESSMENT – PHASE I AND II ENVIRONMENTAL SITE

ASSESSMENTS
Prior to submittal of a discretionary development application or engineering plans for the Newell Drive Extension, the project applicant shall retain a qualified environmental professional, as defined by ASTM E-1527 to prepare a project area Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) in accordance with standard ASTM methodologies, to assess the land use history of the project site that will be affected.

After the site-specific Phase I ESA has been completed, the determination of specific areas that require a Phase II ESA (i.e., soil, groundwater, soil vapor subsurface investigations) shall be evaluated by the project applicant. The Phase II ESA shall be completed prior to construction and shall be based on the results of the Phase I ESA. Specifically, if the Phase I ESA identifies recognized environmental conditions or potential concern areas, the project applicant shall retain a qualified environmental consultant, California Professional Geologist or California Professional Engineer, to prepare a Phase II ESA of the project site to determine whether the soil, groundwater, and/or soil vapor has been impacted at concentrations exceeding regulatory screening levels for commercial/industrial land uses.

As part of the Phase II ESA, the qualified environmental consultant shall screen the analytical results against the San Francisco Regional Water Quality Control Board environmental screening levels (ESL). These ESLs are risk-based screening levels for direct exposure of a construction worker under various depth and land use scenarios.

If the Phase II ESA for the development site indicates that contaminants are detected in the subsurface at the project site, the project applicant shall take appropriate steps to protect site workers and the public. This may include the preparation of a Soil Management Plan for Impacted Soils prior to project construction.

If the Phase II ESA for the contaminant site indicates that contaminants are present at concentrations exceeding hazardous waste screening thresholds for contaminants in soil and/or groundwater (CCR Title 22, Section 66261.24 Characteristics of Toxicity), the project applicant shall take appropriate steps to protect site workers and the public. This may include the completion of remediation at the project prior to onsite construction. The City shall review and approve the Phase I ESA and Phase II ESA prior to construction (i.e., demolition and grading).

Finding
The City finds that with incorporation of mitigation measure HAZ-1, which would require Phase I and Phase II Environmental Site Assessments, impacts related to the use, storage, disposal, or 904
Topical Areas Determined to Have
Potentially Significant Impacts Mitigated to a Less Than Significant Level Findings of Fact/Statement of Overriding Considerations 31 transportation of hazardous materials would be mitigated to a less than significant level. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15091 (a)(1), changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the proposed project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect to the extent feasible.

Impact HAZ-3
Development facilitated by the project would not be located on a site included on a list of hazardous material sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5. However, impacts could occur from unknown hazardous materials. Compliance with mitigation measure HAZ-1 would minimize impacts from development on previously unknown contaminated sites and impacts would be less than significant after mitigation.

Mitigation measure HAZ-1 would apply.

Finding
The City finds that with incorporation of mitigation measure HAZ-1, which would require Phase I and Phase II Environmental Site Assessments, impacts related to unknown hazardous materials would be mitigated to a less than significant level. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15091 (a)(1), changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the proposed project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect to the extent feasible.

Hydrology and Water Quality
Impact HWQ-1
The project would not violate water quality standards or waste discharge requirements, or otherwise substantially degrade surface or groundwater quality. Individual projects would be required to comply with BMPs in accordance with State and local regulations and permit requirements, as well as mitigation measures HYD-1 and HYD-2. Impacts would be less than significant with mitigation.

MITIGATION MEASURE HYD-1 WATER POLLUTION PREVENTION PLAN Prior to issuance of grading permits for the project, the applicant shall submit to the City of American Canyon for review and approval a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) in accordance with the requirements of the statewide Construction General Permit. The SWPPP shall be designed to address the following objectives: (1) all pollutants and their sources (e.g., runoff), including sources of sediment associated with construction, construction site erosion, and all other activities associated with construction activity, are controlled; (2) where not otherwise required to be under a Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) permit, all non-stormwater discharges are identified and either eliminated, controlled, or treated; (3) site Best Management Practices (BMPs) (e.g., silt fencing, street sweeping, routine inspection, etc.) are effective and result in the reduction or elimination of pollutants in stormwater discharges and authorized non-stormwater discharges from construction activity; and (4) stabilization BMPs are installed to reduce or eliminate pollutants after construction are completed. The SWPPP shall be prepared by a qualified SWPPP developer. The SWPPP shall include the minimum BMPs required for the identified Risk Level. BMP implementation shall be consistent with the BMP requirements in the most recent version of the California Stormwater Quality Association (CASQA) Stormwater Best Management Handbook– Construction or the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) Stormwater Quality 905
City of American Canyon
Paoli/Watson Lane Annexation
32 Handbook Construction Site BMPs Manual. The SWPPP shall be implemented during construction to the satisfaction of the City.

MITIGATION MEASURE HYD-2 STORMWATER CONTROL PLAN
Prior to the issuance of building permits, the project applicant shall submit a Stormwater Control Plan to the City of American Canyon for review and approval. The plan shall be developed using the California Stormwater Quality Association (CASQA) “New Development and Redevelopment Handbook” and include the applicable provisions of Section C.3 of the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) Municipal Regional Permit (Order No. R2-2015-0049, NPDES Permit No. CAS612008 (or more recent permit). The Stormwater Control Plan shall identify pollution prevention measures and Best Management Practices (BMPs) to control stormwater pollution from operational activities and facilities and provide maintenance in perpetuity. The Stormwater Control Plan shall include Low Impact Development (LID) design concepts, as well as concepts that accomplish a “first flush” objective that would remove contaminants from the first 2 inches of stormwater before it enters area waterways. The project applicant shall also prepare and submit an Operations and Maintenance Agreement to the City, identifying procedures to ensure stormwater quality control measures work properly during operations.

Finding
The City finds that with incorporation of mitigation measure HYD-1 and HYD-2, which would require implementation of water pollution and stormwater control plans, impacts related to water quality standards or waste discharge requirements would be mitigated to a less than significant level.

Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15091 (a)(1), changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the proposed project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect to the extent feasible.

Impact HWQ-3
The project could alter drainage patterns but would not result in substantial erosion or siltation after compliance with existing regulations and implementation of mitigation measures HYD-1 and HYD-2. Impacts would be less than significant with mitigation.

Mitigation measures HYD-1 and HYD-2 would apply.

Finding
The City finds that with incorporation of mitigation measure HYD-1 and HYD-2, which would require implementation of water pollution and stormwater control plans, impacts to drainage patterns, erosion or siltation would be mitigated to a less than significant level. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15091 (a)(1), changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the proposed project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect to the extent feasible.

Land Use and Planning
Impact LU-2
The project would not result in a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with a plan adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. Impacts would be less than significant.
906
Topical Areas Determined to Have
Potentially Significant Impacts Mitigated to a Less Than Significant Level Findings of Fact/Statement of Overriding Considerations 33 Mitigation measures AES1, AES-2, AQ-1 – AQ-3, BIO-1 – BIO-7, CUL-1 – CUL-5, GEO-1 and GEO-2, GHG-1 – GH-5, HAZ-1, HYD-1 and HYD-2, PSR-1, and NOI-1 – NOI-3 would apply.

Finding
The City finds that with incorporation of the aforementioned mitigation measures impacts related to conflicts with adopted plans would be mitigated to a less than significant level. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15091 (a)(1), changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the proposed project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect to the extent feasible.

Noise
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.

MITIGATION MEASURE NOI-1 CONSTRUCTION NOISE REDUCTION MEASUREMENTS The following measures shall be implemented where future development construction sites are located within 150 feet of a sensitive receiver:

1. 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.

2. Stationary Equipment. All stationary construction equipment shall be placed so that emitted noise is directed away from the nearest sensitive receivers.

3. 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 keep documentation on-site during any earthwork or construction activities demonstrating that the equipment has been maintained in accordance with manufacturer’s specifications.

4. 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.

5. 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.

6. Equipment Idling. Construction vehicles and equipment shall not be left idling for longer than five minutes when not in use.

7. 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.

8. 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. 907
City of American Canyon
Paoli/Watson Lane Annexation
34 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.

9. 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.

MITIGATION MEASURE NOI-2 CONSTRUCTION NOISE REDUCTION MEASURES DURING PILE DRIVING The following measures shall be implemented during pile driving:

1. 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.

2. Scheduling. Pile driving will be scheduled to have the least impact on nearby sensitive receivers.

3. 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.

Finding
The City finds that with incorporation of mitigation measures NOI-1 and NOI-2, which require construction noise reduction measures, aforementioned mitigation measures impacts related to construction noise would be mitigated to a less than significant level. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15091 (a)(1), changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the proposed project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect to the extent feasible.
908
Topical Areas Determined to Have
Potentially Significant Impacts Mitigated to a Less Than Significant Level Findings of Fact/Statement of Overriding Considerations 35 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.

MITIGATION MEASURE 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.

Finding
The City finds that with incorporation of mitigation measures NOI-3, which requires a noise analysis and measures to be implemented that control operational stationary noise, impacts related to operational noise would be mitigated to a less than significant level. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15091 (a)(1), changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the proposed project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect to the extent feasible.

Public Services and Recreation
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.

MITIGATION MEASURE 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.

Finding
The City finds that with incorporation of mitigation measures PSR-1, which requires measures to maintain adequate fire services, impacts related to fire facilities would be mitigated to a less than 909
City of American Canyon
Paoli/Watson Lane Annexation
36 significant level. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15091 (a)(1), changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the proposed project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect to the extent feasible.

Tribal Cultural Resources
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.

Mitigation measures CUL-2 – CUL-5 would apply.

Finding
The City finds that with incorporation of mitigation measures CUL-2 – CUL-5 which describe the procedure to be followed in the event that there is an unanticipated discovery of human remains, require tribal cultural monitoring during project-related ground disturbance, require an archeological resources assessment and the evaluation and characterization of any unanticipated discoveries, impacts related to tribal cultural resources would be mitigated to a less than significant level. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15091 (a)(1), changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the proposed project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect to the extent feasible.

Wildfire
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.

MITIGATION MEASURE 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:

1. 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.

2. 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.

3. 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. 910
Topical Areas Determined to Have
Potentially Significant Impacts Mitigated to a Less Than Significant Level Findings of Fact/Statement of Overriding Considerations 37 MITIGATION MEASURE 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.

MITIGATION MEASURE 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.

MITIGATION MEASURE 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.

Finding
The City finds that with incorporation of mitigation measures WF-1 – WF-4, which require implementation of measures to reduce wildfire risk during construction, compliance with the Fire District’s minimum flow requirements for fire hydrants, compliance with the CBC Chapter 7A, and landscaping with fire resistant vegetation, impacts related to wildfire risks would be mitigated to a less than significant level. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15091 (a)(1), changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the proposed project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect to the extent feasible.

4.1 Cumulative Impacts
This EIR uses a hybrid approach, consisting of a combination of the list-based and projection-based plan-based) approaches, to best identify cumulative impacts. Each approach is summarized below.

The projection approach discloses regional cumulative impacts related to air quality, energy, GHG emissions, population and housing, public services and recreation, transportation, and utilities and service systems. To consider the potential cumulative impacts that are a result of overall growth, the cumulative analysis uses projections for the City of American Canyon. These projections are based on the City’s Transportation Impact Fee, which identifies that in 2040, approximately 3,379 residences and 10.2 million square feet of non-residential space would be added to the City of American Canyon.

For the list approach, the project and specific cumulative projects in or adjacent to the project were examined for the potential to result in cumulatively significant localized impacts. The cumulative analysis uses this approach to identify localized impacts related to aesthetics, agricultural resources, biological resources, cultural resources, geology and soils, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, land use and planning, noise, tribal cultural resources, and wildfire.

The proposed project would have a less than significant cumulative impact, or a less than significant cumulative impact after mitigation with respect to all environmental issues. 911
Technical Memorandum
The Power of Commitment
12592240 1
July 8, 2023
To Brent Cooper, City of American
Canyon
Contact
No.
(707) 647-4335
Copy to Leo Mena, Rincon Consultants Email [email protected] From Colin Burgett, GHD Project No. 12592240
Project
Name
Paoli/Watson Lane Annexation EIR
Subject Alternative 4 (Watson Lane Reconfiguration) Constraints & Benefits This memorandum describes the key transportation-related constraints associated with Alternative 4, as described in the Paoli/Watson Lane Draft Environmental Impact Report (Draft EIR) prepared in March 2023, particularly in comparison with the proposed Project. Key considerations include the effect on longterm citywide and regional circulation, conformance with the City’s General Plan, access to the site and properties east of the railroad tracks, and effect on existing residences. • The Project would allow for a direct street connection between Broadway / State Route (SR) 29 at Green Island Road and Newell Drive via an extension of Newell Drive through the annexation area, including a grade-separated crossing where Newell Drive would cross the railroad tracks. • Alternative 4 would not provide a direct street connection between SR 29 and Newell Drive.

Instead, the existing at-grade railroad crossing on Watson Lane would be reconfigured to accommodate increased travel between Newell Drive and Paoli Loop Road.

1. Proposed Circulation with Newell Drive Extension
The extension of Newell Drive, north from its current terminus near Donaldson Way to SR 29, including a grade-separated crossing of the railroad tracks, is a key component of the City’s long-term circulation plan, as described in the City of American Canyon General Plan Circulation Element (adopted 2018), Watson Ranch Specific Plan (WRSP, adopted 2018), and Draft 2040 General Plan Mobility Element (2023). Figures 1, 2 and 3 illustrate the City’s long-term circulation plan including the Newell Drive extension with a gradeseparated crossing of the railroad tracks. Figures 2 and 3 also show a proposed connection to an extension of Kelly Road that would provide a continuous parallel route to SR 29 between American Canyon and SR

12. As envisioned, Newell Drive would connect American Canyon Boulevard in the south with SR 29 at Green Island Road, providing a parallel route to SR 29 within American Canyon and providing access to the 2018 Watson Ranch Specific Plan (WRSP) area to the southeast of the annexation area. As illustrated on Figure 4: the Newell Drive extension north of Rio Del Mar would be developed to Major Collector street standards, with one motor vehicle lane in each direction, bicycle lanes and sidewalks.

Watson Lane would remain a local street, providing direct access to adjacent properties within the annexation area from Paoli Loop. In addition, the American Canyon Bicycle Plan (2012) recommended provision of a bicycle/pedestrian trail (referred to as the proposed Vine Trail) along Watson Lane. 912
12592240 2
Figure 5 shows the circulation plan for the WRSP area, including the Newell Drive extension extending along the eastern edge of the WRSP area consistent with the General Plan. No street connections were recommended between the WRSP area and the at-grade crossing of the railroad tracks via Watson Lane.

Instead, as shown on Figure 6: the WRSP recommended that provision of a bicycle and pedestrian trail connection to Watson Lane, consistent with the proposed Vine Trail described in the American Canyon Bicycle Plan (2012).

Figure 7 shows the proposed alignment for the Newell Drive extension through the annexation area. The Newell Drive extension would extend east from Broadway/SR 29 at Green Island Road along the northern boundary of the annexation area and would intersect Paoli Loop Road one block east of SR 29 before curving southeast near the railroad tracks.

2. Proposed Circulation under Alternative 4 (Watson
Lane Reconfiguration)
Under Alternative 4, the Newell Drive extension would not be extended through the annexation area.

Instead, the existing at-grade railroad crossing on Watson Lane would be reconfigured to accommodate increased east-west travel between the annexation area and the WRSP area to the east, where Watson Lane would continue east to meet the future north terminus of Newell Drive.

Under Alternative 4, Watson Lane would be expanded to meet City standards for a Major Collector street, consistent with the planned configuration for portions of the Newell Drive extension north of Rio Del Mar (as shown on Figure 4), 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 7 shows the expended footprint to accommodate the required width of the right-of-way Watson Lane to accommodate the reconfiguration under Alternative 4.

As illustrated on Figure 8, 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 to the west towards the 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 west of the level segment to the west of the tracks, and approximately 100 feet east of the level segment to the east of the tracks. Therefore, the total extent of potential fill to raise the elevation of Watson Lane would extend roughly 670 feet (west to east).

Additional improvements at and near the at-grade crossing under Alternative 4 would include providing railroad crossing gates and flashers, and raising the elevation of Watson Lane to reduce changes in elevation near the tracks.
913
12592240 3
Figure 1. Citywide Circulation Plan: Current Adopted General Plan Circulation Element (October 2018)
914
12592240 4
Figure 2. Citywide Circulation Plan: Draft 2040 General Plan Mobility Element 915
12592240 5
Figure 3. Newell Drive Extension & Proposed Kelly Road Connection 916
12592240 6
Figure 4. Planned Street Cross-section for 2-lane Major Collector: Newell Drive Extension (north of Rio Del Mar)
917
12592240 7
Figure 5. Watson Lane Specific Plan (2018): Circulation Plan As shown on Figure 4: Newell Drive would be extended north along the eastern border of the Watson Ranch Specific Plan area as a 4-lane Arterial south of Rio Del Mar and 2-lane Major Collector north of Rio Del Mar. 918
12592240 8
Figure 6. Watson Lane Specific Plan (2018): Illustrative Plan including Vine Trail As shown on Figure 5: the Watson Lane Specific Plan recommends provision of a bicycle/pedestrian trail connection to the annexation area via the Watson Lane right-of-way, but with no local street connections between the Specific Plan area and the at-grade railroad crossing on Watson Lane. 919
12592240 9
Figure 7. Proposed Newell Drive Alignment through Annexation Area (Project) 920
12592240 10
Figure 8. Watson Lane Reconfiguration (Alternative 4): Right-of-Way Width Figure 9. Watson Lane Reconfiguration (Alternative 4); Existing Elevation Change at Railroad Tracks
921
12592240 11

3. Constraints & Benefits
Based on the descriptions on the preceding pages, a summary of the key constraints and opportunities associated with Alternative 4 is summarized below.

Key Benefits
The key benefits of implementing Alternative 4 (Watson Lane reconfiguration) are:

1. Utilizing the existing at-grade crossing of the railroad tracks at Watson Lane (as proposed under Alternative 4) would have a lower cost compared to a grade-separated crossing.

Alternative 4 would reduce the intensity of construction required for an overcrossing as compared to an at-grade crossing, despite the expanded footprint required for Watson Lane and the extent of fill anticipated to be required to raise the elevation of Watson Lane near the existing at-grade crossing.

2. Alternative 4 would provide a more direct connection for a portion of trips (between the southern half of the annexation area and Watson Ranch). For trips between land uses in the southern half of the annexation area and future development of sites within the Watson Ranch Specific Plan area, Alternative 4 would provide a more direct route compared to the Newell Drive extension under the proposed Project. However, this would only apply to a small portion of trips.

Most motor vehicle trips across the railroad tracks would be traveling between SR 29 and Watson Ranch or American Canyon Boulevard, or between the annexation area and American Canyon Boulevard.

Key Constraints
The key constraints resulting from Alternative 4, in comparison with the Project, are summarized below:

3. Alternative 4 would result in potential delays to emergency access compared to the proposed Project. Utilizing an at-grade crossing (as proposed under 4) would halt travel during times of railroad use, including potential delays to emergency vehicles.

4. Alternative 4 would provide a less-direct route between SR 29 and land uses east of the railroad tracks compared to the Project. Alternative 4 would require that motorists traveling between SR 29 and neighborhoods to the southeast of the annexation area (including the Watson Ranch Specific Plan area) to connect with Newell Drive via Paoli Loop and Watson Lane. By contrast, the Project would provide a direct connection between SR 29 and Newell Drive that would reduce travel distance and travel time for most motorists crossing the tracks. In addition, the Project would accommodate a direct connection between Newell Drive and the proposed Kelly Road extension that would not be possible under Alternative 4.

5. Alternative 4 would require an expanded footprint and substantial fill to reduce the slope due to the existing grade changes near the railroad tracks, affecting existing residences located on Watson Lane. The proposed reconfiguration of Watson Lane would require an expanded footprint on existing segments of Watson Lane including 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. In addition, substantial fill would be required to provide a roughly level segment within 30 feet of the edge of rail in both directions. The total extent of potential fill to raise the elevation of Watson Lane would extend roughly 670 feet (west to east).

6. Alternative 4 conflicts with the City of American Canyon General Plan and Watson Ranch Specific Plan. The City’s General Plan and Watson Ranch Specific Plan identify the Newell Drive extension as the future route for accommodating travel between future development areas on both sides of the tracks, and for connecting SR 29 with existing segments of Newell Drive to the south.

The extension of Newell Drive, north from its current terminus near Donaldson Way to SR 29 including a grade-separated crossing of the railroad tracks, is a key component of the City’s longterm circulation plan, as described in the City of American Canyon General Plan Circulation Element (adopted 2018), Watson Ranch Specific Plan (WRSP, adopted 2018), and Draft 2040 General Plan Mobility Element (2023). In addition, the American Canyon Bicycle Plan (2012) 922
12592240 12
recommended provision of a bicycle/pedestrian trail (referred to as the proposed Vine Trail) along Watson Lane, while street connections for motor vehicles between the annexation area and the WRSP area via the existing at-grade crossing on Watson Lane were not recommended by the General Plan or WRSP.

Summary & Recommendation(s)
Based on the key constraints and benefits described above, Alternative 4 is not recommended because it would provide inferior circulation between SR 29 and most properties, particularly those located east of the railroad tracks including the Watson Ranch Specific Plan area, in comparison to the Project. While the Project would provide direct connections between Newell Drive and SR-29, and between Newell Drive and the proposed Kelly Road extension, Alternative 4 would require travel between Newell Drive and SR 29 or the proposed Kelly Road extension via Watson Lane and Paoli Loop. As a result, Alternative 4 would result in added travel times and increased vehicle miles traveled (VMT) compared to the Project.

In addition to requiring a more indirect route for most travelers crossing the tracks, Alternative 4 is not recommended because it would result in potential delays during times of railroad use, including effects on emergency access, and would affect residences due to the expanded footprint and fill that would be required.

In conclusion, provision of the Newell Drive extension under the proposed Project is recommended because it would better enhance access to most properties east of the railroad tracks, and thus have a more desirable effect on long-term citywide and regional circulation. 923
RESOLUTION NO. 2023-XX

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF AMERICAN CANYON APPROVING A

GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT FOR THE PAOLI/WATSON LANE ANNEXATION PROJECT FOR LAND

CURRENTLY DESIGNATED AGRICULTURE TO INDUSTRIAL AND RESIDENTIAL ESTATE, APPROXIMATELY 83 ACRES, LOCATED WITHIN THE CITY OF AMERICAN CANYON SPHERE OF INFLUENCE (SOI) IN UNINCORPORATED NAPA COUNTY (“COUNTY”), EAST OF SR-29 AND PAOLI

LOOP ROAD
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 65300 of the State Planning and Zoning Law, the City of American Canyon (City) has adopted a General Plan to provide comprehensive long-range planning and a blueprint of the City’s future form, including land use and circulation maps that specify the roadway network and the distribution of types and intensities of land; and
WHEREAS, on September 5, 2017, the City Council directed staff to prepare a Napa County Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) annexation application for the Paoli Loop/Watson Lane Sphere of Influence (SOI) (“Paoli/Watson Lane Annexation Project”); and WHEREAS, the Paoli/Watson Lane area (hereafter the “Affected Territory”) is comprised of approximately

86.9 acres currently in the unincorporated County of Napa (“County”), located East of SR- 29 and Paoli Loop Road and is comprised of the following APNs and parcels:
a. 059-020-036
b. 057-120-014
c. 057-120-015
d. 057-120-017
e. 057-120-028
f. 057-120-034
g. 057-120-036
h. 057-120-041
i. 057-120-045
j. 057-120-047
k. 057-120-048
l. 057-120-049
m. 057-120-050
n. 057-120-051
o. 057-180-014
p. 057-180-015
q. A portion of the Union Pacific Railroad right-of-way running approximately northeast by southwest at the eastern boundary of the Affected Territory; and WHEREAS, the Affected Area is located within City municipal service areas, including water, recycled water, and sewer services; and
WHEREAS, the Affected Territory is within the American Canyon Fire Protection District, which provides the Affected Territory with fire and emergency response services; and WHEREAS, all the properties in the Affected Area must be included in the Affected Area property 924
annexation to avoid creating an “Island” of unincorporated territory; and WHEREAS the objectives of the Paoli/Watson Annexation Project 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 proposed project while also ensuring these facilities operate at acceptable levels;

9. Promote public safety by incorporating security measures into the project design; and

10.Mitigate impacts on the environment through implementation of feasible mitigation measures; and WHEREAS, on December 3, 2018 the Napa County Local Agency Formation Commission (“LAFCO”) confirmed the SOI which includes the Affected Area; and WHEREAS, a Pre-Annexation Agreement by and between the City of American Canyon (“City”) and Cecil A. Paoli, an individual (“Paoli Pre-Annexation Agreement”) was executed by Mr. Paoli on February 19, 2019 and approved by the City Council on March 19, 2019 (by City Resolution 2019-22); and WHEREAS, the Paoli Pre-Annexation Agreement was intended to serve as the basis for formulating land use planning designations and necessary entitlement, transaction, and environmental documents for real property thought to be owned by Mr. Paoli in unincorporated County of Napa (“County”) that was intended to be annexed to the City; and
WHEREAS, on June 18, 2019, the City Council approved a First Amended Pre-Annexation Agreement for the Cecil Augusto Paoli Revocable Family Trust property as a portion of the Paoli Loop/Watson Lane Area Annexation affected area (by City Resolution 2019-44); and WHEREAS, the Paoli Watson Annexation Project includes an amendment to the General Plan to designate land currently designated Agriculture to Industrial and Residential Estate; and WHEREAS, land use feasibility factors, such as: historic, resident preference, economic, physical, and environmental conditions in the Affected Territory necessitate a Residential Estate General Plan land use designation for properties within the Affected Territory located on Watson Lane and Paoli Loop; and WHEREAS, the proposed General Plan Land Use Element amendment is the third of four permissible Calendar Year 2023 amendments in accordance with California Government Code Section 65358; and 925
WHEREAS, accordingly, an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Project evaluates the Paoli/Watson Annexation Project at a program level of analysis (SCH #2022090097) and includes required mitigation measures and a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP); and WHEREAS, on October 26, 2023, the City of American Canyon Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the Paoli/Watson Lane Annexation General Plan Amendment and recommended City Council approval; and
WHEREAS, a duly-noticed public hearing was held by the City of American Canyon City Council on November 7, 2023 on the subject application, at which time all those in attendance were given the opportunity to speak on this proposal and to submit comments.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of American Canyon, having considered all the evidence, including any submitted by member of the public, hereby approves the Paoli/Watson Annexation Project General Plan Amendment to redesignated Agriculture land use to Industrial and Residential Estate based on the findings and depicted on Exhibit A and attached hereto.

SECTION 1. Find, based on the following evidence and as required by State Law on General Plan Amendments:
a. The proposed amendment is deemed to be in the public interest.

Redesignating properties from land currently designated Agriculture to Industrial and Residential Estate will achieve the project objectives listed in the Resolution recitals which address issues of public interest. Specifically, the General Plan Amendment will facilitate greater economic development and jobs/housing balance as well as facilitating circulation improvements, which are intended objectives in the American Canyon General Plan. b. The proposed amendment is consistent and compatible with the rest of the General Plan and any implementation programs that may be affected.

Consistency with the General Plan is based upon reviewing the General Plan as a whole. Listed below is a consistency analysis from the most relevant General Plan policies and the Napa County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP).

Land Use and Community Design Element
Objective 1.1. Accommodate the development of a balance of land uses that (a) provide for the housing, commercial, employment, educational, cultural, entertainment, and recreation needs of residents, (b) capture visitor and tourist activity, (c) provide employment opportunities for residents of the greater subregion; and (d) provide open space and aesthetic relief from developed urban/suburban areas.

Consistent. The project would allow multiple land uses in the project site including commercial, industrial, and residential. The project’s industrial and commercial areas will provide employment opportunities for the City and surrounding region.
926
Objective 1.2: Promote a rate of growth that is consistent with the ability of the City to provide adequate infrastructure and services and does not adversely impact the distinctive quality of life in American Canyon.

Consistent. As described in the Draft EIR Section 4.14, Public Services and Recreation and Section

4.17, Utilities and Service Systems, there would be sufficient infrastructure for the project.

Objective 1.3: Ensure that land use development is coordinated with the ability to provide adequate public infrastructure (transportation facilities, wastewater collection and treatment, water supply, electrical, natural gas, telecommunications, solid waste disposal, and storm drainage) and public services (governmental, administrative, capital improvements, police, fire, recreational, cultural, etc.).

Consistent. As described in the Draft EIR Section 4.14, Public Services and Recreation and Section

4.17, Utilities and Service Systems, there would be sufficient infrastructure for the project.

Utilities Element
Goal 5A. 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.

Consistent. The project is required to implement the Zero Water Footprint policy, which would result in a no net increase in potable water use in the City’s water distribution system.

Objective 5.10. Ensure that adequate storm drain and flood control facilities are provided and properly maintained to protect life and property from flood hazards.

Consistent. Mitigation Measure HYD-2 requires the project to implement measures to minimize storm drainage impacts.

Objective 5.14. Provide a system of wastewater collection and treatment facilities which will adequately convey and treat wastewater generated by existing and future development in the City’s service area.

Consistent. The City’s wastewater treatment facilities have adequate capacity for the incremental increase in demand resulting from this project.

Goal 5F. To provide for the collection and disposal of solid waste while maximizing source reduction, recycling and composting, within economic constraints.

Consistent. Future development at the project site would be required to comply with existing regulations related to reducing and recycling solid waste.

Public Services and Facilities Element
Objective 6.1. Provide adequate educational facilities and programs that meet the needs of American Canyon’s residents by coordination development activities with the Napa Valley Unified School District.
927
Consistent. The project would pay State-mandated school impact fees, which would ensure there are adequate educational facilities to meet the additional demand from the project.

Goal 6A. Maintain a high level of fire protection and emergency services to City/district businesses and residences.

Consistent. Implementation of Mitigation Measure PSR-1 would ensure that adequate measures are implemented to ensure adequate emergency services. In accordance with standard practices, American Canyon Fire Protection District would review project plans, for any future projects at the project site 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.

Goal 6B. Ensure a high level of police protection for the City’s residents, businesses, and visitors.

Consistent. 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 and the project would be expected to generate minimal calls for service.

Goal 6C. Ensure the enhanced provision of library services for the City’s residents and businesses.

Consistent. The project would pay Civic Facilities Fees, a portion of which would provide funding to ensure there are adequate library resources to meet the project’s demand.

Natural and Historic & Cultural Resources Element
Goal 8. Protect and preserve the significant habitats, plants and wildlife that exist in the City and its Planning Area.

Consistent. Implementation of Mitigation Measures BIO-1 through BIO-7 would ensure the project preserves habitat, plants, and wildlife.

Goal 8A. Maintain the quality of surface and subsurface water resources within the City of American Canyon and its Planning Area.

Consistent. Future development on the project site would adhere to existing regulations that would protect the quality of surface and subsurface water resources.

Goal 8B. Promote the preservation of American Canyon’s soil resources by protecting areas that are suitable for agricultural uses or buffer zones.

Consistent. As described in the Draft EIR Section 4.2, Agriculture and Forestry Resources, the project would result in no impacts to agricultural resources.

Goal 8C. Maintain proper management of designated mineral extraction areas to meet the needs of the City while ensuring adequate reclamation of those sites.

Consistent. As described in the Draft EIR Section 4.19, Effects Found Not to be Significant, project implementation would not affect mineral resources.

Goal 8D. Maintain the natural visual character of the City.

Consistent. As described in the Draft EIR Section 4.1, Aesthetics, the project would not significantly affect scenic resources within the City and would be consistent with the policies identified under Goal 8D.
928
Objective 8.19. Ensure that the City’s historically and archaeologically significant resources are protected in a manner that preserves and/or enhances the resources’ inherent historic value.

Consistent (Historical Resources). There are several historic- aged 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 the Draft EIR 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 energyefficient LED lighting, water-efficient faucets and toilets, water efficient landscaping and irrigation, and EV charging stations. Furthermore, 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.

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).

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 929
conditions. Take all necessary and appropriate action to avoid or mitigate the detrimental effects of such excessive noise on the community.

Consistent. 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. 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 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. 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. 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. 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 the Draft EIR Section 4.12, Noise, impacts from stationary sources would be less than significant and no mitigation would be required.

Napa County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP). 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; 930
however, that area contains the Union Pacific Railroad right- of-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 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. c. The proposed amendment has been processed in accordance with the applicable provisions of the California Government Code and the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).

The proposed Project has been evaluated in an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) (SCH# 2022090097). The EIR evaluated the project consistent with the California Environmental Quality Act and concluded the project will result in no significant impacts to the environment.

SECTION 2. Compliance with California Environmental Quality Act. The City prepared an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) that evaluates the Paoli/Watson Annexation Project at a program level of analysis (SCH #2022090097) and includes required mitigation measures and a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP). The General Plan Amendment is a contemplated “Project Approval” under the Program EIR.

PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regularly scheduled meeting of the City Council of the City of American Canyon held on the 7th day of November, 2023, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSTAIN:

ABSENT:
____________________________
Leon Garcia, Mayor
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_______________________________ ___________________________ Taresa Geilfuss, CMC, City Clerk William D. Ross, City Attorney

EXHIBIT A
Amendment to the General Plan Land Use Element Map
931
Existing General Plan Proposed General Plan

EXHIBIT A
Amendment to the General Plan Land Use Element Map
932
ORDINANCE NO. 2023-XX
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF AMERICAN CANYON ADOPTING PREZONING FROM AGRICULTURE TO PAOLI LIGHT INDUSTRIAL, PAOLI COMMERCIAL OVERLAY

DISTRICT, AND RESIDENTIAL ESTATE FOR THE PAOLI/WATSON LANE ANNEXATION PROJECT, APPROXIMATELY 83 ACRES, LOCATED WITHIN THE CITY OF AMERICAN CANYON SPHERE OF INFLUENCE (SOI) IN UNINCORPORATED NAPA COUNTY (“COUNTY”), EAST OF STATE ROUTE 29 (SR-29) AND PAOLI LOOP ROAD; AND AN APPROXIMATELY 3-ACRE REZONING WITHIN THE CITY OF AMERICAN CANYON EAST OF SR-29 FROM LIGHT INDUSTRIAL TO PAOLI LIGHT INDUSTRIAL WITH A PAOLI COMMERCIAL OVERLAY DISTRICT; AND THE ADDITION OF AMERICAN CANYON MUNICIPAL CODE SECTION 19.10.050(F) SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT REQUIREMENTS FOR THE

RESIDENTIAL ESTATE ZONING DISTRICT ON WATSON LANE AND PAOLI LOOP ROAD WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 65300 of the State Planning and Zoning Law, the City of American Canyon (City) has adopted a General Plan to provide comprehensive long-range planning and a blueprint of the City’s future form, including land use and circulation maps that specify the roadway network and the distribution of types and intensities of land; and
WHEREAS, on September 5, 2017, the City Council directed staff to prepare a Napa County Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) annexation application for the Paoli Loop/Watson Lane Sphere of Influence (SOI) (“Paoli/Watson Lane Annexation Project”); and WHEREAS, the Paoli/Watson Lane area (hereafter the “Affected Territory”) is comprised of approximately 83 acres currently in the unincorporated County of Napa (“County”), located East of State Route (SR)-29 and is comprised of the following APNs and parcels:
a. 059-020-036
b. 057-120-014
c. 057-120-015
d. 057-120-017
e. 057-120-028
f. 057-120-034
g. 057-120-036
h. 057-120-041
i. 057-120-045
j. 057-120-047
k. 057-120-048
l. 057-120-049
m. 057-120-050
n. 057-120-051
o. 057-180-014
p. 057-180-015
q. A portion of the Union Pacific Railroad right-of-way running approximately northeast by southwest at the eastern boundary of the Affected Territory; and 933
WHEREAS, the Affected Area is located within City municipal service areas, including water, recycled water, and sewer services; and
WHEREAS, the Affected Area is within the American Canyon Fire Protection District, which provides the Affected Area with fire and emergency response services; and WHEREAS, all the properties in the Affected Area must be included in the Affected Area property annexation to avoid creating an “Island” of unincorporated territory; and WHEREAS the objectives of the Paoli/Watson Annexation Project 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 proposed project while also ensuring these facilities operate at acceptable levels;

9. Promote public safety by incorporating security measures into the project design; and

10.Mitigate impacts on the environment through implementation of feasible mitigation measures; and WHEREAS, on December 3, 2018 the Napa County Local Agency Formation Commission (“LAFCO”) confirmed the SOI, which includes the Affected Area; and WHEREAS, a Pre-Annexation Agreement by and between the City of American Canyon (“City”) and Cecil A. Paoli, an individual (“Paoli Pre-Annexation Agreement”) was executed by Mr. Paoli on February 19, 2019 and approved by the City Council on March 19, 2019 (by City Resolution 2019-22); and WHEREAS, the Paoli Pre-Annexation Agreement was intended to serve as the basis for formulating land use planning designations and necessary entitlement, transaction, and environmental documents for real property thought to be owned by Mr. Paoli in unincorporated County of Napa (“County”) that was intended to be annexed to the City; and
WHEREAS, on June 18, 2019, the City Council approved a First Amended Pre-Annexation Agreement for the Cecil Augusto Paoli Revocable Family Trust property as a portion of the Paoli Loop/Watson Lane Area Annexation affected area (by City Resolution 2019-44); and WHEREAS, the General Plan was amended within the Paoli Watson Annexation Project to designate land currently designated Agriculture to Industrial and Residential Estate; and WHEREAS, land use feasibility factors, such as: historic, resident preference, economic, physical, and 934
environmental conditions in the Affected Territory necessitate a Residential Estate General Plan land use designation for properties within the Affected Territory located on Watson Lane and Paoli Loop; and WHEREAS, the Paoli Watson Annexation Project includes Pre-Zoning consistent with the General Plan to designate Residential Estate land Pre-Zoned as such, which would allow residences with a minimum lot size of 1 acre; and
WHEREAS, consideration of land use feasibility factors, such as: historic, resident preference, economic, physical, and environmental conditions in the Affected Territory necessitate the Napa County Airport Land Use Commission review of new residential subdivision applications for properties on Watson Lane and Paoli Loop as described in the new American Canyon Municipal Code Section 19.10.050(F) - Special Development Requirements for the RE Zoning District on Watson Lane and Paoli Loop; and WHEREAS, land designated as Industrial would be Pre-Zoned as Paoli Light Industrial, which would be a new zoning designation that accommodates existing and new light manufacturing uses, research and development, offices, or similar uses; and
WHEREAS, Industrial land west of the North Slough would be Pre-Zoned Paoli Commercial Overlay District, which would allow commercial and commercially-related uses that capitalize on vehicle access and visibility; and
WHEREAS, within the City limits adjacent to the annexation area, approximately 3 acres generally located between SR-29 and Paoli Loop Road would be rezoned from Light Industrial to Paoli Light Industrial with a Paoli Commercial Overlay District (APN 057-180-001, 002, 003, 004, and 005); and WHEREAS, no change is proposed to the existing Town Center Pre-Zoning for the annexation parcel east of the Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) (APN 057-120-017); and WHEREAS, accordingly, an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) evaluates the Paoli/Watson Annexation Project at a program level of analysis (SCH #2022090097) and includes required mitigation measures and a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP); and WHEREAS, on October 26, 2023, the City of American Canyon Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the Paoli/Watson Lane Annexation Pre-Zoning and Rezoning and recommends City Council approval; and
WHEREAS, on November 7, 2023, the City Council of the City of American Canyon conducted a dulynoticed public hearing on the subject application, at which time all those in attendance were given the opportunity to speak on this proposal and to submit comments.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED that the City Council of the City of American Canyon, having considered all the evidence, including any submitted by member of the public, hereby adopts the Paoli/Watson Annexation Project Pre-Zoning to Residential Estate, Paoli Light Industrial, Paoli Commercial Overlay District, and Railroad Right-of-Way; and Rezoning from Light Industrial to Paoli Light Industrial and Paoli Commercial Overlay District based on the findings and depicted on Exhibit A and Exhibit B and attached hereto.
935
SECTION 1. Find, based on the following evidence and as required by State Law on General Plan Amendments:
a. The proposed amendment is deemed to be in the public interest.

Pre-Zoning Residential Estate, Paoli Light Industrial, Paoli Commercial Overlay District, and Railroad Right-of-Way; and Rezoning from Light Industrial to Paoli Light Industrial and Paoli Commercial Overlay District will achieve the project objectives listed in the Resolution recitals which address issues of public interest. Specifically, the Pre-Zoning and Rezoning will facilitate greater economic development and jobs/hosing balance as well as facilitating circulation improvements, which are intended objectives in the American Canyon General Plan. b. The amendment is consistent with the purposes of this title, as set forth in Chapter 19.01, Authority, Purposes and Effects of the Zoning Ordinance.

The Pre-Zoning and Rezoning is consistent with the purpose of the Zoning Ordinance to protect and promote the public health, safety, peace, comfort, convenience, aesthetics, prosperity, and general welfare because the proposed zoning regulations will maintain high quality architecture (ACMC

19.14.100), and environmental performance standards (ACMC 19.14.040).

SECTION 2. CEQA Compliance with California Environmental Quality Act. The City prepared an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) that evaluates the Paoli/Watson Annexation Project at a program level of analysis (SCH #2022090097) and includes required mitigation measures and a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP). The Pre-Zoning and Rezoning are contemplated “Project Approvals” under the Program EIR.

SECTION 3. EFFECTIVE DATE. This ordinance shall become effective effect 30 days after its final passage pursuant to Government Code section 36937.

SECTION 4. SEVERABILITY. If any section, sentence, clause or phrase of this Ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance. The City Council hereby declares that it would have passed this Ordinance and adopted this Ordinance and each section, sentence, clause or phrase thereof, irrespective of the fact that one or more sections, subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases be declared invalid or unconstitutional.

SECTION 5. CUSTODIAN OF RECORDS. The documents and materials that constitute the record of proceedings on which this Ordinance is based are located at the City Clerk’s office located at 4831 Broadway, Suite 201, American Canyon, CA 94503. The custodian of these records is the City Clerk.

The foregoing Ordinance was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of American Canyon, State of California, held on the 7TH day of November, 2023 by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSTAIN:

ABSENT:
936
The foregoing Ordinance was adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of American Canyon, State of California, held on the _________ day of ____________, ______, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSTAIN:

ABSENT:
_____________________________
Leon Garcia, Mayor
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_______________________________ ___________________________ Taresa Geilfuss, CMC, City Clerk William D. Ross, City Attorney

EXHIBITS
A. Pre-Zoning and Rezoning Map
B. Pre-Zoning and Rezoning District Regulations
937
Existing Pre-Zoning and Zoning Proposed Pre-Zoning and Rezoning

EXHIBIT A
Paoli/Watson Annexation Project Pre-Zoning and Rezoning Map 938

EXHIBIT B
Paoli/Watson Annexation Project Pre-Zoning and Rezoning Regulations NOTE TO CODIFIER: ONLY TEXT WITH STRIKETHROUGH AND DOUBLE

UNDERLINE REPRESENT CHANGES TO THE MUNICIPAL CODE
Chapter 19.14 INDUSTRIAL DISTRICTS

19.14.010 Purpose and intent.

The purpose and intent of this chapter is to:

A. Establish reasonable development standards and a broad range of permitted and conditionally permitted uses to guide the orderly development and use of property within the LI (light industrial) district, Paoli Light Industrial (PLI), and the GI (general industrial) district; and B. To ensure that industrial uses are developed and operated in a manner that does not produce dangerous or objectionable elements or conditions. Unless otherwise specified, the location where the determination shall be made of the existence of any dangerous or objectionable element or condition shall be at the lot, parcel or ownership line of the use. (Ord. 2001-02 § 1, 2001)

19.14.020 Establishment of districts.

This chapter establishes two three zoning districts to allow a broad range of industrial uses within those districts. The following industrial districts are established:

A. LI (light industrial) district and PLI (Paoli Light Industrial) district: to accommodate the continuation of existing and the development of new light manufacturing uses, research and development, offices, and similar uses, including businesses that are ancillary to and support such uses, in locations that generally have high public visibility. Outdoor activities are limited and must be fully screened from off-site view;
B. GI (general industrial) district: to provide areas appropriate for functional industrial activities, including warehousing, manufacturing, food processing, product and equipment assembly, and similar types of uses that may involve both indoor and outdoor activities, and related ancillary uses. (Ord. 2001- 02 § 1, 2001)

19.14.030 Applicability.

The provisions of this chapter shall apply to all uses within the industrial districts as shown on the official zoning district map of the city. Development within the industrial districts shall conform with to all applicable development standards, regulations, and performance standards of this title. (Ord. 2001- 02 § 1, 2001)

19.14.040 Performance standards.

A. Hazardous Materials. All operations that involve the storage, use or transport of flammable or explosive materials or gases shall be provided with adequate safety devices against the hazard of fire and explosion, and adequate fire-fighting and fire-suppressing equipment and devices, subject to the approval of the American Canyon fire protection district.

B. Noise. Noise generated by any use shall comply with any noise standards adopted by the city. 939
C. Vibrations. Vibrations associated with on-site operations shall not be discernible off-site, except for those due to operations involved in the construction or demolition of structures or caused by motor vehicles or trains.

D. Airborne Emissions. No airborne emissions shall be produced that are readily detectable off-site without instruments by the average person, or that cause any damage to human health, animals, vegetation or property.

1. Visible emissions shall not exceed the rules and regulations of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District.

2. No emission of odorous gases or other odorous matter shall be produced in such quantities as to be readily detectable off-site by the average person.

E. Electrical Disturbance. No activities shall produce electrical disturbance that affects the operation at any point of any equipment other than that of the creator of such disturbance.

F. Climate. No humidity, heat or cold shall be produced that is perceptible without instruments by the average person off-site.

G. Lights. No bright or flashing lights shall be visible off-site. (Ord. 2001-02 § 1, 2001)

19.14.050 Permitted uses.

Table 19.14.050 of this section sets forth the permitted and conditionally-permitted uses for each industrial district. A “P” designates a permitted use. A “C” indicates a conditionally permitted use subject to approval of a use permit by the planning commission. An “M” indicates a minor use permit is required pursuant to Chapter 19.42. If no letter is found opposite a particular use, it is not permitted in that district.

Table 19.14.050

PERMITTED AND CONDITIONALLY
PERMITTED USES1

INDUSTRIAL DISTRICTS
Use Classifications Zoning District Related Provisions

PLI LI GI
Residential
Congregate living facility - - -
Farm employees housing - - -
Garden apartments - - -
Mobilehome - - -
Mobilehome parks - - -
Multifamily residential - - -
Residential care home - - -
Second residential unit - - -
Single-family residential
- Detached - - -
- Semidetached - - -
Townhouses - - -
Commercial
Adult-entertainment business - - P
Ambulance services - P P
Animal retail sales C - -
940
- Boarding kennel
C--
- GroomingC--
- Medical careC--
- Retail salesC--
Bank, savings and loan-C- GP Policy 1.22.2
- Drive-up service-C- GP Policy 1.22.2
- Walk-up service-C- GP Policy 1.22.2
Bookstore-PP
Building materials and services-CP GP Policy 1.22.6
Catering-PP
Commercial printingPPP
- Limited printingCCC
Communication servicesPPP
Drugstores-PP
Eating and drinking establishments-CC
Entertainment, indoor---
- Amusement center---
- Gaming---
Food sales-CC
Funeral and interment services---
Health servicesP--
Hookah bar---
LaboratoryPPP
Lodging services---
- Bed and breakfast inns---
Long-term care facility---
Maintenance and repair services-PP GP Policy 1.22.6
Nursery---
Offices, business and professionalPPC GP Policy 1.22.1
On-premises liquor consumption--- GP Policy 1.22.2
- Tasting roomCCC
Outdoor sales and displays-C-
Overnight accommodations, lodging services---
Pawnshops---
- Adjacent to residential district---
Personal improvement services-CC GP Policy 1.22.2
- Adjacent to residential district-C-
Personal services---
Professional and medical officesPPP
Recycling collection center-CC GP Policy 1.22.2
Restaurant-CC
- Night use-C-
Restaurant, take-out-C-
- Night use-C-
Retail commercial-C-
Retail food sales---
- Convenience store---
- Liquor store---
Retail sales-CC GP Policy 1.22.2
941
- Limited - - -
- Visitor-oriented - - -
Tobacco retailer, large-scale - - -
Tobacco retailer, small-format - - -
Vapor bar - - -
Vehicle/equipment sales and service - - -
- Automobile rental - C - GP Policy 1.22.6
- Automobile washing - - C GP Policy 1.22.6
- Service station - - -
- Vehicle/equipment repair - - P GP Policy 1.22.6
- Vehicle/equipment sales, lease and rentals - C C GP Policy 1.22.6 Video rental - - -
Wholesale, commercial C C P
Industrial
Hazardous use - - C
Industry, general C - P
Industry, limited P P P
Mineral extraction - - C GP Policy 8.15.3—8.17.3
Recycling center - - C
Research and development P P P
Storage tank(s) C C C
Vehicle/equipment services
- Vehicle/equipment repair - - P
- Vehicle storage - - C
Wholesaling, distribution and storage
- Small scale C C P
- Trucking terminal C - P
Recreational
Campground - - -
Marina - - -
Recreational facilities, private - - -
Recreational facilities, public - - -
Recreation and sports, indoor P P P
Recreation and sports, outdoor - - -
Recreation, passive - - -
Recreational vehicle park - - -
Staging area - - -
Public and Quasi-Public
Ambulance service P P P
Animal shelter C C C
Antenna P P P
- Commercial - - -
Cemetery - - -
Charitable uses - - -
Club, lodge - - -
Community center - - -
Conference center - - -
Cultural facility - - -
Day care center M M M
942
Emergency shelter P P -
Government facility P P P
Hospital - - -
Maintenance and service facility P P P
Public information center - - -
Public parking - - -
- Structure - - -
Public safety facility P P P
Religious facility C C C
School - - -
Transportation terminal - P P
Utilities, major C C C
Utilities, minor P P P
Agricultural
Animal husbandry P P P
Crop production - - -
Winery C C P
Accessory
Accessory dwelling unit - - -
Livestock keeping - - -
Cafeteria P P P
Caretaker’s quarters C C C
Day care home, large - - -
Day care home, small - - -
Guest house - - -
Home occupation - - -
Horticulture, limited - - -
Room rentals - - -
Temporary
Animal show - - -
Circus, carnival - - -
Commercial filming C C C
Live entertainment - - -
Mobile structures C C C
Personal property sales - - -
Retail sales, outdoor - - -
Seasonal sales P P P
Street fair - - -
Tent - - -

19.14.060 Development standards.

Table 19.14.060 of this chapter sets forth the minimum lot area, minimum yard setbacks, and lot coverage standards for each industrial district.

Table 19.14.060
Zoning District PLI LI GI
Minimum area per lot 20,000 sq. ft. 20,000 sq. ft. 40,000 sq. ft. 943
Minimum width per lot 100 feet 100 feet 150 feet
Minimum depth per lot 100 feet 100 feet 150 feet
Minimum front yard 20 feet 20 feet 20 feet
Minimum side yard
One-story 5 feet 5 feet 10 feet
Two-story 10 feet 10 feet 10 feet
Street side of corner lot 15 feet 15 feet 15 feet
Minimum rear yard 10 feet 10 feet 10 feet
Minimum setback from Hwy 29 40 feet 40 feet 40 feet
50 feet avg. 50 feet avg. 50 feet avg.

Minimum setback from arterial 30 feet 30 feet 30 feet
Maximum floor area ratio
Labor-intensive uses 50% 50% 50%
Low-labor uses 70% 70% 70%
Maximum number of stories 3.0 3.0 3.0
Maximum building height 45 feet 40 feet 40 feet
* Where an existing legal, nonconforming, structure encroaches into a setback, which was established after the building was constructed, the existing building line may be continued subject to community development director approval. (Ord. 2009-07 § 4, 2009; Ord. 2004-10 Exh. 5, 2004; Ord. 2001-02 § 1, 2001)

19.14.070 Automobile parking requirements.

A. General Provisions.

1. The requirements of this chapter shall apply to the establishment, alteration, or change in any use or structure, except as may be provided for herein. Parking required by this chapter shall be provided at the time any building or structure is erected or enlarged, or a use is established, changed, or expanded. The word “use” shall mean both the type and intensity of the use.

2. When a change in use or expansion in floor area within an existing development increases by twenty percent or more the amount of off-street parking or loading required by the previous use, parking or loading spaces shall be provided for the increased demand. The number of new spaces provided shall be in addition to the number existing prior to the change in use or enlargement, unless the pre-existing number is greater than the number required by this chapter for the previous use, in which case the number in excess of the prescribed minimum may be deducted from the number required to be provided to serve the change in use or enlargement.

3. Required parking spaces shall not be located within any front or side yard setback areas.

4. Except as may be provided for in this chapter, required parking spaces shall be located on the same lot or parcel of land and within three hundred feet of the use they serve. Such distance shall be computed from the nearest point of a structure’s public access to the nearest point of the parking area. 944

5. The planning commission may approve deviations from these standards by use permit.

B. Number of Spaces Required.

1. Except as may be provided for in this chapter, automobile parking spaces shall be provided in the number set forth in Table 19.14.070(B) of this chapter. These requirements shall be considered minimum standards. The decision-making authority for a project may require more parking than is required by Table 19.14.070(B) when it finds that due to the characteristics of a project, the application of the above standards may lead to traffic congestion or parking violations in adjacent streets as well as unauthorized parking in nearby private lots.

2. Fractional space requirements of .5 or more shall be counted as the next largest whole space.

3. When two or more uses are located in the same building or structure, or are within the same common development, the parking requirements shall be the sum of the separate requirements for each use, except as specifically provided in this chapter.

4. Requirements for uses not specifically listed herein shall be determined by the decision-making authority for a project, based upon the requirements for comparable uses and upon the particular characteristics of the use.

5. Handicapped parking shall be provided according to the latest standards established by the state of California.

6. No area may be utilized and counted both as a required parking space and a required loading space other than for company owned vehicles periodically stored for on-site loading.

Table 19.14.070(B)
Pre-schools; day care centers One per staff member, plus 1 for each 10 children.

Religious assembly 1 per 4 fixed seats in the principal sanctuary; one per 9 linear feet of fixed benches; one per 50 square feet of nonfixed seating area.

Offices, business and professional One per 300 square feet of gross floor area Retail sales, general One per 300 square feet of gross floor area Retail sales, food One per 250 square feet of gross floor area Bulk merchandise sales, including
furniture, household appliances, and
building materials
One per 500 square feet of gross floor area
Vehicle/equipment sales; nursery One per 500 square feet of gross floor area within any showroom, plus 1 per 1,000 square feet of outdoor
display or sales area for the first 10,000 square feet; then 1 per 5,000 square feet of outdoor display or sales area thereafter.

Wholesaling, commercial One per 500 square feet of gross floor area Restaurant, including those providing
liquor consumption
One per 100 square feet of gross floor area. A minimum
of 5 spaces shall be provided for such use.
945
Bank; savings and loan One per 200 square feet of gross floor area in public area (excluding vault), plus 1 per 300 square feet of gross
floor area for general office uses.

Spectator entertainment; auditorium One per 4 fixed seats, or one per 9 linear feet of fixed benches, or one per 50 square feet of nonfixed seating
area, whichever is greater.

Health club; spa; dance studio One per 100 square feet of gross floor area accessible to members or clients, including any pool area.

Game court Three per court
Vehicle repair Four per repair stall
Service station One per pump island, plus one per service bay Car wash, full service One per 2 employees on the maximum shift, plus vehicle stacking area equal to 3 times the capacity of the
enclosed washing operation
Car wash, self-serve Two spaces for drying and cleaning purposes per stall, plus 2 reservoir spaces in front of each stall.

Self-storage facilities One per employee; a minimum of 5 spaces shall be provided for such use.

Warehousing and storage One per 1,000 square feet of gross floor area for the first 20,000 square feet of space, plus 1 per each 2,000
square feet of gross floor area thereafter.

Manufacturing, processing, packing,
research, research service
One per 500 square feet of gross floor area
Research and development One per 300 square feet of gross floor area Company-owned vehicle parked on
premises
One per truck, car or other vehicle

C. Shared Parking.

1. The number of required parking spaces may be reduced for projects comprised of uses that generate parking needs primarily at different times, and that cooperatively establish and operate shared parking facilities.

2. Shared parking may be approved through a conditional use permit for existing development.

Where shared parking is proposed for new development as part of a design permit or conditional use permit application, the request shall be processed concurrently with the applications. Nothing in this section shall preclude the reviewing authority from placing additional conditions to protect the health, safety and welfare of the residents of the city or to establish the number or percentage of parking spaces to be shared.

3. The applicant shall provide substantial evidence and documentation (including a description of all uses and operating characteristics) that a sufficient number of spaces are being provided to meet the parking demand of all participating uses at any given time of the day, week or year. 946

4. All shared parking spaces shall be located so as to be reasonably accessible to the uses they serve, and shall not be separated from such uses by any street, unless otherwise approved by the decision-making authority.

5. Reasonable pedestrian connections shall be provided from any shared parking spaces to all the uses that they serve.

6. Covenants, conditions and restrictions (CC&Rs), deed restrictions or other agreements as may be required by the decision-making authority shall be executed and recorded, ensuring that required parking is provided and that the uses and operating characteristics of all participating uses are maintained.

D. Dimensional Requirements.

1. Standard Spaces. Required minimum parking dimensions are indicated in Table 19.04.070(D).

Minimum dimensions shall not include any landscaped areas.

Table 19.04.070(D)

MINIMUM PARKING DIMENSIONS FOR STANDARD STALLS
Parking Angle
(PA)
Minimum Stall Dimensions Minimum Aisle Widths (A)
Width (W) Depth (D) Length (L) One-Way Two-Way
Parallel 8′ n/a 22′ 18′6″ 20′
30 degrees 9′ 16′ 18′ 12′ 20′
45 degrees 9′ 19′ 18′ 14′ 20′
60 degrees 9′ 20′ 18′ 20′ 20′
90 degrees 9′ 18′ 18′ 25′ 25′

2. Compact Spaces. Reduced dimensions of eight feet in width and sixteen feet in length (ninety degree stalls) may be allowed for uncovered parking spaces for uses that have at least twelve parking spaces. Compact spaces shall not exceed twenty percent of the total required parking spaces. Compact spaces shall be clearly indicated by appropriate markings and signage.

E. Striping and Surfacing. All parking lots shall be permanently surfaced and striped in accordance with the city’s engineering standards and specifications.

F. Parking Lot Entries. All parking lot entries shall have the minimum widths specified in the city’s engineering standards and specifications.

G. Curbing and Walkways.

1. Continuous concrete curbing at least six inches high and six inches wide shall be provided at least three feet from any wall, fence, property line, walkway, or structures where parking and/or drive aisles are located adjacent thereto. Curbing may be left out at structure access points.

2. The clear width of a walkway that is adjacent to overhanging parked cars shall be at least four feet.

3. Individual wheel stops shall not be used.
947
H. Drainage. All required off-street parking areas shall be so designed that surface water will not drain over any sidewalk or adjacent property.

I. Landscaping.

1. Surface parking areas of ten or more spaces shall have a landscaped area equal to a minimum of ten percent of the parking and circulation area.

2. Landscaped areas shall be distributed throughout the parking area as evenly as possible. In larger parking areas (two or more maneuvering aisles), interior landscaping shall be used to visually separate the parking area into small spaces. Parking row ends shall be protected by landscaped planters.

3. Landscaped areas shall have a minimum width of five feet.

4. A minimum of one tree shall be provided for every six parking spaces in a double-loaded layout, and one for every three spaces in a single-loaded layout. The trees shall be located so as to visually disrupt long rows of parked vehicles; trees may be clustered. Canopy-type trees should be used to provide a relatively consistent tree cover which will shade the pavement and vehicles.

5. A landscaped strip shall be provided adjacent to any public or private street wherever parking or circulation is generally or immediately located adjacent to such rights-of-way.

6. Defined pedestrian routes shall be incorporated into parking and landscaped areas.

7. Landscape areas shall be bordered by a concrete curb that has a minimum height and width of six inches. Landscaped planters within parking areas may be diamond-shaped in design.

8. The setbacks from streets required by the schedule of zoning district regulations shall be fully landscaped (see ACMC Section 19.22.040)
JUSTIFICATION: Cross-referencing related development standards from another area of the municipal code helps ensure the requirement is not overlooked.

J. Screening.

1. Where vehicles are to be parked immediately adjacent to a public or private street, a solid wall, opaque fence, berm, or compact evergreen hedge with a maximum height of thirty inches, measured from the finished surface of the parking area shall be provided.

2. Where a parking or loading area in an industrial district is located directly across a street or alley from a residential district, a solid wall, opaque fence, berm, or compact evergreen hedge not less than six feet in height shall be located on the property line.

K. Lighting.
1 Public parking areas designed to accommodate three or more vehicles shall have lighting facilities capable of providing sufficient illumination at every point of the parking area. A lighting study demonstrating that a minimum of one foot candle will be maintained across the surface of the parking area may be required by the community development director.

2. Any parking area illumination, including security lighting shall be so arranged as to reflect away from adjoining properties and rights-of-way.

L. Location of Parking Spaces.

1. Parking shall be designed so that all maneuvering may occur on-site and that all vehicles may enter an abutting street in a forward direction.
948

2. No space in a parking lot shall be located so that a vehicle must maneuver within twenty feet of a vehicular entrance, measured from the property line.

M. Maintenance. All required parking facilities and areas, including landscaping, surfacing, and striping shall be permanently maintained in good condition, free of weeds, litter and debris. (Ord. 2001- 02 § 1, 2001)

19.14.080 Loading requirements.

A. Number Required. Loading spaces shall be provided for all industrial uses according to Table 19.14.080(A) below for the specified uses. The decision-making authority may require more loading spaces than are required by Table 19.14.080(A) to insure that a sufficient off-street loading area will be provided to accommodate routine operations in a safe and convenient manner. Required loading spaces shall be designated as such and restricted to such use.

Table 19.14.080(A)
Use Gross Floor Area Minimum Loading Spaces
Commercial (non-office)
<5,000 sq. ft. None
5,000—20,000 sq. ft. One
Office
<20,000 sq. ft. None
20,000—40,000 sq. ft. One
Manufacturing, wholesale,
warehousing, industrial <20,000 sq. ft. One
All of the above uses Each additional 20,000 sq. ft. One additional space B. Minimum Dimensions. Each loading space shall have an unobstructed minimum dimension of twelve feet in width, forty-five feet in length, and fourteen feet in height. Larger spaces may be required by the decision-making authority to ensure that a sufficient off-street loading and unloading area will be provided to accommodate routine delivery or shipment operations in a safe and convenient manner.

C. Location of Loading Spaces.

1. Loading spaces required by this chapter shall be located immediately adjacent to the exterior wall of the building they serve or within the building and should minimize potential impacts on adjacent uses.

2. Loading spaces shall not be located in any required front or side yard.

3. Loading spaces should be so located and designed that trucks shall not be required to back into a public street for ingress or egress. Truck maneuvering areas should be provided on-site where necessary to comply with this requirement.

4. Loading spaces should be concealed from off-site view to the maximum extent feasible.

5. Where a loading area in a commercial or industrial district is located directly across a street or alley from a residential district, a solid wall, opaque fence, or compact evergreen hedge not less than six feet in height shall be located on the property line. (Ord. 2001-02 § 1, 2001) 949

19.14.090 Bicycle parking requirements.

A. Bicycle parking shall be provided in commercial and employment areas according to Table 19.14.090(A) below.

Table 19.14.090(A)
Total Automobile
Parking Spaces
Minimum Number of Bicycle Spaces
1—4 0
5—14 1
14—29 2
30—44 3
45—59 4
60—74 5
75—99 6
100—199 7
200—299 8
300—399 9
400 and greater 10
B. Bicycle parking should be located in highly visible locations and should be lockable. (Ord. 2001- 02 § 1, 2001)

19.14.100 Building Design (All Industrial Districts).

A. Achieve high quality development design and existing use compatibility following design features:
a. Architectural treatment of all building elevations.
b. Extensive use of landscape along the primary street frontages and parking lots. c. Enclose storage areas visible from principal highways (including Highway 29) and peripheral residential and commercial districts with decorative screening or other elements. d. Screen rooftop mechanical equipment with a parapet or roof screen equal in height to the mechanical equipment.

B. Require that industrial areas developed as research and development and office-oriented business parks be designed to convey a unified character by consideration of the following:
a. Interconnect individual buildings with pedestrian walkways, arcades, and/or other visual elements. b. Differentiate building facades with materials, color, architectural details and building elevation articulation;
c. Incorporate extensive landscape in parking areas, along building frontages, and other public areas. d. Use consistent and well-designed public and informational signage. e. Install of elements that define key entry points into the industrial district. 950
JUSTIFICATION: These design elements are provided in the General Plan. Including them in the zoning code helps ensure the requirement is not overlooked.

Chapter 19.20 PAOLI LIGHT INDUSTRIAL COMMERCIAL OVERLAY DISTRICT

19.20.010 Purpose.

The purpose of the Paoli Light Industrial Commercial Overlay District is to accommodate commercial and commercially related uses that capitalize on vehicle access and visibility from Highway 29 and Newell Drive and serve industrial uses in the City’s Industrial Parks.

19.20.020 Allowable uses.

A. Property in the Paoli Light Industrial Commercial Overlay District may be used either for industrial purposes, consistent with the permitted and conditionally permitted uses allowed by this title for the underlying Paoli Light Industrial (PLI) base zone district, or for commercial purposes1.

B. The following uses as defined in use classifications, are permitted1:

1. Public and quasi-public uses:
a. Charitable uses
b. Public information center
c. Utilities, minor

2. Commercial uses:
a. Ambulance Services
b. Bank, savings and loan, including walk-up service
c. Bookstore
d. Catering
e. Drugstore
f. Food Sales
g. Lodging services
h. Maintenance and Repair Services
i. Personal services
j. Restaurant
k. Restaurant, Night Use
l. Restaurant, take-out
m. Retail sales
n. Zero Emission Vehicle Service Station
C. The following uses as defined in use classifications, are permitted subject to a conditional use permit1:

1. Commercial uses:
a. Automobile rental
b. Entertainment, indoor
c. On-premises liquor consumption, tasting room
d. Personal Improvement Services
e. Vehicle/equipment sales and service
951
Chapter 19.10 RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS

19.10.010 Purpose and intent.

A. Purpose. The purpose for establishing these residential districts, permitted uses, and development standards is to:

1. Provide appropriately located areas for residential development consistent with the general plan and with standards of public health and safety established by the municipal code;

2. Ensure adequate light, air, privacy, and open space for each dwelling by establishing reasonable development standards for the mass, scale, and location on a building site for all new residential construction;

3. Achieve a high standard of site and building design, and design compatibility with surrounding neighborhoods;

4. Provide for a range of permitted uses and activities within the various residential districts; and

5. Provide sites for public and semipublic land uses needed to complement residential development or requiring location in a residential environment.

B. Intent. The intent of this chapter is to establish a range of permitted uses and reasonable development standards to guide the orderly development within each residential district in a manner consistent with the general plan’s land use schedule and subarea schedule. (Ord. 2001-02 § 1, 2001)

19.10.020 Establishment of districts.

In order to provide sufficient land to meet the housing needs of all existing and future residents of the city, the following residential districts are established:

A. RE (residential estate) districts: to provide for residential estate areas where the minimum lot size is one acre.

B. RR (rural residential) districts: to provide for very low-density residential uses and related activities in existing or proposed large-lot residential neighborhoods, and in the peripheral foothill areas of the city. There are three separate RR districts:

1. RRH (rural residential hillside) districts: requires a minimum lot size of twenty thousand square feet and imposes special development standards.

2. The RR-20000 district requires a minimum lot size of twenty thousand square feet.

3. The RR-10000 district requires a minimum lot size of ten thousand square feet.

C. RS (suburban residential) districts: to provide for low-density residential uses and related activities in areas of the city predominated by subdivisions with single-family lot patterns. There are two separate RS districts:

1. The RS-8000 district with a minimum lot size of eight thousand square feet;

2. The RS-6500 district with a minimum lot size of six thousand five hundred square feet.

D. RM (medium residential) districts: to accommodate multifamily residential uses in areas of minimal constraints and ready access to transportation and services, with single-family uses allowed under some circumstances in conformance with the general plan. Development in the RM district shall be within the range of five to twelve units per gross acre. 952
E. RH (high residential) districts to provide for high-density multifamily residential uses in areas of minimal constraints and ready access to transportation and services, and to provide a range of housing opportunities. There are two separate RH districts:

1. The RH-1 district with a density range of twelve to sixteen units per gross acre;

2. The RH-2 district with a density of twenty units per gross acre.

F. RO (residential overlay) district to provide for high-density multifamily residential uses on selected sites in community commercial and neighborhood commercial districts, in single or multi-use structures. The RO district provides a density of twenty units per gross acre west of Broadway/Highway 29, a density of thirty-five units per gross acre east of Broadway/Highway 29. Development standards shall comply with Tables 1 and 2 of Chapter 19.11, community commercial and neighborhood commercial district for multifamily residential and mixed-use structures. (Ord. 2015-01 § 2, 2015; Ord. 2006-07 § 4, 2006; Ord. 2001-11 § 1, 2001; Ord. 2001-02 § 1, 2001)

19.10.030 Applicability.

The provisions of this chapter shall apply to all uses within the residential districts as shown on the official zoning district map of the city. Development within the residential districts shall conform with all applicable development standards, regulations, and performance standards of this title. (Ord. 2001-02 § 1, 2001)

19.10.040 Permitted uses.

Table 19.10.040 of this section sets forth the permitted and conditionally permitted uses for each residential district. A “P” designates a permitted use. A “C” indicates a conditionally permitted use subject to approval of a use permit by the planning commission. An “M” indicates a minor use permit is required pursuant to Chapter 19.42. If no letter is found opposite a particular use, it is not permitted in that district.

Table 19.10.040

PERMITTED AND CONDITIONALLY PERMITTED USES
RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS1

RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT ZONING DISTRICTS
Use Classifications RRH RE RR RS RM RH Related Provisions Residential
Congregate living facility - - - - P P
Cottage food operations P P P P P P
Employee housing (1 to 6 occupants) P P P P - -
Garden apartments - - - - P P
Mobilehome - C C C - -
Mobilehome park - - - - C C Chapter 19.10
953

RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT ZONING DISTRICTS
Use Classifications RRH RE RR RS RM RH Related Provisions Multifamily residential - - - - P P
Residential care home - P P P P P
Second residential unit P P P P P - Section 19.10.120
Single room occupancy - - - - - P Section 19.10.160
Single-family residential - - - - -
- Detached P P P P P
2 P2 2GP Policy 1.8.3
- Semidetached - - P
3 P4 P P3GP Policy 1.7.1
4GP Policy 1.7.2
Townhouses - - - - P P
Commercial
Adult business - - - - - -
Animal sales and service - C - - - -
- Boarding kennel - C - - - -
- Grooming - C - - - -
- Medical care - C - - - -
- Retail care - C - - - -
Bank, savings and loan - - - - - -
- Drive-up service - - - - - -
- Walk-up service - - - - - -
Building materials and services - - - - - -
Catering - - - - - -
Commercial printing - - - - - -
- Limited printing - - - - - -
Communication services - - - - - -
Entertainment, indoor - - - - - -
- Amusement center - - - - - -
- Gaming - - - - - -
Funeral and interment services - - - - - -
Health services - - - - - -
Laboratory - - - - - -
Lodging services - - - - - -
- Bed and breakfast inn C C C - - -
954

RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT ZONING DISTRICTS
Use Classifications RRH RE RR RS RM RH Related Provisions Long-term care facility - - - - - -
Maintenance and repair services - - - - - -
Nursery - - - - - -
Offices, business, and professional - - - - - -
On-premises liquor consumption - - - - -
- Tasting room - - - - - -
Pawnshops - - - - - -
Personal improvement services - - - - - -
- Night use - - - - - -
Personal services - - - - - -
Recycling collection center - - - - - -
Restaurant - - - - - -
- Night use - - - - - -
Restaurant, take-out - - - - - -
- Night use - - - - - -
Retail food sales - - - - - -
- Convenience store - - - - - -
- Liquor store - - - - - -
Retail sales - - - - - -
- Limited - - - - - -
- Visitor-oriented - - - - - -
Vehicle/equipment sales and service - - - - - -
- Automobile rental - - - - - -
- Automobile washing - - - - - -
- Service station - - - - - -
- Vehicle/equipment repair - - - - - -
- Vehicle/equipment sales, lease and
rentals
- - - - - -
Wholesaling, commercial - - - - - -
Industrial
Hazardous use - - - - - -
Industry, general - - - - - -
955

RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT ZONING DISTRICTS
Use Classifications RRH RE RR RS RM RH Related Provisions Industry, limited - - - - - -
Mineral extraction - - - - - -
Recycling center - - - - - -
Research and development - - - - - -
Storage tank(s) - - - - - -
Vehicle/equipment services - - - - - -
- Vehicle/equipment repair - - - - - -
- Vehicle storage - - - - - -
Wholesaling, distribution and storage - - - - - -
- Small scale - - - - - -
- Trucking terminal - - - - - -
Recreational
Recreational facilities, public C C P P P P
Recreation and sports, outdoor C C C C C C
Recreation, passive C C C C C C
Staging area C C C - - -
Public and Quasi-Public
Antenna - - P P P P
- Exceeding height limitations - - C C C C
Community center - - - C C C GP Policy 1.12.1
Conference center - - - - - -
Cultural facility - - C C C GP Policy 1.12.1
Day care center - M M M M M GP Policy 1.23.5
Homeless shelter - - - - C C Chapter 19.42
Public safety facility C C C C C C
Religious facility C C C C C C GP Policy 1.23.4
School - C C C C C GP Policy 1.12.1
Utilities, major - - C C C C
Utilities, minor - - P P P P
Agriculture
Animal husbandry - P - - - -
Crop production C P - - - -
956

RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT ZONING DISTRICTS
Use Classifications RRH RE RR RS RM RH Related Provisions Accessory
Accessory dwelling unit - - - - - -
Livestock keeping P P P P - - Chapter 19.31
Caretaker’s quarters C C - - - -
Family child care home, large P P P P - - Chapter 19.33 Family child care home, small P P P P P P
Guest house C C C C - -
Home occupation P P P P P P Chapter 19.29
Horticulture, limited P P P P P P
Room rentals - - C C - -
Temporary
Animal show - - - -
Commercial filming C C C C C C
Mobile structures C C C C C C Chapter 19.30
Personal property sales P P P P P P
1 Permitted and conditionally permitted uses on parcels located within a designated Napa County Airport compatibility zone may be restricted or prohibited subject to the requirements of the policies related to airport compatibility in the American Canyon general plan and the Napa County Airport land use compatibility plan. Restrictions may include the requirement for recordation of overflight or avigation easements.
(Ord. 2017-07 § 2, 2017; Ord. 2015-01 § 2, 2015; Ord. 2014-06 § 3, 2014; Ord. 2013-07 § 3, 2013; Ord. 2010-03 § 3, 2010; Ord. 2010-02 § 4, 2010; Ord. 2009-12 § 3, 2009; Ord. 2009-11 § 3, 2009; Ord. 2005- 02, 2005; Ord. 2001-11 § 1, 2001; Ord. 2001-02 § 1, 2001)

19.10.050 Lot area, yard setbacks, and building coverage standards.

Table 19.10.050 of this section sets forth the minimum lot area, minimum yard setbacks, and lot coverage standards for each residential district. The provisions of this section shall establish the minimum lot area and yard and setback standards for each residential zoning district.

A. Minimum Lot Area. Except as otherwise provided by this chapter, the minimum lot area shall be determined by multiplying the lot width by the lot depth. The lot width shall be the horizontal distance between the side property lines measured at right angles to the depth at a point midway between the front and rear property lines. The lot depth shall be the horizontal distance between the front and rear property lines of a site measured along a line midway between the side property lines.

1. Flag Lots.
a. The area of a flag lot’s access corridor shall not be included in determining the site area of the lot (see Figure A-2).
957
b. The corridor of land which provides access to a street for a flag lot shall have a minimum street frontage of sixteen feet and a minimum width which is less than the required lot width but not less than sixteen feet (see Figure A-2).

2. Width of Residential Corner Lots. The minimum width of corner lots in a residential district shall be a minimum of ten percent greater than the minimum width for the district specified in Table 19.10.050 of this chapter.

3. Depth Adjoining State Highway or Railroad. A lot whose rear lot line abuts a state highway or railroad right-of-way shall have a minimum depth that is at least twenty percent greater than the lot depth standard for the applicable zoning district.

4. Minimum Lot Frontage on a Cul-de-Sac. Unless otherwise approved by the city council in conjunction with the approval of a subdivision map, all lots in the bulb of a cul-de-sac shall have a minimum width or street frontage at the property line of forty feet.

B. General Yard Provisions. Except as otherwise provided by this chapter and specific district regulations, the provisions of this section apply to the placement of principal structures. The location of accessory buildings, equipment, and uses and the required separation between primary buildings is addressed elsewhere in this chapter.

1. Point of Measurement. Except as otherwise provided, required yards shall be measured as the minimum horizontal distance from the appropriate front, side, or rear property line or street/alley rightof-way line of the site to a line parallel thereto on the site (see Figure A-1).

2. Partially-Improved Streets. Where a site abuts a street having only a portion of its required width dedicated or reserved for street purposes, site area and required yards shall be measured from a line drawn on the boundary of the additional width required for street purposes abutting the site.

3. Irregularly-Shaped Lots. On corner lots, through lots, lots with three or more frontages, flag lots, and irregularly-shaped lots where the provisions of this chapter do not clearly establish the location of yards and lot lines, the community development director shall make such determination, using the provisions of this chapter for guidance.

C. Projections into Yards. Projections are permitted into yards required for principal buildings as follows, subject to the provisions of the Uniform Building Code:

1. Eaves and cantilevered roofs may project up to two and one-half feet, provided:
a. That such eaves or cantilevered roofs are not closer than two and one-half feet to any lot or street line;
b. That no portions of such eaves or cantilevered roofs are less than eight feet above grade; c. That there are no vertical supports or members within the required yard (see Figure A-4).

2. Fireplace structures, buttresses, and wing walls may project up to two and one-half feet, provided:
a. That a minimum five feet is provided on the side yard where front yard access is provided; b. That such structures shall not be utilized to provide closets or otherwise increase usable floor area;
c. That such fireplace structures are not wider than six feet measured in the general direction of the wall of which it is a part (see Figure A-5).

3. Bay and greenhouse windows may project up to two and one-half feet, provided:
958
a. That such windows are not closer than two and one-half feet to any lot or street line; b. That there are no vertical supports or members within the required yard.

4. Uncovered porches, platforms, landings, and decks, including access stairs thereto may project up to three feet into required interior side yards, and up to five feet into required front, rear, and corner side yards, provided:
a. That such projections shall not be closer than two feet to any lot or street line; b. That such projections are open and unenclosed; provided, however, that an openwork railing not to exceed three and one-half feet in height may be installed; c. That such projections do not exceed any average height of one foot; d. That such projections do not extend above the level of the first floor.

5. Awnings and canopies may project up to two and one-half feet into required interior side yards and five feet into required front, rear, and corner side yards, provided:
a. That such awnings or canopies are not closer than two and one-half feet to any lot or street line; b. That such awnings or canopies have no vertical support within such yard; c. That such awnings or canopies extend only over the windows or doors to be protected, and for not more than one foot on either side thereof.

6. Covered patios attached to a dwelling unit may project into a required rear yard, provided:
a. That such patio is not closer than five feet to any lot line; b. That such patio shall remain permanently unenclosed on at least two sides. This provision, however, shall not preclude the placement of detachable screens; c. A freestanding patio shall be subject to the same requirements as accessory buildings in rear yards as provided by Section 19.10.060.

7. Rain conductors, downspouts, utility-service risers, shutoff valves, sills, capitals, bases, cornices, and belt courses may project up to one foot into a required yard.

8. Water heaters, water softeners, and utility meters, including service conduits and pipes, enclosed or unenclosed may project up to two and one-half feet into a required interior side or rear yard, provided that such structures or equipment are not closer than two and one-half feet to any lot line. Gas meters, if enclosed or adequately screened from view by a structure permitted in the yard, may project up to two and one-half feet into a required front or corner side yard.

9. Wall and window-mounted air conditioners, coolers, and fans may project into any required yard, provided that such equipment is not closer than two and one-half feet to any lot line.

D. Maximum Building Coverage. The maximum building coverage allowed in each residential district is the percentage of the building site covered by all primary and accessory structures on the site, measured horizontally to the outside face of exterior walls or structural members. Open decks and balconies and open breezeways connecting two buildings are not included in lot coverage.

Table 19.10.050

SCHEDULE OF RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT REGULATIONS
959
Zoning Districts RRH RE RR-20000 RR-10000 RS-8000 RS-6500 RM RH Maximum density One unit/acre
max
One
unit/acre
max
2 units/acre
4 units/acre
5—6
units/acre
6—7
units/acre
Per
General
Plan
Per
General
Plan
Minimum area per
lot
20,000 sq. ft. 43,560 sq.
ft.
20,000 sq.
ft.
10,000 sq.
ft.
8,000 sq.
ft.
6,500 sq.
ft.
20,000 sq.
ft.1
20,000 sq.
ft.1
Minimum width
per lot
100 ft. 120 ft. 75 ft. 70 ft. 65 ft. 60 ft. 100 ft.1 100 ft.1 Minimum depth
per lot
160 ft. 200 ft. 120 ft. 110 ft. 100 ft. 90 ft. 100 ft.1 100 ft.1 Minimum setback
from Newell Drive
Single story -
300 ft.

N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Two-story
homes - 400 ft.

Minimum front
yard
30 ft. 10% of lot
depth
20 ft. 20 ft. 15 ft. 15 ft. 15 ft. 20 ft.

Garage 35 ft. — — 20 ft. 20 ft. 20 ft. —
Minimum side yard
First story 15 ft. with no
less than 35 ft.
between
homes on
adjoining
parcels
10% of lot
width
10 ft. 10 ft. 5 ft. 5 ft. 5 ft. 5 ft.

Second story 20 ft. 10 ft. 10 ft. 8 ft. 8 ft. 10 ft. 10 ft.

Street side of
corner lot
25 ft. 10 ft. 10 ft. 10 ft. 10 ft. 10 ft. 10 ft.

Minimum rear yard 30 ft. 25% of lot
depth
20 ft. 20 ft. 20 ft. 15 ft. 10 ft. 10 ft.

Building envelope Maximum N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
20,000 sq. ft. to 1
acre lots
8,000 sq. ft.
> 1 acre lots 12,000 sq. ft.

Maximum building
coverage
60% of
approved
building
envelope
30% 30% 30% 40% 40% 50% 50%
960
Zoning Districts RRH RE RR-20000 RR-10000 RS-8000 RS-6500 RM RH Maximum number
of stories
2 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 3 3
Maximum building
height
Main structure 35 ft. 35 ft. 35 ft. 35 ft. 35 ft. 35 ft. 42 ft. 42 ft.

Detached
accessory building
15 ft. 20 ft. 15 ft. 15 ft. 15 ft. 15 ft. 15 ft. 15 ft.

1. Applies only to the new parcels created after the effective date of the zoning code.

E. Special Development Requirements for the RRH zoning district:

JUSTIFICATION: This change corrects a missing sequential citation to Section 19.10.050.

1. Subdivisions in the RRH Zoning District shall be subject to the following standards:
a. Residential lots shall vary significantly in size in order to create the openness and variation characteristic of a rural neighborhood. No more than two contiguous lots shall be of the same size. Lot size variations shall be achieved by varying lot area/lot widths. Parcel size variations on contiguous lots of one acre or less shall vary up or down a minimum of twenty-five percent in size. Contiguous lots larger than one acre shall vary up or down in size by ten percent. b. The subdivision design shall ensure protection of designated viewsheds from Newell Drive to the highest ridgeline located to the east of the project.
c. Each residential lot will identify a maximum building height that will enable other homes with sufficient elevation to achieve a view toward the Napa River wetlands. Technical information that enables identification of a maximum building height will include but not be limited to: lot placement within the subdivision, building envelope placement, and grading. The maximum building height will be recorded in the project CC&Rs (Covenants, Codes and Restrictions). d. Design guidelines addressing architecture for individual homes shall be prepared and submitted to the city of American Canyon, concurrently with submittal of a tentative subdivision map, master plan or specific plan. The design guidelines must be consistent with the General Plan Land Use Element Design Principles (Policy 1.11.5).
e. Native landscaping shall be provided in the Newell Drive setback area. The preliminary and final landscape improvement plans for this common area open space shall include clusters of native shrubs and trees to enhance the privacy and soften the visual form of future homes as viewed from public areas such as Newell Drive. Such landscape improvements shall be approved by the city and maintained by the subdivision’s homeowner’s association.
f. Streets within the RRH district may make use of a reduced overall paved width of not less than thirty feet, subject to approval of a design exception to be considered concurrently with the approval of a tentative subdivision map.

2. Residential Building Permit Requirements.
961
a. To determine potential impacts to viewsheds and neighboring properties, the applicant shall install story poles to provide a three-dimensional, full-scale, silhouette structure that outlines the location, bulk and mass that a proposed structure will occupy on a site prior to submittal of a building permit for any structure on a residential parcel.
b. Prior to submittal of a building permit for any structure or group of structures, the applicant shall submit written documentation from the applicable homeowner’s association that the application complies with the design guidelines in the recorded CC&Rs. c. An active homeowner’s association shall be set up to ensure maintenance of private infrastructure and administer enforcement of neighborhood CC&Rs. (Ord. 2015-01 § 2, 2015; Ord. 2004- 10 Exh. 1, 2004; Ord. 2001-11 § 1, 2001; Ord. 2001-02 § 1, 2001)

F. Special Development Requirements for the RE Zoning District on Watson Lane and Paoli Loop:

1. Proposed subdivisions that create additional residential lots within the RE Zoning District on Watson Lane and Paoli Loop shall be subject to review by the Napa Airport Land Use Commission prior to final action by the City of American Canyon.

2. This Special Development Requirement shall not apply to any of the following situations:
a. Subdivisions that do not create additional residential lots (i.e.: Lot Line Adjustment). b. Properties on Watson Lane or Paoli Loop without RE zoning. c. Residential development pursuant to State Law (i.e.: SB9). d. Properties on Watson Lane or Paoli Loop that are not located in Napa Airport Land Use Compatibility Zone “D.”
JUSTIFICATION: New residential subdivisions would receive ALUC input regarding airport operations, health, and safety concerns. This Special Development Requirement adds public input without any significant change to City’s authority to approve, deny, or modify the subdivision.

19.10.060 Accessory structures, equipment and uses.

Accessory structures, equipment and uses are permitted in required yards of residential districts as provided herein:

A. Accessory Structures.

1. Accessory structures may be located no closer than three feet to the side and rear yards required for the primary structure, provided that in the aggregate, no more than fifty percent of the required rear yard area shall be covered by accessory structures. Accessory structures are permitted only on lots having a primary dwelling.

2. On a reversed corner lot, an accessory structure shall not be located closer to the rear property line than the required side yard on the adjoining key lot, and not closer to the side property line adjoining the street than the required front yard on the adjoining key lot.

3. Maximum height of an accessory structure shall be fifteen feet.

4. Steel shipping containers may not be located in any residential district unless it is not visible from any public property or right-of-way.

B. Planters. Planter boxes and masonry planters are permitted in all required yards not to exceed a height of three and one-half feet.
962
C. Swimming Pools. A swimming pool is permitted in a required rear or side yard provided it is not closer than five feet to any lot line.

D. Swimming Pool Equipment and Safety Fences.

1. Swimming pool or spa equipment vaults may be located in a side yard so long as a minimum clear distance is provided between the vault and a fence, wall, or other structure of three feet.

2. Swimming pool or spa equipment vaults may be located adjacent to a rear property line within a required side yard.

3. Required safety fences for swimming pools and spas six feet in height or less may be located within any required side or rear yard. (Ord. 2001-02 § 1, 2001)

19.10.070 Distance between buildings in residential districts.

The provisions of this section shall apply where more than one building is placed on a parcel in a residential district.

A. Distance Between Main Buildings. A minimum distance of ten feet shall be maintained between all primary residential buildings established on the same lot or parcel of land.

B. Distance Between Accessory and Primary Buildings. Except where a greater distance is otherwise required by this chapter, a minimum distance of six feet shall be required between any primary residential building and an accessory building established on the same lot or parcel of land.

C. Projections Between Buildings. The following projections are permitted within the required distance between buildings, provided they are developed subject to the same standards as, and not closer to a line midway between such buildings, than is permitted in relation to a side lot line within a required interior side yard:

1. Eaves and cantilevered roofs;

2. Fireplace structures, buttresses, and wing walls;

3. Rain conductors and spouts, water tables, sills, capitals, cornices, and belt courses;

4. Awnings and canopies;

5. Water heaters, water softeners, gas or electric meters, including service conductors and pipes;

6. Stairways and balconies above the level of the first floor;

7. Uncovered porches, platforms, landings, and decks, including access stairs thereto, which do not extend above the first floor are permitted within the required distance between buildings without distance restriction. (Ord. 2001-02 § 1, 2001)

19.10.080 Fences and walls.

Fences and walls in residential districts may be erected and maintained in required yards subject to the standards specified herein. All height limitations applying to fences and walls shall also apply to hedges planted within yards and forming a barrier serving the same purpose as a fence or wall.

A. Location in Yards.

1. Front Yards. Fences and walls within a required front yard shall not exceed a height of forty-two inches.

2. Corner Side Yards.
963
a. Fences and walls within a required corner side yard shall not exceed three and one-half feet in height where closer than ten feet to the street line, nor exceed six feet in height where ten feet or more from the street line, notwithstanding the provisions of the following subsection related to vision clearance.
b. On a corner lot, no fence, wall, hedge, or other artificial obstruction within a triangular area formed by the street property lines and a line connecting points on the street property lines equal to the front setback (for the applicable zone district but no less than twenty feet) from the street intersection shall exceed a height of three feet above established grade at the edge of the existing or proposed pavement, provided that trees pruned to eight feet above street grade shall be permitted (see Figure A6). c. Interior Side and Rear Yards. Fences and walls within a required interior side or rear yard shall not exceed six feet in height. When not within required setbacks, maximum fence height shall be ten feet.

3. Lots of Twenty Thousand Square Feet or More. On lots of twenty thousand square feet or more, a six-foot high, fifty percent see-through fence (when viewed at a forty-five degree angle) may be located within the required front yard setback, if the wall/fence is located within the property line of the subject parcel. If gated, gates for vehicles must be set back a minimum of twenty feet from the property line.

B. Retaining Walls.

1. Retaining walls not exceeding six feet in height are permitted in all yards.

2. Where a retaining wall protects a cut below the natural grade and is located on a front, side, or rear lot line, such retaining wall may be topped
by a fence or wall of the same height that would otherwise be permitted at the location if no retaining wall existed. Where such retaining wall contains a fill, the height of the retaining wall built to retain the fill shall be considered as contributing to the permissible height of a fence or wall; providing, however, that in any event an open-work non-view-obscuring fence of three and one-half feet may be erected at the top of the retaining wall for safety.

3. Where a wall or fence is located in a required yard adjacent to a retaining wall containing a fill, such wall or fence shall be set back from the retaining wall a distance of one foot for each foot in height, to up to five feet; provided, however, that this does not permit a wall or fence in required yards higher than permitted by this section. The area between such wall or fence and the retaining wall shall be landscaped and continuously maintained in an orderly, neat fashion.

C. Exempted Fences and Walls. Where a fence or wall exceeding the maximum heights specified by this section is required by any law or regulation of the state of California, a fence or wall not exceeding such required height is permitted.

D. Measurement of Fence and Wall Height. The height of a fence or wall shall be measured from the highest adjacent grade. In order to allow for variation in topography, the height of a required fence or wall may vary an amount not to exceed six inches; provided, however, that in no event shall the average height of such fence or wall exceed the maximum height specified.

E. Minor Variation to Fence Height Restrictions/Conditional Fence Permit. The community development director, after providing notice to adjacent property owners, may consider approval of a conditional fence permit to allow fence heights up to two and one-half feet higher than those specified in this section for residential districts based on the following criteria:
964

1. The proposed increased fence height will not create negative shading impacts on adjacent properties or impacts are mitigated through use of open fence design features.

2. The proposed increased fence height incorporates appropriate architectural details and materials that assure compatibility with existing fences and fence patterns.

3. The proposed increased fence height in a front or exterior side yard area does not create traffic hazards or detract from the neighborhood character by creating visual obstructions to open front yard patterns on an established neighborhood street.

4. Any action by the community development director on a conditional fence permit may be appealed to the planning commission. (Ord. 2001-02 § 1, 2001)

19.10.090 Height limits.

A. Maximum Height. The maximum building height in each residential district is set forth in Table 19.10.050 of this chapter (set out at the end of this chapter).

B. Height Measurement. The height of a structure shall be measured vertically from the average elevation of the natural grade of the ground covered by the structure (see Figure A-7) to the highest point of the structure or to the coping of a flat roof, to the deck line of a mansard roof, or to the mean height between eaves and ridges for hip, gable, or gambrel roofs.

C. Projections Above Permitted Height.

1. Architectural projections such as mechanical equipment enclosures and other appurtenant rooftop structures or penetrations such as skylights, stairwells, and ventilation atria; spires, cupolas, chimneys, and other design elements integral to the overall design character of a building and intended to distinguish its design may be permitted above the height limits where not in conflict with the intent of this chapter, but may not exceed twenty percent of the horizontal area of the floor area below or ten feet in height above the main roof above which they are situated.

2. Utility poles and towers shall not be subject to the height limits prescribed in the district regulations. (Ord. 2001-02 § 1, 2001)

19.10.100 Parking requirements.

Parking requirements for residential uses are contained in Chapter 19.21, Parking and Loading Standards. (Ord. 2004-10 Exh. 1, 2004; Ord. 2001-02 § 1, 2001)

19.10.110 Garage sales.

Garage sales, estate sales (which includes estate auctions), and personal property sales shall be subject to the following regulations:

A. Merchandise. Only the sale of personal household items is allowed. The sale of items acquired for resale or items assembled or manufactured on the premises (including products from a home occupation but excluding arts and crafts items) for the purpose of resale is prohibited. All transactions shall take place on the property of the owner conducting the event.

B. Displays. No item for sale shall be displayed within the public right-of-way.

C. Duration and Frequency. A sale or auction shall not exceed three consecutive days and occur no more than six times per calendar year on any one parcel. This regulation does not preclude the sale of 965
individually advertised items at any time, provided they are not displayed so as to be visible from public view, other than legally parked vehicles and trailers.

D. Signs. All signs shall conform to the requirements set forth in this title for sign regulations. All signs shall be removed within two days of the estate or garage sale. (Ord. 2001-02 § 1, 2001)

19.10.130 Manufactured homes.

A. Intent. It is the intent of the city to provide opportunities for the placement of manufactured homes in single-family residential districts, consistent with state law and to ensure that such manufactured homes are designed and located so as to be harmonious within the context of the surrounding houses and neighborhood.

B. Approval. Approval by the community development director is required prior to the issuance of building permits for individual manufactured homes on a site in any residential district, subject to the provisions of this section. The community development director shall review each proposed manufactured home to determine compatibility in design and appearance with residential structures in the vicinity, based upon design and development criteria set forth in this section.

C. Location. Manufactured homes may be located in any residential district where a single-family detached dwelling is permitted, subject to the same restrictions on density and to the same property development regulations.

D. Design and Development. The design and development criteria set forth herein are intended to protect neighborhood integrity, provide for harmonious relationships between manufactured homes and surrounding uses, and minimize problems that could occur as a result of locating manu- factured homes on building sites designated for single-family residential uses. Each manufactured home:

1. Shall be at least eighteen feet wide, as measured at its narrowest width;

2. Shall be built on a permanent foundation approved by the building official;

3. Shall have been manufactured after June 15, 1976, and shall be certified under the National Manufactured Home Construction and Safety Act of 1974, and shall be installed in accordance with the provisions of the most recent edition of the Uniform Building Code adopted by the city;

4. Shall provide skirting of exterior finish materials extending to the finished grade;

5. Shall provide exterior siding material compatible with adjacent residential structures; shiny or metallic finishes are prohibited;

6. Shall have a roof with a pitch of not fewer than three inches vertical rise per twelve inches horizontal distance;

7. Shall have roofing material of concrete or asphalt tile, shakes, or shingles complying with the most recent editions of the Uniform Building Code adopted by the city;

8. Shall provide eaves or roof overhangs of not less than one foot as measured from the vertical side of the unit;

9. Shall maintain a finished floor elevation no higher than twenty inches above the exterior finished grade; and
966

10. Shall maintain required covered parking in accordance with the provisions of this chapter. The exterior materials and roofing proposed for any garage shall be the same as those materials used on the main structure.

E. Cancellation of State Registration. Whenever a manufactured home is installed on a permanent foundation, any registration of the manufactured home with the state of California shall be canceled, pursuant to state laws and regulations. Before any occupancy certificate may be issued for use of such a manufactured home, the owner shall provide to the building official satisfactory evidence showing that the state registration of the manufactured home has been or will, with certainty, be canceled; if the manufactured home is new and has never been registered with the state, the owner shall provide the building official with a statement to that effect from the dealer selling the home. (Ord. 2001-02 § 1, 2001)

19.10.140 Undergrounding of utilities.

Prior to the issuance of any permits for new development in any residential district, utility service to the site shall be undergrounded in accordance with the requirements of the public works department unless otherwise approved by the city engineer and community development director. (Ord. 2001-02 § 1, 2001)

19.10.150 Nonconforming building lines.

Where an existing, legal, nonconforming structure encroaches into a setback which was established after the building was constructed, the existing building line may be continued, subject to community development director approval. (Ord. 2003-02, 2003; Ord. 2001-02 § 1, 2001)

19.10.160 Single room occupancy.

A. Purpose. The purpose of these regulations are to assure well managed and maintained single room occupancy (SRO) developments. SROs are a type of group residential use. The following provisions shall apply specifically to SROs and may provide guidance for other group residential projects.

B. General Provisions.

1. Density. Given that these are small individual housing rooms, to equate SRO projects with General Plan housing unit densities, the city shall apply a factor of two to the density range. That is, a General Plan density range of ten to twenty units per acre shall equate to an SRO project density range of twenty to forty rooms/acre. Density bonuses may also be applied to qualifying SRO projects.

2. Any SRO project must also meet the following standards:
a. Proposed new construction, or exterior alterations to the existing buildings are compatible with the design and scale of the surrounding neighborhood;
b. SRO sizes shall range from one hundred fifty to four hundred fifty square feet; c. A preliminary management plan shall be submitted as part of a design permit application and shall be reviewed and approved by the community development director prior to the application being deemed complete. A final management plan shall be approved by the community development department prior to issuance of a building permit, and recorded at the Napa County recorder’s office; d. An on-site twenty-four-hour manager is required;
e. Tenancy of a SRO shall not be less than thirty days. (Ord. 2017-07 § 3, 2017) 967

19.10-F Figures for Chapter 19.10
Figure A-1

YARD MEASUREMENTS
Figure A-2

FLAG LOTS
968
969
Figure A-3

CORNER SIDEYARD ON REVERSE CORNER LOT
970
Figure A-4

EAVES AND CANTILEVERED ROOFS IN REQUIRED YARDS
971
Figure A-5

FIREPLACE STRUCTURES IN REQUIRED YARDS
972
Figure A-6

CORNER LOT VISION CLEARANCE
973
Figure A-7

BUILDING HEIGHT MEASUREMENT
974

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
NOVEMBER 7, 2023

STAFF REPORT

BUSINESS
ITEM NUMBER: 17.

TITLE
Little League Lease Agreement

RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a Resolu(on authorizing the City Manager to enter into a Lease Agreement with American Canyon Li.le League for the Li.le League Complex at 280 Napa Junc(on Road and amending the FY2023/24 Budget.

CONTACT
Jason B. Holley, City Manager

BACKGROUND & ANALYSIS
American Canyon Li.le League (ACLL) has u(lized the American Canyon Li.le League Complex since pre-incorpora(on serving genera(ons of youth with opportuni(es for baseball and so<ball ac(vi(es and program.

The City of American Canyon currently owns the American Canyon Li.le League Complex. The current Lease Agreement between the City and ACLL for use of the Complex is expiring. The lease defines the rela(onship between the City and ACLL in regard to the use and maintenance of the Complex.

Staff proposes approval of a new Lease Agreement (Attachment 1, Exhibit A) Highlights of the Lease Agreement are as follows:

The new 5-year lease will end in August 2028.

Either party may cancel this lease by giving thirty (30) days wri.en no(ce to the other party of their intention to cancel the lease.

ACLL will pay $1 per year for use of the facility. In return, ACLL will maintain the Complex and pay for u(li(es. To help defer the cost of general Maintenace, the City agrees to con(nue to reimburse ACCL up to $10,000 per year for maintenance activities. 975
Renovations
This year, the City will pay ACLL $60,000 to repair and adjust the irriga(on system, heighten and repair the ouDield fences, and renovate all four infield surfaces and re-level the ouDield grass surface prior to the 2024 Season (February 2024). ACLL intends upon using these funds for a grant.

The City intends upon repairing the asphalt surface of the walkway/viewing plaza and construct a new, separate metered recycled water point of connec(on and isolate the remaining potable water point of connection prior to the start of the 2024 Season.

Star(ng in September 2025, the City agrees to pay the ACLL for other pre-approved renova(on projects an amount not to exceed $20,000 annually.

Uses
ACLL believes the newly renovated Complex will a.ract outside groups such as 'travel ball' teams and tournaments. ACLL will be allowed to host these groups and events at their discre(on as another source revenue. This is addi(onal revenue should help offset the par(cipa(on cost for American Canyon youth, which remains among the lowest in the area.

COUNCIL PRIORITY PROGRAMS AND PROJECTS
Outdoors and Recrea(on: "Expand opportuni(es for use of outdoor recrea(on and an ac(ve and healthy lifestyle."

FISCAL IMPACT
The Recommended Ac(on exceeds the current budget by $40,000. Sufficient Fund Balance exists within the General Fund to proceed with the Recommended Ac(on and staff recommends amending the FY2023/24 Budget to cover year one of the agreement.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
15302 - The Project is exempt from review under the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") under the Class 2 exemp(on of replacement or reconstruc(on of exis(ng facili(es of Sec(on 15302 of Title 14 of the California Code of Regula(ons and said exemp(on is not negated by any excep(on under Section 15300.2 of said Regulations.

ATTACHMENTS:

1. ACLL Resolution

2._Exhibit_A_-_ACLL_Lease_Agreement_Final_.pdf
976
RESOLUTION NO. 2023-

RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF AMERICAN

CANYON AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO ENTER INTO A LEASE AGREEMENT FOR THE LITTLE LEAGUE COMPLEX AT 280 NAPA JUNCTION ROAD AND AMENDING THE FISCAL YEAR 2023/2024 BUDGET
WHEREAS, the City of American Canyon owns the property known as the Little League Complex as a community park located at 280 Napa Junction Road; and
WHEREAS, the American Canyon Little League provides youth baseball and softball programs to residents of American Canyon, and they desire to be responsible for the maintenance and operation of the American Canyon Little League Complex located at 280 Napa Junction Road; and WHEREAS, the City of American Canyon would like to allow ACLL to fully take over maintenance of the facility over the course of a five-year lease, and desires to contribute to capital improvements as noted in Exhibit A to facilitate this transition; and
WHEREAS, the Fiscal Year 2023/24 budget shall be amended to increase line item 100-40-540-42190 by $40,000.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of American Canyon hereby authorizes the City Manager to enter into lease agreement for the Little League complex at 280 Napa Junction Road and amends the FY 2023-24 budget to increase line item 100-40-540-42190 by $40,000.

PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regularly scheduled meeting of the City Council of the City of American Canyon held on the 7
th Day of November 2023, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSTAIN:

ABSENT:
__________________________
Leon Garcia, Mayor
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
________________________________ ___________________________ Taresa Geilfuss, CMC, City Clerk William D. Ross, City Attorney 977
November 7, 2023 (Final)

LEASE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF AMERICAN CANYON

AND THE

AMERICAN CANYON LITTLE LEAGUE
This Lease Agreement (“Lease”) is made and entered into this 7th day of November, 2023 by and between the CITY OF AMERICAN CANYON, a political subdivision of the State of California (hereinafter referred to as “City” or “Landlord”) and the AMERICAN CANYON LITTLE LEAGUE (hereinafter referred to as “Lessee”), jointly hereinafter referred to as “Parties”, for the use of facilities owned by the Landlord.

WITNESSETH
WHEREAS, Landlord is the lawful possessor of certain real property situated at 280 Napa Junction Road in the City of American Canyon, State of California, more specifically described as the Little League Complex (located north of the Napa Junction Elementary School); and WHEREAS, Lessee is an organization whose purposes and objectives to provide recreational opportunities for the youth of American Canyon are consistent with City Council Goals; and NOW, THEREFORE, consideration of the mutual covenants hereinafter stated, Landlord and Lessee hereby agree to perform all of said terms, conditions, and agreements insofar as the same are to be performed by said parties and the Landlord hereby grants to the Lessee with prior approval from the Landlord the right and privilege of operating a Little League Baseball and Softball program and using and maintaining all grounds and buildings heretofore described.

1. Premises Leased. Landlord hereby leases to Lessee and Lessee leases from Landlord that certain portion of real property situated in the City of American Canyon, State of California, more specifically described as the Little League Complex (located behind the Napa Junction Elementary School) the “Premises.” A description of the Premises is attached as Exhibit “A” to this Lease.

2. Use.

A. Landlord hereby grants permission to Lessee to occupy the Premises solely for the purpose of operating and maintaining the existing Little League Complex, including the existing restroom/snack bar building, parking lot, fencing, utilities, and other existing improvements, for a Little League® Baseball and Softball programs and activities, and other youth baseball and softball related programs and activities. The use of the Premises shall be in accordance with provisions of this Agreement and in compliance with federal, state, and local laws, regulation, ordinances, permits and approvals concerning the Lessee’s use under this Agreement and the conduct of Lessee’s operations in or about the Premises.

B. With the prior written approval of Landlord, Lessee may place or maintain or permit the placing or maintenance of any sponsor billboards, banners, posters, or other media advertising products or services solely for the purposes of generating sponsorship revenue to offset the Lessee’s cost to providing youth baseball and softball related programs and activities In addition, the Lessee may erect reasonable identification signs with the prior approval of Landlord. Notwithstanding the forgoing, the Landlord authorizes Lessee to display sponsorship banners on the outfield fences facing into the field of play without any further approval of the Landlord.
978